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.

• MUHAMMAD NISHAN vs ANJUM RAUF and 7 others1984 MLD 410 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-06
  post-arrest bailmurderrule of consistencyfatal injuriesSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being charged alongside co-accused for the murder of the deceased. His previous bail applications were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Lahore High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of lack of attribution of fatal blows and the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused assigned similar or more active roles had been admitted to bail. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail considering the circumstances and the role attributed to him. The Court accordingly admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that parity in treatment with co-accused and non-attribution of fatal injuries are relevant considerations for granting bail in murder cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not attributed with fatal blows to the deceased is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the grant of bail to a co-accused form a valid ground for granting bail to another accused on the rule of consistency?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1903 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR AND OTHERS vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1284 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE ST ATE1984 MLD 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE ST A TE1984 MLD 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 1776 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 684 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs Mst. BEGUM ABDUL SHAKOOR1984 MLD 6 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs Malik MUHAMMAD ASLAM1984 PLC (C. S.) 209 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC 743 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs AZIZUR REHMAN AND ANOTHER1984 PLD Peshawar 244 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN vs GHULAM HASSAN KHAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ GHUMMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE FINANCIAL ADVISER, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 659 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 928 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2780 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1656 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ alias NAWAZA vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAB and 4 others vs Miss SHUNG WOUNGHCHI1984 CLC 3521 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASRULLAH vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASIR SIDDIQUE AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SALAHUDDIN KHAN1984 CLC 879 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASEEM alias NASEEM AHMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1822 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASEEB KHAN vs THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PU1IJAB1984 PLC (C. S.) 643 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., FAISALABA D1984 PLC 1228 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NA WAZ alias MAMAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 595 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA vs MESSRS GENERAL TYRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD1984 PLC 155 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND ANOTHER1984 PLC (C. S.) 353 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSLIM vs THE STATE and another1984 SCMR 1243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-17
  criminal revisionsummoning of accusedcolumn No. 2acquittalSessions Court powerspolice challan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal revision judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had directed the Sessions Court to proceed against the petitioner, Muhammad Muslim. The petitioner had been placed in column No. 2 of the police challan (found innocent by police) but was subsequently summoned by a Magistrate. The Sessions Court initially declined to proceed against him, but following a High Court revision order, it summoned him to face trial. The petitioner challenged this summoning order, arguing that the initial refusal by the Sessions Court amounted to an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the earlier refusal did not constitute an acquittal under Section 265-K. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the power of the Sessions Court to summon an accused person placed in column No. 2 of the challan, noting that the petitioner had previously conceded this point and failed to challenge the earlier remand order. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order by a Sessions Court refusing to proceed against an accused person placed in column No. 2 of the challan amount to an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a Sessions Court have the legal authority to summon an accused person who was placed in column No. 2 of the police challan?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSLIM vs FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY1984 PLD Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs MUHAMMAD AHSANUL HAQ KHAIRI1984 CLC 2684 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUREED vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2302 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MURAD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2472 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MURAD vs PIR BAKHSH AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 1274 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-30
  regular second appealpre-emption suitlimitation periodpre-sale possessionagreement to sellattestation of mutationsuperior right of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning a parcel of agricultural land sold via an oral transaction followed by a mutation attested on 24th August 1962. The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred, holding that limitation commenced from an earlier date of delivery of possession under an agreement to sell, and also found waiver. The District Judge reversed these findings on appeal, decreeing the suit. The core legal question is whether pre-sale possession delivered under an agreement to sell triggers the period of limitation under Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, or whether limitation runs from the date of the actual sale/attestation of mutation. The Lahore High Court held that possession prior to the actual sale cannot be equated with a sale, and pre-sale possession must be ignored for calculating limitation. The court laid down the principle that the relevant possession for the purpose of Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 must be possession under the completed sale which is the subject-matter of the pre-emption suit, not prior possession under an agreement to sell.

  Questions settled

  • Does pre-sale possession delivered under an agreement to sell trigger the period of limitation under Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
  • Can an agreement to sell be equated with a sale for the purpose of calculating limitation in a pre-emption suit?
  • When does the period of limitation commence for a pre-emption suit arising from an oral sale followed by an attested mutation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNSIF AND ANOTHERS vs JAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 726 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-12-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD , .1984 PLC 1709 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-07-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR vs BASHIR TANNERIES LTD.1984 PLC 1664 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1897 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR and anothers vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2657 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNIR AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 581 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR AND 6 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB1984 CLC 2289 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZUL HASSAN vs ATA ULLAH MEHAR AND OTHERS1984 PLD Lahore 27 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-23
  intra-court appealservice ruleseducational qualificationsphysiotherapist appointmentpublic service commissionconstitutional petitionlocus standiinterpretation of statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal addresses the interpretation of service rules prescribing qualifications for the post of Physiotherapist (N.P.S. 18) in the Punjab Health Department. The appellant was selected by the Public Service Commission and appointed by the Provincial Government despite holding a diploma rather than a Bachelor of Science degree in Physiotherapy. Respondent No. 1, a competing candidate, challenged the selection and subsequent appointment through a constitutional petition, which the learned Single Judge allowed, holding that possession of a B.Sc. (Physiotherapy) or equivalent academic qualification under clause (a), coupled with the requisite experience under clause (b), was mandatory. The core legal question was whether the statutory qualifications allowed a diploma with ten years' practical experience to serve as a substitute for the basic academic degree requirement. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the rules distinctly separate academic qualifications from practical experience and that a diploma cannot replace the prerequisite university degree for a post in Grade 18. The key principle laid down is that service rules prescribing educational qualifications and experience in separate clauses must be satisfied cumulatively as distinct requirements rather than disjunctively.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate holding a diploma in physiotherapy with practical experience can be appointed to a post requiring a B.Sc. degree in physiotherapy under the applicable service rules?
  • Does an unsuccessful candidate before a public service commission possess the locus standi to maintain a constitutional petition challenging the selection and appointment of another candidate?
  • Can a constitutional petition initially directed against the advisory recommendations of a public service commission be amended to challenge the subsequent appointment made by the provincial government?
  • How should statutory service rules prescribing separate clauses for academic qualifications and practical experience be construed?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZUL HASAN vs ATA ULLAH MEHAR and others1984 SCMR 1499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-18
  service lawstatutory interpretationeducational qualificationsPublic Service Commissionrecruitment rulesPhysiotherapist appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a service dispute regarding the appointment of a Physiotherapist (Grade 18) under the Punjab Health Department. The appellant was selected by the Public Service Commission despite lacking a B.Sc. degree in Physiotherapy, relying on a Diploma and ten years of experience. The core legal question was whether the relevant service rules permitted ten years of experience after a diploma as a substitute for the mandatory B.Sc. degree, or if that experience was merely an alternative to the five-year experience requirement for degree holders. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that the academic qualification of a B.Sc. degree is a mandatory prerequisite for the post. The Court ruled that the experience provisions—five years after a degree or ten years after a diploma—are alternative experience criteria and cannot be interpreted to waive the essential academic degree requirement. The Court emphasized the principle of statutory interpretation that all parts of a rule must be read together, and any construction rendering a portion of the statute redundant must be rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of ten years' experience after a diploma in physiotherapy acts as a substitute for the mandatory B.Sc. degree qualification for the post of Physiotherapist (Grade 18)?
  • Does the principle of statutory interpretation require that all parts of a rule be construed together to avoid rendering any portion redundant?
  • Are the experience requirements for the post of Physiotherapist (Grade 18) under the Punjab Health Department (General, Specialists and Miscellaneous Post) Service Rules, 1981, intended to be alternative to the academic degree requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1823 · Federal Shariat Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ ABBASI vs Raja ABDUL QAYUM KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLD Azad J & K 89 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-07-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MOOSA and another vs MEMBER (LAND UTILIZATION),BOARD OF REVENUE and 4 others1984 MLD 382 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MOOSA AND 2 OTHERS vs SHABBIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 3227 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-19
  ejectmentstatutory tenancydefault in rentopen plotDisplaced Persons Act 1958Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by tenants against an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller on grounds of default in rent payment. The appellants initially resisted eviction by claiming ownership through an alleged oral agreement to sell, but on appeal shifted their position to contend that no statutory tenancy was created under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 because the transferred property was an open plot and they lacked 'possession' as defined under Section 2(6) of the Act. The High Court analyzed statutory provisions and precedents regarding open plots with temporary structures. The court held that where constructions exist on an open plot used for commercial or residential purposes, the premises qualify as a shop or house within the purview of Section 30 of the 1958 Act, creating a statutory tenancy between the transferee landlord and the occupant. The court further held that 'possession' under Section 30 refers to actual occupation rather than the restricted statutory definition in Section 2(6). The ejectment order was accordingly upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does an open plot transferred under the Settlement Scheme upon which structures have been erected fall within the scope of Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Is the term 'possession' under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 restricted to the definition provided in Section 2(6) of the Act?
  • Does an unexecuted oral agreement to sell extinguish a tenant's statutory obligation to pay rent to the legal owner?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MOINUDDIN vs KHURSHID AHMED AND 3 OTHERS1984 CLC 3143 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MEHDI TALEBY AND 4 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD RAHIM1984 CLC 2013 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MASOOD KHAN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 936 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-07
  concurrent findings of factdeclaratory decreerevenue recordleave to appealownership rightssuit for declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit wherein the plaintiff sought a declaration of exclusive ownership and possession of specific agricultural land, challenging the validity of registered gift deeds executed in favor of the petitioner. The plaintiff asserted that the land had been purchased by his father in 1892 and subsequently devolved upon him through private partition. The trial court, after examining the evidence, determined that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the suit land, excluding a small portion belonging to his brother, and granted a declaratory decree. This finding was upheld by the appellate and revisional courts. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's ownership, based on long-standing revenue records, warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court held that the findings were based on a proper examination of material evidence, including historical revenue records dating back to 1892. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact supported by documentary evidence are generally not subject to interference in appellate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding land ownership?
  • Can a declaratory decree be granted based on historical revenue records dating back to 1892?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MASOOD KHAN BHATTI vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA1984 SCMR 1385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-24
  preferential rightwaiverleave to appealstatus quoland transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, addressing the question of whether the respondent had waived her preferential right to acquire land based on her conduct and statements of witnesses establishing refusal to take the land despite knowledge of the transfer. The Supreme Court held that the case requires further consideration, particularly regarding whether the plea of waiver was rejected on academic considerations rather than the true realities of the situation. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted, security was ordered, and the interim order of status quo as to possession was directed to continue pending the final hearing. The key principle laid down is that a party's conduct, including explicit refusal to accept property despite knowledge of its transfer, may constitute waiver of a preferential right and warrants a thorough judicial examination rather than dismissal on academic grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal to take land despite knowledge of its transfer constitute a waiver of a preferential right?
  • Can a plea of waiver be rejected on academic considerations rather than the realities of the situation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MANSOOR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GMAT AND 3 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 750 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MANSHA AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1381 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MALIK vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT1984 PLC (C. S.) 764 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MALIK AND OTHERS vs PUNJAB GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1397 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MALIK and another vs AHMAD DIN and others1984 SCMR 1203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-04
  pre-emptionco-sharerconcurrent findingssecond appealdismissal in liminequestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a suit for pre-emption of a sale of land, wherein the petitioners claimed a superior right based on their status as co-sharers in the khata and as tenants. The trial court dismissed the suit after rejecting both grounds. On appeal, the petitioners abandoned the tenancy claim and focused solely on the co-sharer status, which the appellate court also rejected. A subsequent second appeal to the Lahore High Court was dismissed in limine. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that their documentary evidence established their co-sharer status. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioners failed to provide the necessary documents or the trial court's judgment for review. Furthermore, the Court noted that the first appellate court had already duly considered the relevant evidence, specifically the extract from the register Haqdaran. Finding that the petitioners' plea involved a question of fact already settled by concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification for interference and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding a claim of being a co-sharer in a pre-emption suit?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal liable to be dismissed if the petitioner fails to provide the necessary documents and judgments of the lower courts for review?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD ALI vs PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE1984 CLC 142 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-06
  writ jurisdictionpremature petitionshow-cause noticedouble jeopardyservice matterdepartmental inquirymisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Income-tax Inspector, challenged show-cause notices issued by the department regarding alleged misconduct, arguing that previous proceedings had already resulted in his removal being set aside by the Service Tribunal, thus invoking the principle of double jeopardy. The core legal questions were whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere with departmental show-cause notices, and whether a second inquiry into the same charges was barred after a previous removal was set aside on technical grounds. The Court held that the writ petition was premature because only show-cause notices had been issued, not a final order, and that the Service Tribunal's previous order, which was based on procedural technicalities rather than merits, did not bar a fresh inquiry into the same charges. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is generally ousted where a final order has been passed by a departmental authority, but here, the lack of a final order rendered the petition incompetent. The Court dismissed the petition, directing the department to pay the petitioner's outstanding salary arrears.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a show-cause notice by a government department provide a cause of action for a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can a second departmental inquiry be initiated on the same charges if the previous removal order was set aside by a Service Tribunal on technical grounds rather than merits?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution barred in matters relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant where no final order has been passed?
  • Does the principle of nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa apply to departmental disciplinary proceedings where the initial removal was invalidated due to procedural defects?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs THE STATE1984 MLD 1292 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF vs TAJ MUHAMMAD GILL1984 MLD 393(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-02
  sudden fightcommon intentionalteration of convictionfatal blowgrievous hurtbenefit of doubtSection 302/34 PPCSection 326/34 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a decision of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and life imprisonment sentences of the appellants under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the death of Liaqat Ali during a sudden dispute over a plot of vacant land. Both parties sustained stick injuries during the clash, with the appellants inflicting sota blows to the head of the deceased, one of which proved fatal. The core legal question was whether the appellants acted with a common intention to commit murder under Section 302/34, or whether the occurrence was a sudden fight in which individual acts and shared common intention were limited to causing grievous hurt. The Supreme Court observed that there was no pre-conceived plan to commit murder and it was uncertain which appellant delivered the fatal blow. Consequently, the Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302/34 to Section 326/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing each appellant to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining their other convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 302/34 PPC can be sustained when a death occurs during a sudden fight without a pre-conceived plan to commit murder?
  • What offence is committed under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when participants in a sudden fight cause fatal injuries with blunt weapons but the author of the fatal blow cannot be determined?
  • Can shared common intention under Section 34 PPC be restricted to causing grievous hurt rather than murder in an un-premeditated clash?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1503 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF AKMAL vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIAN WALI AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 42 · Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHUSHNOOD vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2608 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER1984 PLC 1549 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-06-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN vs Mst. HAJIRAN KHATOON1984 CLC 3172 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN and others vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2769 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1984 PLD Lahore 522 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs SULTAN AND 5 OTHERS1984 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-29
  murderdying declarationocular testimonyballistic evidencecriminal appealdeath sentencecorroborationappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that maintained the death sentence of one accused while acquitting four others in a murder case. The core legal questions were whether the High Court erred in acquitting the co-accused despite the existence of a dying declaration and ocular testimony, and whether the conviction of the primary accused was sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions. Regarding the acquittal, the Court held that the ocular testimony required corroboration, which was lacking, and that the medical evidence—showing fewer injuries than would be expected from multiple simultaneous shooters—contradicted the prosecution's narrative. Regarding the primary accused, the Court upheld the conviction, finding the dying declaration credible despite the severity of the victim's brain injuries, and noting that ballistic evidence successfully linked the recovered weapon to the crime scene. The judgment reaffirms that while dying declarations are potent evidence, they must be evaluated alongside medical findings, and that ocular testimony, even from natural witnesses, may require independent corroboration if the witnesses are not entirely reliable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon if the victim suffered severe brain injuries?
  • Does medical evidence regarding the number of injuries provide a basis to doubt the prosecution's version of multiple assailants?
  • Is corroboration required for ocular testimony when witnesses are deemed not entirely truthful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ballistic evidence matching a recovered weapon to a crime scene empty?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN and 5 others vs Mst. SHAFIAT BEGUM and 3 others1984 MLD 575 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1410 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHALID KHAN vs QUAIDIAZAM UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD AND 31984 CLC 721 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHALID ANSARI vs MESSRS SIND SMALL INDUSTRIES1984 PLC 195 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KASSIM vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2305 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KAMAL KHAN vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KABIR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984 PLD Karachi 85 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KABIR KHAN AND ANOTHER s vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984 PLD Karachi 85 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JUMAN vs SHOUKAT HUSSAIN1984 PLD Rev. 6 · Board of Revenue · 1983-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVEDULHAQ vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL RESOURCESAND 5 OTHERS1984 CLC 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVED AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVAID vs THE STATE1984 SCMR 1463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-19
  leave to appealmurderappreciation of evidenceocular testimonyabscondenceballistic matchcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and the sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal question involved the proper appreciation of ocular evidence, delayed lodging of the first information report, interested witnesses, non-production of certain eyewitnesses, and corroborative pieces of evidence including motive, ballistic matching of a crime empty with a recovered weapon, and abscondence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence by the courts below were unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies and relationship of witnesses do not impair their credibility when corroborated by independent medical and forensic evidence, and that unexplained prolonged abscondence strongly supports the inference of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts on the appreciation of ocular evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased inherently render their testimony unreliable without independent corroboration?
  • Whether prolonged abscondence of an accused person serves as a valid corroborative circumstance of guilt in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JARJIS ATHAR vs DR. MRS. AKHTAR ZIA1984 CLC 1038 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAN vs GENERAL MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, PESHAWAR1984 PLC 503 · Labour Court · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAN vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 86 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-09-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs TABEY HUSSAIN1984 CLC 2150 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs Hafiz ABDUL RAHIM1984 CLC 2420 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMEEL vs AFTAB KHAN AND OTHERS1984 CLC 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JALIL AKHTAR vs PRINCIPAL, KING EDWARD MEDICAL COLLEGE1984 CLC 2681 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAFFAR vs THE STATE1984 PLD Karachi 126 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISRAR NABI vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 269 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 1433 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs THE STATE and 3 others1984 P Cr. L J 2545 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs MESSRS FATIME TEXTILE MILLS LTD.1984 PLC 638 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs LIAQAT AND OTHERS1984 SCMR 1053 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-18
  criminal appealmurderacquittalright of private defenceappreciations of evidenceeyewitness testimonyreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, arising from a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of two respondents, addressed whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the eyewitness account and acquitting the accused of murder. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including rival versions of a sudden flare-up and physical altercation at a mosque over a management dispute involving injuries sustained by both sides. The core legal question concerned the appreciation of ocular testimony, the right of private defence, and whether the acquittal resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court held that the existence of two conflicting versions, corroborated by medical evidence of injuries on the defense side, created reasonable doubt regarding the specific attribution of the fatal shot and the role of the accused. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, establishing that where mutual injuries and a sudden altercation give rise to competing versions and a plausible plea of private defence, an acquittal based on reasonable doubt will not be interfered with.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eyewitness account corroborated by medical evidence must be accepted when a plausible competing version of a sudden fight exists?
  • Does a sudden flare-up and exchange of brickbats between parties give rise to the right of private defence?
  • When does the presence of injuries on the accused party create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version in a murder case?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs HIDAYATULLAH AND 3 OTHERS1984 P Cr. L J 379 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs HAJI KHAN AND ANOTHER1984 CLC 2435 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs THE STATE1984 P Cr. L J 2660 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL TAYER, OFFICER. ON-SPECIAL DUTY, SGA&ID DEPUTY SECRETARY (COMPLAINTS), HQ. M.L.A. PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1984 PLC (C. S.) 694 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND ANOTHER vs Sh. MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR1984 SCMR 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-08-12
  rent matterremand orderpiecemeal adjudicationres judicatapreliminary issuesejectment applicationlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which declined to interfere with an appellate court's decision to remand a rent case for a fresh determination of all issues. The respondent, claiming to be the purchaser of the property, initiated ejectment proceedings, leading to the framing of four preliminary issues, including jurisdiction, competency, service of notices, and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Controller initially decided only the issue regarding the landlord-tenant relationship, dismissing the application, but the appellate court set aside this order, directing a comprehensive decision on all issues to avoid piecemeal adjudication. The High Court affirmed this approach, emphasizing that trial courts should decide all issues in appealable cases to prevent unnecessary remands. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, rejecting the petitioners' argument of res judicata regarding an earlier dismissed appeal, noting that the contention was not raised before the High Court and the prior dismissal was based on non-maintainability. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is it appropriate for a Rent Controller to decide only a single preliminary issue in an ejectment application rather than deciding all issues?
  • Does a dismissal of an appeal on the grounds of non-maintainability create a res judicata bar against subsequent proceedings?
  • Should trial courts decide all issues in appealable cases to avoid the necessity of a remand?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1984 PLC (C. S.) 774 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →