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.
- LAL PASAND vs THE STATE1981 PLD Supreme Court 142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a murder conviction where the Peshawar High Court reversed an acquittal by the Sessions Judge. The appellant was convicted solely on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness, Saadullah Khan, who identified the appellant in an identification parade held months after the incident. The core legal question was whether a conviction for murder can be safely sustained based on the uncorroborated identification of a stranger by a single witness, particularly when the identification parade was conducted with significant delays and procedural irregularities. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was unsafe and illegal. The Court emphasized that while identification rules are not inflexible, a departure from established ratios of intermingled persons in identification parades requires a valid explanation, which was absent here. The Court laid down the principle that, absent exceptional circumstances, it is unsafe to base a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness who only had a fleeting glimpse of the assailant, especially when the witness is a stranger to the accused.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be safely sustained based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single eye-witness who identified a stranger?
- Does the failure to follow established ratios of intermingled persons in an identification parade automatically render the identification evidence inadmissible?
- Is a police officer's status as a trained professional sufficient to guarantee the accuracy of their identification of a stranger?
- What is the legal consequence of an unexplained delay in holding an identification parade?
- LAL DIN vs THE STATE AND Another1981 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court partly allowing an appeal and altering the respondent's conviction from Section 304, Part I to Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code, reducing his sentence from transportation for life to five years. The core legal question was whether the High Court was correct in altering the conviction and sentence where a fatal knife blow was inflicted during a sudden scuffle by an armed assailant upon an unarmed victim. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's alteration of the conviction was erroneous, as the accused had acted with an unfair advantage using a lethal weapon against an unarmed person, precluding the benefit of the right of private defence or lesser exceptions. The Court established the principle that where a party resorts to a dangerous weapon in a sudden fight against an unarmed adversary, the offence is murder rather than manslaughter, and since the State did not appeal the original conviction, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's conviction under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was correct in altering the conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does the plea of self-defence apply when one party resorts to a dangerous weapon in a sudden fight while the other party is wholly unarmed?
- Whether the use of a lethal weapon during a sudden fight against an unarmed adversary attracts the application of exceptions to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- LAL DIN vs ADMINISTRATOR (LAND), THAL DEVELOPMENT, BHAKKAR AND 41981 SCMR 890 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction where two defendants died during the pendency of the proceedings. The plaintiff failed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased defendants on record within the prescribed period, leading to the trial court's dismissal of the application for impleadment and the subsequent abatement of the suit. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly held that the suit had abated and that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that abatement is automatic upon the expiry of the statutory period for bringing legal representatives on record. While an application to set aside abatement may be filed, the applicant must establish 'sufficient cause' for the delay. The Court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate the alleged ignorance of the defendants' deaths, particularly given the parties resided in the same village. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, holding that no sufficient cause existed to set aside the abatement, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Is the abatement of a suit automatic upon the expiry of the period for bringing legal representatives on record?
- Does the filing of an application to set aside abatement within the prescribed time automatically entitle a party to have the abatement set aside?
- Must a party seeking to set aside the abatement of a suit establish 'sufficient cause' for the delay in impleading legal representatives?
- LAL BUX vs THE STATE1981 PLD F SC 132 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-02-13Read full judgment →
- LAL BUX AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 768 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
- LAL AND 3 Others vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
- LAKAULLAH vs The STATE1981 SCMR 1259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Lakaullah, who was charged alongside others under sections 114, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 448, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that the underlying civil dispute had been compromised and that it was unclear whether the specific grievous injury sustained by the complainant was attributable to him or a co-accused. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether the compromise of a civil dispute and the difficulty in attributing specific injuries among multiple assailants warranted the grant of bail in a case involving a violent attack. The Court held that the civil compromise was irrelevant to the criminal culpability regarding the physical assault. Furthermore, because the petitioner was alleged to have struck the complainant on a vital part of the body with a hatchet, the Court affirmed the refusal of bail, noting that the specific nature of the injury was immaterial at the bail stage given the prima facie application of section 307.
Questions settled- Does a compromise in a civil dispute regarding property possession mitigate criminal culpability for physical assault?
- Is the specific nature of an injury (grievous or otherwise) material to the grant of bail when a weapon is used on a vital part of the body?
- Does the inability of a complainant to distinguish which of several assailants caused a specific injury entitle an accused to bail?
- LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAHORE vs SHAUKAT-1981 P Cr. L J 1010 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
- KOHINOOR COTTON MILLS LTD. vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CENRAL EXCISES1981 CLC 782 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- KHUSRO ALAM HYDRI vs Mst. IQBAL BEGUM1981 CLC 347 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts maintaining an order of ejectment against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application, which was contested by the appellant on the plea that he had entered into a contract of sale for the premises with the respondent and continued in possession in part performance thereof pursuant to section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, thereby terminating the landlord-tenant relationship. The core legal question is whether the mere execution of a contract for sale of rented premises between a landlord and tenant ipso facto terminates the tenancy and absolves the tenant from paying rent without an express stipulation to that effect in the agreement. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that unless the agreement to sell explicitly stipulates that the tenancy is terminated and possession is converted into that of a transferee under part performance, the relationship of landlord and tenant continues, and the tenant remains liable to pay rent. The key principle laid down is that section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not bar the ejectment of a tenant who commits wilful default in rent payments under special rent restriction laws merely because an agreement to sell exists, unless possession is proven to be held specifically in part performance as a transferee rather than as a tenant holding over.
Questions settled- Whether the liability of a tenant who enters into a contract for sale of the property in his tenancy ceases ipso facto without any stipulation in the contract to that effect?
- Does the execution of an agreement to sell between a landlord and tenant terminate the relationship of landlord and tenant automatically?
- Can section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 be invoked to bar ejectment for non-payment of rent when the agreement is silent on the cessation of tenancy?
- Whether a tenant continuing in possession under an agreement to sell without an express exemption from rent liability is deemed a tenant holding over?
- KHUSHNUDUR REHMAN vs Mst. ZUBEDA BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 406 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-09Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs Mst. BASHIRAN1981 CLC 84 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS1981 CLC 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD NAZIR AHMAD ETC. vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND 3 Other1981 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two interconnected petitions for leave to appeal arising from cross-cases of murder and assault. The first petition challenged the Lahore High Court's order releasing the accused on bail after the recording of evidence had concluded, while their case awaited final judgment alongside a delayed cross-case. The second petition challenged the refusal of pre-arrest bail to other accused individuals who were absconding and declared proclaimed offenders. The core legal questions centered on whether prolonged incarceration resulting from delays caused by cross-proceedings warrants bail as an abuse of process, and whether pre-arrest bail can be extended to proclaimed offenders who evade court processes. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed both petitions, holding that undue delay and abuse of court processes constitute valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail, and that absconders and proclaimed offenders are not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration due to systemic trial delays or obstructions caused by cross-accused amounts to an abuse of process justifying bail, whereas willful absconsion disentitles an accused to discretionary pre-arrest relief.
Questions settled- Does prolonged incarceration resulting from trial delays in cross-cases amount to an abuse of the process of the court justifying the grant of bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted to accused persons who are declared proclaimed offenders and are fugitive from justice?
- Whether delay caused by the obstructive conduct of an accused in a cross-case can prejudice the bail rights of incarcerated accused persons in the main case?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD KHALID vs CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1981 PLC (C. S.) 849 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-04-27Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 3 Others vs Mst. ZAINAB BIBI AND 20 Other1981 SCMR 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a land dispute where the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, a maternal uncle, fraudulently executed a gift deed and mutation in 1956 to deprive his minor, orphaned, and pardahnashin nieces of their land. The nieces filed a suit in 1964 for declaration and perpetual injunction upon a threat to their possession. The trial court, appellate court, and High Court concurrently found that the gift was fraudulent, impersonation was used, and possession was never delivered to the uncle, with the ladies remaining in joint possession. The petitioners contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, as it was filed more than six years after the mutation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the plaintiffs remained in joint possession and were unaware of the fraud, they were not bound to seek cancellation of the transfer deed immediately. The right to sue accrued when their possession was threatened, and limitation runs from the date of such threat and continues daily as long as the adverse claim persists.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for declaration challenging a fraudulent gift mutation is barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 if filed more than six years after the mutation, where the plaintiffs remained in joint possession?
- Does the possession of one co-sharer constitute the possession of all co-sharers, preventing the presumption of adverse possession?
- Is a plaintiff bound to seek the cancellation of a fraudulent transfer deed immediately, or can they wait to file a suit until a visible threat to their possession arises?
- KHUSHDIL AND 3 Other vs THE STATE1981 PLD Supreme Court 582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentences of four appellants for double murder, confirmed by the Peshawar High Court. Leave to appeal was granted to three appellants regarding sentence, and to one appellant regarding both conviction and sentence. During proceedings, the Supreme Court examined whether it could review the convictions of appellants granted leave only on sentence if the evidence proved insufficient. The Court held that the eye-witness testimony was inconsistent with medical evidence and the initial F.I.R., creating reasonable doubt regarding the participation of two appellants, Sardar and Muhammad Nawaz. Consequently, the Court acquitted them. Regarding the legal scope, the Court affirmed that while a party cannot claim as a right to argue points on which leave was refused, the Supreme Court possesses inherent power under Article 187 of the Constitution to do complete justice. Thus, the Court is not strictly bound by the limitations of a leave-granting order and may examine issues beyond the scope of the leave if the interests of justice so require.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court examine the conviction of an appellant if leave to appeal was granted only on the question of sentence?
- Does the Supreme Court have the power to do complete justice under Article 187 of the Constitution despite limitations in a leave-granting order?
- Is a conviction sustainable when eye-witness testimony is fundamentally contradicted by medical evidence and the initial F.I.R.?
- KHUSHAL KHAN vs The STATE1981 SCMR 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentences for offences under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of fraudulently selling a jointly owned truck by forging the complainant's thumb impressions on transfer documents. The petitioner contended that he acted under a valid power of attorney and that the Finger Print Expert could not provide a definitive opinion linking him to the forgery. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the petitioner's defense of enmity with the complainant contradicted his claim that she had granted him a power of attorney. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to confront the complainant with the alleged power of attorney during cross-examination. The Court held that the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts was sound and free from infirmity. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the findings of fact regarding the forgery were sufficiently supported by the evidence.
Questions settled- Does the registration of a power of attorney necessarily prove that the executant appeared before the Registrar?
- Can a conviction for forgery be sustained when the Finger Print Expert is unable to provide a definitive opinion on the thumb impressions?
- Does a claim of enmity between the complainant and the accused undermine the validity of a power of attorney allegedly granted by the complainant?
- KHUSHAB GUL AND ANOTHER vs NAWAB KHAN AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 404 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-28Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD SHAH AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 67 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD MALIK vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION & WORKS DEPARTMENT ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 839 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- KHURSHHD-UL-HAQ vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, LIVE STOCK &1981 PLC (C. S.) 873 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMAD KAHLOON vs FATEH MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
- KHUDAD KHAN vs MESSRS NATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION1981 PLC 18 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-19Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB. Etcs1981 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the tenant, Khuda Bakhsh, in respect of a shop. The new owner, Muhammad Yaqub, sought eviction on grounds of default in rent and personal requirement, having issued a notice under Section 13-A of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, but the appellate court accepted the landlord's appeal, and the Lahore High Court dismissed the tenant's second appeal. The core legal questions involved the service of notice of transfer of property to the tenant and the proof thereof, as well as the landlord's personal need. The Supreme Court held that the question of service of notice is one of fact, that law does not strictly require a postal acknowledgement to prove service, and that where the tenant admits paying rent to the new landlord, the purpose of the notice stands fulfilled. The Court further held that objections regarding other vacated shops lack merit when their locality is not shown to be the same and the landlord intends to demolish them. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the production of a postal acknowledgement is mandatory in law to prove the service of notice under Section 13-A of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Does the admission of rent payment to a new landlord cure any defect regarding the service of notice of transfer?
- Whether obtaining possession of other shops by a landlord defeats a claim for personal need without proof that those shops are in the same locality?
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE AND 3 Other1981 SCMR 1134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment upholding the resumption of temporary lease land and its allotment to evictees under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme. The petitioner was allotted State land on a ten-year temporary lease. Before the lease expired, the Collector resumed the land and allotted it to respondents under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme. The Member, Board of Revenue, upheld the resumption, observing that the land was already earmarked in the Islamabad Oustees Schedule prior to the temporary lease, and that resettlement of displaced persons constituted a public purpose. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, ruling that temporary leases could be determined prior to expiration if the land was needed for a permanent scheme or public purpose, and that subsequent notifications regarding proprietary rights were inapplicable. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, holding that under the applicable Temporary Cultivation Conditions, temporary leases may be validly terminated or resumed when required for permanent resettlement schemes.
Questions settled- Can a temporary lease of State land be terminated prior to its expiry if the land is required for a permanent scheme or public purpose?
- Whether a temporary lessee of State land can claim proprietary rights under subsequent notifications if the land was already earmarked for allotment under a permanent scheme?
- Does the resettlement of evictees under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme constitute a public purpose justifying the resumption of temporarily leased State land?
- KHOZAB GUL vs Tim STATE1981 S. C M R 389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court reversing the acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Judge and convicting him under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Khana Mir, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's well-reasoned order of acquittal based on discredited ocular testimony and discrepancies regarding the lodging of the First Information Report. The Supreme Court held that the statements of the prosecution eye-witnesses were discrepant and unworthy of credence, and the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for disbelieving them were cogent. The Court laid down the principle that an acquittal should not be reversed merely because an appellate court takes a different view of the evidence, especially where the trial court's view is based on reasonable grounds and the prosecution evidence is riddled with doubts and suspicions. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the conviction set aside.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is justified in reversing an acquittal when the trial court's view of the evidence is based on cogent reasons?
- Can the uncorroborated testimony of a discredited eye-witness form the basis of a murder conviction beyond reasonable doubt?
- What is the legal effect of material discrepancies in the prosecution evidence regarding the lodging of the First Information Report?
- KHIZAR HAYAT Ann 3 Other vs THE STATE1981 PLD Lahore 669 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
- KHIZAR HAYAT AND 2 OTHERS vs SHAH NAWAZ1981 CLC 139 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
- KHAWAR IJAZ AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1981 CLC 321 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
- Khawaja MUHAMMAD SAMIN JAN AND ANOTHER vs Haji SAMUNDAR KHAN1981 CLC 62 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khawaja MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs PRESIDENT, CANTONMENT BOARD, SIALKOT1981 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an order dismissing a writ petition challenging a decision in a local election dispute. The petitioner was a candidate in the local elections held on October 6, 1979, and was initially declared the winner. Respondent No. 2 filed an election petition alleging that the petitioner had contested the election on a political party basis, violating statutory disqualifications. After remands and further evidence, the Election Authority allowed the election petition and ordered a fresh election, holding that the petitioner fought the election on a political basis. The High Court declined to interfere under Article 199, holding that the Election Authority had validly exercised its jurisdiction based on material before it. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the High Court was justified in refusing to reappraise evidence and that the Election Authority's findings of fact based on an overall assessment of evidence were unexceptionable.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can reappraise evidence under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere with a finding of fact rendered by an Election Authority?
- Does contesting an election with indirect or direct affiliation or association with a political party attract disqualification under the Cantonments Act 1924?
- Whether the Election Authority is justified in relying upon oral testimony and photographs to establish a candidate's political affiliation during local elections?
- KHAN ZAMAN vs MUHAMMAD KHAN AND Another1981 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reversing a trial court conviction. The core legal questions were whether the High Court erred in discarding the dying declaration and ocular evidence, and whether the conviction should be restored. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal. The Court held that the ocular evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses was unreliable because they were partisan, interested, and had falsely implicated an innocent co-accused. Furthermore, the motive evidence was double-edged and insufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court also found the dying declaration unreliable due to significant evidentiary conflicts regarding the language spoken by the deceased and the fact that it implicated an innocent person. The judgment reinforces the principle that where prosecution witnesses are interested and have falsely implicated innocent persons, their testimony requires strong independent corroboration, and a dying declaration that is inconsistent or casts doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case may be rejected.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of interested witnesses who have falsely implicated an innocent person?
- Is a dying declaration reliable when there is conflicting evidence regarding the language in which it was recorded?
- Does the implication of an innocent co-accused in a dying declaration undermine its credibility regarding other accused persons?
- Can motive evidence be considered double-edged in a criminal trial?
- KHAN MUHAMMAD Appellant vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 778 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD AND Another vs The STATE1981 SCMR 597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under sections 364, 302, and 323 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the precise nature of the offence committed by the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly regarding common intention and the attribution of fatal injuries. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the participation of the appellants was established, the fatal head injuries were exclusively caused by a co-accused armed with a danda, whereas the appellants were either empty-handed or alleged to have used a wooden phatti inconsistently, and did not share a common intention to commit murder. The Court laid down the principle that where prosecution evidence suffers from major inconsistencies regarding the weapon used and specific roles attributed to individual accused, and where co-accused inflict no fatal blows, constructive liability under section 34 for murder cannot be sustained, warranting the setting aside of the murder conviction.
Questions settled- Whether constructive liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be sustained when the accused did not share the common intention to commit murder and inflicted no fatal injuries?
- Does a long and unexplained delay in recording judicial confessions render them suspicious and indicative of being extracted in an unfair manner?
- Can material improvements and inconsistencies in ocular testimony regarding the weapon used by an accused vitiate reliance on that specific part of the prosecution case?
- KHAN BAHADUR vs The STATE1981 SCMR 206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that modified the petitioner's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who claimed to have acted in self-defense, had exceeded the right of private defense given the circumstances of the incident. The petitioner argued he acted in panic after the deceased attacked him, using a revolver he claimed belonged to the deceased. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner fired three successive shots, the first of which was fatal, and failed to substantiate claims regarding the deceased's weapons (hatchet and iron bar) during the investigation. The Court held that even assuming a right of self-defense existed, the petitioner clearly exceeded it by firing multiple shots. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, affirmed the High Court's assessment of the evidence, and maintained the sentence of life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Does firing multiple shots at a deceased person constitute an exceeding of the right of private defense?
- Is a conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 appropriate when the accused exceeds the right of self-defense?
- Can a sentence be reduced when the accused has fired multiple successive shots resulting in death?
- KHAN BAHADUR vs ISMAIL AND Other1981 SCMR 1057 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal, which had upheld the setting aside of an order passed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question concerns the competency of an application filed by the petitioner under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act when the matter regarding excess allotment obtained through alleged fraud and misrepresentation was already pending before the Claims Commissioner. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court rightly concluded that a second petition on the same matter was not competent while proceedings remained pending before the Claims Commissioner. The key principle laid down is that parallel or successive proceedings regarding the same subject matter of excess allotment cannot be maintained under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act when an original matter is already sub judice before the competent Claims Commissioner, though an interested informant may seek to be impleaded as a party in the pending proceedings to protect their claim.
Questions settled- Whether an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act is competent when the question of excess allotment is already pending before the Claims Commissioner?
- Can an informant maintain a separate petition regarding excess allotment while earlier proceedings on the same matter remain unresolved before the competent authority?
- KHAN BAHADUR AND MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN1981 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the acquittals of the respondents in two separate criminal cases arising from a single marriage procession incident. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of dying declarations, eye-witness testimony, and the establishment of motive, thereby justifying interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, holding that the High Court correctly identified significant contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including the fabrication of motive and the concealment of material facts. The Court affirmed the principle that it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact or the appreciation of evidence by lower courts in leave to appeal proceedings unless a clear error or illegality is demonstrated. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that where the prosecution fabricates a motive or suppresses material facts regarding a counter-incident, it undermines the credibility of the entire prosecution narrative, justifying the grant of the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence in leave to appeal proceedings?
- Does the fabrication of a motive by the prosecution adversely affect the credibility of eye-witness testimony?
- Is the concealment of a counter-incident by prosecution witnesses a valid ground for the High Court to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused?
- KHAN AKIL KHAN vs THE STATE1981 PLD Karachi 601 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
- Khan ABDUL AZIZ KHAN vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 3 Other1981 SCMR 672 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court regarding a service seniority dispute. The petitioner challenged the High Court's decision to grant a stay order in favor of the fourth respondent at the motion stage of a writ petition without providing notice to the other parties. The core legal question was whether a High Court, while admitting a writ petition, is competent to finally dispose of a stay application without notice to the respondents, or if it is limited to granting ad interim relief. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was valid only as an ad interim measure. The Court clarified that the High Court was not competent to finally decide the stay application at the motion stage without notice. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed that the stay application be decided by the High Court after proper notice to all parties. The key principle laid down is that at the motion stage of a writ petition, a court is only competent to pass ad interim orders rather than final orders on stay applications.
Questions settled- Is a High Court competent to finally decide a stay application at the motion stage of a writ petition without notice to the respondents?
- Does the bar of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to service seniority disputes?
- What is the scope of a court's power regarding stay applications at the motion stage of a writ petition?
- KHAMISO vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 898 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-28Read full judgment →
- KHAMISO AND Another vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
- KHAMISO AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 1225 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
- KHALILUR REHMAN AND Other vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Other1981 PLD Karachi 750 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before a Full Bench of the Sindh High Court to determine whether constitutional petitions challenging civil servant retirement orders under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, are barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, thereby ousting the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199. The Court held that Article 212, read with the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Service Tribunal regarding the terms and conditions of service. Consequently, the High Court’s jurisdiction is ousted in such matters, regardless of whether the impugned orders are alleged to be mala fide, ultra vires, or coram non judice, as the Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate all such questions of law and fact. The key principle laid down is that the ouster of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 212 is absolute once a matter falls within the Service Tribunal's ambit, and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is not limited by procedural requirements or the nature of the alleged illegality.
Questions settled- Are petitions challenging retirement orders under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to adjudicate allegations that a retirement order is mala fide, ultra vires, or coram non judice?
- Does the requirement of a 90-day waiting period for departmental representation under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, prevent the ouster of the High Court's jurisdiction?
- Is the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal limited to orders passed by legally competent departmental authorities?
- KHALIL vs The STATE1981 SCMR 907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which had cancelled the pre-trial bail previously granted to the petitioner Khalil. The petitioner was accused alongside his father under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ghulam Haider. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was attributed any overt act warranting bail and whether he fell within the statutory age exception under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for persons under sixteen years of age. The Supreme Court held that the allegations, if unrebutted, exposed the petitioner to capital punishment or imprisonment for life, and documentary evidence established that the petitioner was above sixteen years of age at the time of the offence, thereby excluding him from the beneficial exception of Section 497(1). Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's order cancelling the petitioner's bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person aged above sixteen years at the time of the commission of the offence is entitled to the benefit of the exception under subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an allegation under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, if unrebutted, preclude the grant of bail?
- Are there sufficient grounds to interfere with a High Court order cancelling bail when the accused is prima facie connected to a capital offence?
- KHALID PARVEZ AND Other vs THE STATE1981 PLD F SC 306 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
- KHALID MIAN AND Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1981 SCMR 1098 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside the confirmation of their pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the propriety of granting and maintaining pre-arrest bail in a murder case involving conflicting first information reports and a plea of self-defence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to establish any ulterior motive for their arrest or exceptional circumstances warranting interference, as required for pre-arrest bail. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail requires a clear demonstration of an ulterior motive for arrest or exceptional circumstances amounting to a grave illegality or abuse of process, failing which the superior courts will not interfere with the cancellation of bail.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be sustained when the accused fails to show an ulterior motive for arrest?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the cancellation of pre-arrest bail by the High Court?
- Does a prior in time police report by itself justify the grant of pre-arrest bail in a murder case?
- KHALID FAROOQ vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 144 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-12Read full judgment →
- KHALID BASHIR vs FAZAL ABBAS1981 SCMR 701 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent challenging a registered sale deed whereby the appellant purchased land for Rs. 50,000. The trial court decreed the suit after assessing a lower market value, and the High Court partly modified the sale price based on a patwari's price index. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the courts below were justified in ignoring the ostensible sale price and the official endorsement of payment by the Sub-Registrar based on generalities and conjectures. The Supreme Court held that the endorsement by the Sub-Registrar raises a presumption of actual payment of the price mentioned in the sale deed, which was not rebutted by any contrary evidence. The Court laid down the principle that if the price stated in a sale deed is proven to have been paid in fact, the pre-emptor must pay that specific price, and courts cannot resort to conjectures or generalities to determine a different market value for pre-emption purposes.
Questions settled- Does an endorsement by a Sub-Registrar regarding the payment of sale price raise a presumption of actual payment?
- Can a court determine the market value of pre-empted land when the price mentioned in the sale deed is proven to have been actually paid?
- Are generalities and conjectures sufficient to rebut the presumption attached to a registered sale deed's stated price?
- KHAISTA GUL vs MUHAMMAD AZBI AND 3 OTHERS1981 P Cr. L J 238 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
- KHAIRU AND Another vs The STATE1981 SCMR 1136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking leave to appeal against the concurrent conviction of the petitioners under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased following a dispute over the possession of an Ihata. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular testimony, the application of the rule falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, the explanation of delay in lodging the first information report, and the corroborative value of weapon recoveries matching crime empties. The Supreme Court held that where judgments of lower courts are based on substantial grounds regarding the appreciation of evidence without any legal error, the court will not re-assess the evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Whether the rule falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is applicable for discarding the evidence of witnesses as a whole?
- Can the Supreme Court re-assess evidence in a petition for leave to appeal in the absence of a legal error?
- Whether delay in lodging the first information report is fatal when adequately explained?
- KHAIR MUHAMMAD vs Mst. TAHIRA BIBI AND Other1981 SCMR 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which dismissed a second appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal of his suit challenging a previous decree. The core legal questions involve whether a compromise decree passed under the Frontier Crimes Regulation is void for want of formal appointment of a guardian ad litem under Muslim law, and whether the Council-of-Elders was competent to decide the matter on a compromise without following a formal procedural law. The Supreme Court held that the Council-of-Elders under the Frontier Crimes Regulation is not bound by any fixed procedural law regarding the appointment of guardians or trial procedure, provided it conducts inquiries and hears the parties. The Court laid down the principle that the procedural technicalities of ordinary civil law or Muslim law regarding guardianship do not apply to proceedings before a Jirga under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, where the primary statutory obligation is simply to inquire and hear the parties.
Questions settled- Whether a decree passed under the Frontier Crimes Regulation is vitiated by the failure to appoint a guardian ad litem in accordance with Muslim law?
- Is the Council-of-Elders bound by any fixed procedure or rules regarding the appointment of legal guardians during proceedings under the Frontier Crimes Regulation?
- Does the Frontier Crimes Regulation empower the Council-of-Elders to decide a dispute on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- Can a party raise a new factual or legal ground regarding the initial reference to the Jirga for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal after protracted litigation?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE AND Another1981 S CMR1115 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to respondent Idrees in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to an accused charged with a capital offense where the role attributed involved simple injuries and vicarious liability was yet to be determined. The Supreme Court held that despite certain discrepancies and erroneous observations in the impugned order regarding injuries on the accused, the respondent was entitled to bail as he was only attributed simple injuries and it was premature at the pre-trial stage to establish common intention or vicarious liability for murder. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the clarification that observations made would not prejudice the trial.
Questions settled- Whether an accused attributed only with simple injuries in a murder case involving common intention is entitled to bail at the pre-trial stage?
- Does a misreading of the record by the High Court regarding injuries on the accused automatically vitiate an order granting bail?
- Can vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be conclusively determined at the bail stage without recording evidence?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, LAHORE AND ANOTHER, .1981 PLC (C. S.) 826 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-21Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN ETC. vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN1981 SCMR 1183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by vendees against the judgments of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed their appeals in limine and affirmed the concurrent findings in pre-emption suits. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners established their status as tenants at the time of the sale to match the pre-emptor's superior right, and whether civil courts lacked jurisdiction over pre-emption suits involving tenancies pursuant to amendments under the Land Reforms Regulation. The Supreme Court held that revenue records and Khasra Girdawari entries do not relate back to prove tenancy at the time of the sale if recorded subsequently, and that the jurisdictional bar and transfer of pre-emption suits to the Collector under the relevant ordinance applies to suits brought by tenants enforcing their rights rather than vendees asserting tenancy as a defense. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an entry in the Khasra Girdawari prepared after a sale be used to prove tenancy at the time of the sale?
- Whether civil courts retain jurisdiction in pre-emption suits involving land comprised in a tenancy after the amendment by Ordinance XX of 1976?
- Does the provision transferring pre-emption suits to the Collector under Ordinance XX of 1976 apply to vendees claiming tenancy as a defense or only to suits instituted by tenants?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN AND 4 OTHERS vs Mst. FAROOQA GUL1981 CLC 15 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →
- KHADIJA BIBI vs ZULFIQAR AHMAD1981 CLC 1212 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
- Kh. MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1981 CLC 1759 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Kh. BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1170 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-21Read full judgment →
- Kh. ABDUL QAYYUM vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →
- Kh. A. QAISER vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1981 PLC (C. S.) 634 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1981-07-16Read full judgment →
- KH D M HUSSAIN AND 2 Others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB And Other1981 SCMR 1078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, ad hoc officers serving as Instructors and Senior Instructors in polytechnics, sought the benefit of five advance increments granted by the Provincial Co-ordination Committee to lecturers holding Master's degrees in Physical and Natural Sciences. The Punjab Government had restricted the applicability of this decision to regular appointees in N.P.S. 17 as of April 30, 1977, thereby excluding the petitioners. The Service Tribunal, while expressing sympathy for the petitioners' demand, declined to issue a formal direction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that decisions of the Provincial Co-ordination Committee are not legally binding on Provincial Governments unless explicitly accepted and implemented by the respective Provincial Government. The Court clarified that the petitioners had no legal entitlement to the increments based solely on the Committee's recommendations. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the petitioners' claim lacked a legal basis, noting that the Tribunal's favorable recommendation was merely a non-binding observation that could be used for administrative representation rather than a source of enforceable legal right.
Questions settled- Are decisions of the Provincial Co-ordination Committee legally binding on Provincial Governments without formal acceptance?
- Do ad hoc employees possess an enforceable legal right to benefits granted to regular employees by administrative policy?
- Can a Service Tribunal's recommendation, issued without a formal direction, be enforced as a legal right?
- Kb. ABDUL GHAN1 vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF I & K1981 PLC (C. S.) 798 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1981-09-07Read full judgment →
- Kazi ABDUL MAJID vs HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HYDERABAD1981 CLC 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
- KAURO vs THE STATE----1981 P Cr. L J 872 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
- KAURA vs Mst MANS AB MAI AND Another1981 PLD Lahore 335 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an appellate judgment by the Additional District Judge, which reversed a Family Court decision and granted a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula. The respondent had previously filed multiple unsuccessful suits for dissolution of marriage, and in the instant case, the Family Court dismissed her suit after deciding all issues against her. On appeal, the Additional District Judge granted the decree based on the existence of hatred and aversion, relying on precedent. However, the petitioner argued that the respondent had abandoned her specific allegations of cruelty, misappropriation of property, and false accusations of adultery during the appellate proceedings. The High Court held that the appellate court erred by granting Khula without any evidentiary basis. The Court emphasized that mere separation or the filing of multiple suits does not automatically establish the 'hatred and aversion' required for Khula. To obtain such a decree, the wife must provide sufficient material on record to prove that she cannot live within the limits of God, which was absent in this case.
Questions settled- Does the mere filing of multiple suits for dissolution of marriage by a wife constitute sufficient proof of hatred and aversion to justify a decree of Khula?
- Can an appellate court grant a decree of Khula based on hatred and aversion when the wife has abandoned her specific allegations of cruelty and misconduct?
- Is a wife entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula if she has stayed away from her husband without proving a reasonable cause?
- KARIM UD DIN AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPURAND1981 SCMR 1037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld orders cancelling the petitioners' allotment of land. The petitioners had obtained land based on a verified claim of one Abdullah, asserting they were his legal heirs. However, investigation by enforcement police revealed the petitioners had no relationship with the deceased claimant, belonged to a different caste, and originated from a different area in India. Furthermore, the petitioners' father was alive at the relevant time, negating their claim to inheritance. The Settlement Authorities cancelled the allotment due to fraud, and the High Court refused to interfere, noting a lack of positive evidence presented by the petitioners to support their claims. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with the factual findings of the Settlement Authorities regarding fraudulent allotment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that where authorities find an allotment was obtained through fraud based on factual evidence, and the petitioners failed to produce contrary evidence, the High Court's refusal to interfere is legally sound.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact by Settlement Authorities regarding fraudulent allotment when no positive evidence was produced by the petitioner?
- Is an allotment obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation of heirship liable to be cancelled by Settlement Authorities?
- KARIM BAKHSH AND 6 OTHERS vs CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND 6 OTHERS1981 CLC 1403 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
- KARAMATULLAH KHAN vs ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, N: W. F. P. AND Another1981 SCMR 436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the calculation of pension benefits for a retired government servant. The appellant, having previously surrendered one-fourth of his pension in exchange for a lump-sum gratuity under the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, sought the restoration of his full gross pension upon the introduction of the Liberalized Pension Rules for Civil Servants, 1977. The core legal question was whether the 1977 Rules entitled the appellant to the restoration of the surrendered pension portion without the deduction of the previously received gratuity value. The Supreme Court held that the deduction was lawful. The Court reasoned that the gratuity received was not a loan or advance subject to repayment, but a final financial benefit. Furthermore, the explicit language in Rule 7(ii) of the 1977 Rules, stating that gratuity would not be revised or recalculated, demonstrated an intent to preserve the surrendered portion. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the surrendered value must be deducted from the revised gross pension, dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Does the Liberalized Pension Rules for Civil Servants, 1977, allow for the restoration of a pension portion previously surrendered for gratuity?
- Is a gratuity payment received by a government servant upon retirement considered a loan or advance that must be repaid to restore full pension?
- Does the provision that 'gratuity will not be revised or re-calculated' in the Liberalized Pension Rules for Civil Servants, 1977, preserve the surrendered portion of a pension?
- KARAM vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 816 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-26Read full judgment →
- KARAM vs MURID HUSSAIN AND 7 Other1981 SCMR 942 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment and decree that modified a trial court decision based on a compromise agreement in a pre-emption suit. The petitioner argued that he was not a party to the compromise, as his son, who acted on his behalf, lacked authorization, and that the compromise violated the principle of partial pre-emption by transferring only a portion of the suit land. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. Regarding the authorization issue, the Court noted that the petitioner's son and a co-respondent had made statements before the High Court accepting the compromise, which were supported by counsel, leading the High Court to conclude the settlement was lawful. Regarding the partial pre-emption argument, the Court held that whether the transfer of a compact block of land within the larger suit property constitutes partial pre-emption is a question of fact that cannot be investigated for the first time in appeal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decree based on the settlement.
Questions settled- Can a question of fact regarding partial pre-emption be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Is a compromise decree valid when supported by statements of parties and their counsel before the High Court?
- KARAM KHAN vs The STATE1981SCMR 1072 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan by the petitioner, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, seeking a review of the court's earlier judgment dismissing his appeal. The core legal questions involved whether a review petition can be entertained on grounds of mitigating circumstances such as provocation, a subsequent compromise between the parties, or an alleged inconsistency of the death penalty with Shariat law based on a Federal Shariat Court judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that none of these grounds constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review of its earlier judgment. The key principle laid down is that a compromise between the victim's family and the convict, or subsequent developments regarding Shariat rulings, do not constitute legal grounds for reviewing a final judgment, though such matters may be relevant for executive clemency under the mercy jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether a compromise between the families of the victim and the convict constitutes a sufficient ground for reviewing a final judgment in a criminal case?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts on the question of sentence in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record?
- Whether the possibility of modifying a sentence in light of a Federal Shariat Court pronouncement can be a ground for reviewing a past judgment when the law at the time of the offence stood otherwise?
- KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI vs MOULA BUKSH AND ANOTHER,1981 PLC 844 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-17Read full judgment →
- KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs JAM IL BAIG ,1981 PLC 882 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
- KARACHI TOOLS & HARDWARE MART vs NATIONAL MOTORS LTD., KARACHI1981 CLC 913 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
- KARACHI TELECOMMUNICATION REGION vs WALT AHMAD, .1981 PLC 217 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-23Read full judgment →
- KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD., KARACHI vs BASHIR AHMAD1981 PLC 856 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-23Read full judgment →
- KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM1981 PLC 200 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
- KARACHI GAS COMPANY LTD., KARACHI vs HASHAM ISSAQPLD 1981. Karachi 197 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-09Read full judgment →
- KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. (14.EOD.) vs DIRECTOR_COLLECTOR (TAXES), EXCISE &TAXATION, KARACHI AND ANOTHER,1981 PLC 396 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-26Read full judgment →
- KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD vs WITH RENT CONTROLLER, KARACHI. AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Karachi 660 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KARACHI vs NASRULLAH KHAN , .1981 PLC 798 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-06Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KARACHI vs COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KARACHI AND ANOTHER,1981 PLC 839 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
- KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MUHAMMAD WASIQ KHAN1981 PLC 952 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
- KARACHI CLUB vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ KHAN1981 PLC 890 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
- KARACHI CANTONMENT BOARD vs MUHAMMAD ALI , . (1981 PLC 171 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
- KANDO vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 372 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
- KAMALL DDIN vs THE STATE Respondent1981 P Cr. L J 137 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
- KAMAL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1047 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-22Read full judgment →
- KALEEM AKBAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 1092 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-22Read full judgment →
- KALAY KHAN vs JAMIA MASJID AKSE JAMIL1981 CLC 921 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
- KALAN KHAN vs The STATE1981 SCMR 237(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's bail application primarily due to his absence during court hearings. The petitioner argued that his absence was necessitated by the fear of arrest by the police while traveling to the court, relying on a precedent regarding bail procedures. The Supreme Court found the cited precedent distinguishable because the petitioner had filed his application under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rather than under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which addresses the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's chosen legal remedy was procedurally incorrect for the specific relief sought. The Court clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to file a fresh application before the High Court invoking the appropriate provision, specifically Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to address his concerns regarding potential arrest.
Questions settled- Can a bail application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the absence of a petitioner from court proceedings a valid ground for the dismissal of a bail application?
- KALA vs THE STATE- Respondent1981 P Cr. L J 472 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
- KADIR BUX vs THE STATE-Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 793 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-27Read full judgment →
- KABIR ALI vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SANGHAR AND 4 OTHERS1981 CLC 918 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-09Read full judgment →
- JUNA BUNDER JOINT VENTURE, NATIONAL CONSTRUCT ION Co. (PAKISTAN)1981 PLC 175 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
- JUMO vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1981 CLC 586 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
- JUMO AND Another vs The STATE1981 SCMR 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal against their conviction under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting their co-accused. The core legal question involved the reliability of ocular testimony and a dying declaration in the face of alleged deep-rooted enmity between the parties. The Supreme Court held that where both the trial court and the High Court have evaluated the evidence and found the ocular testimony and dying declaration to be trustworthy corroborative pieces of evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on a proper appreciation of ocular and dying declaration evidence will not be disturbed by the appellate court unless grave misreading or miscarriage of justice is shown.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding conviction based on ocular testimony and a dying declaration warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can a dying declaration be considered a safe basis for conviction when corroborated by natural eyewitnesses despite existing enmity?
- JUMO AND 3 Others vs THB STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 746 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
- JUMMA KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 3 Other1981 PLD Karachi 311 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order passed by the District Magistrate, Sukkur, cancelling the petitioner's fire-arms licence under Martial Law Order No. 64 on the ground that the petitioner was an undesirable person. The core legal questions were whether an order under Martial Law Order No. 64 requires prior notice and an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and whether a prior notice issued under a different statute could satisfy this requirement. The Sindh High Court held that the principle of audi alteram partem is an implied requirement in every statute or Martial Law Order adversely affecting a person's rights unless expressly excluded, and that the impugned cancellation without a show-cause notice and hearing specific to the Martial Law Order was illegal and without lawful authority. The court laid down the principle that administrative powers affecting rights must be exercised fairly, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard even if the governing instrument is silent, unless exclusion is express.
Questions settled- Whether the principles of natural justice and the right of hearing are applicable to an order passed under Martial Law Order No. 64?
- Can a show-cause notice issued under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 be used to justify an action taken under Martial Law Order No. 64?
- Is an administrative order cancelling a fire-arms licence without affording an opportunity of hearing considered to be without lawful authority?