Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- Soofi NISAR AHMAD vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE and 2 others1985 MLD 1007 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
- Soofi MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MESSRS M. IFTIKHAR & COMPANY LTD., KARACHI1985 PLC 989 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- Soofi BAQA MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 18 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1985-04-26Read full judgment →
- SOHBAT KHAN vs Mst. ALM A S A1985 CLC 512 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-28Read full judgment →
- SOHAIL vs THE STATE And Other1985 SCMR 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court cancelling the post-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner in a murder case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his commitment to the Court of Sessions for trial. The petitioner sought parity, arguing that his father and brother, who were co-accused, had been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner stood on the same footing as the co-accused. The Court observed that the co-accused were not named in the First Information Report, whereas the petitioner was specifically named as the principal accused and attributed with inflicting the fatal injury. The Supreme Court held that this distinction fully justified the High Court's cancellation of bail under the established precedent. Dismissing the petition, the Court affirmed that bail may be cancelled upon commitment when the principal role in a capital offense is attributed to the accused.
Questions settled- Whether an accused named in the F.I.R. as the principal offender who committed the fatal injury can claim bail on the ground of parity with co-accused not named in the F.I.R.?
- Does commitment of an accused to the Court of Session for trial justify cancellation of bail where specific fatal role is attributed to him?
- SOHAIL IQBAL vs EXECUTIVE ENGINEER S. S. & T DIVISION WAPDAAND ANOTHER1985 PLC 933 · Labour Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- SOHAIL AZAM vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 388 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
- SOHAIL ASGHAR BHATTI vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY1985 SCMR 1465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an order of the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education punishing him for using unfair means during an examination. The High Court declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the punishment was imposed by an Enquiry Officer who lacked the requisite authority, arguing that under Rule 17 of the relevant examination rules, such decisions are reserved for the Standing Committee, the Chairman, or the Board. The Supreme Court observed that while this point was raised in the writ petition, the High Court's judgment was silent on the matter, implying it was not argued during the hearing. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to specifically challenge the Enquiry Officer's jurisdiction in his initial memorandum of appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the matter was not a fit case for interference and dismissed the petition, establishing that a party cannot raise a jurisdictional objection for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not specifically agitated in the lower forums.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise a jurisdictional objection before the Supreme Court if it was not specifically agitated in the memorandum of appeal or during the High Court proceedings?
- Does the silence of a High Court judgment on a specific ground of a writ petition create a presumption that the point was not urged during the hearing?
- SOHAIL AKHTAR vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, L.D.A. and others1985 CLC 1540 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
- SOHAIL AHMAD vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2374 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-15Read full judgment →
- SOFIA WAHAB and others vs Mst. ZAINAB BEGUM1985 MLD 1549 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
- SOFIA WAHAB and 4 others vs THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. and 31985 CLC 1859 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
- Smt. BEENA KUMARI and 3 others vs MAHRAJ SALIGRAM1985 CLC 2000 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
- SLAMAT ALI KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Finance1985 PLC (C.S.) 234 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
- SIRAJUDDIN QURESHI vs ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF SIND HIGH COURT1985 PLC (C.S.) 704 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1985-02-04Read full judgment →
- SIRAJU DDIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2050 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ UL HAQ vs ABDUR RASHID And Another1985 SCMR 1057 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad. The core legal question was whether the Federal Service Tribunal correctly determined that the posting order of the petitioner, Siraj-ul-Haq, as Assistant Director (Directory) by the Director-General, T & T, Islamabad, was violative of the applicable service rules. The Supreme Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, upheld the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Court held that the Tribunal's finding, which declared the petitioner's posting order to be contrary to the rules, illegal, and inoperative, was based on a correct interpretation of the relevant service regulations. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's judgment, effectively affirming the direction that the respondent's case be considered and decided on its merits. The judgment reinforces the principle that administrative appointments must strictly adhere to established service rules and that findings of fact by a specialized tribunal regarding such compliance are generally not subject to interference if based on a correct reading of the law.
Questions settled- Did the Federal Service Tribunal err in declaring the petitioner's posting order illegal and inoperative?
- Is a finding by the Service Tribunal regarding the violation of service rules subject to interference by the Supreme Court if based on a correct reading of those rules?
- SIRAJ DIN vs Haji CHIRAGH DIN through his Legal Heirs1985 MLD 1500 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ AHMAD vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WASA)1985 PLC 40 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-12Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MIRPURKHAS vs Hafiz ABDUL QADIR1985 PLC 984 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs WORKERS UNION, HYDERABAD1985 PLC 287 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
- SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD AQAL1985 PLC 289. · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
- SIND ENGINEERING LTD., KARACHI vs SAEED AHMED1985 PLC 1010 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
- SIND EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION vs Messrs COWASJEE & Sons1985 CLC 324 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- SIND EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION vs FATEHALLY CHEMICAL LTD.1985 SCMR 1897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind dismissing an appeal filed under section 64 of the Sind Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question was whether the Social Security Court acted illegally or without jurisdiction in adjourning an appeal sine die to await the final decision of the Supreme Court on a material question of law already pending before it. The Supreme Court held that the Social Security Court possesses the discretionary power under section 62 of the said Ordinance to adjourn the hearing of an appeal for sufficient grounds, and such a discretionary order—supported by reasons and aimed at avoiding multiplicity of proceedings—will not be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary or capricious. The Court laid down the principle that the adjournment of a proceeding for an indefinite period awaiting a superior court's verdict on a binding point of law is a matter of judicial discretion dependent on the circumstances of each case, and appellate courts will not normally interfere with such discretionary management of cases where no prejudice is shown.
Questions settled- Whether the Social Security Court has the jurisdiction to adjourn the hearing of an appeal sine die pending the decision of the Supreme Court on a question of law?
- Under which provision does the Social Security Court derive its discretionary power to adjourn the hearing of an appeal?
- Will the Supreme Court normally interfere with a discretionary order of a lower court to adjourn proceedings?
- Does the adjournment of an appeal sine die to avoid multiplicity of proceedings constitute an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion?
- SIND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK vs KHURSHID ALI KHAN1985 SCMR 2075 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court setting aside an appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge and restoring an eviction order against the appellant-Bank. The landlord sought eviction on the ground that the statutory tenant had unauthorisedly sublet the demised premises to a second respondent. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the first appellate Court reversed this finding, holding as a matter of fact that the landlord failed to prove subletting. The High Court, in a second appeal, re-evaluated the evidence and interfered with this finding of fact. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the finding of fact of the first appellate Court in a second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference with the concurrent or first appellate Court's finding of fact, which was well-supported by evidence, was unjustified in law. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the first appellate Court dismissing the ejectment application was restored.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court in a second appeal?
- Does the burden of proof to establish subletting lie heavily on the landlord?
- Can a second appeal be maintained against a finding of fact supported by evidence on record?
- Silver Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax,(West), Karachi.PTCL 1985 (CL) 262 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- SILVER COTTON MILLS LTD. vs ABDUR RAUF and another1985 PLC 477 · Labour Court · 1984-11-30Read full judgment →
- SIKANDER ALI KHAN PETITONER vs Mst. MUQARRAB JEHAN BEGUM AND Other1985 SCMR 2079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the operational date of a maintenance decree and the quantum of the maintenance allowance fixed by the courts below. The core legal questions involve determining whether a maintenance decree should be operative from the date of the institution of the suit or from the date of separation, and whether the maintenance allowance was erroneously calculated by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that these questions require further consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The Court laid down that substantial questions regarding the computation and operative date of maintenance allowances warrant a full hearing and modified the interim stay order pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
Questions settled- From which date can a maintenance decree be made operative?
- Whether the maintenance allowance fixed by the trial court was correctly assumed by the High Court?
- Under what conditions may an interim stay order regarding maintenance payments be modified during a pending appeal?
- SIKANDER ALI KHAN and others vs GHULAM QASIM and others1985 CLC 1881 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-11Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR-E-AZAM vs The SECRETARY, FOOD DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,LAHORE and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 143 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2000 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR KHAN vs MESSRS METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI1985 PLC 930 · Labour Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR ALI vs KHUSHI MOHAMMAD And Another1985 SCMR 656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a dispute over the entitlement to land previously held by an evacuee Lambardar. The core legal question was whether the land in question remained attached to the office of Lambardar, thereby entitling the petitioner, who was reinstated as the permanent Lambardar, to the grant, or whether the land reverted to the Government as general land upon the departure of the original evacuee holder. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, holding that the grant was not attached to the office of Lambardar but was instead made under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme of 1960. The Court found that the initial grant to a non-Lambardar confirmed the land was not restricted to Lambardari tenure. Furthermore, the Court established that government instructions regarding Lambardari grants were prospective in operation and could not be applied retrospectively to the disputed grant. Consequently, the petitioner could not claim a right to the land by virtue of his office, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a land grant held by an evacuee Lambardar automatically remain attached to the office of Lambardar after the evacuee's departure?
- Can government instructions regarding land grants be applied retrospectively to grants made prior to their promulgation?
- Does a grant made under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme of 1960 confer a right to the land based on the office of Lambardar?
- SIFATULLAH KHAN And Others vs Mrs. M.U. KHATTAK And Other1985 SCMR 1425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a pre-emption suit filed by Mrs. M.U. Khattak to challenge a sale of land, which was contested through intermediate gifts and subsequent sales. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court remanded the matter, and the Peshawar High Court dismissed the subsequent revision petition filed by the legal representatives of the defendant, holding that a gift of property by a vendee does not constitute a valid 'transfer' under section 17 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act to defeat a pre-ceptor's right. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the term 'transfer' under the pre-emption statute is strictly limited to sale or encompasses gifts. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that where donees had transferred the suit property to a person having an equal or superior right to the pre-emptor within the period of limitation, the validity of the initial gift is not the central issue, and the pre-emptor must maintain their right of superiority up to the date of the decree.
Questions settled- Does a transfer of property by way of gift by a vendee constitute a valid transfer under section 17 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act to defeat a pre-emption suit?
- Must a pre-emptor preserve their superiority of right not only on the date of the institution of the suit but also on the date of the decree?
- What is the legal effect when a donee transfers the suit property to a person having an equal or superior right to that of the pre-emptor within the period of limitation?
- SIDDIQUE MASIH vs THE STATE1985 MLD 766 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQUE and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQ vs FARZAND ALI AND OTHERS1985 PLD Lahore 474 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
- SHUKARUD DIN And 4 Others vs Malik JAN MUHAMMAD And 2 Other1985 SCMR 1207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that set aside a trial court's decision to reject a plaint in a pre-emption suit. The trial court had rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the plaintiff's negligence and mala fide conduct regarding the payment of court fees, specifically alleging the plaintiff manipulated net profit calculations to underpay. The High Court, however, overturned this decision, criticizing the trial court for failing to properly ascertain the facts and apply the relevant legal provisions regarding court fee determination, directing the trial court to proceed afresh to determine the exact court fee payable. The Supreme Court, reviewing the petition, noted that recent precedents, specifically Shahna Khan v. Aulia Khan, Siddique Khan v. Abdul Shakur Khan, and Gulzar Hussain v. Abdur Rehman, established the correct legal approach for such matters. Finding the High Court's judgment to be in conformity with this established law, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the trial court must properly determine court fees rather than summarily rejecting the plaint.
Questions settled- Is a trial court justified in rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 solely on the grounds of alleged negligence in calculating court fees without first attempting to ascertain the correct amount?
- Does the court have an obligation to determine the exact court fee payable under the Court Fees Act 1870 before resorting to the rejection of a plaint?
- SHUKAR DIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1376 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- SHUKAR DIN and others vs KHAN MUHAMMAD and others1985 CLC 1929 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- SHEREEN MASOOD vs UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB through The Vice-1985 CLC 2987 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
- SHERA and two others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 842 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
- SHERA AND OTHERS vs BARKHA AND OTHERSPLD 1985 Rev. 144 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
- SHER ZAMAN vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant challenging a land exchange transaction, alleging it was a disguised sale intended to defeat pre-emption rights and violated the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 115. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by res judicata, but the appellate court set aside that finding, instead directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper forum, citing the bar of jurisdiction under paragraph 26 of Martial Law Regulation 115. The core legal question was whether civil courts retained jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning land transactions governed by Martial Law Regulation 115. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while civil courts possess general jurisdiction, they must defer to the Land Commission in matters where the Commission is specifically empowered to determine the dispute. The Court affirmed that where a controversy falls under the purview of the Land Commission, the Commission’s decision is final. Consequently, the lower court’s decision to return the plaint for adjudication by the appropriate Land Reform forum was legally correct and consistent with established jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Does paragraph 26 of Martial Law Regulation 115 exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters the Land Commission is empowered to determine?
- Is the Land Commission empowered to resolve specific disputes between parties regarding the implementation of Martial Law Regulation 115?
- Can a civil court return a plaint for presentation to the Land Commission when the subject matter of the suit falls within the Commission's jurisdiction?
- SHER ZAMAN and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-20Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1985 MLD 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs NOOR ELAHI And Another1985 SCMR 1530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a contempt petition filed by Sher Muhammad against Noor Elahi and a Civil Judge, alleging disobedience of a Supreme Court order dated 12-3-1985. The Supreme Court had previously granted Noor Elahi possession of certain shops until 31-3-1985. However, Sher Muhammad executed an ejectment order on 14-3-1985, dispossessing Noor Elahi. Subsequently, Noor Elahi filed a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, and the Civil Judge ordered restoration of possession to Noor Elahi on 7-4-1985, despite the Supreme Court's deadline having passed. The core legal question was whether the parties and the judicial officer committed contempt by violating the Supreme Court's specific timeline for possession. The Court held that all parties, including the petitioner and the Civil Judge, had technically violated the order. However, given the unique circumstances and the Civil Judge's unqualified apology for his bona fide mistake, the Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings. The key principle laid down is that while judicial officers must strictly adhere to superior court orders, an unqualified apology for a bona fide error may mitigate contempt liability.
Questions settled- Can a party be held in contempt for executing a decree in violation of a Supreme Court order granting temporary possession?
- Does a judicial officer commit contempt by passing an order that restores possession beyond a date previously set by the Supreme Court?
- Can an unqualified apology mitigate contempt of court proceedings arising from a bona fide judicial error?
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) and others1985 CLC 2742 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD RAEES vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2709 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 80 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-03Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD CHISTI vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and 7 others1985 PLC 442 · Labour Court · 1984-07-18Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD and others vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER OF SIND1985 MLD 533 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-30Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD And Another vs Rana BADAR MUNIR And Another1985 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal addresses the competency of a suit for pre-emption concerning land allotted to displaced persons from Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The trial court and the Additional District Judge initially held that civil courts lacked jurisdiction over such matters, citing the specific scheme for temporary allotment of rural evacuee agricultural land under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956. However, the High Court reversed this decision, relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Haji Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 1973 SC 347), interpreting it to allow pre-emption claims in civil courts. The petitioners challenged this, arguing the High Court misconstrued the precedent, which actually established that temporary allottees do not possess a saleable interest in such lands, thereby precluding the right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's application of the precedent required further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the legal principles regarding the saleable interest of temporary allottees were correctly applied to the facts of the case.
Questions settled- Is a suit for pre-emption competent in respect of land allotted to displaced persons from Azad Jammu and Kashmir?
- Do temporary allottees of rural evacuee agricultural land possess a saleable interest sufficient to support a claim of pre-emption?
- Did the High Court correctly interpret the precedent regarding the right of pre-emption for temporary allottees?
- SHER KHAN vs REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND 4 OTHERS1985 PLD Karachi 614 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-13Read full judgment →
- SHER KHAN AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Lahore 554 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
- SHER KHAN AND 6 OTHERs vs Mst. NAWAB BEGUMPLD 1985 Rev. 55 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- SHER and others vs NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others1985 CLC 1967 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
- SHER ALI vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 1644 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-29Read full judgment →
- SHER ALI and others vs THE STATE1985 MLD 36 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
- SHER ALAM vs THE STATEPLD 1985 Rev. 57 [Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1985-03-20Read full judgment →
- SHER ALAM And Others vs AHMAD KHAN And Other1985 SCMR 1006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondents filed a suit for possession alleging forcible occupation of a portion of their land by the petitioners. In their written statement, the petitioners claimed ownership of the disputed land through adverse possession for over twenty years. However, during the evidentiary stage, the petitioners led evidence showing they were in possession of entirely different land in an adjoining village rather than the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, and the appellate court and the High Court in second appeal both upheld the decree, finding that the petitioners had contradicted their pleadings through their evidence. The Supreme Court considered the petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not succeed by taking a completely different stand in evidence from the one pleaded in their written statement, and no ground was made out to interfere with the unanimous findings of the three courts below. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a party succeed in a suit for possession by leading evidence that contradicts the plea of adverse possession taken in the written statement?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by three lower courts when the petitioner's evidence contradicts their pleadings?
- SHER AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD HANIF1985 SCMR 1464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Sher Ahmad, against a judgment of the High Court in a pre-emption suit. The dispute originated from the determination of the sale price of the suit land. While the trial court fixed the price at Rs. 30,000, the Additional District Judge reduced it to Rs. 13,854 on appeal. Subsequently, the High Court accepted the respondent's appeal and restored the price to Rs. 30,000, concluding that the price stated in the sale deed was genuine and paid by the vendee. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had wrongly determined the price. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the determination of the sale price is a question of fact. The Court affirmed the principle that it will not grant leave to appeal for the purpose of reappraising evidence to set aside a High Court's finding on a question of fact.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the purpose of reappraising evidence regarding a question of fact?
- Is the determination of the sale price of land in a pre-emption suit considered a question of fact?
- SHER AFZAL vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, KASHMIR AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN1985 PLC (C.S.) 386 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
- SHER AFZAL KHAN vs Mst. SHAMIM FIRDOUS And Other1985 SCMR 1352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition directed against an interim order passed by the High Court in a writ petition concerning a dower suit decree. The core legal question involves the propriety of allowing execution proceedings to continue and permitting the withdrawal of the decretal amount upon furnishing security, given a prior surety bond. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the previous surety bond was furnished before the Additional District Judge and had no relevance to the High Court proceedings. However, acknowledging the petitioner's concern regarding the potential difficulty of recovering the amount if the writ petition succeeds, the Court modified the interim order. The key principle laid down is that while execution proceedings in a dower decree may not be stayed during a pending writ petition, the withdrawal of the decretal amount by the decree-holder must be secured through a Bank Guarantee from a scheduled bank to safeguard the judgment debtor's interests.
Questions settled- Whether execution proceedings in a dower decree should be stayed during the pendency of a writ petition?
- Can a surety bond furnished before a lower appellate court be relied upon in proceedings before the High Court?
- Under what conditions may a decree-holder be permitted to withdraw a decretal amount while a constitutional petition against the decree is pending?
- SHER AFGHAN vs NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD.1985 PLC 545 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
- Sheikh RIAZ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR And Other1985 SCMR 1704 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the primary dispute was whether the underlying transaction constituted a sale or an exchange. The trial court initially characterized the transaction as an exchange, rendering it non-pre-emptiable. However, the appellate court (Additional District Judge) reversed this finding, determining that the transaction was in fact a sale, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court in a second appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the characterization of the transaction as a sale or exchange is essentially a question of fact. The Court ruled that because the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misreading or non-reading of the relevant evidence by the appellate court, the High Court was fully justified in refusing to interfere with the factual findings on second appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the determination of whether a transaction is a sale or an exchange is a question of fact?
- Can a High Court interfere in a second appeal with a finding of fact regarding the nature of a transaction without proof of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Sheikh NASEER-UD-DIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE AND 24 OTHERS1985 PLC (C.S.) 901 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
- Sheikh NADEEM AKBAR vs HABIB BANK Ltd.1985 PLC 160 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL And Another1985 SCMR 1011 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against an interlocutory or remand order. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition to avoid any potential prejudice to the petitioner's pending writ petition in the High Court, which challenges the subsequent appellate judgment passed by the District Court following the impugned remand order. The counsel chose not to press the petition, relying on an undertaking given by the respondent's counsel that the underlying eviction order would not be executed for a period of fifteen days, thereby enabling the petitioner to approach the High Court for a fresh interim stay order. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the petition as not pressed, observing that the dismissal would not prejudice the petitioner's case currently pending before the High Court.
Questions settled- Can a petition be dismissed as not pressed when the petitioner seeks to pursue remedies in a pending writ petition before the High Court?
- Whether an undertaking regarding the non-execution of an eviction order can facilitate the withdrawal of a petition before the Supreme Court?
- SHEIKH MUHAMMAD vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD And Other1985 SCMR 95 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the respondents for the murder of Zakir Ali. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondents based on interested eye-witness testimony, previous enmity, discrepancies with medical evidence, and lack of independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal by the High Court was fully justified as the prosecution witnesses were closely related, had a pre-existing enmity with the accused, and their testimony lacked necessary independent corroboration and suffered from discrepancies. The petition was consequently dismissed as meritless. The key principle laid down is that conviction for a capital charge cannot be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of interested and inimical witnesses when material discrepancies exist between their statements and the medical evidence.
Questions settled- Whether an acquittal by the High Court can be interfered with when the prosecution relies on interested eye-witnesses with a history of enmity?
- Is independent corroboration necessary for the testimony of related and inimical eye-witnesses in a murder trial?
- Does a discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence justify setting aside a conviction?
- Sheikh Muhammad Hussain vs KAMAL DIN And Another1985 SCMR 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which allowed a constitutional petition regarding an Urban Settlement dispute. The core legal question was whether a property unit, which had been finally transferred to the respondent's predecessor-in-interest in 1962, could be subjected to further division in 1972 by Settlement Authorities to carve out portions for the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the property unit, having been finally transferred in 1962, had become an independent and separate entity. Consequently, the Settlement Authorities lacked the lawful authority to partition or alter the unit by removing integral components such as a staircase or terrace. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision to set aside the orders of the Settlement Authorities, noting that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to challenge the transfer of an independent unit already vested in another party. The key principle laid down is that once a property unit is finally transferred under settlement laws, it attains the status of an independent property, immune to subsequent fragmentation or alteration by settlement authorities.
Questions settled- Can a property unit that has been finally transferred under settlement laws be subsequently divided to carve out portions for other claimants?
- Does a party have locus standi to challenge the transfer of an independent property unit that has already been vested in another person?
- Are orders passed by Settlement Authorities to partition a previously finalized property transfer considered to be without lawful authority?
- Sheikh MUHAMMAD AMIN vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1985 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed by an ejected tenant seeking review of an order refusing leave to appeal against an eviction order. The core legal questions involve the competency of an appeal against an order of the Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte eviction order, the existence of inherent powers under the rent control legislation to recall such orders, and the effect of deleting a purported necessary party from the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the conclusion that the ex parte order of eviction suffered from no legal defect and was final could not be recalled, as no inherent power existed under the Rent Control Ordinance to set aside such an order. Furthermore, a person who is not an aggrieved person cannot affect the petitioner's claim by their absence. The key principle laid down is that Rent Controllers lack inherent powers to set aside final ex parte eviction orders in the absence of explicit statutory provision, and appeals against orders setting aside ex parte orders are subject to statutory limitations.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller possess inherent powers under the Rent Control Ordinance to set aside a final ex parte order of eviction?
- Whether an appeal is competent against an order of the Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte order of eviction?
- Does the deletion of a person who is not an aggrieved person vitiate eviction proceedings?
- Sheikh GHULAM AHMAD vs Raja MUHAMMAD YUSUF KHAN, D. S. P.1985 PLD Azad J & K 214 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- Sheikh DAWOOD AHMAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and others1985 CLC 2658 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
- Sheikh DAUD AHMAD vs DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and 18 others1985 CLC 108 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ALI MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF ZAMAN and 2 other1985 MLD 855 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-23Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ABDUS SATTAR vs Malik MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND OTHERS1985 PLD Supreme Court 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the High Court, which upheld the eviction orders passed against him by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge. The petitioner contended that an 11-month lease agreement executed in 1971 restricted the landlords from seeking ejectment except on the ground of default. He further argued that the Rent Controller's order was void because evidence was recorded in a companion case and copied into his file without separate proceedings. The Supreme Court held that upon the expiration of the 11-month term without renewal, the tenancy became subject to the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The Court affirmed that a Rent Controller acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and is not bound by the strict procedural formalities of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Where the parties agreed to adopt evidence recorded in a companion case, reasonable opportunity was afforded, and concurrent findings of fact on bona fide personal need were unassailable.
Questions settled- Whether the expiration of a fixed-term lease subjects the landlord-tenant relationship to the governing provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is a Rent Controller required to strictly adhere to the procedural rules prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during ejectment proceedings?
- Does adopting evidence recorded in a companion case by agreement of parties invalidate an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal need be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- SHAUKAT vs THE STATE1985 MLD 732 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT KHAN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 420 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2143 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs The StatePTCL 1985 (CL.) 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Shaukat Ali against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained his conviction but reduced his sentence of imprisonment. The petitioner and his co-accused were apprehended while transporting Japanese polyester cloth concealed underneath coal in a truck. They were tried and convicted by the trial court under the Customs Act 1969. On appeal, the High Court reduced the petitioner's sentence of rigorous imprisonment from three years to one and a half years while maintaining the fine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged the conviction on merits and contended that the fine of Rs. 5,000 was excessive. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's guilt was fully established on the merits. Furthermore, considering that the smuggled cloth was valued at Rs. 43 lacs, the Court determined that the fine imposed was not excessive. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a fine of five thousand rupees is excessive under the Customs Act 1969 when the value of the smuggled goods is forty-three lac rupees?
- Can a conviction under Section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act 1969 be sustained where smuggled goods are found concealed underneath a legal cargo in a truck driven by the accused?
- SHAUKAT ALI vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 475 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK Ltd., HYDERABAD1985 PLC 285 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs ABDUL RAUF and another1985 MLD 779 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI MIRZA vs The STATE1985 SCMR 1508 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 5-C of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, while acquitting him on other charges. The petitioner challenged the conviction on the grounds of discrimination, arguing that Section 5-C of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which applies to provincial government servants and mandates property forfeiture, is discriminatory when compared to Section 5(1)(e) of the same Act, which applies to central government employees and lacks a forfeiture provision. The petitioner contended this disparity violates the equality clause of the Constitution of 1973. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that regardless of the merits of the discrimination argument, the petitioner could not invoke the equality clause because Fundamental Rights were suspended at the time. The key principle laid down is that where Fundamental Rights are suspended, a party cannot challenge the validity of a penal statute on the basis of an alleged violation of those rights.
Questions settled- Can a penal statute be challenged on the basis of discrimination when Fundamental Rights are suspended?
- Does Section 5-C of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 provide for the forfeiture of property disproportionate to known sources of income?
- SHAUKAT ALI and anothers vs MUHAMMAD YUSUF SHAH and 5 others1985 P Cr. L J 543 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI AND ANOTHERs vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 645 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
- SHARIF And Others vs MUHAMMAD AMIR1985 SCMR 1214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld a trial court's decision to allow an amendment to a plaint in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff could amend the plaint to correct Khasra numbers and Khata details of the suit land, given that the defendants argued this amendment prejudiced their vested rights by substituting property descriptions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the amendment was permissible because it merely corrected clerical errors arising from incorrect information provided by the Patwari, rather than changing the fundamental subject-matter of the suit. The Court found that the transaction itself, identified by its mutation number and date, remained consistent and the defendants were never in doubt regarding the subject-matter of the litigation. The key principle laid down is that amendments to a plaint intended to correct bona fide clerical mistakes in property descriptions, which do not alter the identity of the suit property or the transaction, are justifiable and do not infringe upon the vested rights of the opposing party.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff amend a plaint to correct clerical errors in Khasra and Khata numbers if the underlying transaction remains unchanged?
- Does an amendment to correct property description in a pre-emption suit necessarily prejudice the vested rights of the defendant?
- SHARIF and anothers vs THE STATE1985 P Cr. L J 2750 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-08Read full judgment →
- SHARIF AHMAD vs NAZIR AHMAD And Other1985 SCMR 1372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the orders of the Revenue Authorities, including the Member, Board of Revenue, regarding a dispute over inheritance. The core legal question concerns the appropriate forum for adjudicating complicated questions of law and fact relating to inheritance, specifically involving issues of religious conversion and determination of heirs. The Supreme Court held that where a matter involves complex questions of law and fact requiring evidence regarding whether a deceased embraced Islam and the identification of legal heirs, the proper forum is a court of general jurisdiction rather than constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the principle that High Courts rightly decline to interfere under writ jurisdiction in property and inheritance disputes necessitating extensive factual inquiry and evidence, directing aggrieved parties to seek their remedy before a civil court.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition the proper forum for resolving complicated questions of law and fact involving inheritance and determination of heirs?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court order directing a party to seek remedy before a civil court in an inheritance matter?
- Shariat Appellate Bench] SHAKIR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1985 PLD Supreme Court 357 · Shariat Appellate Bench · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
- Sharial Appellate Bench] Maulvi HAZOOR BAKSH vs THE STATE1985 PLD Supreme Court 233 · Shariat Appellate BenchRead full judgment →
- SHARAFUD DIN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE and others1985 CLC 2562 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
- SHARAFAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA and another1985 CLC 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal arose from an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala, which dismissed a petition for the restoration of a civil suit for specific performance. The suit had been dismissed for default under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the non-appearance of the plaintiff and his counsel. The trial court summarily rejected the restoration petition under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without calling for a reply or recording evidence, solely on the ground that no explanation was provided for the counsel's absence. The High Court held that proceedings under Order IX, Rule 9 are original in nature and must be decided on evidence, meaning the trial court committed a material irregularity by failing to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to lead evidence. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that if a plaintiff demonstrates sufficient cause for their own personal non-appearance, the suit should be restored despite any negligence or unexplained absence on the part of their counsel. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remitted to the trial court for a fresh decision after recording evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a petition for restoration of a suit under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be summarily dismissed without calling for a reply and recording evidence?
- Can a plaintiff be penalized and denied restoration of a suit solely due to the unexplained absence of their counsel if the plaintiff has shown sufficient cause for their own personal non-appearance?
- Are proceedings under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 considered original proceedings requiring adjudication on evidence?
- SHARAF-UD-DIN vs COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION and 18 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 486 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
- SHAN MUHAMMAD vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB And Another1985 SCMR 1673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of 90 kanals of agricultural land resumed from a declarant under Martial Law Regulation No. 64. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of Paragraph 97 of the executive instructions issued under the Sale Scheme, specifically whether the "resumption order" date refers to the final order after exhaustion of appellate remedies, and whether the requirement to prove a previous tenant left wilfully or was legally ejected applies to claims under clause (b). The Supreme Court held that clauses (a) and (b) of Paragraph 97 must be read conjunctively, meaning the entitlement of an original tenant persists unless they voluntarily left or were legally ejected. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the land authorities that the respondent was the rightful tenant in possession and that the appellant failed to establish his claim. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the High Court correctly refused to interfere with the factual determinations made by the competent land commission authorities regarding the possession and entitlement of the parties.
Questions settled- Are clauses (a) and (b) of Paragraph 97 of the Land Reforms Instructions to be read conjunctively?
- Does the entitlement of an original tenant to purchase resumed land cease if they are not in possession at the time of the passing of the resumption order?
- Is a finding of fact regarding a tenant's possession recorded by competent land authorities subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
- SHAMSUR REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD RAUF and others1985 P Cr. L J 2842 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUL ISLAM KHAN vs PAKISTAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION1985 SCMR 1996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had set aside a Rent Controller's order directing the eviction of the respondent. The appellant landlord had sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement for extending his adjacent hotel business. The High Court had overturned the eviction, reasoning that the landlord's desire for increased rent negated his claim of bona fide personal need and that the specific nature of the requirement was insufficiently pleaded. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine these findings. The Supreme Court held that a landlord's desire to maximize income does not inherently negate a bona fide personal requirement; a landlord may legitimately pursue increased rent and, upon failure to secure it, seek eviction for personal use. Furthermore, the Court found the High Court misread the eviction application regarding the specification of need, as the landlord had sufficiently stated the intention to extend hotel facilities. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the Rent Controller's order regarding personal requirement, emphasizing that pleading requirements must be viewed pragmatically.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's attempt to increase rent negate the bona fide nature of a personal requirement for the premises?
- Is a landlord legally required to provide exhaustive details of personal need in an eviction application beyond stating the intended use?
- Can a High Court set aside an eviction order based on a misreading of the pleadings regarding the landlord's stated need?
- SHAMSHERWAN vs The STATE1985 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his absconding co-accused attacked the house of the complainant out of a domestic grudge, during which the co-accused fired the fatal shot killing the deceased, while the appellant fired at his own children. The core legal question was whether the appellant could be vicariously convicted for murder under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code when ocular witnesses did not attribute any fatal injury or firing at the deceased to him, and common intention was lacking. The Supreme Court of Pakistan partly accepted the appeal, holding that medical evidence is merely corroborative and cannot replace ocular testimony, and that common intention to kill the deceased was not established. The Court laid down the principle that vicarious liability under section 34 cannot be sustained without proof of a pre-arranged plan or shared intent regarding the specific crime committed, and set aside the murder conviction while maintaining sentences for other offenses.
Questions settled- Whether medical evidence can be treated as substantive evidence to base a conviction when it contradicts or exceeds ocular testimony?
- Can section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be invoked to sustain a murder conviction where the accused lacked a common intention to commit the specific murder?
- Is the presence of pellet injuries on a deceased person sufficient to establish a capital charge against an accused without supporting eye-witness testimony?