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.
- ALTAF HUSSAIN vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR1982 PLC 776 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS COFCOT. TEXTILE MILLS1982 PLC 286 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-13Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HASSAN QURESHI AND Another vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 468 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-20Read full judgment →
- ALTAF AHMED SHAIKH vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1982 PLC 683 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
- ALRIAZ (SHALIMAR TOWN) LTD. vs MUHAMMAD HASSAN LODHI AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs MESSRS COTTON INTERNATIONAL AND 21982 CLC 1187 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs KENNETH D. D'souza AND 6 OTHER1982 CLC 1160 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND 2 ANOTHER vs LABOUR APPELLATE1982 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD vs KENNETH D. D'SOUZA AND 6 OTHERS1982 CLC 1160 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs SHOUKAT ALI1982 PLC 728 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1982-03-05Read full judgment →
- ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN AND Others vs BASHIR AHMAD1982 CLC 2418 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
- ALLAHYAR vs The STATE1982 SCMR 639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained his conviction under Section 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while acquitting his four co-accused. The occurrence involved a delay of 27 hours in lodging the First Information Report, wherein it was alleged that all accused were armed with dangs, whereas medical evidence showed that several injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. Furthermore, the recovery from the petitioner consisted of an unstained dang. The core legal question was whether the conviction of the petitioner could be sustained on the testimony of eye-witnesses whose evidence had been rejected with respect to the co-accused, in the absence of independent corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court held that the case required further consideration regarding the distinction drawn by the High Court between the petitioner and the acquitted co-accused. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to examine the matter.
Questions settled- Can the conviction of an accused be maintained on the testimony of eye-witnesses whose evidence has been rejected regarding co-accused in the absence of independent corroboration?
- Whether the recovery of an unstained weapon constitutes sufficient corroboration to sustain a criminal conviction?
- ALLAHDINO AND 3 Others vs SALIMULLAH AND 3 OTHER1982 CLC 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAHDINO AND 3 OTHERS vs SAL1MULLAH AND 3 OTHERS1982 CLC 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR vs The STATE1982 PLD Lahore 754 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR AND Others vs BEGUM SARWAR KHATOON AND Other1982 SCMR 349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the respondent's retention of a specific parcel of land. The core legal question concerned whether an allottee of land who received excess area is entitled to exercise a choice regarding which portion to surrender and which precise area to retain upon surrendering the excess. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition lacked merit, affirming that an allottee indeed possesses the right to exercise a choice in the matter of retention and surrender of excess land. The court thereby established the principle that allottees have a recognized right to choose the land they retain when surrendering excess land allotments.
Questions settled- Does an allottee have the right to exercise a choice in the matter of retention and surrender of excess land?
- Whether the dismissal of a constitutional petition on the ground that the matter is concluded by a previous judgment suffers from any legal infirmity?
- ALLAH WASAYA vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the confirmation of death sentences awarded on two counts for double murder. The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife, Mst. Aisha Mai, whom he suspected of infidelity, and her younger sister, Mst. Jindan Mai, who intervened during the attack. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether a lesser sentence could be awarded due to the loss of self-control. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the sentence for the murder of the wife could be reduced to imprisonment for life in view of the mitigating factor of motive relating to suspected infidelity and loss of self-control, the death sentence for the murder of the sister must be maintained because her killing was deliberate, intentional, and unjustified, rather than accidental or merely incidental. The Court laid down the principle that the extenuating circumstances applicable to an initial murder committed under sudden rage do not automatically extend to a subsequent murder, which must be judged independently based on its own facts, intent, and circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether the sentence of death awarded for the murder of an unfaithful wife can be reduced to imprisonment for life when the crime is committed under grave and sudden provocation?
- Does the mitigation applicable to a murder committed in a fit of rage automatically extend to a subsequent murder committed during the same transaction?
- Whether the intentional killing of a person who intervenes to save the primary victim warrants a lesser penalty?
- ALLAH WARAYO vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 946 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-26Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA vs SADHU MASIHOTHER1982 CLC 2352 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA vs SADHU MASIH AND OTHERS1982 CLC 2352 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
- ALLAH LOK AND 2 OTHER vs SARDAR IRSHADUL HASSAN AND 7 Other1982 PLD Lahore 831 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order by the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelling a temporary land allotment previously granted to the petitioners' predecessor, a Jammu and Kashmir refugee, for maintenance purposes. The core legal question was whether the Settlement authorities retained jurisdiction to cancel such temporary allotments under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, after the land had allegedly been transferred to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority. Relying on established precedent, the Court determined that all land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees for maintenance had been sold to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in 1960, thereby excluding it from the compensation pool. Consequently, the Chief Settlement Commissioner lost jurisdiction over this land and could not cancel the allotment to facilitate permanent settlement for other claimants. The Court affirmed that the land was no longer subject to the Settlement authorities' powers, and the petitioners were entitled to retain possession unless the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs acted as the rightful owner.
Questions settled- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner retain jurisdiction to cancel temporary land allotments of Jammu and Kashmir refugees after such land has been sold to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs?
- Does the sale of land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs exclude such land from the compensation pool?
- Can a party be estopped from raising a plea in the High Court if they failed to raise it or took a contrary position before the Settlement authorities?
- ALLAH DIWAYA AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 266 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-14Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 875 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs SALAM DIN, Etc1982 CLC 545 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs A. C./COLLECTOR1982 CLC 2671 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND Others vs Syed MEHDI AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND Others vs Syed MEHDI AND OTHER1982 CLC 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND Others vs LAL DIN AND Other1982 SCMR 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a review application filed by the respondent was accepted and the date for depositing pre-emption money in a decree was altered. The core legal question was whether the High Court could validly review its earlier judgment and extend the time for depositing pre-emption money when the delay in compliance was caused by the late preparation of the decree-sheet by the court office, despite the pre-emptor having applied for copies in time. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a party should not be made to suffer for the fault or negligence of the court's officials in failing to prepare the decree-sheet in a timely manner. The Court laid down the principle that the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' applies, and where the delay in complying with a deposit deadline is attributable to the court's failure to furnish the decree, the court possesses the necessary jurisdiction—whether in review or under other enabling provisions—to adjust the time to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Whether a court can review its judgment to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money when the decree-sheet was not prepared by the court office within the original deadline?
- Can a party be penalized for failing to comply with a deposit deadline when the delay is attributable to the negligence or mistake of the court's agency in supplying a copy of the decree?
- Does the mere labeling of an application as a review petition invalidate an order if the relief sought is sustainable under other provisions of law such as sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether the maxim that no party shall suffer for the fault of the court applies to procedural deposit requirements in pre-emption suits?
- ALLAH DITTA AND Others vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND Othess1982 SCMR 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld an order by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The dispute arose from agricultural land sold by a Muslim owner, Samanda, to an evacuee, Chanda Singh. A collateral of the owner, Hussain Muhammad, had successfully obtained a declaratory decree in 1910, establishing that the sales were invalid under customary law due to a lack of legal necessity. Following the death of the alienor in 1961, his heirs sought a declaration from the Custodian of Evacuee Property to inherit the land. The core legal question was whether the heirs could benefit from the 1910 decree and whether they were entitled to challenge the alienation despite the intervening rights of allottees under rehabilitation laws. The Supreme Court held that the Custodian was justified in recognizing the heirs' title based on the 1910 decree. The Court affirmed that Muslim Law heirs are entitled to impeach alienations of ancestral agricultural land made by a customary owner, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Are Muslim Law heirs entitled to impeach an alienation of ancestral agricultural land made by a customary owner?
- Can the Custodian of Evacuee Property give effect to a prior civil court decree declaring an alienation invalid?
- Does the death of a customary owner allow his heirs to claim inheritance rights over land previously alienated without legal necessity?
- ALLAH DITTA AND Other vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity and murder. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of tracker evidence, the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession made before a government official, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the recovery of stolen property to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that while the tracker evidence was ambiguous and excluded from consideration, the conviction remained sound based on the remaining evidence. The Court affirmed that an extra-judicial confession made to a person who is not a 'person in authority'—lacking the power to intimidate or induce the accused—is admissible, provided it is voluntary and credible. Furthermore, the Court established that a conviction can be safely maintained when supported by a credible extra-judicial confession and the recovery of stolen articles from the accused's possession, even if other pieces of prosecution evidence are found unreliable.
Questions settled- Is an official of the Agriculture Department considered a 'person in authority' for the purpose of an extra-judicial confession?
- Can a conviction be maintained solely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession and recovery of stolen property if other prosecution evidence is excluded?
- Does the ambiguity of tracker evidence necessarily invalidate the entire prosecution case?
- ALLAH DINO AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 818 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-23Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DIN vs SIRAJ DIN AND Another1982 SCMR 1155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court passed in constitutional petitions, which set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of a property and the extent of excess area, remanding the case for fresh decision. The core legal question concerns the propriety of remanding the case for factual determination and fresh measurement by the settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order of remand was justified and suffered from no legal infirmity, as it provided an opportunity for the parties to have their grievances properly adjudicated based on fresh measurements and factual verification. The Supreme Court consequently dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal, affirming the remand order.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a settlement dispute for fresh decision and measurements when factual aspects require careful resolution?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against a High Court order that remands a case for fresh adjudication without legal infirmity?
- ALLAH DIN vs HABIB1982 PLD SC 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns an ejectment proceeding initiated by a landlord against a tenant for non-payment of rent. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the First Appellate Court reversed this, citing a lack of proof regarding non-payment and excluding the landlord's receipt book from evidence. The High Court dismissed the landlord's second appeal, holding that the findings of fact by the First Appellate Court were conclusive. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in second appeal when dealing with conflicting findings of fact between the trial and appellate courts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by failing to perform a comparative assessment of the lower courts' reasoning. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while the initial burden of proof lies on the landlord to show non-payment, a landlord's sworn testimony of non-receipt constitutes sufficient discharge of that burden, shifting the onus to the tenant to prove payment. Consequently, the Court restored the eviction order.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to interfere in a second appeal when the findings of fact of the First Appellate Court are at variance with the trial court?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie in an ejectment proceeding for non-payment of rent once the landlord has testified on oath that rent was not received?
- Can a landlord's sworn testimony of non-receipt of rent be sufficient to discharge the initial burden of proof in rent default cases?
- Is a finding of fact by a first appellate court immune from interference in second appeal if it fails to consider material evidence or lacks logical reasoning?
- ALLAH DIN vs DILAWAR KHAN AND Other1982 SCMR 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where neither the petitioner, his counsel, nor his Advocate-on-Record appeared to press the petition. Instead, a 'certificate' signed by the petitioner's counsel was delivered to the Court's Librarian via his clerk, requesting a fortnight's adjournment on the ground that the counsel's uncle had passed away. The respondents, who were present in person, objected, noting that the petitioner's counsel had previously obtained an adjournment on the last hearing date and had exhibited similar conduct in the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that while an oral request for adjournment was granted on the previous date, the counsel failed to file a formal application for adjournment on this occasion, relying instead on an informal certificate. The Court held that such a certificate cannot be treated as a formal application for adjournment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
Questions settled- Can an informal certificate sent through a clerk be treated as a formal application for adjournment by the Supreme Court?
- Whether a petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner and their counsel fail to appear and only submit an informal request for adjournment?
- ALLAH DIA vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) AND OTHERS1982 CLC 1908 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-19Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DIA vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) AND OTHER1982 CLC 1908 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-19Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-18Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUX vs MANZOOR ALI KHAN1982 CLC 1604 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUX vs COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1982 PLC (C. S.) 272 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BALI vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE/CHIEF SETTLEMENT1982 CLC 658 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan on a review petition seeking the same benefit extended to co-convicts in an impugned judgment, following the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal. The core legal question is whether a petitioner who has become a fugitive from law is entitled to seek relief or review from the court. The court held that a fugitive from law is not entitled to seek any relief, including by way of review, and accordingly dismissed the petition while noting that the petitioner may seek relief from the executive authorities. The key principle laid down is that fugitives from law forfeit their right to audience and equitable relief in judicial proceedings.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner who has become a fugitive from law entitled to seek review of a dismissed appeal?
- Can a fugitive from law claim the benefit of a judgment extended to co-convicts?
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD FAZAL KHAN AND Other1982 PLD Lahore 45 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-30Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs DEPUTY SECRETARY (GENERAL), FOOD DEPARTMENT AND 51982 PLD Lahore 575 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 360 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH AND Others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND Other1982 SCMR 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a consolidation matter originating from village Gadhai, Tehsil Bhakkar, District Mianwali, where a consolidation scheme initiated in 1961 was finalized in April 1965. The petitioners challenged subsequent orders through appeals and revisions before revenue authorities up to the Board of Revenue, and eventually filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on 18-11-1975. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition and failing to grant compensation for improvements made by the petitioners on surrendered land. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners could not demonstrate any legal defect in the impugned judgment of the High Court and that the High Court was not the proper forum to grant compensation for improvements made during consolidation proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that revenue authorities and writ courts are not mandated to grant such compensation relief under the circumstances presented.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is the appropriate forum to grant compensation for improvements made on land surrendered during consolidation proceedings?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be sustained without showing a legal defect in the impugned High Court judgment?
- ALLAH BAKHSH AND 5 Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 867 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-13Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BACHAYA AND Others vs Mst. QADUL AND Other1982 SCMR 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the District Judge's decree and restored the trial court's dismissal of the appellants' suit for a declaration of inheritance. The core legal question concerned whether a presumption of lawful marriage and legitimacy of children could be drawn from prolonged cohabitation and acknowledgements under Muslim Law where direct proof of marriage was absent. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that continuous cohabitation, repute, and acknowledgement of paternity by the man raise a strong presumption of a valid marriage and legitimate birth, leaning in favour of legitimacy against concubinage. The key principle laid down is that where direct evidence of marriage is unavailable, permanent cohabitation coupled with acknowledgement and familial or societal repute justifies the legal inference of a lawful marriage under Islamic jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Can a valid marriage and legitimacy of children be presumed from prolonged cohabitation and acknowledgement under Muslim Law in the absence of direct proof of marriage?
- Whether the High Court is justified in admitting additional evidence in second appeal to ensure a proper determination of the case in the interest of justice?
- Does the law presume in favour of marriage and legitimacy as against concubinage when a man and woman cohabit for a number of years?
- ALL WIN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD. vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1982 PLC 67 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
- ALL KATHIAWAR MANSOORI GENERAL JAMAIT vs PARVEZ AKHTAR AHMAD, ADVOCATE1982 CLC 1192 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-13Read full judgment →
- ALIM-UD-DIN vs The STATE1982 PLD Lahore 141 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
- ALIF KHAN AND 6 Others vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, FEROZEWALA AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- ALI SHER vs S. D. M. MEERPUR MATHELO AND ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 750 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges orders passed by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Sections 112 and 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, initiating proceedings against the applicant under Section 110 of the Code. The core legal question was whether proceedings under Section 110 can be initiated based on vague, general police allegations lacking specific instances, and whether orders under Section 117(3) can be passed without affording the accused a fair opportunity to defend. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings, finding the Magistrate's orders unsustainable. The Court held that 'habit' under Section 110 requires proof of repeated criminal acts through specific instances, not mere hearsay or police opinion. General reputation must be established by respectable members of the community, not solely by police officers. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that proceedings initiated without providing the accused a reasonable opportunity to engage counsel and defend themselves are legally flawed and violate fundamental procedural fairness.
Questions settled- Can proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be initiated based solely on vague and general allegations in a police report?
- Is the evidence of police officers alone sufficient to establish 'general reputation' for the purposes of Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the term 'habit' under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require proof of multiple specific instances of criminal conduct?
- Are orders passed under Section 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 valid if the accused is denied a reasonable opportunity to engage counsel and defend themselves?
- ALI NAWAZ vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VEHARI AND 3 OTHERS1982 PLC (C. S.) 138 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
- ALI NAWAZ vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, KHANPUR AND ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 1132 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-08Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 3 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs S. H. O., BUREWALA AND OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 1233 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-28Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT AND Other1982 SCMR 816 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit where the trial court, after framing seven issues, decided the sixth issue in detail but summarily dismissed issues one through five without providing individual reasons. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, but the Lahore High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, set aside both judgments and remanded the case to the trial court for re-writing the judgment. The core legal question was whether a trial court is mandated to provide separate findings and reasons for each issue under Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether a failure to do so warrants a remand. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the trial court's failure to give reasons for each separate issue constituted a disregard of the mandatory provisions of Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, amounting to a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that the High Court was fully competent under its revisional jurisdiction to remand the case for a proper determination of all issues.
Questions settled- Is a trial court legally mandated to state its findings and reasons upon each separate issue under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the summary disposal of multiple issues based solely on the finding of a single issue constitute a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction?
- Can the High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, remand a case to the trial court for re-writing a judgment that violates Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs Mst. BILQUES BEGUM1982 CLC 261 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD AZIZ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY1982 PLC (C. S.) 467 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD AND Others vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT AND OTHER1982 CLC 2383 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-05Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs MEMBER (COLONIES) BOARD OF REVENUE1982 SCMR 312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld an order by the Member, Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' land allotment, dated 15-3-1961, was genuine or forged, and whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the Board of Revenue's finding of fact. The Member, Board of Revenue, had determined that the petitioners obtained the allotment through forged signatures of the then S.D.O., Toba Tek Singh, and were holding the land illegally, subsequently ordering the resumption of the land. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and concluded that the Member, Board of Revenue, reached a finding within his competent jurisdiction after due deliberation. The Court held that because the view taken by the Member, Board of Revenue was a possible view based on the evidence, it was not subject to interference under writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that findings of fact by a competent authority, when based on a possible view of the evidence, are not reviewable in writ proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact made by a competent authority if that finding is a possible view?
- Is an allotment of land obtained through forged signatures subject to resumption by the Board of Revenue?
- ALI MUHAMMAD AND Other vs ADMISSION COMMITTEE, UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Peshawar 106 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD AND Another vs FATEH BIBI AND Another1982 SCMR 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the evacuee or non-evacuee status of a property. The petitioners, claiming the property was evacuee, sought to challenge the Custodian’s decision declaring it non-evacuee. The core legal questions concerned whether the Custodian possessed the authority to reverse a Deputy Custodian’s finding, and whether the Custodian retained jurisdiction to determine the property's status despite the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Custodian possesses plenary powers of superintendence and control under Section 43(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957, enabling the reversal of subordinate orders. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Custodian retains exclusive jurisdiction to determine the evacuee nature of property, as property not originally evacuee does not vest in the compensation pool. Crucially, the Court applied the principle of acquiescence, ruling that a party cannot participate in proceedings before a tribunal and subsequently challenge its jurisdiction only after receiving an adverse decision. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Does the Custodian of Evacuee Property possess the power under Section 43(4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957 to reverse an order passed by a Deputy Custodian?
- Can a party that has participated in proceedings before a tribunal challenge the tribunal's jurisdiction after an adverse decision is rendered?
- Does the Custodian retain jurisdiction to determine the evacuee or non-evacuee nature of property after the enactment of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- ALI MUHAMMAD AND 2 Others vs HUKAM DAD AND 9 OTHERS1982 CLC 1712 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD AND 2 Others vs HUKAM DAD AND 9 OTHER1982 CLC 1712 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
- ALI HUSSAIN vs DISTRICT CONTROLLER OF STORES, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND ANOTHER1982 PLC 1072 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
- ALI HUSSAIN vs ALI AHMAD KHAN WARSI (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)1982 CLC 2616 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal challenged a judgment and decree passed by a Single Judge of the Sindh High Court in a suit for declaration, recovery of money, and possession of an industrial plot arising from a dissolved partnership. The core legal questions involved whether the suit for recovery of possession was barred by the law of limitation, whether a subsequent document ("Iqrarnama") was valid, genuine, and admissible in evidence, and whether legal representatives could amend the plaint to add a prayer for possession. The Court held that the amendment to the plaint did not alter the character of the suit, was not time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, and that the Iqrarnama was binding as it manifested the true intention of the parties. The key principles laid down include that the addition of a prayer for possession via amendment in a specific performance suit does not change its fundamental nature, and that technical objections regarding execution cannot override clear evidence of contractual intent and valid security arrangements.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for specific performance and recovery of possession becomes time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act if the prayer for possession is added later by amendment?
- Does the addition of a prayer for recovery of possession by way of amendment alter the character and pattern of a suit for specific performance?
- Whether an agreement executed and partially signed can be considered binding and genuine based on surrounding evidence and expert testimony notwithstanding disputed signatures?
- Are legal representatives entitled to seek an amendment of the plaint for recovery of possession after the death of the original plaintiff?
- ALI BAHADUR vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 44 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1981-06-05Read full judgment →
- ALI ASGHAR vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 25 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-08Read full judgment →
- ALI ASGHAR vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-1982 P Cr. L J 415 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition arose from proceedings concerning a murder case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, where one accused was placed in column No. 2 of the police challan as a suspect. The complainant subsequently filed a direct criminal complaint before the Sessions Judge, which went through various procedural transfers between the Sessions Court and a Magistrate. The core legal questions involved the competency of a Magistrate to conduct preliminary inquiries or discharge an accused in a case triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the propriety of a Sessions Judge soliciting a Magistrate's opinion on a prima facie case, and the validity of filing a complaint without proceeding. The Lahore High Court held that under section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session must send the case directly without recording evidence or holding preliminary inquiries under section 202, rendering the Magistrate's subsequent proceedings and discharge orders null and void. The Court laid down that a Magistrate becomes functus officio once a case is sent to the Court of Session, and jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties. Consequently, the Additional Sessions Judge was directed to properly entertain and proceed with the direct complaint in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Was the Magistrate competent in law to proceed with the complaint and examine preliminary evidence in an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session?
- Was it lawful or proper for the Additional Sessions Judge to solicit the opinion of the Magistrate as to whether a prima facie case was made out against the respondent?
- Was the Magistrate competent in law to order the discharge of an accused from a case after having sent the challan to the Court of Session?
- Is an order by an Additional Sessions Judge filing a criminal complaint without conducting proceedings warranted under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- ALI AND Another vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 682 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD vs RAMZAN AND 2 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 200 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-18Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD SABRI vs The STATE1982 SCMR 818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon an application seeking extension of time and permission to refile a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that confirmed the petitioner's sentence of death for murder. The core legal question concerns whether a convicted petitioner who has absconded, failed to surrender upon the dismissal of his appeal, and misused the concession of bail can be granted condonation of delay and permission to refile a time-barred petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was a fugitive from justice and had deliberately failed to surrender as required by the rules, thereby forfeiting his entitlement to discretionary relief. The ratio decidendi is that a fugitive from justice who abuses the process of law and the concession of bail is not entitled to condonation of delay or discretionary extensions for filing an appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a fugitive from justice is entitled to an extension of time for filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- Does the failure to surrender upon the dismissal of a criminal appeal disentitle a convict to discretionary reliefs from the court?
- Can condonation of delay be granted to a petitioner who deliberately avoids arrest and absconds after the dismissal of his appeal?
- ALI AFSAR KHAN vs MESSRS HOCHEST (PAKISTAN) LTD.1982 PLC 422 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
- Alhaj ABDUL HAMID vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY1982 CLC 1842 · Lahore High Court · 1966-05-04Read full judgment →
- ALAUDDIN AKHTAR vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1982 CLC 515 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was instituted by the Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, challenging the Government of the Punjab's threatened premature termination of his statutory four-year tenure. The Government contended that the petitioner held the post on an officiating basis on deputation and that his appointment was subject to early termination in the public interest under his terms of appointment. An applicant seeking impleadment as a nominated successor under Order I Rule 10 CPC was also heard. The High Court considered whether the executive could truncate a statutory tenure by inserting contractual conditions or invoking general public interest. The Court allowed the petition with costs, holding that under Section 14(2) of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore Ordinance 1961, the Chairman's post carries a fixed statutory tenure of four years. Conditions stipulating 'officiating', 'deputation', or premature termination in the public interest are void surplusage inconsistent with the statute, and an appointee is not estopped from claiming the full statutory term.
Questions settled- Can the Government reduce a fixed statutory tenure of office by inserting terms such as 'officiating', 'deputation', or 'reversion in public interest' in the appointment order?
- Does an appointee's acceptance of an appointment order containing terms inconsistent with a statutory tenure estop him from claiming the full statutory term?
- Is a prospective appointee whose uncommunicated appointment order is not yet finalized a necessary or proper party in a writ petition challenging the premature removal of the sitting officer?
- AKSAR ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs FAZAL KARIM AND 11 OTHERS1982 CLC 1309 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- AKSAR ALI AND 2 OTHERS vs FAZAL KARIM AND 11 OTHER1982 CLC 1309 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- AKRAM SULTAN vs COMMISSIONER RAWALPINDI AND 2 OTHER1982 CLC 247 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR JEHAN vs ZAMIR AHMAD1982 CLC 1923 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR JEHAN vs ZAM1R AHMAD1982 CLC 1923 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN vs KABIR HUSSAIN1982 CLC 702 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR ABBAS vs THE STATE1982 PLD Supreme Court 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the refusal of the Baluchistan High Court to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a murder case. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under the amended provisions of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of delay exceeding two years in the conclusion of the trial, and whether such delay was attributable to the accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in refusing bail because the trial had been delayed due to multiple adjournments sought by the defence on dates when witnesses were present, meaning the delay was partly attributable to the act or omission of the accused. The key principle laid down is that where an accused seeks adjournments that delay the trial, the mandatory statutory concession of bail based on a two-year delay does not apply, and it is not necessary to mathematically calculate the duration of delay caused by the defence as long as the trial's finalisation has been delayed by the accused.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to statutory bail after two years in custody if the trial is delayed due to adjournments sought by the defence?
- Does the calculation of delay under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require quantifying the exact time consumed by defence adjournments?
- Whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing bail when prosecution witnesses were present but their examination was postponed at the request of the defence?
- AKHTAR ABBAS AND Others vs NAYYAR HUSSAIN1982 SCMR 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court concerning a mutation of inheritance of abandoned agricultural land originally sanctioned on 27-2-1955. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in writ proceedings, could set aside an order that was not challenged in the writ petition and whether the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) had jurisdiction to entertain a revision against the Collector's order dismissing an appeal on the ground of limitation after an eight-year delay. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by granting relief outside the scope of the writ petition, as it is settled law that relief in writ proceedings must be confined to the prayer made and the court cannot issue a writ suo motu. The Court further held that the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner's order dismissing the revision as time-barred and beyond jurisdiction did not suffer from any legal defect. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, declaring the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner without lawful authority and setting aside the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Can the High Court grant relief in writ proceedings that goes beyond the prayer made in the writ petition?
- Whether an Additional Commissioner (Revenue) has jurisdiction to hear a revision against an order of the Collector dismissing a belated appeal on the ground of limitation?
- Does an order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner dismissing a revision petition as time-barred suffer from any legal defect?
- AKBAR YALMAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1982 SCMR 891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Inspector in the Excise and Taxation Department, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which denied his claim to seniority dating back to 1961. The petitioner, originally recruited to a regional cadre in the West Pakistan Excise and Taxation Department at Quetta based on a Quetta-Pishin domicile, was later transferred to the Punjab province. He argued that he was a Punjab domicile and entitled to seniority benefits for his prior service. The Service Tribunal, relying on a report from the Baluchistan Government, found that the petitioner had secured his initial appointment based on a Quetta-Pishin domicile and that his subsequent transfer to Punjab was granted on compassionate grounds, thereby justifying his placement at the bottom of the seniority list. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to challenge the factual findings of the Tribunal regarding his initial recruitment basis. As the matter rested on findings of fact rather than questions of law, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that factual determinations by the Tribunal are not subject to interference without a clear legal error.
Questions settled- Can a service tribunal's finding of fact regarding the basis of initial recruitment be challenged in the Supreme Court without a question of law?
- Does a transfer granted on compassionate grounds entitle an employee to retain seniority from a previous regional cadre?
- Is an employee recruited against a specific regional quota entitled to claim seniority upon transfer to another province?
- AKBAR KHAN AND Others vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND Other1982 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a land dispute governed by customary law, wherein the petitioners challenged the alienation of an entire ancestral land holding by a husband to his wife in lieu of dower. The core legal question was whether, under the customary law of District Attock, such an alienation is valid when the land value significantly exceeds the dower amount and the transaction effectively disinherits reversionary heirs. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had decreed the suit against the petitioners. The Court held that while custom permits a husband to gift a portion of his estate to his wife as dower, it does not sanction the alienation of an entire ancestral holding to satisfy a disproportionately small dower debt. The key principle laid down is that customary law does not protect alienations of ancestral property designed to defraud rightful heirs, and the scope of permissible alienation is limited by the proportionality between the dower amount and the property value.
Questions settled- Does customary law permit a husband to alienate his entire ancestral land holding to his wife in lieu of dower?
- Can an alienation of ancestral property be set aside if it is intended to defraud reversionary heirs?
- Is the customary right of a husband to gift land to his wife limited by the proportionality of the dower amount to the land value?
- AKBAR AND Others vs THE STATE1982 P Cr. L J 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
- AKBAR AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 156 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-08Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI SHAH AND 3 Others vs MUHAMMAD SHAH AND 4 Other1982 SCMR 286 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for review of a prior order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arising from a dispute concerning the genuineness of signatures on a gift deed allegedly executed by a deceased donor. The core legal question was whether the High Court and the Supreme Court were justified in refusing to interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the District Judge regarding the signatures, and whether a re-appraisal of evidence is permissible in second appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the grounds urged merely criticized the approach of the Court rather than pointing out an error patent on the face of the record, which is a prerequisite for review. The Court laid down the principle that the District Judge, acting as the first appellate court, is the final court of fact, and findings of fact recorded by it cannot be interfered with or re-appraised in second appeal.
Questions settled- Can a finding of fact recorded by a District Judge be interfered with in second appeal?
- Is a mere criticism of the approach followed by the Court a valid ground for seeking review of an order?
- Whether the final court of fact in the appellate hierarchy is the District Judge.
- AKBAR ALI (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS) vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1982 CLC 913 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-20Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI (REPRESENTED BY .1118 HEIRS)S vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT1982 CLC 913 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-20Read full judgment →
- AJEET SINGH vs THE STATE1982 PLD Lahore 10 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a foreign national, challenged his conviction under section 156(1), clause 8 read with section 178 of the Customs Act 1969, following a plea of guilty entered on the same day he was produced before the trial court. The core legal question was whether the trial court's failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—specifically the supply of documents to the accused at least seven days before the commencement of trial—vitiated the conviction, despite the appellant's plea of guilty. The Court held that the provisions of section 265-C are mandatory and essential for a fair trial, as they ensure the accused understands the prosecution's case before pleading. The Court ruled that the trial cannot legally commence until these documents are supplied, and a breach of this provision cannot be cured by the consent or waiver of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for retrial in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the failure to supply copies of documents to an accused under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a conviction based on a plea of guilty?
- Can an accused waive the mandatory requirement of being supplied with prosecution documents under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does a trial legally commence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the supply of documents to the accused?
- Can a conviction based on a plea of guilty be challenged on grounds other than the legality or extent of the sentence?
- AITBAR ALI AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1982 PLD Karachi 302 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-15Read full judgment →
- AIR-PORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FPM & OTHERS LABOUR UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS AND 5 OTHERS1982 PLC 26 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a voters' list prepared by the Registrar of Trade Unions for the election of a collective bargaining agent, as well as directions issued to replace the petitioner union's general secretary and the exclusion of 185 workers. The core legal questions involved whether the Registrar had the power to direct the replacement of a union official, whether the general secretary fell within the definition of a 'workman' under labour laws, and whether 185 workers could be excluded from the voters' list. The court held that an outsider or a person earning above a certain threshold could still hold union office subject to statutory limits, that the general secretary's duties were not supervisory so as to exclude him from the definition of a workman, and that the Registrar could not disenfranchise workers merely on the basis of union consent without proper determination. The petition was partly allowed, declaring the exclusion of the general secretary and the replacement directive without lawful authority, and directing re-examination of the status of the 185 workers.
Questions settled- Does the Registrar of Trade Unions have the power to direct a trade union to replace its General Secretary?
- Whether an employee performing duties under the instructions of others and ensuring schedule execution falls within the supervisory exception of a workman?
- Can a Registrar exclude workers from a voters' list for a collective bargaining agent solely on the basis of a joint consent of contesting trade unions?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction in constitutional petitions to review the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters from a collective bargaining agent referendum list?
- AIJAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1982 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-09Read full judgment →
- AHSAN ALI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HEALTH1982 CLC 2144 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
- AHSAN AHMAD vs MUNISTRY OF FINANCE THROUGH CHIEF DIRECTOR, CENIRAL1982 PLC (C. S.) 692 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- AHMED vs The STATE1982 SCMR 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a murder conviction where the appellant, Ahmed, was accused of strangulating the deceased, Sanata, allegedly due to an illicit relationship with the deceased's wife. The core legal question revolves around the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the credibility of identification by torchlight in the dark, and the sufficiency of uncorroborated motive. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the assailants, noting significant discrepancies regarding the presence of eyewitnesses, the belated production of the torch used for identification, and the lack of corroboration for the alleged motive. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, ruling that the incident was an unseen murder committed in darkness. The key principle laid down is that in unwitnessed crimes occurring in the dark, uncorroborated oral testimony regarding identification by artificial light and assumed motive is insufficient to sustain a conviction, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt and an acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether uncorroborated testimony regarding identification by torchlight in the dark is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction?
- Does an assumed motive alone suffice to prove guilt when eyewitness testimony is discarded?
- What is the legal effect of a belated production of an identification torch before the investigating officer?
- AHMED SAEED vs MESSRS FAIZ COAL MINES1982 PLC 268 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-04-13Read full judgment →
- AHMED KHAN vs MESSRS GLOBE TEXTILE LTD1982 PLC 82 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-19Read full judgment →