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.
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 773 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 1301 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN AND Another vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1212 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants challenged the conviction, citing discrepancies in eyewitness testimony regarding the number of shots fired, the failure to mention crime empties in the First Information Report (FIR), the validity of the Ballistic Expert’s report, and a delay in lodging the FIR. The Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts, such as the number of shots fired in quick succession, do not necessarily undermine the credibility of witnesses. The Court further ruled that the failure to mention crime empties in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution. Regarding the Ballistic Expert's report, the Court established that under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, such reports are admissible; if a report is perceived as deficient, the defense must challenge it during the trial to allow for rectification, and cannot raise such objections for the first time at the appellate stage. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy in the number of shots fired by an accused in eyewitness testimony necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Can an objection to the sufficiency of a Ballistic Expert's report be raised for the first time at the appellate stage?
- Is the failure to mention the recovery of crime empties in the First Information Report fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful?
- KHADIM ALI AND 3 Other vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Lahore 512 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-10Read full judgment →
- Kh. TAH MAHMOOD AND OTHERS vs Syed RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH AND ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 903 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1981-06-05Read full judgment →
- Kh. MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Others vs Ch. MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND Other1982 SCMR 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a dispute between two brothers regarding the partition of a jointly transferred house. Initially, both parties filed a joint application for partition, which was accepted by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner based on an agreed mode of partition. Subsequently, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner issued an ex parte order effecting a fresh partition, which was challenged by the respondent. While the respondent's appeal and revision failed, the High Court accepted his writ petition, holding that the partition originally agreed upon and effected by compromise between the two brothers was binding on them. On further petition, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the factual controversies raised did not warrant interference and that the partition approved by the High Court based on the parties' compromise was just, proper, and legally binding.
Questions settled- Whether a partition of property effected by mutual compromise between co-owners is legally binding on them?
- Can a settlement authority unilaterally alter a partition scheme previously agreed upon by the parties through a joint application?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's decision in a writ petition when the grounds raised relate primarily to factual controversies?
- Kh. MAHMOOD AHMAD vs MINISTRY OF EDUCATION1982 PLC (C. S.) 554 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-01-24Read full judgment →
- Kh. Ghulam Qadir, Member Sardar SAJAWAL KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT1982 PLC (C. S.) 748 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1982-08-20Read full judgment →
- KENNETH DEAN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs ARCHIE DEAN AND Another1982 PLD Karachi 705 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
- KAZIM ALI vs Mst. MUSHARAF BANO1982 CLC 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- KAZIM ALI vs Mst. MUSHARAF BANG1982 CLC 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- KASSIM vs Mst. SAFOORAN1982 CLC 1512 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
- KARIMULLAH vs Mir KHALILUR REHMAN AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 617 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-21Read full judgment →
- KARIM DAD KHAN vs GHULAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2012 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
- KARIM DAD KHAN Appellate vs GHULAM HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2012 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
- KARIM BAKHSH ETC. vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 421 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
- KARAMAT HUSSAIN AND Others ABDUL SATTAR AND Others vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB AND Other RAZA ALI AND 3 Other1982 SCMR 897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions for leave to appeal arose from a Service Tribunal judgment upholding the dismissal of police officers who refused to comply with transfer orders to the Federal Security Force. The petitioners contended that their dismissal was illegal due to procedural flaws, including the use of loudspeakers for show-cause notices, and alleged discriminatory treatment compared to colleagues who were reinstated. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' defiance of transfer orders could be justified as a protest and whether the dismissal process violated natural justice. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that members of a disciplined force are obligated to obey orders first and seek redress through appropriate legal forums afterward. The Court found the petitioners' defiance unjustified and the procedural objections untenable, as the petitioners themselves had refused to accept service. The Court further ruled that the case did not involve a substantial question of law of public importance, a prerequisite for granting leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
Questions settled- Whether a member of a disciplined force can justify the defiance of a transfer order on the ground of unfulfilled assurances of absorption?
- Is the service of a show-cause notice via loudspeaker legally valid when the employee refuses to accept the notice?
- Does the dismissal of a police officer for refusing a transfer order constitute a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- KARAMALI JAMALI AND 5 Others vs FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI1982 CLC 689 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-13Read full judgment →
- KARAM ELAHI vs The STATE1982 SCMR 907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by Karam Elahi against his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Fateh Khatoon, which resulted in a sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine enhanced under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the credibility of an eye-witness belonging to a lower socio-economic status ('Mueen') and the sufficiency of ocular testimony corroborated by eye-witnesses to sustain a murder conviction despite the rejection of a recovery weapon and a motive primarily attributed to an acquitted co-accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the testimony of a witness cannot be discredited merely on the ground of social status or alleged influence, especially when no material contradictions exist and the witnesses have no motive for false substitution. The key principle laid down is that the status of a witness as a 'Mueen' does not inherently render them untruthful, and ocular testimony from natural witnesses, if reliable and consistent, remains sufficient to uphold a criminal conviction.
Questions settled- Does the status of a witness as a 'Mueen' render their testimony regarding a murder occurrence inherently incredible?
- Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the alleged weapon recovery is disbelieved?
- Does the absence of a direct motive ascribed to a specific accused invalidate an otherwise reliable eyewitness account of the crime?
- KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. vs KUNDAN KHAN1982 PLC 676 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- KARACHI ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1982 PLC 754 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
- KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs ALI HUSSAIN1982 CLC 93 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute between the Karachi Municipal Corporation and a respondent regarding the nature of the respondent's occupation of certain premises. The respondent filed a suit seeking a declaration of tenancy and a permanent injunction against eviction, arguing they were tenants, while the appellant contended the respondent was a mere licensee. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Judge reversed this decision, declaring the respondent a tenant. The core legal question was whether the respondent's status was that of a tenant or a licensee, and whether the suit was maintainable as a representative suit. The High Court held that the appellant failed to prove the alleged license agreement (Exh. 32) because its execution was not properly established under the law. Conversely, the respondent's evidence (Exh. 7 and 9) demonstrated the payment and acceptance of rent, establishing a tenancy. The Court further held that because the trial court never granted permission for a representative suit under Order I, Rule 8, the decree could only bind the individual respondent, not the entire class of occupants.
Questions settled- Does the delivery of exclusive possession of premises necessarily create a tenancy rather than a license?
- Can a document be admitted into evidence if its execution is not proved in accordance with the Evidence Act?
- Is a decree in a representative suit sustainable if the court never granted formal permission under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the acceptance of rent by a property owner establish a tenancy relationship?
- KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL1982 PLC 541 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
- KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. vs MUHAMMAD KUTTY AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2421 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
- KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL1982 PLD SC 125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals, by special leave, arise from a judgment of the High Court of Sind dismissing constitutional petitions challenging orders of re-instatement passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission in favor of employees whose services were terminated or who were dismissed for misconduct. The core legal question was whether the power of a "specified authority" to "regulate" wages and other conditions of service under section 6(1) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and rule 3(1) of the Rules of 1962 includes the power to adjudicate individual employment disputes and order re-instatement. The Supreme Court held that the power to "regulate" does not encompass the power to adjudicate disputes or provide a forum for resolving grievances regarding termination, discharge, or dismissal. The Court laid down the principle that the statutory scheme of the Act is penal in nature, where violations of rules or directions are punishable as offences through specific mechanisms under sections 6(2) and 7, and the specified authority cannot assume judicial or adjudicatory functions to redress individual service grievances.
Questions settled- Does the power to regulate wages and conditions of service under section 6(1) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 include the power to adjudicate individual employment disputes?
- Can a specified authority under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 entertain a petition for re-instatement and pass orders thereon?
- Whether the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 provide a forum for adjudicating service grievances or treat violations as penal offences under section 7?
- KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD vs AHMED AND 2 OTHERS1982 PLC 36 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Haji GHULAM ALI AND 58 OTHERS1982 CLC 1894 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Haji GHULAM ALI AND 58 OTHER1982 CLC 1894 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- KANIZ FATIMA vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1982 CLC 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-24Read full judgment →
- KANIYALAL vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1982 CLC 1106 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against a tenant on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. Regarding default, the Court examined whether the tenant had defaulted under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Relying on the principle that upon the expiry of a tenancy agreement, the tenant becomes a statutory tenant governed by the Ordinance, the Court found that the 60-day grace period for payment had not elapsed before the rent application was filed; thus, no default occurred. Regarding personal bona fide requirement, the Court held that the burden of proof rests on the landlord to substantiate the need. A bare assertion by the landlord is insufficient, especially when the landlord previously constructed and rented out the premises. Because the landlord failed to provide a plausible explanation for why the premises were rented out in 1977 but suddenly required for personal use in 1980, the Court set aside the ejectment order, ruling that the landlord failed to prove bona fide requirement.
Questions settled- Does a tenant become a statutory tenant upon the expiry of a tenancy agreement?
- Is a landlord's bare assertion sufficient to prove personal bona fide requirement for eviction?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish personal bona fide requirement in a rent case?
- Can a rent application for default be maintained if filed before the expiry of the statutory period for payment?
- KANEEZ FATIMA vs ABDUL WAHEED AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 374 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
- KAMAL DIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC.S1982 SCMR 772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal challenging orders relating to the transfer of a shop under settlement laws. The transfer was originally finalized and a Permanent Transfer Deed (P. T. D.) was issued in 1968. Subsequently, in 1974, the Settlement Commissioner annulled the transfer in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction without notice to the P. T. D. holders, prompting writ petitions that were dismissed by the High Court. The core legal question is whether settlement authorities retain the jurisdiction to re-open a matter and cancel a transfer after a P. T. D. has been issued, particularly in view of conflicting precedents regarding the effect of the deletion of rules 6 and 7 of the Permanent Transfer (Houses and Shops) Rules, 1961. The Supreme Court noted a clear conflict in its past judgments as to whether deletion of rule 7 foreclosed the jurisdiction to uncover fraud and illegalities, and consequently granted leave to appeal in both petitions for reconsideration of the point involved. The key principle centers on the finality of a P. T. D. and the extent of the functus officio status of settlement authorities.
Questions settled- Whether the Settlement authorities could, after the P. T. D. had issued, re-open the matter?
- Does the deletion of rule 7 of the Permanent Transfer (Houses and Shops) Rules, 1961 foreclose the jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities to uncover cases of fraud and illegalities?
- Do Settlement authorities become functus officio after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- KALLU KHAN vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 403 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-28Read full judgment →
- KALEY KHAN vs SULLEMAN AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 828 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-07Read full judgment →
- KALEY KHAN vs Mst. ZAITOON BEGUM1982 SCMR 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, District Judge, and the High Court, ordering his eviction from the disputed property on grounds of default in rent payment and personal need of the landlady. The core legal question involves whether the lower forums misread and improperly construed the rent receipts produced by the tenant to establish payment. The Supreme Court held that upon examination, the receipts themselves demonstrated that the tenant was indeed a defaulter in the payment of rent. The court concluded that the case rested entirely on concurrent findings of fact and presented no merit, thereby dismissing the petition for special leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Do rent receipts showing non-payment constitute valid proof of default under rent laws?
- KALEY KHAN vs JAMIA MASJID AKSE JAMIL1982 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit arrears and future rent, but upon the tenant's failure to comply, the tenant's defence was struck off, and an eviction order was passed. Subsequent appeals and a constitutional petition filed by the tenant were dismissed by the lower courts and the High Court, respectively. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the tenant's failure to deposit rent could be excused on the grounds that his counsel had temporarily left the courtroom with permission and was unaware of the order passed during his absence. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings, holding that the counsel's absence did not absolve the tenant of his liability. The Court affirmed the principle that it is the professional duty of counsel to ascertain the status of proceedings and orders passed in their cases, and failure to do so constitutes negligence attributable to the client. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the temporary absence of a counsel from the courtroom excuse a client's failure to comply with a court order for rent deposit?
- Is a client bound by the negligence of their counsel in failing to ascertain the status of court proceedings?
- Can a tenant avoid the consequences of an eviction order for non-payment of rent by claiming ignorance of the underlying deposit order?
- KALEY KHAN vs CHARAGH DIN1982 CLC 932 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
- KALEY KHAN vs CHARAG.H DIN1982 CLC 932 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
- KALAN KHAN vs THE STATE-1982 P Cr. L J 149 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
- KALA vs The STATE1982 SCMR 1221 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Kala, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld his conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner killed the deceased, Isa, following a dispute over marital exchanges. The petitioner admitted to the occurrence but pleaded the right of self-defense, claiming the deceased attacked him first, and presented medical evidence of injuries sustained during the incident. The trial court and the High Court rejected the defense version, relying on the testimony of the deceased's family members. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the lower courts failed to adequately consider the defense version and the medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the accused. Furthermore, the Court observed that the incident occurred in a public bazaar, yet only interested witnesses were relied upon. Finding merit in the contentions regarding the improper evaluation of evidence, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to allow for a full reappraisal of the case evidence.
Questions settled- Is a reappraisal of evidence warranted when lower courts fail to properly evaluate a defense version supported by medical evidence?
- Does the reliance solely on interested witnesses for an occurrence in a public place necessitate a closer scrutiny of the prosecution's case?
- KAISER ABBAS vs Mst. KHALIDA BEGUM ETC.PLD 1982 Lahore 500. · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-09Read full judgment →
- KADIR DAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 840 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-13Read full judgment →
- KACHKOL KHAN vs I. G.-POLICE, N.-W.F.P. AND OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 546 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
- K.OTRI ASSOCIATION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-03Read full judgment →
- K. H. KHURSHID vs REFERRING AUTHORITY1982C L C 485 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-08-29Read full judgment →
- K. A. Ghani, ABDUL NABI AND 2 Others vs THE OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION AND OTHARS1982 CLC 1951 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-17Read full judgment →
- Junejo MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 59 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 784 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1982-09-04Read full judgment →
- JUNA BUNDER JOINT VENTURE, KARACHI vs BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KARACHI ETC1982 PLD Karachi 13 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- JUGGA vs BASHIR AND OTHERS1982 P Cr. L J 611 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
- JOINT FINANCIERS (P.) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX45 TAX 169 · Delhi High Court · 1981-01-07Read full judgment →
- JOGI AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 280 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
- JODHA vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SHEIKHUPURA AND 32Other1982 PLD Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- JEHANZEB vs THE STATE1982 PLD Peshawar 136 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a murder conviction where the appellant was sentenced to death by the trial court. The core legal questions concern the evidentiary value of a First Information Report (FIR) when the informant is unavailable for cross-examination, the reliability of a solitary eye-witness whose testimony contradicts medical evidence and other prosecution witnesses, and the sufficiency of abscondence as proof of guilt. The Peshawar High Court held that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used to prove the facts contained therein without examining the informant. Furthermore, the Court found the testimony of the sole eye-witness unreliable, as it was contradicted by medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired and by the Investigating Officer regarding the time and place of the FIR's registration. The Court laid down the principle that a conviction cannot be based on the testimony of a solitary, interested witness when that testimony is riddled with material discrepancies and contradicted by medical and circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Is a First Information Report a substantive piece of evidence that can be used to prove facts without examining the informant?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of an interested eye-witness when that testimony is contradicted by medical evidence?
- Does the abscondence of an accused, by itself, constitute sufficient proof of guilt to support a conviction?
- Is an FIR admissible as a public document under Section 35 of the Evidence Act 1872 even if the informant is not examined as a witness?
- JEHANGIR AND 2 Other vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE III, BALUCHISTAN, QUETTA AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Quetta 27 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-06-03Read full judgment →
- KHAIR SHAH AND 4 Other vs HYDER SHAH AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 128 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, which set aside an order of acquittal passed by a Joint Civil Judge and F.C.M. under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a criminal revision is competent against an order of acquittal passed under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a direct complaint case, or whether the complainant must instead seek leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain a revision against such an acquittal, as the proper remedy for the complainant was an application for leave to appeal under Section 417(2). Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. The key principle laid down is that where a statute provides a specific remedy of appeal for an order of acquittal, a revision petition is not a competent substitute, and appellate courts must adhere to the prescribed statutory hierarchy of remedies.
Questions settled- Is a criminal revision competent against an order of acquittal passed under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to entertain a revision against an acquittal order in a direct complaint case?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a complainant aggrieved by an acquittal under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- JAYALAKSHMI CLOTH STORES vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUDIVADA AND OTHERS45 TAX 98 · Andhra Paradesh High CourtRead full judgment →
- JAVED KHALID vs The STATE1982 PLD Lahore 60 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
- JAVED JAN vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 171 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1193 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL BUTT vs Mst. NIGHAT ARA AND Another1982 SCMR 1111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute where the petitioner challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court at Lahore to try a suit for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner contended that the marriage occurred in Gujranwala, where the parties resided, and thus the Lahore court lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner sought to have the issue of jurisdiction decided as a preliminary issue before the trial proceeded on the merits. The trial court, the High Court, and the Intra Court Appeal bench all rejected this plea, reasoning that the evidence required to establish the court's territorial jurisdiction was inextricably linked to the evidence required to prove the cause of action on the merits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld these decisions, affirming that when the evidence for a jurisdictional issue overlaps significantly with the evidence for the merits of the case, it is appropriate for the court to try both issues together rather than deciding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a Family Court required to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before proceeding to the merits of the case?
- Can a court decline to treat jurisdiction as a preliminary issue when the evidence for jurisdiction and the evidence for the merits of the suit are the same?
- JAVAID IQBAL vs The STATE1982 SCMR 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerned the sentence of death awarded to a juvenile offender convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a schoolmate. The appellant had fired a single gun shot at three schoolmates following an altercation and mutual exchange of abuses. The Supreme Court observed that the lower courts failed to properly evaluate the evidence regarding the appellant's age and the presence of provocation. A school certificate placed his age at 14 years and 9 months, which was supported by witness testimony and improperly rejected by the trial court. Furthermore, although the provocation was neither grave nor sudden enough to reduce the offense to culpable homicide under Exception 1 to Section 300, PPC, the presence of provocation short of grave and sudden, along with the appellant's young age and single-shot attack, warranted mitigation of sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment, awarded compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., and granted the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Questions settled- Can provocation that falls short of being grave and sudden be considered as a mitigating factor to reduce a sentence of death to life imprisonment?
- Whether an unrefuted school certificate establishing the young age of an accused can be displaced solely by a trial judge's visual impression of the accused's age?
- Does a general exchange of verbal abuses prior to a fatal incident constitute a relevant factor when determining the appropriate sentence in a murder trial?
- JANAT BIBI vs SIKANDAR ALI AND OTHER1982 CLC 2076 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-03Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM1982 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a tenant running a barber shop, sought leave to appeal against the concurrent orders of the courts below rejecting his claim for compensation for improvements made to the demised premises upon being ordered to be evicted. The core legal question was whether a tenant is entitled to compensation for improvements made to rented property without the landlord's express consent and which do not enhance the property's value, or under the equity of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the tenant was not entitled to compensation as the improvements were made for his own business benefit over twenty years without benefiting the landlord or being made with consent, and that Section 51 does not apply to tenants. The key principle laid down is that the equity of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is limited to persons who believe themselves to be absolutely entitled to the property improved, and does not extend to tenants.
Questions settled- Is a tenant entitled to compensation for improvements made to a rented shop without the landlord's express consent?
- Does Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to a tenant seeking compensation for improvements?
- Whether the equity conferred by Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is available to a person who is not absolutely entitled to the property?
- JAMNALAL NATHANI vs COMMISSIONER OE INCOME TAX46 TAX 61 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1981-02-04Read full judgment →
- JAMIL AHMAD vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND 4 Other1982 PLD Lahore 49 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision before the Lahore High Court arose from the dismissal of the petitioners' applications for a temporary injunction. The petitioners, appointed as Assistants in the Office of the Chief Engineer B & R, challenged a government order that re-fixed and reduced their pay scales based on subsequent audit objections. While the lower courts found that the petitioners possessed a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favored them, they denied the temporary injunction on the sole ground that no irreparable loss would accrue since any illegally deducted salary could eventually be refunded. The High Court analyzed the interplay between Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Sections 54 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. It held that where a recurring breach of a constitutional safeguard regarding remuneration is threatened, refusing an injunction would encourage a multiplicity of proceedings. The Court concluded that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury are closely linked, and since the reduction was prima facie arbitrary, the refusal of the injunction was an illegal exercise of jurisdiction. The revisions were allowed, and the temporary injunction was granted.
Questions settled- Can a temporary injunction be refused solely on the ground of monetary compensability if the balance of convenience strongly favors the plaintiff and the threatened injury is recurring?
- Does a recurring or continuing breach of an obligation regarding salary safeguards justify the grant of a temporary injunction to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings?
- How do the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable injury interact under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when evaluating an interlocutory injunction against a government department?
- JAMIL AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, IRRIGATION & POWER DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 321 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- JAMIL AHMAD MALIK vs CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT, P. 0. F., SANJWAL AND.51982 PLC (C. S.) 711 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- JAMEEL AHMED vs MUNERUDDIN1982 CLC 1940 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
- JAMEEL AHMED vs MUN9ERUDDIN1982 CLC 1940 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
- JAMAT ALI vs EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2227 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-25Read full judgment →
- JAMAT ALI vs EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD AND OTHER1982 CLC 2227 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-25Read full judgment →
- JAMALUDDIN vs THE CHAIRMAN, SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION1982 PLC 223 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
- JAMALUDDIN vs AMIRALIWALA HARDWARE INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 813 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-02-06Read full judgment →
- JAMAL KHAN vs MESSRS GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 608 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
- JAMAL KHAN AND 5 Another vs Mst. MUBARIK BANO AND 7 Other1982 PLD Peshawar 16 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-09-11Read full judgment →
- JAMAL DIN AND Another vs RAMZAN AND Other1982 SCMR 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition seeking reconsideration of an earlier judgment dated 27-10-1981 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1973. The core legal question revolves around whether the absence of the arguing counsel at the time the case was called, and the alleged failure to call the case properly as claimed by the Advocate-on-Record, constitute sufficient grounds for reviewing a judgment. The Supreme Court held that the review petition lacks merit, observing that the case was duly called out in the courtroom where the Advocate-on-Record was present, and that responsibility for failing to argue the appeal rested with the petitioners' counsel and Advocate-on-Record. The court established the principle that an Advocate-on-Record present in court must actively signify presence or seek to argue when a case is taken up, and the subsequent arrival of the arguing counsel after the decision is rendered does not warrant a review of the judgment.
Questions settled- Does the absence of the arguing counsel at the time an appeal is called furnish a valid ground for review of the judgment?
- Is an Advocate-on-Record present in the courtroom responsible for ensuring the case is defended or argued when taken up by the court?
- JAMAL DIN Alias MAHGA vs THE STATE1982 PCrLJ 503 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- JALAL. DIN vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 2 OTHERS1982 CLC 1282 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- JALAL SHAH AND Others vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY Etc1982 CLC 503 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- JALAL DIN, WALI MUHAMMAD vs Hakeern CHIRAGH DIN Etc. Hakeem CHIRAGH1982 PLD Supreme Court 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves four petitions for special leave to appeal arising from pre-emption suits concerning agricultural land sold on January 20, 1966. The primary question before the court was whether the High Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay and extend time for making good a deficient court-fee where the plaintiff had obtained extensions through false statements and cheating, and whether the plaintiff possessed a preferential right of pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the institution of an insufficiently stamped plaint is not a valid institution within the meaning of Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908, and the High Court rightly declined to extend time to save the suit from limitation given the plaintiff's conduct. Furthermore, the Court held that a plaintiff who is merely a landowner has no preferential right of pre-emption against a vendee who is also an owner in the estate without additional grounds of preference. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed all petitions.
Questions settled- Is the institution of an insufficiently stamped plaint a valid institution within the meaning of section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a plaintiff claim a preferential right of pre-emption as a landowner against a vendee who is also an owner in the estate without additional grounds of preference?
- Will an appellate court interfere with the High Court's refusal to extend time for making up a deficient court-fee obtained through false statements?
- JALAL DIN vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 1282 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- JAI GOPAL AND Others vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND Other1982 SCMR 976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil petitions challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the legitimacy of Mst. Sardar Begum as the daughter of Jai Gopal alias Budhan Sain. The core legal question was whether the respondent was the legitimate daughter of the deceased, born after his conversion to Islam, and consequently entitled to inherit his estate. The High Court had previously affirmed the trial court's decree in her favor, relying on findings that the deceased had converted to Islam, married the respondent's mother, and that the respondent was his legitimate child. The petitioners challenged these findings, arguing a lack of legal evidence, misapplication of evidentiary rules regarding statements of relationship, and the deceased's alleged incapacity to marry due to insanity. The Supreme Court held that there was sufficient evidence on record to support the respondent's case, including testimony from credible witnesses. The Court affirmed that the issue was one of fact, and as the lower courts had properly evaluated the material, no grounds existed for interference. The petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts regarding legitimacy?
- Does the statement of a witness regarding the existence of a relationship satisfy the requirements of Section 32(5) of the Evidence Act 1872 if made after the dispute arose?
- What is the impact of a conversion to Islam on the status of a member of a joint Hindu family regarding property ownership?
- JAFFAR vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1100 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
- JAFFAR ALI vs Sh. MUHAMMAD ALI1982 SCMR 679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that refused to grant a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance. The core legal question concerned whether a petitioner, who had engaged in clear misrepresentation before an executing court regarding the status of proceedings in the Supreme Court, remained entitled to seek relief from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner had filed a false affidavit and made verbal representations to the executing court claiming a stay order had been issued, when in fact no such order existed at the time. Consequently, the Court held that such conduct constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The ratio established is that a litigant who engages in deliberate misrepresentation and misleads a lower court regarding the status of pending Supreme Court proceedings disentitles themselves from the right of audience and relief before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed to prevent the abuse of the court's process.
Questions settled- Does the filing of a false affidavit regarding the status of Supreme Court proceedings before an executing court constitute an abuse of process?
- Can a petitioner who misleads a lower court regarding the existence of a Supreme Court stay order be denied a hearing in the Supreme Court?
- Is a litigant who engages in deliberate misrepresentation before a lower court entitled to seek discretionary relief from the Supreme Court?
- ITTEFAQ FOUNDRIES LTD. vs COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL1982 PLC 769 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-01Read full judgment →
- ISRAR HUSSAIN vs The STATE1982 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves the reliability of ocular testimony and corroborative evidence in a criminal trial where the accused was apprehended at the scene of the crime. The Supreme Court held that minor inconsistencies in the statements of eye-witnesses do not detract from their veracity, and the natural presence of witnesses along with prompt apprehension at the spot with a blood-stained weapon establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on credible ocular testimony supported by medical evidence and prompt recovery will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether minor inconsistencies in the testimony of eye-witnesses are sufficient to discard their evidence?
- Does the previous conviction of an eye-witness automatically render their testimony untrustworthy?
- Whether the Supreme Court will reappraise the evidence concurrently believed by the lower courts in a criminal matter?
- ISMAIL vs BARKAT ALI AND Other1982 SCMR 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a constitutional petition filed by the respondents, declaring the subsequent allotment of agricultural land in the petitioner's favor to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The core legal question was whether the disputed land, which had been previously allotted to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest in satisfaction of a verified claim, was available for fresh allotment to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the predecessor-in-interest had transferred her entire claim to another district, thereby releasing the land. However, the Supreme Court found that the factual findings of the Settlement Commissioner contradicted this, showing that only a portion of the claim was transferred while the disputed land remained settled in the estate. The Supreme Court held that since the land had been validly allotted earlier and was not available, the subsequent allotment to the petitioner was invalid. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether land already allotted to a claimant in satisfaction of a verified claim can be validly re-allotted to another person as available land?
- Does the partial transfer of a claimant's verified units to another district render the land already settled in the original district available for fresh allotment?
- ISMAIL AND 5 Others vs Mst. UMAR BIBI AND 12 Other1982 SCMR 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a Regular Second Appeal in limine. The petitioners had filed a suit for a declaration of land ownership, which was dismissed by the trial court on the grounds of res judicata, as an earlier inter partes decree existed regarding the same subject matter. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners argued that the trial court erred in dismissing their belated application to amend the plaint to challenge the earlier decree on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the amendment application, filed after the close of evidence, was significantly delayed and would have necessitated reopening the entire action on a new plea not previously pressed. The Court found the trial court's exercise of discretion in dismissing the amendment application to be neither illegal nor improper. Consequently, as the earlier decree remained intact, the plea of res judicata was correctly upheld, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a trial court reject an application for amendment of a plaint that is filed after the close of evidence?
- Does an existing inter partes decree regarding the same subject matter operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit?
- Is the dismissal of a belated amendment application considered an improper exercise of judicial discretion?
- ISLAMUDDIN vs MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2558 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
- ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF DEFENCE vs MESSRS1982 CLC 495 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
- ISLAMABAD CLUB vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Other1982 SCMR 126 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a constitutional petition challenging the dismissal of a Bar Clerk by the Islamabad Club. The respondent was dismissed following an inquiry that found him guilty of the original charge of holding union meetings during working hours, as well as additional serious misconduct not specified in the initial charge-sheet. The High Court set aside the dismissal, ruling that the respondent was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the extraneous findings and that no second show-cause notice was provided. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that an order of dismissal is vitiated when it is based on findings extraneous to the original charge-sheet without providing the employee a reasonable opportunity to rebut those specific findings. The Court emphasized that while it did not definitively rule on the necessity of a second show-cause notice in all cases, the respondent must be furnished with the inquiry report and allowed to explain any findings not included in the original charge before punishment is imposed.
Questions settled- Does an order of dismissal based on findings extraneous to the original charge-sheet violate the requirement of a reasonable opportunity to defend?
- Is an employee entitled to receive a copy of the inquiry report when the findings include matters not contained in the original charge-sheet?
- Does the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 apply to the Islamabad Capital area?
- ISLAM HASSAN KHAN vs PUNJAB PROVINCE1982 PLC (C. S.) 805 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-29Read full judgment →
- ISLA MUDDIN vs MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN AND OTHER1982 CLC 2558 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
- ISHTIAQ AHMAD RAJA ETC AND Anotherrespondent Haji ABDUL HAMEED1982 PLD Supreme Court 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three consolidated appeals challenging a common order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed writ petitions filed by Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of local councils against whom motions of no-confidence were initiated. The core legal question was the interpretation of Section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, specifically regarding the timing and frequency of no-confidence motions against elected local government officials. The appellants argued that the statutory provisions imposed strict temporal restrictions on such motions and that prior administrative rejections of no-confidence requisitions created vested rights preventing subsequent attempts. The Supreme Court held that the statute clearly permits a no-confidence motion after the initial six-month period from the assumption of office. The Court clarified that the statutory restrictions on intervals apply to subsequent motions and that an administrative rejection of a requisition for a meeting does not constitute a 'moved and rejected' motion that would bar future attempts. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the legal requirements for moving no-confidence motions had been satisfied.
Questions settled- Can a motion of no-confidence be moved against a Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a local council before the expiry of six months from the date of assumption of office?
- Does the administrative rejection of an initial requisition for a no-confidence meeting bar subsequent requisitions for the same purpose?
- What is the correct interpretation of the interval requirements for no-confidence motions under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
- ISHRAT YAR KHAN vs SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARDAN AND 2 Other1982 PLD Peshawar 155 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD MAHMUD AND 5 Other vs MAQBOOL AHMED AND 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 366 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD ALI vs USMAN1982 CLC 1389 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD AHMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1982 SCMR 264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of land comprising Khasra No. 892 situated in Kamonki. The petitioner claimed an earlier allotment dated 21-4-1962, whereas respondent No. 3 was allotted the same land on 27-4-1965 based on a Patwari report. The core legal question involved the factual determinations of whether the petitioner was a genuine allottee and whether the revenue record had been interpolated or forged in his favour. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Settlement Commissioner regarding the interpolation of the revenue record and the lack of a valid prior allotment must be accepted as correct and cannot be interfered with in leave proceedings. The Court further held that a previous litigation which proceeded on an unagitated assumption of the petitioner's status could not alter the binding factual findings. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can findings of fact regarding the interpolation of revenue records be interfered with by the Supreme Court in leave to appeal proceedings?
- Does an unagitated assumption in a previous writ petition regarding land allotment status affect subsequent proceedings on distinct factual issues?
- Are concurrent factual determinations by a Settlement Commissioner binding upon superior courts?
- IRSHAD AHMAD KHAN vs SHAFIQ KHAN AND 2 Other1982 SCMR 205 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Lahore High Court in a murder case registered under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court improperly exercised its discretion in granting bail to the respondents by distinguishing their roles from those of other co-accused, and whether they shared a common object under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court did not exercise its discretion improperly in distinguishing the case of the respondents from the co-accused who allegedly fired the fatal shots. Regarding the allegation that the respondents abused the privilege of bail by threatening prosecution witnesses, the Court held that such grounds should first be brought before the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the observation that the complainant could approach the High Court on the fresh ground of abuse of bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail granted by the High Court can be cancelled by the Supreme Court without approaching the High Court first on new grounds?
- Does firing in the air without hitting the deceased warrant a distinction in bail matters from co-accused who fired fatal shots?
- Can allegations of threatening prosecution witnesses be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court in a bail cancellation matter?
- IRFANA PAL vs JAVED AKHTAR1982 CLC 7 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →