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.
- INSTITUTE GEOGRAPHIQUE NATIONAL vs CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND 3 Other1983 SCMR 1202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal as not maintainable. The petitioner, a foreign entity, entered into a contract with WAPDA for aerial photography and survey work in Pakistan. The Income-tax Officer assessed the petitioner to income tax, prompting the petitioner to seek rectification, revision, and relief from tax authorities, followed by constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution before a Single Judge of the High Court, which was dismissed. The core legal question was whether an Intra-Court Appeal was competent against the judgment of the Single Judge under subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, given that the underlying tax proceedings provided alternate remedies of appeal or revision. The Supreme Court held that since the applicable tax laws and the provisions concerning double taxation agreements provided for statutory remedies such as appeal or revision, the Intra-Court Appeal was barred by the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is competent against the judgment of a Single Judge in constitutional jurisdiction when the original proceedings provide for an appeal, revision, or review?
- Does the availability of an appeal or revision under the Income-tax Act bar an Intra-Court Appeal under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972?
- INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE vs ASHFAQ AHMAD AND Other1983 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Inspector-General of Police, Punjab sought leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which had accepted the respondent Ashfaq Ahmad's appeal regarding his seniority and placement in List 'F'. The respondent, a Sub-Inspector in the Special Branch, was initially omitted from List 'F' on the ground of needing executive police work experience, but was later promoted. Subsequently, a junior officer was assigned post facto ante-dated seniority in List 'F', prompting the respondent to seek similar relief, which was rejected. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that his service in the Special Branch should have been counted as executive police work under the relevant rules. The Supreme Court examined contentions regarding limitation, the bar under proviso (b) to section 4(1) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 regarding fitness for promotion, and alleged misreading of evidence. The Court held that the appeal before the Tribunal was within time, did not violate the statutory bar as it concerned discrimination qua a junior, and that the Tribunal rightly took exception to the failure to weigh Special Branch service. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether service in the Special Branch should be counted as executive police work for inclusion in List 'F' under the Police Rules?
- Does an appeal challenging discriminatory ante-dating of seniority of a junior officer violate the bar under proviso (b) to section 4(1) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 regarding fitness for promotion?
- When does the period of limitation commence for filing a service tribunal appeal against the grant of ante-dated seniority to a colleague?
- INSHALLAH BEGUM vs SHAMIM AKHTAR1983 CLC 2853 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-10Read full judgment →
- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs Haji MOOSA A. KARIM AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 284 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS CORPORATION LTD. vs Syed OBAIDULLAH QADRI1983 PLC 707 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-04-11Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1983 PLC 392 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH KHAN vs MUKARAB KHAN AND ANOTHER1983 PLD Peshawar 129 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH BHATTI vs Mian FEROZE DIN AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 2171 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-18Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1983 CLC 2764 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
- INAYAT vs The STATE1983 SCMR 539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Inayat, was tried and convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Abdul Rahman and sentenced to death, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine the evidentiary value of a confessional statement recorded by a magistrate and an extra-judicial confession made before prosecution witnesses. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that while certain statutory formalities concerning the judicial confessional statement under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were not duly observed, the conviction could safely rest on other corroborative evidence on record, including the unblemished testimony of the deceased's wife regarding the motive and extra-judicial confession, the statements properly transferred to the sessions record under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the recovery of the dead body and blood-stained weapon at the instance of the accused. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary value of a judicial confession when the recording magistrate fails to observe mandatory formalities under sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained primarily on the basis of an extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence when the primary witnesses resile at trial?
- Under what circumstances can a previous statement of a witness be transferred to the sessions file under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- INAYAT ULLAH AND Others vs UMAR HAYAT AND Other1983 SCMR 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the validity of redemption proceedings concerning land originally mortgaged before 1892 and subsequently transferred through exchange. The core legal questions involved whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred regarding the redemption of mortgaged land, whether an exchange of land constituted a transfer of mortgagee rights, and whether the redemption proceedings before the Collector were valid. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were indeed successors in interest stepping into the shoes of the original mortgagees, that the redemption proceedings carried out by the Collector were within jurisdiction, and that the subsequent civil suit was rightly barred by time and law. The Court established that where parties acquire land through an exchange involving mortgaged property and are recorded as mortgagees in revenue records, redemption proceedings initiated by original owners against them are valid.
Questions settled- Whether a civil suit challenging redemption proceedings is barred by section 17 of the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Land Act 1964 or section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgages Punjab Act 1913?
- Do parties who acquire land via exchange step into the shoes of mortgagees when recorded as such in the revenue record?
- Whether redemption proceedings carried out by the Collector are valid when the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee is established?
- INAYAT KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1983 PLD Supreme Court 395 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing an appeal by the petitioners against their conviction for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case alleged that the petitioners, along with acquitted co-accused, ambushed and killed the deceased over a previous enmity. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that ocular testimony was contradicted by medical evidence regarding the firing range, that discrepancies existed concerning the recovery of the deceased's weapons, and that the defense version found support from the circumstances. Upon examining the record and summoning the medical officer to clarify contradictions in his post-mortem report and testimony, the Supreme Court observed that the medical evidence required closer scrutiny and that contentions regarding the appreciation of evidence needed consideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the courts below properly applied well-established principles for the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the firing range warrant the granting of leave to appeal in a murder case?
- How should a court evaluate medical testimony when the post-mortem report contains internal contradictions concerning the distance from which a firearm was discharged?
- Whether the unexplained handling and subsequent production of the deceased's weapons by witnesses affects the credibility of the prosecution case in a criminal trial?
- INAYAT HUSSAIN NASEEM vs SECRETARY, MIN1STRY OF INFORMATION &1983 PLC (C. S.) 1245 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1983-08-01Read full judgment →
- INAYAT AND Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 2515 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
- INAYAT AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1983 PLD Lahore 639 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
- INAMUL HAQ vs ZILLE ABBAS/1983 PLD Karachi 442 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
- INAMUL HAQ vs SIDDIQL'e MUHAMMAD AND Other1983 SCMR 1009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the transfer of a house in Lahore under settlement laws. The core legal questions were whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction by making a finding of fact regarding the filing of an N.C.H. Form after the Settlement Commissioner failed to decide the issue on remand, and whether possession alone entitles a party to property transfer despite a fraudulent claim. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to decide the factual issue itself because the Settlement Commissioner had failed to comply with the specific remand direction to determine the validity of the N.C.H. Form. The Court affirmed that the petitioner’s claim of filing the form was false and fraudulent. The Court established that while superior courts are generally reluctant to interfere with factual findings of tribunals, they possess the authority to set aside perverse findings or decide factual issues directly when a tribunal fails to perform its duty despite clear judicial directions. Furthermore, a claimant cannot rely on possession alone to secure a transfer when the underlying claim is proven fraudulent.
Questions settled- Can a High Court make a finding of fact in writ jurisdiction when a tribunal fails to decide the issue after remand?
- Does possession of a property alone entitle a person to its transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 if the underlying claim is fraudulent?
- Is a High Court justified in deciding a factual issue itself instead of remanding the case a second time to a tribunal that failed to follow previous directions?
- In re : THE TRADE MARKS ACT (V OF 1940) AND 22 OTHER ACTS vs NOT1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 125 · Federal Shariat Court · -Read full judgment →
- In re : THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT (I of 1877) vs NOT1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 113 · Federal Shariat Court · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
- In re _ THE MANOEUVRES FIELD FIRING AND ARTILLERY PRACTICES ACT, 1938 vs NOT1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 19 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- In re : SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS Co. LTD. vs NOT1983 CLC 460 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-11Read full judgment →
- In re _ MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 & MOTOR VEHICLES ORDINANCE, 1965 vs Sh. Riaz Ahmad, AdvocateGeneral, Punjab_1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 29 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
- In re : MESSRS PAKISTAN TRACTORS CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER vs NOT1983 CLC 1424 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
- In re : COMPANIES ACT, 1913 AND ANOTHER vs NOT1983 PLD Karachi 45 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are two judicial miscellaneous petitions filed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913, concerning Nagina Films Limited. One petition sought relief against mismanagement and oppression under section 153-C, while the other prayed for the winding-up of the company under section 162 based on the 'just and equitable' clause. The core legal questions involved whether the exclusion of a minority shareholder holding twenty percent shares from the board of directors and the reduction of the board's strength justified the winding-up of a private limited company on partnership principles, and whether such a company could be treated akin to a partnership. The court held that where promoters' agreements or understandings regarding management participation are breached by the majority—such as unlawfully reducing the board of directors to oust a minority shareholder—it constitutes grounds for winding-up under the just and equitable clause. The court laid down that private limited companies may be treated as partnerships to the extent that grounds justifying the dissolution of a partnership firm under section 44 of the Partnership Act, 1932, apply to winding-up petitions, and ordered Nagina Films Limited to be wound up.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner can simultaneously file petitions under section 153-C and section 162 of the Companies Act, 1913?
- Does the principle of treating a private limited company as a partnership apply strictly to single-family concerns or to companies formed by multiple family groups?
- Is the unlawful reduction of the board of directors to exclude a minority shareholder a valid ground for winding-up a private limited company under the just and equitable clause?
- Whether a petitioner must make out a case for winding-up under section 162 before relief can be granted under section 153-C of the Companies Act, 1913?
- IMRANUDDIN AND Another vs The STATE1983 SCMR 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which rejected the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail, primarily arguing that a cross-case inquiry report suggested mutual responsibility for the occurrence and that the accused in the cross-case had already been granted bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision to refuse bail. The Court held that the High Court's order suffered from no legal infirmity, noting that the specific allegations against the petitioners—including a direct charge of murder—were serious. The Court established the principle that the mere fact that accused persons in a cross-case have been released on bail does not automatically entitle the petitioners to similar relief, especially when the allegations against the petitioners are more serious in nature. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does the grant of bail to accused persons in a cross-case automatically entitle the petitioners in the main case to bail?
- Is the existence of a cross-case inquiry report sufficient grounds to mandate the release of accused persons on bail?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's order refusing bail if the order suffers from no legal infirmity?
- IMDAD KHAN AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS FERRO FABRICATORS LTD.1983 PLC 1018 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- IMDAD ALI vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL (FIELD) AGRICULTURE, PUNJAB AND 21983 PLC 1093 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- IMDAD ALI AND 4 OTHERS vs ABDUL RASHID AND 6 OTHERSOpponents1983 CLC 1346 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
- IMAMUDDIN AND 4 OTHSRS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1059 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- IMAM-UD-DIN vs QAIDABAD WOOLEN MILLS LTD.1983 PLC 494 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
- IMAM vs SAIFUR REHMAN1983 SCMR 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioners' regular second appeal by the High Court, upholding the pre-emption decree granted in favor of the respondent, a minor suing through his mother as guardian-ad-litem. The core legal question raised by the petitioners is whether a pre-emption suit filed by a minor having no independent means of his own can be assumed to be a benami transaction or a fraud on the statute orchestrated by the vendor-father for his own benefit. The Supreme Court noted the importance of the question and the conflicting contention that a minor's right of pre-emption cannot be defeated on such grounds. The court held that the question requires an authoritative pronouncement and granted leave to appeal to consider the same, while ordering that the stay previously granted shall continue.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit filed by a minor having no independent means of his own can be treated as a benami transaction or fraud on the statute by the father?
- Can a minor's right of pre-emption be defeated on the ground that the suit was filed in collusion with or for the benefit of the vendor-father?
- IMAM DIN vs ABDUL MAJID KHAN1983 CLC 2432 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-04Read full judgment →
- IMAM DIN AND 5 OTHERS vs Mst. KULSOOM AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 215 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
- IMAM BUX vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-04Read full judgment →
- IMAM BAKHSH vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB FORESTRY1983 PLC (C. S.) 1025 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-03Read full judgment →
- ILYAS vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 628 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- ILYAS AND OTHERS vs NIAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2456 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
- ILLYAS MASIH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 965 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- ILLAHI BAKHSH AND TWO OTHERS vs SARDAR MUHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 1933 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
- ILAM KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 786 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a notice and a subsequent restraint order issued under Section 168 of the Customs Act 1969. The Customs authorities had served a restraint order on a custodian preventing them from parting with six cases of imported machinery, on the ground that physical seizure was impracticable. The petitioner contended that the restraint order amounted to a seizure, and because the authorities failed to issue a show-cause notice under Section 180 within two months or provide grounds under Section 171, the detention became unlawful. The respondents argued that a restraint order does not constitute a physical seizure and thus the statutory time limits did not apply. The High Court of Sindh held that a restraint order issued under the latter part of Section 168(1) of the Customs Act 1969 has the same legal effect as a physical seizure, as it deprives the owner of the right to deal with the goods. Consequently, the statutory safeguards, including the two-month limitation for issuing a show-cause notice and the requirement to provide grounds, are fully applicable. Due to non-compliance, the restraint order was declared without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does a restraint order issued under Section 168(1) of the Customs Act 1969 on the ground of impracticability of physical seizure amount to a seizure of goods?
- Are the statutory time limits and safeguards under Section 168(2) and Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 applicable to a constructive seizure or restraint order?
- What is the legal consequence if the Customs authorities fail to issue a show-cause notice under Section 180 within two months of a restraint order?
- ILAM DIN vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER ETC.1983 SCMR 1141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition for non-prosecution, alongside a subsequent order rejecting the application for its restoration. The petitioner contended that the High Court's order contained factually incorrect recitals regarding previous hearings and non-appearances, asserting that earlier proceedings could not take place due to the learned Judge being on leave. The Supreme Court held that where the factual correctness of recitals in a judicial order is challenged, the appellate court cannot entertain or adjudicate upon such controverted questions of fact. The Court laid down the principle that disputed recitals in a judgment or order must be resolved by approaching the judge who passed the order through a review petition. Until such factual controversy is resolved, no legal basis for restoring the petition or interfering with the order can be established. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused with observations.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court adjudicate upon disputed factual recitals contained in a High Court order without the petitioner first seeking review before the same judge?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for a party claiming that recitals of non-appearance in a High Court order are factually incorrect?
- Can a petition dismissed for non-prosecution be restored when factual controversies regarding past appearances remain unresolved?
- ILAM DIN vs PIONEER STEEL MILLS1983 PLC 647 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
- ILAM DIN AND ANOTHER vs KARAM ELAHI AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3035 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-22Read full judgment →
- IKRAMULLAH KHAN vs N.-W.F. PROINCE THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER1983 PLC (C. S.) 812 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- IKRAMUL HAQ vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. LJ 12 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
- IKRAMUL HAQ AND Another vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 93 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- IKRAMUDDIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1589 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHARULLAH vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOOD, AGRICULTURE AND CO-1983 PLC (C. S.) 829 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- IFTIKHARUDDIN AND OTHERS vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER_MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 664 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-05Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR-UD-DIN vs TAJ DIN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 2544 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR vs THE STATE1983 PLD Supreme Court 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the petitioner's acquittal by the City Magistrate and convicted him under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing him to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question concerned whether the solitary statement of the injured complainant, challenged on grounds of alleged discrepancies with medical evidence and motive, was sufficient to sustain a conviction for assault, and whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no legal error in appraising the evidence, finding that the medical evidence corroborated the attack by multiple weapons and persons from close range, and that minor discrepancies in estimating distance or posture did not discredit the trustworthy identification of the assailant. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the solitary statement of an injured complainant is sufficient to sustain a conviction when corroborated by medical evidence?
- Does an estimated distance in the testimony of a witness, which slightly differs from medical opinion, discredit the entire prosecution case?
- Can a High Court's judgment reversing an acquittal be maintained when the appraisal of evidence is found to be free from legal error?
- IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1983 PLD Peshawar 37 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 1512 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-01Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMAD JAMAL vs THE STATE1983 PLD Federal Shariat Court 221 · Federal Shariat Court · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM vs TRUSTEE OF THE PORT OF KARACHI AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 3048 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-04Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 604 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM vs NIAZ ALI1983 CLC 1061 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS1983 CLC 1627 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM vs ASSTISTANT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1983 CLC 2967 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM ISMAIL vs BRIG. (RETD.) S. H. A. GARDEZI1983 PLD Karachi 154 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM AND OTHERS vs UMAR DIN AND OTHERS1983 CLC 3176 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-06Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM AND ANOTHER vs Mst. IRSHAD AKHTER ETC.1983 PLD Rev. 57 · Board of Revenue · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM AND 3 OTHERS vs Sheikh MUHAMMAD YUNUS AND 8 OTHERS1983 CLC 1603 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM AND 3 OTHERS vs Mst. KHATIJA1983 CLC 1409 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs WORKERS'. UNION1983 PLC 1068 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN JAVERI vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 102 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for quashment of proceedings was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Sind Prohibition Ordinance 1978 and Section 43(3) of the Sind Abkari Act. The prosecution alleged that two and a half bottles of wine were recovered from the petitioner's bedroom. The petitioner contended that the offence, if any, was non-cognizable under Section 9(2)(b) of the Sind Prohibition Ordinance 1978, and that the police could not have investigated the matter or arrested the petitioner without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court of Sindh held that because the liquor was recovered from a bedroom, the offence was non-cognizable. Consequently, the police had no authority to investigate without a magistrate's order under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering the trial court's cognizance without jurisdiction. The Court further ruled that the special Ordinance overrode the Abkari Act. The petition was allowed, and the proceedings were quashed.
Questions settled- Whether an offence under Section 4 of the Sind Prohibition Ordinance 1978 involving recovery of liquor from a bedroom is a cognizable or non-cognizable offence?
- Can the police investigate a non-cognizable offence under the Sind Prohibition Ordinance 1978 without complying with the provisions of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the Sind Prohibition Ordinance 1978 override the provisions of the Sind Abkari Act in respect of the same offence?
- HUSSAIN BAKHSH vs MUHMMAD AMIR AND Other1983 SCMR 800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the Lahore High Court, which reversed their conviction by the trial court for murder and rioting. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court correctly evaluated the ocular testimony and its consistency with medical evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding the High Court's reasoning sound. The Court held that the ocular testimony was unreliable, noting material discrepancies, significant improvements from the First Information Report, and the status of the witnesses as chance witnesses. Crucially, the oral account was found to be in direct conflict with medical evidence, which indicated the fatal shots were fired at close range, contradicting the witnesses' claims regarding the distance. Furthermore, the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive—abduction—undermined the case. The Court affirmed the principle that in capital cases, conviction cannot be sustained on ocular testimony that is inconsistent with medical evidence, suffers from material contradictions, or fails to inspire judicial confidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a conviction in a capital case be sustained when ocular testimony is in direct conflict with medical evidence?
- Does the presence of material improvements in testimony from the First Information Report render witness evidence unreliable?
- Is an appellate court justified in setting aside a conviction where the prosecution fails to establish the alleged motive?
- HUSSAIN BAKHSH AND OTHERS vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1983 CLC 407 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN BAKHSH AND 3 OTHORS vs NOOR MUHAMMAD AND Anothsrs1983 P Cr. L J 1585 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406, 419, and 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a private complaint. The core legal questions were whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process due to their civil nature and mala fide intent, and whether the petition was maintainable despite the applicants not first moving the trial court under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the proceedings were an abuse of process, as the dispute regarding the non-payment for livestock was clearly civil and the complaint was filed to harass the applicants amid ongoing matrimonial litigation. The Court further held that the petition was maintainable because the trial court had already formed a prima facie view by issuing process, rendering a Section 249-A application redundant. The key principle established is that criminal proceedings should be quashed when they are initiated with mala fide intent to harass and fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged criminal offenses.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
- Is a petition for quashment of proceedings maintainable under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the applicant has not first moved the trial court under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the issuance of process by a trial court after a preliminary inquiry bar the High Court from quashing the proceedings?
- HUSSAIN ALI. vs ANWAR AND 7 OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 2083 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
- Hussain Agha, Members Syed TAJAMUL HUSSAIN SHAH vs DIRECTOR-1983 PLC (C. S.) 696 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Hussain Agha, Members Mst. ISHRAT QURESHI vs DIRECTOR OF SCHOOLS1983 PLC (C. S.) 174 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- Hussain Agha, Members MAQBOOL ASIF BAJWA AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC (C. S.) 171 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-08-25Read full judgment →
- HUSN BANO BEGUM vs ZAKA ALI KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-09Read full judgment →
- HUSEIN INDUSTRIES vs COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX1983 PTD 114 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION vs PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1983 CLC 1428 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
- HOSTELLARIE-DE-FRANCE STAFF AND WORKERS' UNION vs MESSRS1983 PLC 1195 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
- HO ABDUL HAMEED vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ISLAM1983 CLC 970 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-11Read full judgment →
- HIRJINA & CO., (PAK.) LTD. AND Others vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND Another1983SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from petitions for leave to appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the levy of excise duty under section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioners contended that the excise duty levied on excisable services provided or rendered in relation to alcoholic liquor constitutes, in pith and substance, a duty on alcoholic liquor, thereby violating Entry 43(b) of the Third Schedule to the 1962 Constitution. It was further argued that levying excise duty on services rendered by hotels, restaurants, and bars is constitutionally impermissible. The Supreme Court observed that the constitutional questions raised regarding the scope of excise duty and legislative competence were of general public importance requiring an authoritative adjudication by the Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these substantial constitutional issues, directed that the appeals be heard on the present record with liberty to file additional documents, and issued notice to the Deputy Attorney-General regarding interim relief.
Questions settled- Whether excise duty levied on services rendered in relation to alcoholic liquor constitutes a duty on alcoholic liquor in pith and substance?
- Whether the levy of excise duty on services provided in relation to alcoholic liquor is barred by Entry 43(b) of the Third Schedule of the 1962 Constitution?
- Whether the Constitution permits the levy of excise duty on services rendered by hotels, restaurants, and bars?
- HIRACHAND vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HYDERABAD1983 PLC 696 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-09-04Read full judgment →
- HIDAYATULLAH AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 447 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
- HAYAT MUHAMMAD vs ZAHOOR UL HASSAN AND Other1983 SCMR 1089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court refusing to interfere with the order of the Settlement Commissioner, whereby the claim of the petitioner was negatived. The core legal question involves the propriety of the High Court's refusal to interfere with the factual and legal determinations made by the Settlement Commissioner in settlement proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the criticism levelled against the Settlement Commissioner's order does not affect its essential correctness, and consequently, no fault could be found with the High Court's decision to decline interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the superior courts will not interfere with orders of lower settlement authorities where such orders suffer from no legal infirmity or essential incorrectness.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to interfere with an order of the Settlement Commissioner when the order suffers from no essential incorrectness?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment declining to set aside a Settlement Commissioner's finding that lacks legal infirmity?
- HAYAT MUHAMMAD MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ BASHIR AHMED vs THE STATE The STATE AND The STATE (B) Penal Code (XLV Of 1860)1983 SCMR 551 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- HAYAT KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) LAHORE1983 CLC 1839 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- IMDADULLAH vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 218 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-07Read full judgment →
- IMDAD KHAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 205 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal petition challenging proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate could lawfully take cognizance and pass an order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on a police report that was vague, general in nature, and lacked specific evidence of prior convictions or cited witnesses. Upon review, the Court found that the police report contained only general allegations and that the pending cases listed against the applicant had not resulted in any convictions, nor had any prosecution witnesses been examined. Consequently, the Court held that the proceedings were initiated prematurely and constituted an abuse of the process of the trial Court. The Court quashed the pending proceedings and set aside the Magistrate's order, establishing the principle that proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be sustained on the basis of a vague, unsubstantiated police report without proper inquiry.
Questions settled- Can proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be initiated based on a vague and general police report?
- Is it legally permissible for a Magistrate to pass an order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without conducting a proper inquiry?
- Are proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered premature if they rely on pending cases that have not resulted in conviction?
- HASSAN vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 961 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
- HASSAN vs ALI AHMED AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- HASSAN MUHAMMAD vs SAID BEGUM AND ANOTHER1983 PLD SC (A & J K) 37 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-12-03Read full judgment →
- HASSAN MASOOD vs S. M. AHSAN1983 CLC 1218 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- HASSAN KHAN vs Mst. RAPE JANA1983 CLC 615 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
- HASSAN BAKHSH KHAN vs COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION, BAHAWALPUR1983 PLC (C. S.) 795 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- HASNA vs THE STATE1983 P Cr. L J 172 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
- HASIL BALUCH vs DEPUTY INSPECTORGENERAL (POLICE) CRIMES, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS1983 P Cr. L J 2357 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed an application seeking to punish police officials for contempt of court, alleging that they initiated a second investigation into a criminal case after a final report had already been submitted to the court. The core legal question was whether the police are legally barred from conducting a second or further investigation into the same crime once a final report under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has been submitted. The Court dismissed the application, holding that there is no legal prohibition against the police conducting a second investigation. The ratio established is that the police are not debarred from further investigation, as their statutory duty is to discover the truth, and the finality of an investigation stage cannot prevail at the expense of truth and justice. The key principle laid down is that while finality in investigation is desirable, it does not preclude the police from pursuing further evidence to ensure a fair determination of guilt or innocence, provided there is no imperative legal bar.
Questions settled- Is the police legally barred from conducting a second investigation into a crime after submitting a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the initiation of a second investigation by the police into a matter pending before a court constitute contempt of court?
- Can a Magistrate direct a further investigation by the police after the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case?
- HASHMAT BIBI AND OTHERS vs NAZIRAN AND ANOTHER1983 CLC 576 (2) · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1962-01-15Read full judgment →
- HASHAM AND Others vs THE STATE1983 PCr. LJ 2137 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
- HASEENA BANO vs MRS. MUMTAZ YOUNUS1983 CLC 511 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-17Read full judgment →
- HASAN MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) AND 4 OTHERS1983 CLC 2935 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
- HASAN ALI vs IMDADULLAH ABBASI1983 CLC 2997 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
- HAROON KHAN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENTPAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI1983 PLC 886 · Labour Court · 1979-05-13Read full judgment →