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 FEROZ AND Another vs THE STATE1982 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which convicted the petitioners for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained based on the testimony of interested eye-witnesses and the recovery of blood-stained weapons, despite the petitioners' arguments regarding the witnesses' relationship to the deceased, previous enmity, and the timing of the recoveries while in police custody. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which found the eye-witnesses to be truthful and corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of weapons stained with human blood, were not open to interference. The Court affirmed that the medical evidence regarding the time of death supported the prosecution's version of events, negating the defense's claim of a different time of occurrence. The key principle laid down is that where lower courts have concurrently accepted the credibility of related eye-witnesses supported by independent circumstantial evidence, the appellate court will not interfere with such findings of fact.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the credibility of eye-witnesses?
- Does the relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable in a murder trial?
- Is the recovery of blood-stained weapons from an accused in police custody admissible if corroborated by independent evidence?
- MUHAMMAD FAZIL AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 510 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs MESSRS OMERSONS, KARACHI1982 PLC 123 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs Haji MUSTAJAB KHAN1982 CLC 1581 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FARID vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, SIND AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C.S.) 408 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FARID KHAN vs Haji MIR ZAMAN KHAN1982 PLD Supreme Court 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a second appeal concerning the ejectment of a tenant from a shop in Mansehra. The respondent-landlord sought the ejectment of the appellant on the grounds of default in rent and personal requirement, specifically stating he needed the premises 'brai zaroorat khangi'. While the Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application, the District Judge allowed it on the ground of personal requirement, which was upheld by the High Court. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the need of the shop for the respondent's grandson fell within the expression 'for the use of any of his male children' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Supreme Court held that when the landlord's statement is read as a whole, the premises were required for his own personal use to support his deceased son's child, rendering the academic controversy regarding the interpretation of the word 'children' unnecessary. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement of a rented shop for the use of a landlord's grandson is covered by the expression 'for the use of any of his male children' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the term 'khangi' in an ejectment application signify personal or own use by the landlord?
- MUHAMMAD ETC. vs THB STATE AND ANOTHER1982 P Cr. L J 1237 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs NAZIR AHMAD1982 CLC 1737 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KAROR PAKKA1982 CLC 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KA ROR PAKKA1982 CLC 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DEEN MALIK AND Another vs IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI AND Other1982 SCMR 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court upholding an appellate order of the Additional District Judge, which had set aside an interim custody order passed by a Family Judge under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The core legal question concerns the competency and forum of appeal against interim orders passed by Family Courts in matters of guardianship and custody, specifically in light of the interaction between section 14 and section 25 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and the subsequent enactment of the Guardians and Wards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980. The Supreme Court noted a prior precedent holding that the right of appeal is governed by section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. However, the Court held that the contentions raised regarding the statutory redundancy and effect of the 1980 amending Ordinance on section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, raise a serious question of law requiring re-examination of the earlier precedent. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and modified the interim stay to regulate visitation rights for the mother.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal lies against an interim order passed under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, by a Family Court?
- Does section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, exclusively govern the right and forum of appeal in guardianship and minor custody matters?
- What is the effect of the Guardians and Wards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980, on the interpretation and applicability of section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in proceedings before Family Courts?
- MUHAMMAD BUX MEMON vs SIND GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 739 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BUX MEMON vs PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE BOARD, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC 841 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BUX AND ANOTHER vs Mst. RAFIQUAN1982 CLC 1919 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BUX AND Another vs GHULAM RASOOL1982 PLD Karachi 28 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge directing the ejectment of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The respondent had filed an ejectment application alleging default and personal requirement, which the appellant resisted by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and claiming to have entered into a purchase agreement with the previous owner. A preliminary issue on the relationship of landlord and tenant was decided against the appellant after evidence, following which the Rent Controller ordered ejectment for default without recording further evidence. The core legal question is whether a Rent Controller is invariably bound to record evidence on the question of default after deciding the preliminary issue of the relationship of landlord and tenant against a tenant who denied such relationship. The court held that if a tenant raises a frivolous objection or denies the landlord's title and fails to substantiate it with evidence, the Rent Controller is justified in passing an ejectment order on the ground of default straightaway without recording further evidence, as the factum of default stands proved by the unfounded denial.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller is bound to record evidence on the question of default after deciding the preliminary issue of the relationship of landlord and tenant against the tenant?
- Can an ejectment order be passed straightaway without recording evidence when a tenant raises a frivolous plea denying the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- Does a tenant's failure to substantiate a plea of purchase in evidence render their denial of landlord-tenant relationship frivolous?
- MUHAMMAD BIBI vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/DEPUTY1982 CLC 1685 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL1982 PLC (C. S.) 622 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs Mst. RAZIA SULTANA Etc.1982 PLD Lahore 90 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs GHULAM AKBAR1982 SCMR 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 18-4-1982, which reversed the District Judge's order and restored the trial court's decree in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerns whether a small plot purchased ostensibly for residential purposes, part of which continues to be used for agriculture and is reflected in the revenue records, can serve as a valid basis for a pre-emption claim, and whether the validity of the underlying sale under Martial Law Regulation 115 can be questioned in pre-emption proceedings. The Supreme Court held that since a portion of the land remains under agricultural use and the revenue record shows seasonal crops, and further noting that only the competent authority under M.L.R. 115 can examine the validity of a sale, the pre-emption suit was rightly decreed. The court laid down that the law of pre-emption is one of substitution, and questions regarding the violation of land reforms regulations cannot be adjudicated collaterally in pre-emption suits by civil courts.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption suit be maintained on the basis of ownership of land partly used for residential purposes and partly for agriculture?
- Whether a civil court hearing a pre-emption suit can examine the validity of a sale transaction under Martial Law Regulation 115?
- Is the law of pre-emption considered a law of substitution?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs CIRIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHER1982 CLC 2117 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2117 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1982 PLC (C. S.) 767 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND Another vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1982 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns a civil petition for special leave to appeal arising from rent restriction proceedings regarding premises in Sialkot, where a saw mill and timber stall were operated. The respondent landlord sought the ejectment of the petitioner tenant, initially for personal residential use and subsequently for business purposes. Following multiple rounds of litigation before the Rent Controller and appellate authorities, an ejectment order was eventually passed against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order before the Supreme Court, contending that the Rent Controller's decision was passed under Section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, which the petitioner argued rendered the order non-appealable. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the underlying application was filed under Section 13 for ejectment. The Court clarified that the nature of the application determines the applicable legal provision, and the mere erroneous citation of Section 14 by the Rent Controller did not remove the order from the scope of Section 13, which governs ejectment proceedings and allows for appeals. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Does the erroneous citation of Section 14 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance in an ejectment order render the order non-appealable if the application was filed under Section 13?
- Does the nature of the application or the section cited by the Rent Controller determine the appealability of an ejectment order?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, SGAD & I DEPTT1982 PLC (C. S.) 462 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHI R vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail appeal, granted special leave, challenged the Peshawar High Court's judgment upholding the appellant's conviction and death sentence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, for the murder of his first cousin. The appellant, a disappointed suitor, killed the deceased after she refused to elope. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that Exception 1 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code, was inapplicable as the provocation, though grave, was not sudden, and the victim was not the provocateur. The Court also rejected the argument for a lesser sentence based on the appellant being a dejected suitor or inflicting a solitary blow. However, the Court found considerable force in the plea for mitigation based on Islamic Jurisprudence, noting that the deceased's parents had accepted compensation and pardoned the appellant. The Court held that where statutory law grants discretion in sentencing, Islamic principles, including those concerning compensation and pardon, can guide the court. Consequently, the death sentence was set aside, and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life, with the fine also remitted due to the compensation settlement.
Questions settled- Can the acceptance of compensation and pardon by the aggrieved party be a mitigating circumstance for sentencing in a murder case under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can Islamic Jurisprudence and principles guide judicial discretion in sentencing where statutory law is silent or allows for discretion?
- Does Exception 1 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code, apply if the provocation was grave but not sudden, or if the victim was not the person who gave the provocation?
- Is the infliction of a solitary fatal blow a universal mitigating factor for a lesser sentence in murder cases?
- Can the conduct of the deceased's parents, leading to the appellant's desperation as a dejected suitor, be a mitigating circumstance for sentencing in a murder case?
- MUHAMMAD BANARAS vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1305 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH ETC. vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ETC.1982 SCMR 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from concurrent findings of the lower courts determining that a disputed document executed by the deceased was a will rather than a gift, resulting in the dismissal of the petitioners' suit to the extent of two-thirds and the dismissal of their subsequent civil revision by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent factual and legal findings under revisional jurisdiction, and whether the document constituted a gift or a will. The Supreme Court held that the civil revision before the High Court was incompetent because section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not empower the High Court to interfere with a subordinate court's decision merely due to a difference in opinion on questions of fact or law, unless there is a jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity. Furthermore, upon examining the document, the Court affirmed that it was indeed a will. The key principle laid down is that the High Court cannot utilize revisional jurisdiction to correct mere errors of fact or law or erroneous construction of documents by subordinate courts where jurisdiction has been lawfully exercised.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the conclusions of a subordinate court on questions of fact or law?
- Does section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorize the High Court to correct gross and palpable errors of subordinate courts?
- Whether a document designated as a gift constitutes a will upon proper construction?
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZIZULLAH QURESHI vs IQBAL UMAR AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 558 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZIZ vs Mst. AHMAD BANG1982 CLC 585 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZIZ ULLAH QURESHI vs IQBAL UMAR Etc1982 CLC 1081 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZIZ ULLAH QURESHI vs IQBAL UMAR arc.1982 CLC 1081 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZIZ KHAN AND Others vs Mst. AHMED BANO1982 CLC 1651 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZINI vs Ch. SIKANDAR KHAN ETC.1982 PLD Supreme Court 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a writ petition regarding an ejectment order. The petitioner-tenant sought to enforce a contractual covenant requiring the landlord to provide alternative accommodation prior to the reconstruction of the premises, a condition initially imposed by the Rent Controller but subsequently removed by the District Court. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction under the Rent Restriction Ordinance to enforce a contractual condition requiring a landlord to provide alternative accommodation to a tenant before commencing reconstruction, despite such a requirement not being explicitly provided for in the statute. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the Rent Controller lacks the jurisdiction to enforce such a condition. The Court reasoned that eviction proceedings are strictly governed by the provisions of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and since the statute does not mandate the provision of alternative accommodation prior to reconstruction, the Rent Controller cannot impose such a condition, regardless of the private agreement between the parties.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to enforce a contractual condition requiring a landlord to provide alternative accommodation to a tenant prior to the reconstruction of the premises?
- Are eviction proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance governed exclusively by the provisions of the Ordinance itself?
- Can a Rent Controller impose conditions on an eviction order that are not explicitly authorized by the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- MUHAMMAD AZAM vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 208 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZAM ALI vs SECRETARY (ESTABLISHMENT) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 177 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAROON AND ANOTHER vs DISTRICT FOOD CONTROLLER, BAHAWALPUR AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2234 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYYAZ vs S. P. MULTAN AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 451 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-01-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB vs WAPDA1982 PLC 108 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 694 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB RZVI AND 80 OTHERS vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND 351 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 242 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Muhammad Aslam, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, for the murder of his uncle, Mehdi Hassan, and sentenced to death, a conviction subsequently upheld by the High Court. The petitioner challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the testimony of eye-witnesses required independent corroboration due to alleged infirmities. The Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the conviction, finding the testimony of a key eye-witness, Abdul Sattar, credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction. However, the petitioner further contended that his age at the time of the occurrence (15-16 years) and the motive—avenging the murder of his father, which he believed was committed by the deceased—warranted a mitigation of the sentence. Relying on the precedent established in Ajun Shah v. The State, the Court found substance in the argument regarding the sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, but strictly limited the scope of the proceedings to the question of the appropriate sentence, leaving the conviction undisturbed.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of a single credible eye-witness?
- Does the young age of an offender and the motive of avenging a father's murder constitute valid grounds for mitigating a death sentence?
- Is the Supreme Court empowered to grant leave to appeal limited solely to the question of sentence?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs MUHAMMAD UMAR AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 107 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from the order of the VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi, which upheld the Rent Controller's order striking off the tenant's defence under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The landlord sought ejectment for non-payment of rent, while the tenant claimed to have deposited the rent in court, though a discrepancy in accounting led to a minor deficit. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller's order, which directed the tenant to deposit arrears minus the amount already deposited in a miscellaneous rent case without specifying the exact sum, complied with Section 13(6). The High Court held that Section 13(6) is penal in nature and must be strictly construed. Since the Controller failed to determine the approximate amount due and instead left the calculation to the tenant, the order was vague and not in strict conformity with the law. Consequently, the tenant could not be penalized for its non-compliance. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded.
Questions settled- Whether an order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is valid if it leaves the calculation of the rent deposit to the tenant?
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a rent deposit order that is vague or not in strict conformity with Section 13(6)?
- Does the Rent Controller have a duty to approximately determine the amount of rent due when there is a dispute regarding arrears?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs Mst. SAFIA BIBI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 22 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs KHUDA DAD1982 SCMR 511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil appeals arose out of two pre-emption suits filed by the appellant to challenge land sale transactions executed in favour of the respondent-vendee. The suits were instituted on 14-3-1970, whereas the vendee claimed to have acquired physical possession of the land prior to the attestation of mutations. The core legal question was whether the suits were barred by limitation, which turned on whether entries made in the Khasra Girdawari by the Girdawar Kanungo carried a presumption of correctness regarding the date of change in physical possession. The District Judge and the High Court held that the suits were time-barred based on the revenue record entries showing possession in Rabi 1968. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that while entries in the Khasra Girdawari do not carry the same statutory presumption as annual revenue records under the Land Revenue Act, a presumption of correctness and regularity arises under Section 114 of the Evidence Act 1872 when such entries are made by official record-keepers acting in the ordinary course of duty.
Questions settled- Does an entry in the Khasra Girdawari made by a Girdawar Kanungo in the ordinary course of official duty carry a presumption of correctness under Section 114 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Whether entries in the Khasra Girdawari carry the same statutory presumption of truth as annual revenue records under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Can a suit for pre-emption be held time-barred on the basis of unrebutted revenue entries showing physical possession taken by the vendee more than a year prior to the suit?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs ABDUL JABBAR1982 CLC 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHEIKH vs ROSHAN KHAN AND OTHERS- Respondents1982 P Cr. L J 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM ETC. AND MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs THE STATE1982 SCMR 709 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against their conviction for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, specifically the reliability of eye-witnesses, the significance of medical evidence regarding the time of death based on the presence of faecal matter, and the impact of alleged discrepancies in recovery witness testimony. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was well-founded based on the consistent eye-witness testimony, established motive, and medical evidence confirming the use of two distinct weapons. The Court rejected the petitioners' arguments, clarifying that the presence of faecal matter does not definitively contradict the time of death without specific analysis of quantity, and that minor discrepancies in recovery witness testimony do not undermine the entire prosecution case. Furthermore, the Court affirmed its discretion to deny the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in cases involving severe violence. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Does the presence of faecal matter in the intestines of a deceased person necessarily disprove the time of death alleged by the prosecution?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on eye-witness testimony and motive even if recovery evidence is contested?
- Is the court required to grant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in all murder cases?
- Does a minor discrepancy between recovery witnesses regarding the location of joining the investigation invalidate the recovery evidence?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM DAR vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SAHIWAL AND 21982 PLC (C. S.) 420 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Others vs IJAZ AHMAD AND Other1982 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed in limine a regular first appeal arising from a suit for possession through pre-emption. The trial court had previously decided the suit against the petitioners under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to their repeated failure to adduce evidence despite multiple adjournments. While the Supreme Court acknowledged the general legal principle that a regular first appeal should not typically be dismissed in limine, it declined to interfere in this specific instance. The Court held that the petitioners' conduct before the trial court was contumacious and represented a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings. Furthermore, the High Court had reviewed the available record, including the shajra nasab, which established the respondents' superior right of pre-emption. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the case was not a fit one for the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, affirming the lower court's decision based on the petitioners' obstructive behavior and the merits of the underlying pre-emption claim.
Questions settled- Can a regular first appeal be dismissed in limine if the appellant's conduct in the trial court was contumacious?
- Does the failure to adduce evidence despite multiple adjournments justify a decision under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal if a High Court dismisses an appeal in limine despite the existence of a valid legal argument?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE STATE THE STATE1982 SCMR 928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Another vs THE STATE AND 3 Other1982 SCMR 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, originating from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, addressed the sufficiency of corroboration for eyewitness testimony in an attempted murder case under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolved around whether the testimony of interested and hostile witnesses could sustain a conviction without independent corroboration, particularly when an independent eyewitness contradicted the prosecution's version and an accused established a plea of alibi. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court was justified in setting aside the convictions, finding that the ocular account was tainted by deep-seated enmity, uncorroborated by reliable recoveries, and directly contradicted by a disinterested witness whose testimony had been improperly brushed aside by the trial court. The key principle laid down is that corroborative evidence in criminal trials must specifically point to the participation of the particular accused, and testimony from interested witnesses cannot form the basis of a conviction when contradicted by reliable independent evidence and unshaken pleas of alibi.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an interested and inimical eyewitness can be accepted without independent corroboration?
- Does the recovery of empty pellets from the crime scene constitute sufficient corroboration to identify individual assailants?
- What is the legal standard of proof required when an accused raises a plea of alibi?
- Can a prosecution witness be legally declared hostile without being properly confronted with their previous police statement?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 5 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr, L J 500 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Alias CHHACHHI vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of Muhammad Miskeen, for which he was sentenced to death by the trial court, with a subsequent fine imposed by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony identifying the appellant at the scene and whether the sentence of death should be commuted to life imprisonment given the appellant's motive of avenging his brother's murder, which occurred when the appellant was a child. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular evidence credible and the arrest of the appellant at the scene with the weapon of offense established. However, applying the principle laid down in Ajun Shah v. The State, the Court held that where a murder is committed out of a long-standing obsession to avenge a family member's death, a lesser penalty is appropriate. Consequently, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment and increased the fine to Rs. 25,000, payable as compensation to the heirs of the deceased under the relevant criminal procedure provisions.
Questions settled- Does a long-standing obsession to avenge a family member's murder constitute grounds for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Is ocular testimony sufficient for conviction when the accused is apprehended at the scene of the crime with the weapon of offense?
- Can an appellate court enhance the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court?
- MUHAMMAD ASIF KHAN AND Another vs MUBARAK AHMED1982 PLD Karachi 557 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 challenged an order of the Rent Controller allowing an eviction application filed under section 15 of the Ordinance on the ground of personal bona fide use. The core legal question was whether a landlord residing in rented premises is legally entitled to seek the eviction of a tenant from their own property on the ground of good faith personal requirement, and whether occupying a rented house constitutes a bar under the law. The court held that a landlord's occupation of a rented house does not disqualify them from seeking eviction of a tenant from their own premises, and that paying higher rent for rented accommodation while receiving lesser rent from the tenant supports the honesty and reasonableness of the landlord's personal need. The key principle laid down is that the expression 'another residential building' in rent restriction legislation refers to a building owned by the landlord and does not extend to cover rented premises, meaning a landlord living in a rented house is not barred from seeking eviction of their tenant for personal occupation.
Questions settled- Does the occupation of a rented house by a landlord bar them from seeking the eviction of a tenant from their own property for personal use?
- What constitutes 'good faith' under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the context of personal requirement?
- Whether the phrase 'another residential building' in rent restriction laws includes premises occupied by a landlord as a tenant?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAR AND 5 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF- vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had recorded convictions and sentences against the appellant, Muhammad Ashraf. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court were sustainable in law. Upon consideration of the case, the Supreme Court, acting according to the opinion of the majority of the bench, dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions and sentences previously recorded by the High Court. The judgment serves as a final adjudication confirming the lower court's findings of guilt and the associated sentencing, effectively concluding the appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to uphold convictions and sentences recorded by the High Court in an appeal?
- What is the effect of a majority opinion in an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs The STATE1982 SCMR 626 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court refusing to confirm pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of forgery. The petitioner had filed a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property, after which the defendants registered an F.I.R. against him for forgery under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the criminal prosecution, initiated while the civil suit regarding the genuineness of the agreement was sub judice, constituted an abuse of process justifying pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that the criminal case appeared to be a tactic to exert pressure on the petitioner regarding the civil dispute. Furthermore, the High Court erred by refusing bail based on procedural deficiencies rather than addressing the merits of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and confirmed the petitioner's bail. The judgment establishes that initiating criminal proceedings to pressure a party in a pending civil suit constitutes an abuse of the process of law, warranting the grant of pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Does the initiation of criminal proceedings during the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same subject matter constitute an abuse of process?
- Is the failure to produce a document before the High Court sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail when the document is already part of the judicial record?
- Can a criminal prosecution be used as a tool to exert pressure on a party involved in a civil dispute?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JHANG1982 PLC (C. S.) 737 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs ABDUL HAMEED AND Other1982 SCMR 237(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an eviction order. The petitioner, a tenant, contested his eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and the landlord's personal need for the property. The core legal questions were whether the tenant could challenge the landlord's title after receiving a notice of transfer under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, whether the service of such notice was legally sufficient in a tenancy-in-common scenario, and whether the finding of personal need was reviewable. The Supreme Court held that the tenant's conduct in depositing rent in the name of the previous landlord, despite formal notice of transfer, was contumacious. The Court affirmed the eviction, ruling that a tenant cannot unilaterally challenge the title of a transferee landlord, especially after acknowledging the notice by depositing rent. Furthermore, the Court held that findings of fact regarding personal need by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction are not subject to review in constitutional jurisdiction, and a tenant who acts upon a notice cannot later challenge its service.
Questions settled- Can a tenant unilaterally challenge the title of a transferee landlord after receiving a formal notice of transfer?
- Is a finding of fact regarding personal need by a Rent Controller reviewable in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can a tenant who acts upon a notice of transfer subsequently challenge the validity of its service?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF QADRI vs PRINCIPAL, KING EDWARD MEDICAL COLLEGE1982 PLD Supreme Court 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal, which had upheld the dismissal of a writ petition relating to the cancellation of the petitioner's admission to King Edward Medical College, Lahore. The petitioner had repeatedly appeared in the F.Sc. (Pre-medical) examination across multiple educational boards to improve his marks, ultimately securing admission based on marks obtained from the Sargodha Board after failing to disclose his prior appearances and submitting a false affidavit to the college authorities. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's concealment of facts, submission of a false affidavit, and non-compliance with rules regarding improvement of marks justified the cancellation of his admission and the refusal of constitutional relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner made false statements and withheld material facts regarding his academic history, thereby coming to court with unclean hands and disentitling himself to discretionary relief. The court laid down the principle that the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court and the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court will not be exercised in favour of a litigant who attempts to secure admissions or relief through misrepresentation and falsehood.
Questions settled- Whether a candidate seeking admission to a medical college is required to disclose prior intermediate examinations passed from different educational boards?
- Does the submission of a false affidavit regarding past academic attempts disentitle a petitioner from invoking the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Whether the High Court's refusal to grant relief under its writ jurisdiction to a petitioner with unclean hands is legally sustainable?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN vs Mst. PAHMIDA KHANUM1982 PLD Supreme Court 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning ejectment proceedings initiated on the grounds of default in rent and personal requirement. The core legal question revolves around whether a Rent Controller is competent to extend the time for depositing arrears of rent after an unsuccessful appeal against an interim deposit order under rent restriction laws, and how the time period for deposit is computed following the vacation of a stay order. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller has no authority to extend the time upon the dismissal of an appeal; rather, it is only the Appellate Court that may grant reasonable time. Upon the dismissal of an appeal, the original deposit order is restored, and the tenant must perform the act within the remaining balance of the originally allotted time after excluding the period covered by the stay. The key principle laid down is that the dismissal of an appeal revives the original order, and any unexpired time for compliance resumes from the date of the appellate decision, while the original forum cannot independently enlarge such time.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller extend the time for depositing arrears of rent after an appeal against the deposit order has been dismissed?
- What is the effect of the dismissal of an appeal on the time originally fixed for the performance of an act whose operation was stayed?
- Whether a tenant's defence can be struck off for failing to deposit rent within the remaining balance of the original time limit after an unsuccessful appeal?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 691 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND Others vs BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other1982 SCMR 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, numbering two hundred and seventy-two, sought leave to appeal against the judgments of the Lahore High Court dismissing their constitutional petitions. They claimed to be lessees of Government land under the ten years scheme promulgated under section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act of 1912 and sought extension of their leases based on a policy letter dated 25-5-1976. Their claims were dismissed by the High Court because the policy expressly excluded Cholistan area allotees and they failed to place copies of their pending applications on record. The Supreme Court observed that the genuineness of the alleged leases and allotments involved disputed questions of fact which could not be scrutinized in constitutional jurisdiction, and that the High Court rightly declined to issue directions in the absence of necessary documents. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the impugned order suffered from no legal infirmity and refused leave to appeal, laying down that disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of land allotments cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of land allotments be examined in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether a constitutional petition can be maintained for the disposal of pending applications without establishing entitlement and placing relevant documents on record?
- MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ vs SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ENGINEERING SEATS Etc.1982 CLC 2383 (2) · Balochistan High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASGHAR KHAN vs DISTRICT JUDGE SAHIWAL AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2127 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AS LAM vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 727 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN1982 PLC (C. S.) 81 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARIF vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the offence of rape under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question is whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix when that testimony is riddled with material contradictions, lacks corroboration, and is directly refuted by the prosecutrix's own husband, who appeared as a defence witness. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was inherently improbable and relied on unreliable testimony. The Court found that the lower courts misread the evidence and drew incorrect inferences. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on the solitary, uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix that is inherently absurd and contradicted by other evidence, including the testimony of the complainant's own husband, such evidence cannot form the basis for a criminal conviction.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for rape be sustained on the solitary, uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix when that testimony is inherently improbable and contradicted by other evidence?
- Does the testimony of a husband contradicting the prosecutrix's version of events undermine the prosecution's case in a Zina charge?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the lower courts have misread the evidence and drawn incorrect inferences from the record?
- MUHAMMAD ARIF AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 65 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AQEEL AHMAD SIDDIQI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1982 SCMR 386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal filed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed an Intra Court Appeal, thereby upholding a previous order that dismissed a constitutional petition. The petition before the Supreme Court was significantly delayed, being filed 38 days late against the Division Bench order and 261 days late against the Single Judge order. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, citing a medical condition supported by a certificate. The Supreme Court examined the application and found it insufficient. The Court held that the medical certificate did not justify the delay because evidence on record demonstrated that the petitioner was actively attending to the case and obtaining certified copies during the period of alleged illness. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide an explanation for the delay covering each day of the limitation period. Consequently, the Court rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the petition as time-barred, affirming the principle that a party seeking condonation must explain each day of the delay.
Questions settled- Is a medical certificate sufficient to condone a significant delay in filing an appeal if the record shows the petitioner was otherwise active in the case?
- Does the law require an applicant seeking condonation of delay to explain each day of the limitation period?
- Can a petition be dismissed as time-barred if the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the entire duration of the delay?
- MUHAMMAD ANWER THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE vs ABDUL1982 SCMR 1120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan upholding the striking off of the appellant tenant's defence in rent proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was justified in striking off the appellant's defence for non-payment of rent without first deciding the additional issue regarding the maintainability of the ejectment application following intermediate changes in the property's transfer status. The Supreme Court held that since the tentative rent-fixing order had attained finality and the appellant admitted being inducted as a tenant by the respondent, the appellant was estopped under section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 from denying the respondent's title as landlord. Consequently, upon the appellant's default in paying subsequent rent, the Rent Controller had no alternative under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance but to strike off the defence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller is bound to decide an additional issue regarding the maintainability of an ejectment application before striking off a tenant's defence for non-payment of rent?
- Can a tenant who was inducted by a landlord subsequently repudiate the landlord's title in view of section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872?
- What is the consequence under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 when a tenant fails to comply with a final tentative rent deposit order?
- MUHAMMAD ANWER SHAHZAD vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND 2 OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 133 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LAHORE AND 21982 PLC 342 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs MUHAMMAD AYUB1982 CLC 1805 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 130 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AND 6 OTHERS vs MESSRS UNITED SILK MILLS AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC 63 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-07-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1982 CLC 313 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 223 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMJAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 884 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMJAD MIR vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH AND ANOTHER_Respondents1982 CLC 2634 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMJAD MIR vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2634 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 953 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN vs GHULAM NABI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 888 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1982 PLC (C, S.) 42 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1981-10-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN ETC. vs GHAUS BAKHSH1982 CLC 456 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J I10 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMAN AND 2 OTHERS vs ATTA MUHAMMAD AND Another1982 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition relating to a land settlement dispute. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners were condemned unheard during review proceedings and whether a remand order could be reviewed after statutory powers of review were withdrawn. The Supreme Court held that the absence of a hearing at the initial stage of granting permission to review was inconsequential when a full hearing was afforded during the actual review proceedings, and that an illegal remand order passed without hearing can be recalled without amounting to a review. Furthermore, the Court held that petitioners whose own conduct involves delay, default, and misrepresentation are not entitled to discretionary constitutional relief. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether absence of hearing at the time of granting permission to review vitiates the subsequent review order when a full hearing was provided?
- Does recalling an illegal remand order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing amount to a review?
- Is a petitioner guilty of delay, default, and misrepresentation entitled to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- MUHAMMAD ALTAF AND Others vs DECO LID. AND OTHER1982 CLC 1970 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALTA F AND Others vs PECO LID. AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1970 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs The STATE1982 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased by inflicting a single knife blow, resulting in a death sentence confirmed by the High Court. Leave to appeal was granted solely to consider whether mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a reduction of the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether a single fatal blow resulting from a sudden altercation over a petty matter, following a brief interval, constitutes a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence. The Supreme Court held that no extenuating circumstances existed, noting that the appellant left the scene, armed himself with a knife, returned after half million minutes demonstrating premeditation, and intentionally targeted a vital organ (the chest). The court upheld the conviction and the death sentence, dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a single knife blow given after a brief interval constitutes a mitigating circumstance for reducing a sentence of death to life imprisonment?
- Does returning armed with a weapon after an initial altercation demonstrate premeditation precluding leniency in sentencing?
- Can a dying declaration corroborated by independent eye-witnesses sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs Syed ASGHAR ALI IMAM1982 CLC 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHER1982 CLC 2154 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs POST MASTER GENERAL1982 PLC (C. S.) 757 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-09-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs MUHAMMAD ALI AND Another1982 SCMR 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiracy to abduct and murder the husband of his co-accused. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly in granting bail, given the arguments regarding the lack of direct evidence and the delay in lodging the First Information Report. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the High Court had correctly identified the absence of direct evidence and the significant delay in reporting the incident, which cast doubt on the prosecution's case at the prima facie stage. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error in the High Court's reasoning or the exercise of its judicial discretion. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the bail order was justified and declined to interfere, affirming the principle that appellate courts will not disturb a bail order unless the lower court's discretion was exercised arbitrarily or erroneously.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in granting bail when there is no direct evidence against the accused?
- Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR constitute a valid ground for granting bail?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a bail order granted by the High Court?
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs MANZOOR AHMAD AND Other1982 SCMR 1186 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the Lahore High Court’s acquittal of respondents in a case involving a fatal altercation over water rights. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's case due to minor infirmities, and how to determine criminal liability in a sudden, unplanned fight where both parties sustained injuries. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to discharge its duty to analyze the evidence and circumstances. The Court determined the incident was a sudden fight, invoking Exception IV to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than premeditated murder. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittals, convicting the respondents under Section 304 and Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that in cases of sudden fights or where direct evidence is incomplete, courts must not be deterred by the narrative's incompleteness. Instead, they must perform an onerous duty to draw reasonable inferences from established facts, the nature of injuries, and surrounding circumstances to ascertain criminal liability.
Questions settled- Does a sudden, unplanned fight over water rights fall under Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a court required to determine criminal liability based on circumstantial evidence and injuries when direct evidence is incomplete or conflicting?
- Can an appellate court convict an accused for a lesser offense under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after setting aside an acquittal for murder?
- MUHAMMAD ALI vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1982 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of retirement issued by the Pakistan Railways against the petitioner, a Junior Welfare Officer, under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, or as a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, thereby exempting him from the purview of the former. The court examined the nature of the petitioner's duties, noting that his role involved significant outdoor responsibilities, including labour inspections and court appearances, rather than being confined to an administrative office. The court held that the petitioner fell within the definition of a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Consequently, the retirement order issued under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, was declared illegal and without lawful authority. The key principle established is that the classification of a railway employee as a 'workman' versus a 'civil servant' depends on whether their duties are permanently confined to an administrative office or involve substantial outdoor functions.
Questions settled- Does a railway employee whose duties involve outdoor work qualify as a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
- Is a Junior Welfare Officer (Labour) in the Pakistan Railways considered a 'civil servant' for the purposes of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- What is the test for determining whether a railway employee is permanently employed in an administrative office for the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
- MUHAMMAD ALI SI DDI QUI vs AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC 578 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN vs AYAZ MUHAMMAD AND Other1982 SCMR 973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a property dispute concerning whether a property in Multan was a house or a shop under settlement operations. The petitioner's father had obtained a P.T.O. for the property, but it was subsequently treated as a shop and auctioned to private respondents. Following previous remand proceedings by the Supreme Court to determine the nature of the property, the Settlement Commissioner found that the property was indeed a shop situated in a commercial area, a finding upheld by the High Court in a writ petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with a concurrent finding of fact regarding the classification of the property. The Supreme Court held that the finding of fact by the Settlement Commissioner, based on evidence including admissions and commercial usage, was within his exclusive jurisdiction and unassailable in constitutional jurisdiction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with a finding of fact given by the Settlement Commissioner regarding the nature of a property?
- Does a finding that a disputed property is a shop rather than a house preclude its transfer under the Settlement Scheme when the claimant already holds another shop?