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.
- BILAL JAMIL vs ALAZAM LTD. AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1032 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-30Read full judgment →
- BHOLA vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1021 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
- BHAI KHAN AND ANOTHER vs The STATE1981 SCMR 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the High Court convicting the petitioners under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Taja and sentencing them to death. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact based on the appreciation of ocular testimony and motive warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that as the lower courts had properly evaluated the evidence and believed the testimony of the eyewitnesses—whose presence was established and whose credibility remained unshaken—and since no legal error in the appraisal of evidence was pointed out, the court would not re-assess the evidence. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence by lower courts unless a patent legal error in such appraisal is demonstrated, and that a lapse of time does not necessarily eradicate the motive for revenge.
Questions settled- Will the Supreme Court re-assess evidence that has been concurrently believed by the lower courts in the absence of a legal error?
- Does a lapse of time necessarily eradicate the motive for committing a murder for revenge?
- Can eyewitness testimony be relied upon despite the witness being related to the deceased, provided their presence is established and unimpeached?
- BHAI KHAN AND 4 Other Mian MUHAMMAD SAEED SHAD vs FEDERAL1981 PLD F SC 139 · Federal Shariat Court · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
- BEGUM RAZIA MUTTAQI AND Others vs STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION1981 SCMR 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil review petition arises from an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissing a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the recovery of dues from a delinquent under the Life Insurance Act. The petitioners, heirs of the delinquent, sought review of the Supreme Court's order upholding the sale of shares in execution proceedings. The core legal question was whether an order of the court can be reviewed on the ground that it is erroneous or that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the sale of movable property were violated. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that an order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous or because a different view is possible, and that the conduct of the petitioners disentitled them from raising belated technical objections to the sale. The Court reaffirmed that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code do not apply in terms to sales under the Life Insurance Act, though equitable principles against dilatory tactics apply.
Questions settled- Can an order of the Supreme Court be reviewed merely because it is erroneous or because a different view of the matter is possible?
- Are the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code applicable in terms to sales conducted under the Life Insurance Act?
- Does a party's participation and submission of offers in execution proceedings preclude them from subsequently challenging the method of sale on technical grounds?
- What constitutes an error apparent on the record warranting the review of a judicial order?
- BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO vs INCOME TAX OFFICER1981 SCMR 1192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against assessment orders issued by the Income Tax Officer regarding the estate of the late Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The core legal question involves the validity of demand notices issued to a deceased person and the subsequent liability of his legal heirs for the entire tax debt without a prior hearing. The Supreme Court held that notices issued to a deceased person are a nullity. Furthermore, the Court determined that the respondent could not legally recover the entire tax liability of the deceased from one of his widows, who was only entitled to a fractional share of the estate. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions concerning the recovery of tax from successors must be read in conjunction with the right to a hearing, which cannot be bypassed. Consequently, the Court granted a stay on the recovery of the tax amount, finding the demand notices prima facie illegal, and suggested the respondent initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Is a tax demand notice issued to a deceased person a legal nullity?
- Can the entire tax liability of a deceased person be recovered from a single legal heir without a hearing?
- Does the right to a hearing apply when recovering tax liabilities from the successors of a deceased person under the Income-tax Act?
- BEGUM MUSSARRAT SULTANA BEGUM MUSSARRAT SULTANA vs B. A. KHAN AND Other MUHAMMAD UMAR AND Other (A) West Pakistan Cinematograph Rules, 196T1981 PLD Supreme Court 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
- BEGUM MUSSARAT SHAUKAT HAYAT KHAN Appellant vs MAQBOOL AHMAD1981 CLC 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-06Read full judgment →
- BEGUM MAZHAR ALI KHAN vs Tim FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1981 SCMR 1240(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging the order of detention of the petitioner's husband in jail custody. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel stated that the detenu had recently been sent out of the country against his consent in exchange for passengers of a hijacked PIA plane. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the matter still warranted adjudication given the changed circumstances. The Supreme Court held that since the detenu was no longer within the territorial jurisdiction of Pakistani courts or under the control of the Government of Pakistan or the Provinces, the petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, establishing the principle that a habeas corpus or detention petition becomes infructuous when the detenu is removed from the territorial jurisdiction and control of the domestic authorities.
Questions settled- Does a detention petition become infructuous when the detenu is sent out of the country?
- Can Pakistani courts exercise jurisdiction over a detenu who is no longer within the territorial limits of Pakistan?
- BEGUM BIBI AND 9 Others vs ABDUL GHANI AND 4 Other1981S C M R 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a title dispute regarding agricultural land in District Sialkot, originally sold by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants to Muhammad Khan via a registered sale deed in 1953. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale as lacking consideration and legal necessity, which was dismissed by the trial court and upheld by the District Judge. However, a Single Judge of the High Court reversed these concurrent findings in second appeal, holding that the vendee failed to make a bona fide inquiry into legal necessity. Upon leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was competent under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to interfere with concurrent findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the well-considered concurrent findings of fact without establishing that the lower appellate court's judgment was contrary to law, suffered from procedural defects, or failed to determine a material issue. The appeal is allowed and the High Court judgment is set aside, reinforcing that concurrent findings of fact based on material evidence should not be lightly disturbed in second appeal.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and first appellate court be set aside in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without showing an error of law or procedure?
- What is the duty of an alienee regarding inquiry into legal necessity when purchasing land from an agriculturist governed by Customary Law?
- BEGUM ANWAR SULTANA vs A. B. M. ASSOCIATES LTD., FAISALABAD AND 21981 PLD Lahore 322 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-28Read full judgment →
- BAZ AND Others vs YAR MUHAMMAD1981 SCMR 569 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a civil dispute concerning occupancy rights of land in Attock District. The core legal question is whether the appellants, as occupancy tenants, had abandoned their tenancy under section 38 of the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1952, by failing to cultivate the land and pay rent for more than one year. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in finding that the statutory defaults under section 38 were established, as the evidence showed possession was handed over at the landlord's request, thereby negating any obligation to pay rent during that period. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that mere oral evidence by a landlord is insufficient to rebut consistent revenue records showing tenancy where no steps were taken to effect a mutation for the extinction of occupancy rights. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the suit dismissed.
Questions settled- Does an occupancy tenant cease to be so merely because the landlord has been in possession of the land for a number of years?
- What constitutes abandonment of tenancy under section 38 of the Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1952?
- Is mere oral evidence by a landlord sufficient to rebut consistent revenue records showing tenancy without steps taken to correct the mutation?
- BATA SHOE COMPANY (PAK.) LTD., LAHORE vs RAHAT MAHMOOD BUTT , .1981 PLC 250 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
- BASHIRUL HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, RAWALPINDI AND Anothes1981 SCMR 1160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former employee of the Military Accounts Department, challenged his removal from service, which was later converted into compulsory retirement, following an inquiry into allegations of inefficiency and misconduct. The core legal questions were whether the Inquiry Officer was biased because he had previously conducted a preliminary inquiry, whether the petitioner was denied a personal hearing, and whether the inquiry proceedings were vitiated by the improper production of documents. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Inquiry Officer was not biased, as a preliminary inquiry officer merely records evidence for the competent authority and does not render a final finding. The Court further held that the petitioner was afforded a personal hearing and that the strict rules of evidence found in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 do not apply to departmental service inquiries. The key principle established is that an officer conducting a preliminary inquiry does not become disqualified from conducting a subsequent formal inquiry, and service inquiries are not bound by the technical evidentiary requirements of civil or criminal procedure codes.
Questions settled- Does an officer who conducts a preliminary inquiry become disqualified from acting as an Inquiry Officer in a subsequent formal inquiry?
- Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to departmental service inquiries?
- Is an Inquiry Officer required to provide a personal hearing to a government servant during disciplinary proceedings?
- BASHIR AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 403 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Karachi 798 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-06Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs MUHAMMAD BASHIRMUHAMMAD NAZIR & CO.1981 CLC 689 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-15Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs A. C./COLLECTOR, LODHRAN AND OTHERS1981 PLC (C. S.) 464 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-06-01Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IV LAHORE CIRCLE, ,(1981 PLC (C. S.) 777 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs Malik ABDUL ALI KHAN AND Other1981 SCMR 767 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil dispute regarding a shop situated in Sargodha, wherein the petitioner sought a declaration of ownership by adverse possession, alleging he had forcibly occupied the shop in 1955. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner based on oral evidence and by rejecting municipal records produced by the respondents. However, the District Judge allowed the respondents' appeal, finding the oral evidence unreliable and noting that municipal and taxation records supported the respondents' ownership and the petitioner's status as a tenant. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petitioner's second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings and emphasizing the heavy burden of proof on a plaintiff claiming adverse possession. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower appellate courts, holding that the petitioner failed to prove overt acts of adverse possession for the requisite period and that failure to pay local rates and taxes militates against such a claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether oral evidence of chance witnesses is sufficient to prove title by adverse possession after a lapse of many years?
- Does the failure of a person claiming adverse possession to pay local rates and taxes militate against their claim?
- Whether entries in municipal assessment and taxation records showing the opposing party as owner and the claimant as tenant are relevant to disprove adverse possession?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by two appellate courts regarding a question of limitation and evidence can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CONS.) ETC.1981 PLC (C. S.) 825 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-05-24Read full judgment →
- BASHARAT vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 627 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-18Read full judgment →
- BASHARAT ALI SHAH AND Another vs The STATE1981S C M R 1243 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under sections 302/148 and 307/148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempted murder following an indiscriminate shooting incident. The core legal questions involve the reliability of interested ocular testimony, the corroboration required in cases of deep-seated enmity, and inconsistencies between medical and eyewitness evidence during a chaotic mass attack. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the participation of each individual accused beyond reasonable doubt due to widespread panic, unreliable First Information Report registration, and significant contradictions between the medical reports and ocular accounts. The key principle laid down is that where an incident involves indiscriminate firing in mass panic and the First Information Report suffers from fabrication and inconsistency with medical evidence, it is unsafe to maintain capital convictions without independent corroboration.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on the basis of eyewitness testimony when an incident involves mass panic and indiscriminate firing by a large group of armed persons?
- Does a discrepancy between ocular testimony alleging close-range fire-arm injuries and medical evidence showing only simple contusions create a fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
- Whether a First Information Report recorded after preliminary police investigation on the spot can be relied upon as a genuine contemporaneous document?
- Is independent corroboration mandatory when sustaining convictions based on the testimony of interested witnesses who harbor deep-seated enmity against the accused?
- BARKAT ULLAH KHAN vs ABDUL HAMID1981 SCMR 1200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an ejectment suit filed by a landlord against a tenant in Islamabad. The petitioner challenged the decree on the ground that the mandatory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was not served. The lower courts held that the Act had not been extended to the Islamabad Capital Territory, but that the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience required the tenant to be informed of the tenancy termination, a requirement satisfied by the telegraphic notice sent. The core legal question was whether the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, automatically extended to the Islamabad Capital Territory upon its constitution as a Centrally Administered Area. The Supreme Court held that the Act does not apply automatically to Islamabad as it requires a specific notification by the government for extension. The Court affirmed that while the Act was not applicable, the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience were correctly applied by the lower courts, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, automatically apply to the Islamabad Capital Territory?
- Is a notification by the government required to extend the application of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the Islamabad Capital Territory?
- Can the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience be invoked where the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is not statutorily applicable?
- BARKAT ALI vs The STATE1981 S.C M R 917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a criminal petition for special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerns the procedural requirements for filing and arguing a review petition under the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules, specifically whether a review application can be drawn and presented by an advocate other than the one who conducted the original hearing without special leave, and whether the original advocate must be present. The Court held that the review petition violated the mandatory procedural rules as it was neither drawn by the advocate who conducted the earlier leave petition nor was that advocate present at the hearing. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition, establishing that strict adherence to the procedural rules governing review applications before the Supreme Court is mandatory.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be drawn by an advocate other than the one who appeared at the hearing of the original case?
- Is the presence of the original advocate required at the hearing of a review application under the Pakistan Supreme Court Rules?
- What is the consequence of failing to comply with the procedural rules regarding the drafting and presentation of a review petition in the Supreme Court?
- BARKAT ALI ETC. vs MUHAMMAD YAQUB1981 CLC 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-30Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI AND OTHERS vs Syed SHAHZAD NAZIR AND Other1981 SCMR 693 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the cancellation of agricultural land allotments. The petitioners, claiming to be bona fide purchasers, sought to retain land originally allotted to their predecessor-in-interest, Nasira, which the Settlement Commissioner had cancelled after determining Nasira was an imposter and the land was obtained fraudulently. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as possessors of the land, held a superior right to purchase the disputed land under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974, over the informant who unearthed the fraud. The Supreme Court held that under Section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, an informant who unearths fraudulent allotments possesses a vested, prior right to the allotment of such land. Consequently, the Court upheld the cancellation of the petitioners' allotment. However, the Court clarified that if any land remains surplus after satisfying the informant's entitlement, the petitioners may apply to purchase that surplus portion under the relevant provisions of the 1974 Ordinance.
Questions settled- Does an informant who unearths a fraudulent land allotment have a vested, prior right to the allotment of that land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Can bona fide purchasers claim a superior right to land over an informant who has successfully unearthed a fraudulent allotment?
- Are purchasers of land entitled to purchase surplus land remaining after an informant's entitlement has been satisfied under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974?
- BARKAT ALI AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 274 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- BARKAAT AHMAD vs SAID AKBAR AND 2 OTHERS---1981 P Cr. L J 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
- BANTVA MEMON KHIDMAT COMMITTEE, KARACHI vs REHMATULLAH , . (1981 PLC 178 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
- BANGLADESH SHIPPING CORPORATION, KARACHI vs S. S. "NEDON"1981 PLD Karachi 663 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-19Read full judgment →
- BANGLADESH SHIPPING CORPORATION, DACCA-,Plaintiff vs S. S. "NENDN"1981 PLD Karachi 419 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-17Read full judgment →
- BANGLADESH SHIPPING CORPORATION vs M. V. `NEDON' AND ANOTHER1981 PLD Karachi 246 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This admiralty appeal challenged an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants' application under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for damages filed in rem against a ship. The core legal question concerned whether an intervening party claiming to be the owner of the arrested vessel can enter an appearance and file a written statement without formally being impleaded as a defendant or seeking prior court permission. The court held that in an admiralty action in rem, the action is primarily against the res (the ship), and the owners or persons interested in the vessel are entitled to appear and defend at any time before judgment without formally being named in the initial writ. The key principle laid down is that the practice in admiralty actions in rem allows owners and interested parties to intervene and defend the action to protect their interests, and their appearance does not require prior formal joinder, while rendering them personally liable for any resulting decree.
Questions settled- Can a person claiming to be the owner of an arrested vessel enter an appearance and file a written statement in an admiralty action in rem without being formally impleaded as a defendant?
- Does the appearance of a ship's Master preclude the actual owner from subsequently entering an appearance and defending the suit?
- What is the legal effect of an owner or interested person entering an appearance in an admiralty action in rem?
- BAKHTIAR ALAM MASOOD vs MESSRS ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTORS LTD., KARACHI, .(1981 PLC 791 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-08-20Read full judgment →
- BAKHT ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE--1981 P Cr. L J 1269 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- BAKHSHA AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 523 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-22Read full judgment →
- BAKHIR AND 3 Other vs THE STATE1981 PLD Karachi 490 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-27Read full judgment →
- BAIG MUHAMMAD vs LASHKARI AND Another1981 SCMR 780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Sind High Court which cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Court in a criminal case registered under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had initially been refused bail, but after the submission of the challan, the Sessions Court granted bail, citing a conflict between the medical evidence and the prosecution's case. The High Court subsequently cancelled this bail after observing that the medical officer involved had acted improperly, effectively apologizing to the court for his conduct. The petitioner argued that the bail decision should rest on the nature of the injury rather than the doctor's conduct, for which the petitioner claimed no responsibility. The Supreme Court held that the circumstances indicated a prima facie case of suborning of evidence. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner had forfeited his entitlement to the concession of bail due to this interference with the evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's cancellation of bail.
Questions settled- Does the suborning of evidence justify the cancellation of bail?
- Can a petitioner claim entitlement to bail when there is evidence of interference with the prosecution's case?
- BAHADUR vs MUHAMMAD SHOAIB AND 9 Other1981 PLD Karachi 788 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-28Read full judgment →
- BADSHAH KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 2 OTHERS1981 P Cr. L J 952 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- BADRUDDIN vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 767 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
- BADRUDDIN H. MAVANI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FOOD1981 CLC 339 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding a contract for the export of rice between the appellants and the Government of Pakistan. The original contract mandated packing in double gunny bags, but the appellants requested shipment in single bags to align with their Letter of Credit terms. Following shipment, the appellants claimed the value of the unused second bags. An arbitrator rejected the claim, finding the appellants had voluntarily surrendered the requirement for double bags without reservation. The High Court confirmed the award, and the appellants appealed. The core legal question was whether the appellants had waived their right to the second bags through their conduct. The Court held that the appellants' request for single bags and subsequent acceptance of the shipment without reservation constituted a waiver of their right to the second bags. Relying on the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the Court affirmed that the appellants' conduct was inconsistent with their original claim. The judgment establishes that waiver can be inferred from conduct and that an arbitrator's findings, absent misconduct, are generally binding.
Questions settled- Can a party waive a contractual right through conduct or implied acquiescence?
- Does the acceptance of goods in a state inconsistent with the seller's ownership rights constitute acceptance under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?
- Under what circumstances will a court interfere with an arbitrator's award?
- BACHO Alias ABDUL JABBAR vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J299 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
- BABUDDIN vs DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICE, HYDERAEAD AND ANOTHER1981 PLC (C. S.) 469 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1980-12-10Read full judgment →
- BABOO vs The STATE1981 SCMR 849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 148, 302, 307, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The FIR alleged that the petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly armed with a gun and fired a shot injuring a prosecution witness during an incident where one person was killed and several were injured. The petitioner argued that he did not fire the fatal shot, was found innocent during investigation, and that there was significant delay in trial. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was allegedly part of an unlawful assembly armed with a weapon, the non-attribution of the fatal shot was immaterial. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer placed his name in Column No. 3 as a regular accused rather than Column No. 2, so the officer's opinion provided no benefit. Lastly, delay per se is not a sufficient ground for bail. The petition was dismissed with liberty to reapply in case of inordinate delay.
Questions settled- Is the non-attribution of a fatal shot to an accused a valid ground for bail when the accused is charged as a member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an accused claim the benefit of an investigating officer's opinion of innocence if their name is placed in Column No. 3 of the challan as a regular accused?
- Does delay in trial per se constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- BABAR AZIZ vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 947 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- AZMAT vs THE STATE----1981 P Cr. L J 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
- AZMAT AND Others vs The STATE1981 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction and sentencing of five co-accused (a father and his four sons) under Sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and murderous assault. The High Court had affirmed the convictions of four appellants while converting the fifth appellant Azmat's death sentence to life imprisonment due to doubts over who inflicted knife injuries. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the convictions of the appellants were sustainable based on ocular evidence, medical testimony, recovery of unlicensed firearms matched with crime empties, and omissions in the First Information Report (F.I.R.). The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the four appellants whose firearms matched the recovery evidence and ocular testimony. However, regarding appellant Azmat, the Court held that significant omissions in the F.I.R., lack of reliable blood-stained recovery evidence, and the potential tendency to over-implicate all male family members created reasonable doubt as to his presence at the scene. The Court acquitted Azmat while maintaining the convictions of the remaining four appellants.
Questions settled- Does an omission to attribute a specific weapon or act to an accused in the First Information Report create reasonable doubt requiring acquittal?
- Can a recovery of a weapon stained with disintegrated blood whose human origin cannot be determined serve as corroborative evidence of guilt?
- Whether the possibility of over-implication of all male family members creates reasonable doubt as to the presence of a specific accused at the crime scene?
- AZMAT ALI ETC. vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD , .1981 PLC 877 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-09-03Read full judgment →
- AZIZULLAH vs THE STATE1981 PLD Karachi 250 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, convicting the appellant, an Afghan national, under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, for alleged smuggling of 28 silver slabs found in his baggage at Karachi Airport. The appellant pleaded he was a bona fide transit passenger travelling to Afghanistan with a valid import permit. The High Court considered whether the statutory burden of proof under Section 156(2) of the Customs Act shifted to the accused despite the Customs Officer's failure to serve written grounds under Section 171, and whether the offence of smuggling was established. The Court held that Section 171 is mandatory, rendering the arrest and seizure illegal for lack of written notice. Consequently, because the goods were not lawfully seized under the Act, the reverse burden of proof under Section 156(2) did not shift to the appellant. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding that the prosecution failed to prove an intentional act of smuggling.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 mandatory regarding the requirement to provide written grounds of arrest and seizure?
- Does the statutory burden of proof under Section 156(2) of the Customs Act 1969 shift to the accused if the initial seizure of goods was carried out illegally?
- Can an Afghan national carrying prohibited goods in transit over Pakistani territory be convicted of smuggling where a bona fide transit permit is presented and a declaration is made under the Customs Act 1969?
- AZIZUL HASSAN vs SIND AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND Another1981 SCMR 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 31-8-1980, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding a pay dispute concerning his position as a Field Assistant. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner's claim for a specific pay scale was supported by the applicable rules and departmental letters. The Supreme Court held that the petition was without merit as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the post and pay scale of Field Assistant were covered under the relevant pay revision rules or that the departmental letters relied upon were in accordance with those rules. The Court laid down the principle that departmental letters and administrative instructions cannot override or assist a claimant unless shown to be strictly in accordance with the governing statutory rules, and a writ petition suffering from unexplained delays and lack of foundational legal support is liable to be dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether departmental letters and administrative instructions can sustain a monetary claim when they are not shown to be in accordance with the applicable pay revision rules?
- Does a writ petition challenging a service pay dispute become barred by laches when representations against the rejection of demands face prolonged delays?
- Can a petitioner succeed in assailing a High Court judgment regarding pay scales without producing or establishing the applicability of the governing statutory rules?
- AZIZUDDIN vs HABIB BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 852 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
- AZIZ AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE-1981 P Cr. L J 964 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-13Read full judgment →
- AZHAR HUSSAIN vs CHARTERED BANK, FAISALABAD AND 17 OTHERs1981 CLC 516 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision and two connected petitions challenge interlocutory orders passed by a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, while exercising civil jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the High Court can entertain a civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against interlocutory orders of a Special Court. The Lahore High Court held that a Special Court is a court of special jurisdiction and is not a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 3 and section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the explicit provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Ordinance—read with section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure—bar any challenge to interlocutory orders and preclude the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that special laws governing tribunals with exclusive jurisdictions override general procedural provisions, and interlocutory orders of Special Courts cannot be subjected to revisional scrutiny by the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 is a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction against interlocutory orders passed by a Special Court in view of sections 11 and 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Do the provisions of a special law override general procedural laws regarding the maintainability of civil revisions?
- Are interlocutory orders of a Special Court open to challenge before any court prior to the final determination of the case?
- AZAM S. SUHRAWARDY, ADVOCATE vs M. H. HANFI AND 2 OTHERS1981 P Cr. L J 1143 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-20Read full judgment →
- AZADAR HUSSAIN AND 22 OTHERS vs D. I.-G. OF POLICE, MULTAN AND 21981 PLC (C. S.) 693 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHERs .1981 CLC 1143 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
- AZAD BIN HAIDER vs ADAM KHAN1981 PLD Karachi 225 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order passed by a Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which directed the tenant to vacate premises based on the landlord's retirement. The core legal question was whether Section 14, which mandates summary eviction, excludes the Rent Controller's duty to hold an inquiry and provide the tenant an opportunity to be heard. The Court held that while Section 14 is summary in nature and excludes the specific procedure of Section 19, it does not expressly bar an inquiry or the right to a hearing. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, are presumed to be incorporated into every law unless explicitly excluded by the legislature. Consequently, the Rent Controller must conduct an inquiry and hear the parties, particularly when disputed questions of fact—such as the landlord's occupation of other properties or the physical indivisibility of the demised premises—are raised. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a proper inquiry.
Questions settled- Does Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 exclude the requirement for a Rent Controller to hold an inquiry and hear the tenant?
- Are the principles of natural justice applicable to summary proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a Rent Controller order the bifurcation of demised premises without conducting an inquiry into the factual nature of the tenancy?
- AYOOB AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 706 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
- AVALENE SILK, MILLS vs SECOND SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 7 Other1981 PLD 4 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
- AVALENE SILK MILLS vs SECOND SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 7 OTHERS,1981 PLC 4 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an appellate decision of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, which had granted gratuity to respondent workers. The core legal question was whether a right to gratuity, created under a time-bound collective agreement that subsequently expired and was replaced by new agreements omitting gratuity, survived and could be claimed by the workers. The Sindh High Court held that the settlement providing gratuity was binding only for its specified one-year term under the relevant statute and automatically lapsed upon expiry, becoming discharged and substituted by subsequent agreements that did not concede gratuity. The Court laid down the principle that a contractual benefit or facility established under a time-limited settlement does not survive past the expiration of that agreement when subsequent settlements between the parties omit such a provision.
Questions settled- Does a right to gratuity provided under a time-bound collective agreement survive after the expiry of that agreement when subsequent agreements omit the provision?
- Whether an agreement fixing a period of time lapses automatically after that period under Section 40(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- ATTOCK OIL COMPANY vs SENIOR MEMBER, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS1981 PLC 865 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
- ATTAUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS vs ADAM ALI AND OTHERS1981 CLC 1747 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-15Read full judgment →
- ATTA MUHAMMAD AND Another vs THE STATE---1981 P Cr. L J 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-02Read full judgment →
- ATLAS TRAVELS LTD. vs NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 880 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
- ATLAS GROUP OF COMPANIES EMPLOYEES' UNION vs MESSRS ATLAS AUTOS1981 PLC 341 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-09Read full judgment →
- ATIQ ALI BOKHARI vs UNITED BANK LTD, KARACHI /1981 PLC 418 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
- ATHAR REHMAN vs MUHAMMAD LATIF TAHIR ETC1981 PLD Lahore 48 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto challenged the election of the respondent as a member of the Town Committee on the ground that he was a depot-holder and thus disqualified. The respondent argued that an alternate remedy existed under Section 29 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, that the petitioner lacked locus standi, and that the petition was barred by laches. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition, holding that Section 29 applies only to post-election disqualifications and does not bar a writ of quo warranto for pre-existing disqualifications. The Court ruled that any resident of the relevant local area has locus standi to initiate quo warranto proceedings without demonstrating a personal interest, and that mere delay or the existence of an official election notification does not divest the Court of its jurisdiction. Confirming that depot-holders are disqualified under Section 21(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, the Court declared the respondent's election void and ordered a fresh election, noting that votes cast for a disqualified candidate cannot be treated as thrown away.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-existing disqualification of an elected candidate can be challenged through a writ of quo warranto despite the statutory remedy under Section 29 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Does a resident of a local area have locus standi to file a petition for quo warranto challenging a local government election without showing a personal interest?
- Can a petition for quo warranto be dismissed solely on the ground of delay or laches?
- Whether the votes cast in favor of a disqualified candidate are treated as thrown away, thereby allowing the runner-up to be declared elected?
- ATAUR REHMAN vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION AND Other1981 SCMR 255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition by the Sind High Court, which upheld the rejection of a complaint filed before the National Industrial Relations Commission. The petitioner, a bank employee, alleged misconduct by management after they objected to a union meeting scheduled on a bank closing day. The core legal question was whether the Chairman of the Commission acted illegally by soliciting comments from the respondents instead of immediately issuing process upon receiving the complaint, allegedly in violation of Regulation 20 of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Chairman’s procedure was lawful. The Court ruled that Regulation 20 empowers the Commission to postpone the issuance of process and conduct an inquiry to ascertain the veracity of a complaint. The Court further clarified that the procedure under Regulation 20 is distinct and does not strictly mirror the requirements of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly where no summons were issued prior to the inquiry.
Questions settled- Does Regulation 20 of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 require the immediate issuance of process upon the filing of a complaint?
- Can the National Industrial Relations Commission solicit comments from respondents before issuing summons to them?
- Is the procedure under Regulation 20 of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 identical to the procedure prescribed under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ATAULLAH AND 4 OTHER vs Hakim RAZI UR REHMAN AND 3 Other SETTLEMENT1981 SCMR 884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal arising from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the cancellation of land allotments under the Interim Relief Scheme. The core legal question was whether the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner could lawfully cancel an allotment of agricultural land without providing the allottees notice or an opportunity to be heard, despite administrative instructions from the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation order was illegal and void because the allottees, who were actively seeking claim verification, possessed a vested interest in the allotment that necessitated procedural fairness. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, establishing the principle that administrative instructions cannot override the fundamental requirement of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing (audi alteram partem), before an allotment is cancelled. Although the Court upheld the invalidation of the cancellation, it expressed sympathy for the petitioners who were displaced by this decision and directed the settlement authorities to attempt to accommodate them within the existing legal framework despite the general ban on fresh allotments.
Questions settled- Can an allotment of land made under the Interim Relief Scheme be cancelled without providing the allottee notice and an opportunity to be heard?
- Do administrative instructions from the Chief Settlement Commissioner override the requirement of natural justice in cancellation proceedings?
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs Mst. SAHIB KHATOON AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 565 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
- ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MACHINERY MAINTENANCE SUB-DIVISION No, 2, HYDERABAD vs HAROON NISA AND 2 OTHERS1981 PLC 334 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-11-01Read full judgment →
- ASMATULLAH vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ AND ANO1HER1981 SCMR 425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, Muhammad Siddiq, by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The respondent and a co-accused, Abdur Rashid Khalid, were originally convicted for murder and attempted murder. While the High Court maintained the conviction of Abdur Rashid Khalid, it acquitted Muhammad Siddiq, finding insufficient corroboration of the ocular testimony against him. The appellant challenged this acquittal, arguing that motive, medical evidence, and the respondent's abscondence provided sufficient corroboration to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and held that the case against the respondent was distinguishable from that of the co-accused. Specifically, the Court found that the co-accused's conviction was supported by physical evidence (licences left at the scene) and a significant period of abscondence, whereas the evidence against the respondent was insufficient to corroborate the ocular testimony regarding his identity as an assailant. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeal, affirming that motive and medical evidence alone did not sufficiently corroborate the identity of the assailant in this instance.
Questions settled- Can motive and medical evidence alone serve as sufficient corroboration for ocular testimony to identify an assailant?
- Is the acquittal of a co-accused justified when the evidence against them is distinguishable from that of a co-accused whose conviction was maintained?
- Does a shorter period of abscondence compared to a co-accused affect the weight of evidence used for corroboration?
- ASMAT ULLAH KHAN vs SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND OTHERS ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 781 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
- Aslam Khan Khattak and Others vs Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and Others1981 CLC 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-15Read full judgment →
- ASIF JAH SIDDIQUt vs SIND GOVERNMENT AND 2 OTHERS1981 PLC (C. S.) 816 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
- ASIATIC SHIPPING AGENCIES LTD., KARACHI vs ABDUL RASHID ATHER, .(1981 PLC 61 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-26Read full judgment →
- ATTIQULLAH vs KAFAYATULLAH1981 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from civil proceedings where the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and an application for ad interim injunction concerning a land dispute. During the appellate proceedings before the District Judge, the petitioner offered to be bound if the respondent took a special oath on the Holy Koran confirming he had not sold the land. The respondent accepted the offer. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the offer, but the District Judge disallowed the retraction, administered the oath to the respondent, and dismissed the appeal. A revision petition to the High Court was likewise dismissed. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether a party who makes an offer to have a matter decided based on the oath of the opposite party can be permitted to resile from such an offer after it has been accepted. The Supreme Court held that an agreement to be bound by a special oath is contractual in nature and a party cannot resile from it unless the contract is void or frustrated. Finding no such grounds, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a party who makes an offer to have a case decided on the special oath of the opposite party can resile from such an offer after its acceptance?
- Is an agreement to be bound by a special oath treated as a contract that cannot be broken unilaterally without sufficient grounds of being void or frustrated?
- ASHRAF ALI vs BANK OF INDIA LTD. AND 2 OTHERS1981 CLC 1582 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
- ASHRAF ALI JALALI AND ANOTHER vs NANAKRAM AND OTHERS1981 CLC 1016 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-13Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ MASEEH AND Another vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB AND 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 656 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-28Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1981 PLD Peshawar 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ETC.S1981 SCMR 1176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court regarding an Urban Settlement dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had standing to challenge the transfer of a room to the second respondent, given that the room was deemed an independent property and the petitioner was not in possession of it. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the petition because the petitioner lacked locus standi, as the room was an independent unit and the petitioner had no claim to it. Furthermore, the Court refused to entertain arguments regarding the finality of an earlier 1966 order because the petitioner had failed to challenge the subsequent 1974 remand order, and the issue of the respondent's possession was not raised in the High Court. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot challenge the transfer of property in writ jurisdiction if they lack locus standi, and issues not raised before the High Court cannot be agitated for the first time in the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Does a party have locus standi to challenge the transfer of an independent property unit if they are not in possession of said property?
- Can a party raise an argument regarding the finality of an earlier order in the Supreme Court if they failed to challenge the subsequent remand order in the High Court?
- Is a party permitted to raise new arguments in the Supreme Court that were not presented before the High Court?
- ASHFAQ AHMAD vs 1.-0. OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1981 PLC (C. S.) 875 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 387 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE1981 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-13Read full judgment →
- ASADUL HAQ vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BAHAWALPUR AND 2 OTHERS , ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 657 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-06-10Read full judgment →
- ARZ MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DERA GHAZI KHAN1981 PLC (C. S.) 489 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1981-02-17Read full judgment →
- ARMED DIN ANJAM vs ISMAIL AND ANOTHER1981 CLC 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1968-01-14Read full judgment →
- ARA BISTAN vs MESSRS GLOBE TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI , .1981 PLC 884 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1981-02-17Read full judgment →
- Aqa S. ASGHAR HUSSAIN vs The STATE1981 SCMR 1112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court order upholding the appellant's conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The appellant, an auction contractor for the General Manager, Telephones, Karachi, was convicted for embezzling sale proceeds. The core legal question was whether the appellant, not being a regular government employee, qualified as a 'public servant' under Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby subjecting him to the jurisdiction of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. The Supreme Court held that the appellant fell within the definition of a public servant under clause (9) of Section 21, as his duties involved receiving government property and protecting the government's pecuniary interests, for which he was remunerated by commission. The Court clarified that clause (9) defines an officer by reference to functions and duties rather than regular employment status. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant was a public servant performing delegated government functions and was thus subject to the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.
Questions settled- Does an auction contractor remunerated by commission for government work qualify as a public servant under Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is regular employment by the government a prerequisite for being considered an 'officer' under clause (9) of Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the definition of a public servant under Section 21(9) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 depend on the designation of the person or the nature of the duties performed?
- Appellate Tribunal WORKERS' UNION vs MESSRS EN WAR JAMAL LTD., KARACHI1981 PLC 380 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-10-08Read full judgment →
- Appellate Tribunal MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM . vs PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT1981 PLC 65 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-12-10Read full judgment →
- ANWAR HUSSAIN vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, H. M. IQBAL COAL MINES ,1981 PLC 745 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-09-22Read full judgment →
- ANWAR AIJAZ vs THE STATE1981 P Cr. L J 321 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-19Read full judgment →
- ANWAR AHMAD vs MESSRS LION ART PRESS LTD. ,1981 PLC 206 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
- ANWAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTANRAILWAY, KARACHI DIVISION, .(1981 PLC 182 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
- ANSAR & Co. vs Syed JALILUR REHMAN ETC.1981 CLC 1186 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-24Read full judgment →
- ANJUMANE HUSSAINIA (REGD.), SAMBERIAL vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIALKOT1981 PLD Lahore 757 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-17Read full judgment →
- ANJUMAN INSARUL ISLAM vs GHULAM QADIR ETC.1981 PLD Lahore 737 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →