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.
- S.WASI HAIDER vs QAMAR MUHAMMAD KHAN1984 MLD 158 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- S.M. YOUSAF vs GIRDHARIMAL and another1984 MLD 944 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
- S.M. TAQI vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others1984 MLD 102 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
- S.M. SAEED vs QAMAR ISLAM and another1984 SCMR 1423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of criminal breach of trust. The core legal question was whether the appellate court’s acquittal, based on the alleged forgery of an inventory document and evidence of account clearance, was legally sustainable despite the complainant's assertion of sufficient evidence regarding entrustment and failure to return property. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of entrustment and the respondent's failure to account for the property. The Court affirmed that the evidence regarding the clearance of the respondent's financial dues supported the acquittal. While upholding the acquittal, the Court expunged the appellate court's findings regarding the forgery of the inventory document, noting that the respondent had not specifically pleaded forgery or denied his signatures, and that the prosecution's case suffered from a failure to properly prove the documents in question.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court's finding of forgery be sustained when the accused has not specifically pleaded forgery or denied their signature?
- Does the failure to prove an inventory document as evidence of entrustment justify an acquittal in a criminal breach of trust case?
- Is a clearance certificate regarding financial dues sufficient evidence to rebut a charge of criminal breach of trust?
- S.KHALID SHAFQAT vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1984 CLC 2701 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-28Read full judgment →
- S.ISMAIL BAFAKIYA and 3 others vs MUHAMMAD BILAL1984 MLD 1144 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
- S.G.RAUF & COMPANY vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) and 2 others1984 MLD 279 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- S.AZIZ AHMED vs ABDUL QADIR1984 CLC 2669 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- S. TAFAWAT HUSAIN vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC 175 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- S. SAFDAR HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB EXCISE &1984 PLC (C. S.) 271 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-29Read full judgment →
- S. NAZIR SHAMSI Appellant vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1984 MLD 976 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
- S. NAZIR ALI vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S). 490 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- S. MUNAWAR ALI vs MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA1984 MLD 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- S. MUHAMMAD DIN vs PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION1984 PLC 162 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- S. MUHAMMAD BAQIR SHAH vs FATEH KHATOON1984 CLC 1395 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
- S. MOAZAM ALl SHAH vs THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 625 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-16Read full judgment →
- S. MAQSOOD ALI AND 3 OTHERS vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN1984 PLC 1330 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- S. M. WAQI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1984 P Cr. L J 764 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-30Read full judgment →
- S. M. SHUJAH vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1984 PLC (C. S.) 67 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- S. M. RASHEED (ABDUL RASHEED) vs Mst. QAISER JEHAN and another1984 MLD 88 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-25Read full judgment →
- S. M. MOHSAN ZAIDI vs Syed GAUHAR ALI1984 SCMR 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his objections in execution proceedings regarding an eviction order passed against his brothers concerning a property in Rawalpindi. The petitioner contended that upon the death of his father, the original allottee, all legal heirs including himself succeeded to the tenancy rights as statutory tenants under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and therefore the eviction order was not binding on him. The Supreme Court observed that the contentions raised important questions of law regarding whether all heirs of a deceased occupant succeed to the right of statutory tenancy under the said provision, particularly when the petitioner had earlier sought to be impleaded in the ejectment proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and ordered that status quo be maintained regarding the petitioner's possession.
Questions settled- Whether all the legal heirs of a deceased occupant succeed to the right of statutory tenancy under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Is an eviction order passed against only some of the legal heirs executable against another legal heir who claims independent possession?
- Whether a person claiming to be a legal heir of a deceased allottee is a necessary party to ejectment proceedings?
- S. M. LUTFULLAH (THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1984 CLC 1897 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
- S. M. HAYAT vs COMMODORE (REID.) IKRAMUL HAQ MALIK AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 3176 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller against the appellant on the ground of personal requirement. The core legal questions involved whether the Rent Controller was competent to decide the issue of title in an ejectment proceeding, whether the application was barred by res judicata due to a previously withdrawn application, and whether the lack of notice under Section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, vitiated the proceedings. The Court held that the Rent Controller acted correctly in determining the title, as the evidence established the respondent's ownership and the appellant's failure to fulfill the purchase agreement. The Court affirmed that non-service of notice under Section 13-A only precludes claims based on default, not those based on personal requirement. Furthermore, the Court clarified that when evidence clearly establishes title, the Rent Controller need not refer the parties to a civil court. The principle laid down is that in title-involving cases, the Rent Controller may decide the issue if the landlord's title is established beyond reasonable doubt, and personal requirement claims remain maintainable despite procedural defects regarding default notices.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller decide the issue of title in an ejectment application when the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed?
- Does the non-service of notice under Section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, invalidate an ejectment application based on personal requirement?
- Does the withdrawal of a previous ejectment application without permission to file a new one bar a subsequent application based on different grounds?
- Is an ejectment application filed by joint owners competent when the premises are required by only one of them?
- S. M. ALMAS ALI vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIES) AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1627 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
- S. G. T. C. LTD. vs AHMED MIAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 711 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- S. FAZAL AHMED KARIM FAZLI and 6 others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1984 MLD 50 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-05Read full judgment →
- S. AZIZ AHMAD vs WILLAYAT HUSSAIN1984 CLC 3028 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
- S. AZHAR SHER vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 478 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-01-01Read full judgment →
- S. A. KAMAL vs MESSRS PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LTD.1984 PLC 1452 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
- S. A. K. HASHMI vs Syed ZAFAR AHMAD1984 CLC 2325 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-13Read full judgment →
- S. A . MIRZ A vs NISAR AHMED QURESHI1984 MLD 23 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
- S AL A H U DDIN vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others1984 SCMR 1439 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a dispute regarding the extent of the residential portion transferred to the petitioner in a composite property under settlement laws. The core legal question concerns whether a godown on the ground floor formed part of the residential portion auctioned in favour of the petitioner or was rightly auctioned subsequently to a third party, and whether a factual controversy of this nature warrants interference under constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the question involved is primarily one of fact, and neither the auction list nor the transfer documents clearly showed that the godown was included in the petitioner's auction. The Court ruled that the decision of the Settlement authorities on such factual questions, even if erroneous, does not render it without jurisdiction and is not ordinarily to be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the extent of a transferred property involving disputed factual boundaries can be determined in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed deprives settlement authorities of jurisdiction to deal with subsequent transfers of unincluded portions?
- Does an erroneous decision of the Settlement authorities on a question of fact render their order without jurisdiction?
- S .M . ASK A RI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT1984 MLD 109 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-15Read full judgment →
- RUSTAM AND ANOTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1984 SCMR 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, wherein the petitioners sought the allotment of disputed land as sub-tenants under Colony Notification No. 3215-79/3973C-II dated 3rd September 1979. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the petitioners to the land and the legality of an allotment made to a third party, Muhammad Nawaz, while the petitioners' applications and a status quo order were pending. The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether the allottee was entitled to the land under the notification involves a factual inquiry and scrutiny of respective claims that must be undertaken by the relevant revenue authorities. The Court dismissed the petition while observing that the petitioners could approach the competent appellate authority against the allotment, with liberty to raise the issue of limitation based on bona fide prosecution of proceedings in the superior courts. The key principle laid down is that disputes regarding the factual eligibility for land allotments under administrative notifications require primary factual scrutiny by competent departmental authorities rather than through writ proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can resolve conflicting factual claims regarding land allotment under a colony notification in writ jurisdiction?
- Can an aggrieved party challenge a land allotment made in favor of a third party before the competent revenue authority?
- Will the time spent in prosecuting a bona fide writ petition and petition for leave to appeal be considered by the appellate authority for limitation purposes?
- RUSTAM ALI AND OTHERS vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,SGA&I DEPARTMENT AND 145 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 276 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
- RUST AMJI DINSHAW SACHINWALA vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1984 CLC 258 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- RU KUNUDDIN vs ABDUL WAHID AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 511 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- ROSHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1785 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- ROSHAN KHAN (THROUGH HIS HEIRS) vs Haji SAID KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- ROSH A N vs SARDARA and 3 others1984 SCMR 1559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order granting bail to three respondents accused of murder under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, the complainant, argued that the High Court's exercise of discretion was arbitrary because it relied on an Investigating Officer's report that had not been accepted by higher prosecution authorities. The Supreme Court examined the record and held that the High Court was justified in considering the Investigating Officer's report, which was based on witness statements, as a factor creating reasonable doubt regarding the respondents' involvement, thereby necessitating further inquiry. The Court affirmed that bail is a matter of judicial discretion and found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious reasoning in the High Court's order. Additionally, the Court noted that the significant delay in the trial, with no prosecution witnesses examined eleven months after the submission of the challan, provided a further ground to decline interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary grant of bail if the order is not arbitrary or capricious?
- Does an Investigating Officer's report recommending innocence constitute a valid ground for the High Court to grant bail pending further inquiry?
- Is a significant delay in the commencement of trial a relevant factor for the Supreme Court to consider when deciding whether to interfere with a bail order?
- RIZWAN ELLAHI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 91 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-11Read full judgment →
- RIYAZURRAHIM vs Syed AKHTAR HUSSAIN RIZVI1984 CLC 2731 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- RISALDAR GHAZI KHAN AND ANOTERS vs ABDUR REHMAN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1615 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
- RIFFAT MAHMOOD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 21 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- RIFAT MAHMOOD' vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
- RIAZUL HAQ vs LYALLPUR CHEMICAL & FERTILIZER FACTORY LTD., FAISALABAD1984 PLC 647 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
- RIAZ-UR-RAHMAN DAR vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1983 PLC (C. S.) 293 · Service Tribunal · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
- RIAZ vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1282 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
- RIAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1984 PLD Federal Shariat Court 1 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-09-23Read full judgment →
- RIAZ HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD AZHAR, COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA AND 11 OTHERS1984 CLC 2132 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
- RIAZ ALI vs THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE STORES. STEEL SHOP, PAKISTAN1984 PLC 1094 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs WAPDA1984 PLC 798 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1984 CLC 841 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1295 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-26Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI vs FAMILY COURT AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1325 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
- RIASAT ALI AND 4 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1984 CLC 2384 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
- RIA Z A HMAD vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1547 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- REHMATULLAH vs IKRAMULLAH AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 886 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- REHMAT vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1345 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
- REHMAT KHAN vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1984 CLC 371 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- REHMAT KHAN vs MESSRS FEROZE TEXTILE INDUSTRIES1984 PLC 1469 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
- REHMAT HUSSAIN vs UNIVERSAL OIL & VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS LTD., SHEIKHUPURA1984 PLC 1232 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- REHMAT GUL vs DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, I. C. I. PAKISTAN MANUFACTURER1984 PLC 609 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1540(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI vs PACKAGES LTD. LAHORE AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 940 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
- REHMAT ALI vs NAZIR AHMAD AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Rehmat Ali sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents of murder charges. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding interested witnesses, material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and delayed recoveries in a criminal trial stemming from prior enmity. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the convictions and recording an acquittal, given that the complainant's testimony suffered from significant improvements and contradictions inconsistent with the medical evidence, a related witness was declared hostile, and numerous innocent persons had been falsely implicated due to deep-rooted animosity between the parties. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is riddled with material improvements and contradictions at variance with medical evidence, and is further tainted by mala fide implication of multiple innocent individuals, the appellate court's judgment of acquittal warrants no interference.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment of the High Court when the ocular account contradicts the medical evidence?
- Does an interested witness making significant improvements to align with medical testimony render their evidence valueless for sustaining a conviction?
- Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness when multiple co-accused have been falsely implicated due to prior enmity?
- REHMAT ALI AND ANOTHERS vs Seth MUHAMMAD WAJID AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1693 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
- REHMAN and 3 others vs MAUJ DIN (deceased) and 6 others1984 MLD 465 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
- REHANA and others vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to three appellants charged under Section 302/148 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants were accused of murdering the deceased, who had allegedly abducted the wife of the first appellant. While the High Court had granted bail to two co-accused on the basis that they were empty-handed, it denied bail to the appellants, attributing the fatal injuries to them as they were allegedly armed with sticks. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the deceased's body was discovered within the appellants' residence and that the First Information Report was significantly delayed. Furthermore, the court observed that the motive involving the deceased's illicit affair with the first appellant's wife was admitted. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had overlooked these critical aspects of the case. The appeal was accepted, and the appellants were granted bail, establishing that the presence of incriminating circumstances and delayed reporting are material factors in assessing bail entitlement, even in murder cases.
Questions settled- Does the discovery of a deceased's body in the accused's house constitute a relevant factor for bail consideration?
- Can a significant delay in recording the First Information Report influence the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Is the distinction between accused persons based solely on the possession of weapons sufficient to deny bail to co-accused in a murder case?
- REHAMATULLAH vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD KHAN and 3 others1984 MLD 1094 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
- REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS vs HABIB BANK WORKERS' UNION1984 PLC 1536 · Labour Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
- REGIONAL MANAGER, P A D & SC, LAHORE REGION vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF1984 PLC 1125 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- RAZIK DINO vs COMMISSIONER AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 3121 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
- RAZA KHAN vs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 41 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- RAZA ALI ZAIDI vs N.W. F. P, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 225 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
- RAZ MUHAMMAD vs MEMBER (JUDO,) BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA AND OTHERS1984 PLD Quetta 138 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
- RAVI RAYON ENGINEERING LTD. AND ANOTHER vs SAKHI MUHAMMAD /1984 PLC 1525 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
- RAUF AHMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB COMMUNICATION & WORKS DEPART- MENT AND 50 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 287 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- RASUL BUX vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court concerning the conviction of the appellant, Rasul Bux, for murder and rioting. The core legal questions involved whether evidence disbelieved against co-accused could be used to sustain the appellant's conviction, whether a conviction under section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code can stand when co-accused forming the unlawful assembly are acquitted, and whether the offence constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder given the sudden and unpremeditated nature of the fight. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the fight was sudden and without premeditation, altering the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code. Furthermore, the Court held that a conviction for rioting under Section 148 cannot be sustained when the other co-accused are acquitted, reducing the requisite number of participants below five. The key principle laid down is that constructive liability and rioting charges requiring an unlawful assembly fail when the minimum statutory threshold of five persons is no longer met due to the acquittal of co-accused, and sudden fights without premeditation attract Section 304 Part II rather than murder.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code for rioting can be sustained when the other co-accused constituting the unlawful assembly are acquitted?
- Does a sudden and unpremeditated fight without the weapon's dimension and weight establishing an intention to cause death warrant converting a conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can the High Court lawfully substitute a sentence of transportation for life with imprisonment for life when the offence was committed at a time when the law had not yet substituted the former with the latter?
- RASUL BAKHSH AND 3 OTHERS vs GHULAM RASUL AND 5 OTHERS1984 PLD Rev. 3 · Board of Revenue · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
- RASOOL KHAN vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1307 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- RASOOL BUX vs Haji KHUDAD1NO and 3 others1984 MLD 628 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-11Read full judgment →
- RASOOL BUX and 4 others vs MUHAMMAD PARYAL and 5 others1984 MLD 1162 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-11Read full judgment →
- RASHIDUR REHMAN KHAN vs CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, SIND and 4 others1984 MLD 1152 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
- RASHIDULLAH KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 2002 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- RASHID vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1138 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD vs THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1984 PLC 1262 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- RASHID AHMAD vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR (SCHOOLS), DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, RAWALPINDI, DIVISION RAWALPINDI AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 64 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-25Read full judgment →
- RASH KHAN vs ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTANMINISTRY OF KASHMIR AFFAIRS NORTHERN AFFAIRSDIVISION AND OTHERS, ,1984 PLC (C. S.) 587 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
- RANJHA vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2771 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-27Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER SCARP-1 LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 1699 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- Rana MUHAMMAD AJMAL vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1984 CLC 378 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
- Rana KHURSHID AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI AND 21984 PLD Lahore 169 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
- Rana FAZAL-UR-REHMAN vs Ch. ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1217 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN vs MUHAMMAD1984 CLC 590 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN MU HAMMAD vs Alhaj Chaudhry MUHAMMAD JAMIL and another1984 MLD 508 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN KHAN vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1984 PLC 1454 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN KHAN vs MESSRS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. , HYDERABAD1984 PLC 414 · Labour Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
- RAMZAN ALI vs KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLD Karachi 401 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →