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 ASLAM vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MIANWALI1983 PLC (C. S.) 1238 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SHAUKAT ALI AND Another1983 SCMR 1248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-12
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentregistered sale deedprior purchasespecific performancelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of ejectment passed against him on the ground of default in payment of rent to the respondents, who had purchased the premises via a registered sale deed from the original owner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's plea of prior purchase and pendency of a specific performance suit exempted him from paying rent to the current registered owners. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the ejectment order was properly made, as the petitioner failed to establish his plea of prior purchase before the Rent Controller by tendering the original document, and could not even report the fate of his civil suit filed in 1978. The court affirmed that a tenant cannot withhold rent from a landlord holding a registered sale deed without establishing a valid legal title through admissible evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pending suit for specific performance regarding a property excuse a tenant from paying rent to the holder of a registered sale deed?
  • Can a plea of prior purchase be sustained before a Rent Controller without tendering the original document of purchase?
  • Is an ejectment order justified when a tenant fails to pay rent and cannot substantiate a claim of ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICA1983 PLC (C. S.) 1292 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-05-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD YUNUS AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2304 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs IQBALUDDIN1983 CLC 2271 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1422 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM HASHMI vs WAPDA AND OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 1077 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM GILL vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS & WORKS Departments1983 SCMR 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-07
  civil serviceseniority listnecessary partyexhaustion of remediespromotionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, sought leave to appeal against a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment dismissing his challenge to the promotion of colleagues and the maintenance of seniority lists. The petitioner raised three grievances: improper promotion practices in 1973, errors in a 1974 seniority list, and the failure to prepare or maintain a seniority list since 1976. The Supreme Court held that the first two grievances could not be adjudicated because the petitioner failed to implead the specific individuals whose promotions or seniority positions were being challenged, rendering any decision on eligibility or legality impossible in their absence. Regarding the third grievance, the Court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust the necessary administrative remedies—specifically, calling upon the responsible officer to prepare the list and representing the matter to higher authorities before approaching the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court found no question of law or public importance warranting interference and refused leave to appeal, emphasizing the necessity of impleading affected parties and exhausting departmental remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court adjudicate a challenge to promotions or seniority lists without impleading the individuals whose positions are being challenged?
  • Is it necessary for a civil servant to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Service Tribunal regarding the non-preparation of a seniority list?
  • Does the failure to implead necessary parties preclude judicial determination of the legality of promotion actions?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 935 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-14
  leave to appealmurderretrialself-defenceappreciation of evidencepartisan evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a criminal trial in which the petitioners were convicted of murder and causing injuries. The incident involved a clash between two rival parties resulting in one death and multiple injuries. The Lahore High Court had previously set aside the initial convictions and ordered a retrial. Upon retrial, the petitioners were again convicted, which convictions were maintained by the High Court with a modification regarding the sentence from imprisonment for life to transportation for life, while co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account and the sustainability of the convictions in light of the defense's version of self-defence and partisan evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the participation of the petitioners was established beyond doubt by the medical evidence and their own admissions, and that the courts below correctly appreciated the evidence and rejected the plea of self-defence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether convictions can be maintained when the defense admits participation and presence at the scene but pleads self-defence?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent appreciation of evidence by the lower courts regarding the plea of self-defence?
  • Whether minor injuries on the accused are sufficient to substantiate a plea of self-defence against multiple severe injuries inflicted on the complainant party?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND ANOTHER vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR1983 CLC 408 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Alias ASLOO AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 844 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASKARI KHAN AND 5 OTHERS vs AUTHORISED OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1983 CLC 1975 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs The STATE1983 SCMR 902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-05
  pre-arrest bailtheftproclaimed offendercancellation of bailcriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the refusal of the Lahore High Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of theft under Section 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a driver, was alleged to have stolen his employer's vehicle and sold it. While the petitioner claimed ownership based on a receipt of purchase, the investigation revealed that the alleged seller denied issuing such a document. Furthermore, the State demonstrated that the petitioner had a history of criminal involvement and had absconded following the cancellation of his interim bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, resulting in him being declared a proclaimed offender. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of the disputed evidence and his conduct. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court upheld the High Court's refusal, dismissed the petition, and withdrew the interim bail previously granted, emphasizing that the petitioner's status as a proclaimed offender and the questionable nature of his defense precluded relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner who has been declared a proclaimed offender entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the denial of the authenticity of a document by the alleged signatory justify the refusal of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOOD1983 PLC (C. S.) 363 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-PERATIVE SOCIETIES, SARGODHA1983 PLC (C. S) 786 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE1983 CLC 2509 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ASHIQ KHAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Azad J& K Shariat Court 3 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN1983 PLD Azad J K 18 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF CHOHAN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB,1983 PLC (C. S.) 94 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-08-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1983 PLD Supreme Court 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-31
  murderconcessional testimonyocular evidencecircumstantial evidencestandard of proofmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the death sentence of the primary appellant was confirmed by the High Court. The prosecution case was supported by three eye-witnesses, but during cross-examination, one eye-witness stated he did not actually see the physical infliction of the blows, though he witnessed the chase and the immediate aftermath. The core legal question was whether such testimony, characterized as concessional, disqualified the witness as an eye-witness, and whether the evidence met the standard of proof. The Supreme Court held that under Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872, a fact is proved when, after considering the matters before it, a prudent man would act upon the belief of its existence. Since the witness saw the accused chasing the victim with weapons and running away immediately after, with no other possible assailants present, the evidence constituted direct ocular proof. The Court affirmed the convictions and found no mitigating circumstances for reducing the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an eye-witness's admission that they did not see the actual physical impact of a weapon disqualify their testimony if they witnessed the immediate chase and aftermath?
  • How should a court evaluate the testimony of a prosecution witness who makes a statement beneficial to the accused during cross-examination?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained under the definition of 'proved' in the Evidence Act where the witnesses did not see the physical plunge of the weapon but witnessed the chase and immediate flight of the accused?
  • Does a physical altercation or slap occurring three days prior to a homicide constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to reduce a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2432 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 4 OTHERS1983 PLD SC (A J & K) 181 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND ANOTHER vs GULISTAN AND 13 OTHERS1983 CLC 250 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-08-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ALIAS TAOO vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1271 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ vs Mst. HADAYAT BIBI AND Other1983 SCMR 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-14
  mutation of inheritancelimitationremand of casefactual inquiryleave to appealwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court which accepted the respondent's writ petition and directed the revision of a mutation of inheritance to include her name as a legal heir, setting aside the lower authority's dismissal of her appeal on the ground of limitation. The core legal question was whether the High Court, upon holding that limitation was irrelevant to inheritance mutations, could proceed to summarily order the inclusion of the claimant's name despite a factual controversy raised by the petitioner, instead of remanding the matter for a proper inquiry. The Supreme Court held that where a party has controverted the assertions of the claimant and the matter requires factual inquiry and the recording of evidence, the appropriate course for the High Court is to remand the case to the competent authority for a fresh decision on merits rather than deciding the factual controversy itself. Leave to appeal was accordingly granted to consider this contention, and the operation of the impugned High Court order was suspended.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of limitation is relevant in the case of mutation of inheritance?
  • Is it proper for the High Court to order the incorporation of a legal heir's name in a mutation without a factual inquiry when the claim has been controverted?
  • Whether the High Court should remand a case to the revenue authority for a decision on merits when the lower authority dismissed the matter solely on limitation grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 2002 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASAD HASHMI vs Mst. MALIKA BEGUM1983 CLC 2107 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION),1983 PLC (C.S.) 918 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1176 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN vs GHULAM RASUL AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 110 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD And OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL AND Other1983 SCMR 1038 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-11
  rent restrictionengine-repair shopfindings of factleave to appealtenant appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of the tenants' appeal by the High Court regarding the ejectment proceedings involving an engine-repair shop. The core legal question was whether the shop in question constituted an industry and thus fell outside the purview of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two lower forums—determining that the premises was merely an engine-repair shop and not an industry—were unexceptionable and could not be reopened. Consequently, the Court declined to examine whether an industry housed in a building would be exempt from the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower forums regarding the nature of a rented property can be reopened before the Supreme Court?
  • Does an engine-repair shop fall outside the purview of the Rent Restriction Ordinance as an industry?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND ANOTHER vs KARAM DAD KHAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Azad J& K 33 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-26
  bail cancellationcriminal appealleave to appealpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Arif against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 6-2-1983, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to him by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the cancellation of bail by the High Court was justified under the circumstances of the case. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the State, and examining the orders of the lower courts along with the statement of the prosecutrix, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that it was a fit case for the grant of bail. The Court accordingly set aside the cancellation and granted bail to the appellant subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where a case is considered fit for bail upon review of the record and without prejudicing the merits of the prosecution case, the appellate court will restore bail to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and dispose of it accordingly?
  • Is the High Court's order cancelling bail subject to interference by the Supreme Court when the case is deemed fit for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF vs Mirza QANNA T HUSSAIN1983 CLC 343 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF QURESHI vs MILITARY ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL AND 31983 PLC (C. S.) 473 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF MALIK vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2088 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF AND Another vs THE STATE1983 PCr. LJ 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARAB AND 2 OTHERS vs JAFFERY MUHAMMAD HASSAN Opponent1983 CLC 335 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWARAccused vs THE STATE1983 PLD Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2474 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE--1983 P Cr. L J 1576 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 576 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs MESSRS JALBOHY & COMPANY1983 PLC 216 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-07-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs BATA (PAKISTAN) LTD.1983 PLC 573 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR RAHAT vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1983 CLC 3076 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR BUTT vs SENIOR MEMBER (ESTABLISHMENT), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1983 PLC (C. S.) 198 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR BUTT vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, MANPOWER1983 PLC (C. S.) 533 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR BUTT vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT &1983 PLC 309 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND ANOTHER vs Mst. MUMTAZ JEHAN BEGUM AND 171983 PLD Rev. 30 · Board of Revenue · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR Alias JAGGA AND Others vs The STATE1983 SCMR 628 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 694 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ROSHAN AND OTHERS1983 PLD Rev. 51 · Board of Revenue · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMJAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 281 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 503 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIR ADVOCATE vs ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-04
  extra-judicial confessionresiling eye-witnessesballistic reportstock witnessmitigating circumstancestransportation for lifeSection 382-B CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal, filed by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, challenged the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his stepmother. The prosecution alleged that following a domestic dispute over marriage arrangements, the appellant shot the victim in the presence of his father and another witness. Although both eye-witnesses resiled from their statements at trial, the prosecution relied upon one eye-witness's transferred testimony from the committing Magistrate, an extra-judicial confession made to the appellant's employer, and positive forensic matching of a crime empty recovered from the spot with the surrendered pistol. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the conviction could be sustained principally upon the extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence. Upholding the guilt, the Court held that where extra-judicial confession and recovery evidence inspire confidence, formal corroboration is unnecessary. The Court modified the sentence from imprisonment for life to transportation for life, granting benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder under Section 302 PPC can be sustained on the basis of a credible extra-judicial confession corroborated by forensic recovery?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove that pellets and wads belonged to the same cartridge when the empty casing is forensically matched to the crime pistol?
  • Does the resiling of eye-witnesses at trial preclude reliance on their statements properly transferred from the Committing Magistrate's court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs BASHIR AHMAD1983 P Cr. L J 1574 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN AND Others vs The STATE1983 SCMR 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-01
  post-arrest bailmedical evidenceappreciation of evidencemurderbail stageexpert testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order denying post-arrest bail to three petitioners charged with murder and attempted murder under sections 302, 307, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail based on the contention that the deceased died instantly from a gunshot wound, rendering subsequent dagger blows inflicted by the petitioners as injuries to a dead body, thus negating criminal liability. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appreciation of complex medical evidence—specifically the timing of death relative to the injuries—cannot be undertaken at the bail stage. The Court ruled that such factual determinations must be deferred until the medical expert is examined and cross-examined at trial. The principle laid down is that where specific roles and injuries are attributed to accused persons in the First Information Report, and medical evidence is contested, it is premature to grant bail before the expert witness has testified, as the court should not conduct a mini-trial at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court evaluate complex medical evidence regarding the timing of death at the bail stage?
  • Is it appropriate to grant bail when the accused is specifically named in the FIR for inflicting injuries, pending the examination of medical experts?
  • Should a court conduct a mini-trial to determine the sequence of injuries during bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN AND ANOTHER vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Karachi 179 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2388 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMEEN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1983 P Cr. L J 1533 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2092 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALTAF vs The STATE1983 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-01
  sodomycriminal appealleave to appealsentence reductioncomputation of sentencecompensation to complainant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a criminal conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the offense of sodomy. The petitioner was initially convicted by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate and sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, with compensation awarded to the complainant under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon appeal, the Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to four years, while maintaining the fine and granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the computation of the sentence. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the petitioner's counsel, found no substantial question of law or any error in the lower courts' judgments that would suggest a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that the lower courts had correctly adjudicated the matter without legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appellate court have the authority to reduce a sentence of imprisonment while maintaining a conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences involving fines and imprisonment?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a concurrent finding of conviction by lower courts in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-09
  anti-corruptiondisproportionate assetsliving beyond meansappraisal of evidenceconcurrent findingsPrevention of Corruption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur, under Section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core issue before the Court was whether the concurrent findings of guilt—based on the petitioner acquiring property and possessing assets disproportionate to his known and legitimate sources of income—were grounded in properly appraised evidence or vitiated by conjectures and surmises. The petitioner had been found in possession of a residential house and an unaccounted-for bank balance of Rs. 64,017 in the National Bank of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that both courts below had thoroughly considered all relevant points and that the conviction was based on a proper appraisal of the evidence rather than mere speculation. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the petitioner's conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public servant's inability to satisfactorily account for pecuniary resources and assets disproportionate to their known sources of income sustains a conviction under Section 5(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt by lower courts based on proper appraisal of evidence regarding disproportionate assets warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Does possession of an unexplained bank balance and residential property constitute sufficient evidence to establish the charge of living beyond one's means under the anti-corruption law?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs NAZIRAN BIBI AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 298 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs Mst. HAMEEDA BEGUM1983 CLC 3237 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-21
  rented premisesevictionco-ownerlandlordpurdah-nasheenpersonal requirementsummary evictionnotice period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an eviction order issued under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant-tenant contested the eviction, arguing that the respondent-landlady, a co-owner, lacked standing to file the application, that the notice was insufficient, that the application was premature, and that the landlady failed to prove the bona fide nature of her personal requirement. The Court held that a co-owner authorized by other co-owners falls within the definition of "landlord" under the Ordinance and is entitled to seek eviction. Regarding procedural objections, the Court ruled that substantial compliance with notice requirements is sufficient, and an application filed prematurely is not fatal if the cause of action matures before the final adjudication. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 14 of the Ordinance does not necessitate an inquiry into the bona fides of the landlord's personal requirement, unlike Section 15. Finally, the Court found no prejudice in the landlady’s non-appearance as a witness, given her status as a purdah-nasheen lady and the testimony of her authorized attorney.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-owner file an application for eviction under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is an eviction application filed prematurely liable to be dismissed if the cause of action matures before the final decision?
  • Does Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 require the landlord to prove the bona fide nature of their personal requirement?
  • Is the personal appearance of a purdah-nasheen landlady as a witness mandatory in eviction proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs MRS. SAYEEDA RAUF1983 CLC 2428 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Lahore 86 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs ASLAM AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 251 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI SIDDIQUI vs Syed JAMIL AHMED1983 CLC 3102 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI RAJPAR vs SIND AGRICULTURAL SUPPLIES ORGANIZATION AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 993 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN AND Another vs Malik MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND Another1983SCMR824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-03
  evacuee propertyagreement to sellpart performanceleave to appealspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the respondents. The core legal question concerned whether an agreement to sell an evacuee property executed by petitioner No. 1 prior to its transfer in favor of petitioner No. 2 (his son) was binding, and whether the petitioners could seek the ejectment of the respondents notwithstanding the part performance of the agreement and delivery of possession. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while there might be force in the legal submissions regarding the binding nature of the agreement on the transferee under evacuee laws, the petitioners could not be permitted to resile from the agreement and seek ejectment after receiving the consideration and placing the respondents in possession, relying on technical pleas. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to sell executed by a person prior to the transfer of an evacuee shop is binding on the subsequent transferee?
  • Can a party be allowed to resile from an agreement to sell and seek ejectment after accepting consideration and handing over possession on technical legal pleas?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND OTHERS1983 PLD Rev. 9 · Board of Revenue · 1970-05-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 123 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-19
  bail bond forfeituresurety liabilityabsconding accusedrevision petitionleave to appealattachment of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition filed by the petitioners. The petitioners had acted as sureties for an accused charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, executing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25 each. Upon the accused absconding, the bail was cancelled, and the bail bonds were ordered to be forfeited. Following the petitioners' failure to respond to a show-cause notice regarding the recovery of the bond amount, the court ordered their detention in civil prison for six months and subsequently directed the attachment and sale of their immovable property. The petitioners sought a reduction of the forfeiture amount in revision, which the High Court dismissed in limine. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the impugned order, found no legal flaw in the reasoning of the High Court. Consequently, the Court held that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the forfeiture and recovery proceedings initiated against the sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order the attachment and sale of a surety's immovable property upon the forfeiture of a bail bond?
  • Is a surety liable for the full amount of a bail bond if the accused absconds?
  • Does a High Court have the authority to dismiss a revision petition in limine regarding the forfeiture of bail bonds?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI AND ANOTHER vs MARYAM BIBI AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 228 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI Alias MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1983 SCMR 1211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-28
  murdervicarious liabilityocular testimonysentencingdeath penaltyunlawful assemblycommon object
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from convictions under sections 302 and 148 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony in the face of conflicting ballistic evidence and the appropriate sentencing when the specific fatal shot cannot be attributed to a particular assailant among several participants. The Supreme Court held that the convictions were well-founded based on consistent ocular evidence, which remained reliable despite minor discrepancies and the absence of corroborative ballistic findings. The Court affirmed the principle of vicarious liability under section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, holding that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for the offence committed in prosecution of their common object. Regarding sentencing, the Court established that where the infliction of the solitary fatal injury cannot be attributed with certainty to one of several assailants whose participation is otherwise established, the death penalty is not appropriate, and a sentence of life imprisonment should be substituted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of ballistic evidence to match recovered weapons invalidate convictions based on consistent ocular testimony?
  • Can members of an unlawful assembly be held vicariously liable for murder under section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, even if the specific fatal shot cannot be attributed to them?
  • Is the death penalty appropriate when the specific assailant who fired the fatal shot cannot be identified among several participants?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1734 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LOCAL1983 PLC (C. S.) 359 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs WAPDA AND 89 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 595 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1833 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs Syed NASIR ALI SHAH AND OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs STATE HEAVY ENGINEERING AND MACHINE TOOLS1983 PLC 267 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, FORESTRY,1983 PLC (C. S.) 508 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND OTHERS1983 CLC 662 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs Mst. YASMIN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 3098 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs MAHMOOD ALI B. NANJIANI AND ANOTHER1983 P Cr. L J 1242 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs MAHBOOB MUSTAFA1983 CLC 2608 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENTPAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPIND1983 PLC 297 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs DIRECTOR, FOOD, PUNJAB LAHORE AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 1181 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN vs THE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES1983 CLC 213 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1782 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND ANOTHER vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CITY1983 PLC (C. S.) 1038 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1983P Cr. L J 17 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Alias NIKKOO vs The STATE1983 SCMR 831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-26
  rapeHudood lawscorroboration of evidencefalse implicationcriminal appealappreciation of evidenceconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence for the offence of rape under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence, specifically the testimony of the prosecutrix, was sufficiently corroborated and whether the petitioner's defence of false implication and substitution of identity was credible. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix was reliable and adequately corroborated by independent witnesses. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea that he was falsely implicated to cover up a consensual act with another person, noting the lack of evidence supporting such a claim and the fact that the petitioner failed to provide a plausible explanation for why the police, who were allegedly biased in his favour, did not pursue his version of events. The Court affirmed the conviction, establishing that where prosecution evidence is consistent and corroborated, and the defence's alternative narrative lacks evidentiary support, the conviction must be maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case sufficient for conviction if corroborated by independent witnesses?
  • Does the failure of the police to register a case as per the accused's version undermine the prosecution's case when the accused's defence lacks evidentiary support?
  • Can a conviction be upheld when the accused admits to the occurrence of sexual intercourse but disputes the identity of the perpetrator?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN1983 PLC 870 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs MUHAMMAD IJAZ Alias JAJJU AND Other1983 SCMR 102(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-15
  acquittaldying declarationcircumstantial evidenceocular evidenceleave to appealcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal in a criminal case. The petitioner challenges the acquittal of the respondents, raising specific legal questions regarding the appreciation of evidence. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of a dying declaration provided by an independent witness, the significance of minor injuries on an accused person as circumstantial evidence of their presence at the scene, the impact of a established motive, and the sufficiency of evidence available in a pending State appeal against acquittal. The Court, upon preliminary hearing, found these points sufficiently substantial to warrant further examination. Consequently, the Court issued notice to the respondents to address these contentions, specifically noting that the State appeal against acquittal had already been admitted against one of the co-accused. The holding is procedural, directing the matter to be set for a formal hearing to determine whether the acquittal warrants interference based on the grounds urged by the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of an independent witness regarding a dying declaration constitute sufficient evidence to challenge an acquittal?
  • Can minor injuries on an accused person, contemporaneous with the time of occurrence, serve as strong circumstantial evidence of guilt?
  • Does the existence of a strong motive, combined with other evidence, warrant a re-examination of an acquittal order?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 967 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs TIE STATE1983 SCMR 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-06
  post-arrest bailleave to appealconflicting versionsfurther inquirymurderrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the existence of two differing versions of the prosecution case during investigation, attributing materially different roles, warranted the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry. The Supreme Court held that since the motive for the crime and the main role were consistently attributed to the petitioner in both versions, alongside the recovery of an unlicensed gun, the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage, and the High Court committed no error of law. The Supreme Court affirmed the refusal of bail and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the existence of two differing versions of the prosecution case during investigation makes it a case for further inquiry justifying bail?
  • Does the consistent attribution of motive and a material role in multiple prosecution versions disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • When does the recovery of an unlicensed weapon influence the grant or refusal of bail in a violent crime case?
  Read full judgment →