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.
- THE LYALLPUR EXSERVICEMEN GOODS TRANSPORT SOCIETY LTD., LYALLPUR vs ANWAR AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of property in Lyallpur under the Settlement Scheme. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the petitioner-Society and the respondent to the transfer of an 8-kanal plot, which contained a house. The Settlement authorities had initially earmarked the house for the respondent, while the petitioner-Society claimed entitlement to the plot based on possession and a filed transfer form. The Settlement Commissioner determined that the respondent was entitled to the house plus three times the plinth area (totaling 4 kanals), while the remaining 4 kanals were to be disposed of by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The Lahore High Court upheld this division, confirming the petitioner-Society's entitlement to the remaining 4 kanals as a building site. The Supreme Court found the lower authorities' determination to be fair and equitable, treating the property as two distinct parts—a building site and a house—and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the equitable distribution of the property between the contesting parties.
Questions settled- Can a property containing both a house and a plot be divided for transfer purposes under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Is a transferee of a house entitled to the transfer of three times the plinth area of the house?
- Does the finding of fact by a Settlement Commissioner regarding the division of property warrant interference by the Supreme Court if it is equitable?
- THE GUJRANWALA COOPERATIVE MARKETING & SUPPLY SOCIETY LTD., GUJRANWALA vs THE RURAL SUPPLY COOPERATIVE CORPORATION LTD., LAHORE1980 CLC 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
- THE CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY FOR PAKISTAN vs THE ADDITIONAL1980 SCMR 667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan following the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court on the grounds of laches. The petitioner sought to challenge this dismissal by introducing a document for the first time during the Supreme Court proceedings, arguing that its prior absence was the reason for the High Court's adverse decision. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that the petitioner failed to provide any explanation for why the document was not presented before the High Court. Faced with this judicial stance, the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition with the liberty to pursue a civil suit instead. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of the petition. The Court held that while the petitioner is free to initiate a civil suit to vindicate their rights, any such litigation remains subject to the applicable Law of Limitation and other relevant statutory provisions. The Court did not disturb the High Court's findings on laches, effectively concluding the constitutional petition while preserving the petitioner's right to seek alternative civil remedies.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner introduce new evidence in the Supreme Court that was not presented before the High Court to challenge a dismissal based on laches?
- Does the withdrawal of a writ petition with permission to file a civil suit exempt the subsequent suit from the Law of Limitation?
- Is a petitioner entitled to withdraw a petition in the Supreme Court after failing to justify the omission of evidence in the lower court?
- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX/SALES TAX, ZONE 'A', LAHORE vs MESSRS1980 SCMR 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the assessment of sales tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1951. The core legal question was whether a subsequent notification reducing the tax exemption limit could be applied retrospectively to take away an accrued right of an assessee whose assessment year commenced prior to the notification. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was legally justified in its view, ruling that a right already accrued cannot be taken away by giving retrospective effect to delegated legislation. The key principle laid down is that fiscal exemptions or vested rights acquired at the commencement of an accounting period under an existing notification cannot be adversely affected by subsequent delegated legislation reducing the exemption limit.
Questions settled- Whether a right that has already accrued can be taken away by giving retrospective effect to delegated legislation?
- Does a subsequent notification reducing the exemption limit for sales tax adversely affect an assessee whose accounting year started prior to the notification?
- Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the case was covered by Sales Tax Notification No. 2 dated 20th January, 1956?
- YOUSAF A. MITHA AND 3 OTHERS vs ABOO BAKER AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 492 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order resolves an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by defendant No. 3, seeking rejection of the plaint for under-valuation and insufficient court-fee. The plaintiffs had sought declarations and permanent and mandatory injunctions regarding a share sale agreement valued at Rs. 6,700,000, but valued the suit at Rs. 51,000 for jurisdiction and Rs. 600 for court-fees, paying Rs. 45. The court held that under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act 1887, jurisdictional and court-fee valuations must be identical for ad valorem suits, and that the plaintiffs could not fix an arbitrary valuation. The court directed the plaintiffs to correct the valuation for both jurisdiction and court-fees to Rs. 6,700,000. However, following a binding Division Bench precedent, the court concluded that no court-fees are currently payable on suits instituted on the High Court's original side, despite a pending Supreme Court appeal where stay had been granted.
Questions settled- Whether the valuation for court-fees and jurisdiction must be identical under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act 1887 in suits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief?
- Can a plaintiff put an arbitrary valuation on a suit for court-fee purposes when seeking consequential reliefs involving high-value property?
- Whether an interim stay order granted by the Supreme Court in a pending appeal deprives a High Court Division Bench judgment of its binding precedent value under Article 189 of the Constitution?
- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX LAHORE, ZONE LAHORE vs NASIR A. SHEIKH1980 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the calculation of taxable dividend income under the Income-tax Act. The core legal question was whether statutory exemptions on dividend income, specifically the 10% exemption, should be deducted from the gross dividend receipts before or after calculating deductible expenses, such as interest. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court both held that the legislative intent behind placing the exemption in section 4(3) was to exclude a specified portion of dividend income from the total income calculation entirely. Consequently, the statutory rebate must be applied to the gross dividend receipts first, with deductible expenses applied only to the remaining amount. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld this interpretation, noting that it had previously affirmed this exact legal position in the case of Muhammadi Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Finding no merit in the petitioner's argument to deviate from established precedent, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Should statutory exemptions on dividend income be deducted from gross dividend receipts before or after calculating deductible expenses?
- Does the placement of an exemption in section 4(3) of the Income-tax Act indicate an intention to exclude that portion of income from total income calculation entirely?
- THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN PAKISTAN vs MESSRS SIND CRICKET1980 CLC 683 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-10Read full judgment →
- TASSADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs Mst. SURRAYA BEGUM1980 CLC 1802 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
- TASSADAQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1980 PLC (C. S.) 52 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-10-22Read full judgment →
- TASADIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a miscellaneous application filed by the appellant, Tasadiq Hussain, seeking the recall of a Supreme Court judgment dated 4th December 1979, which had dismissed his appeal against a High Court order directing his retrial for offenses under sections 409 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellant contended that his counsel was ill and had requested an adjournment via the Deputy Registrar, arguing that the appeal should not have been decided in his absence. The Supreme Court rejected this submission, noting that no formal information regarding the inability of the appellant or his counsel to attend was available to the Registry at the time of the hearing. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the appeal was not dismissed for non-prosecution but was decided on its merits with the assistance of the State counsel. Consequently, the Court held that there were no valid grounds to recall the previous order, thereby maintaining the High Court's direction for a retrial.
Questions settled- Can a judgment be recalled on the grounds that the appellant's counsel was absent due to illness if no formal notification was provided to the Court Registry?
- Is an appeal decided on merits in the absence of the appellant's counsel liable to be recalled if the appellant claims they requested an adjournment?
- Does the absence of an appellant and their counsel necessitate the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution, or can the Court proceed to decide the matter on merits?
- TARIQ MAHMOOD BUTT vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-01Read full judgment →
- TANAWAR AHMAD KHAN vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 380 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-27Read full judgment →
- TAN VEER ANSARI vs TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 67 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
- TALIB KHAN vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH COLLECTOR, SAHIWAL1980 CLC 723 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-24Read full judgment →
- TALIB HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS1980 PLC (C. S.) 571(2) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-06-18Read full judgment →
- TALIB HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 413 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-02Read full judgment →
- TALIB HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail in a criminal case concerning disturbances at a public meeting held in Liaqat Bagh, Rawalpindi, in March 1973, which resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. The core legal questions involve whether the delayed investigation and alleged mala fides, the non-recording of statements of injured persons, and the reliance on testimony of accomplices entitled the petitioners to post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail at this stage since investigations were still ongoing, the delay did not warrant bail given the complexity of the case, and the court was reluctant to undertake a tentative appreciation of evidence in bail matters. The court dismissed the petitions while directing the prosecution to complete investigations and commence the trial within three months.
Questions settled- Whether delayed investigation entitles an accused person to post-arrest bail?
- Does reliance on the testimony of accomplices justify the grant of bail in criminal cases?
- Should the Supreme Court enter into a tentative appreciation of evidence while deciding bail petitions?
- Does the oral suspension of an investigation by a Provincial Home Secretary amount to a legal cancellation of the First Information Report?
- TALIB AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1010 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-13Read full judgment →
- TALAT HAMID NIAZI vs SECRETARY EDUCATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 165 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
- TAJ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 684 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-16Read full judgment →
- TAJ MUHAMMAD QURESHI vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND 15 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 368 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-07-06Read full judgment →
- TAJ MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two connected criminal proceedings originating from a land dispute between the parties. In the first instance, the petitioners challenged an order for further inquiry passed by an Additional Sessions Judge regarding a complaint filed against them, which had previously been dismissed by a Magistrate. In the second instance, the complainant sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against him under Sections 182 and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly filing a false complaint. The Court addressed whether the proceedings should continue given the significant lapse of time and the evidentiary weaknesses. The Court held that both proceedings should be quashed. It reasoned that the initial complaint suffered from material deficiencies, including interested testimony and contradictory medical evidence, rendering a conviction improbable. Regarding the prosecution for filing a false complaint, the Court established that the mere failure of a case due to insufficient evidence or lack of corroboration does not automatically constitute a 'false' case warranting prosecution under Sections 182 or 211. Consequently, the Court quashed both proceedings to prevent an abuse of the court process.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a criminal case due to insufficiency of evidence or lack of corroboration automatically render the complaint 'false' for the purposes of prosecution under Section 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can proceedings be quashed on the ground of excessive delay and the improbability of a conviction?
- Is the finding of a Magistrate regarding the demeanor of witnesses entitled to weight in revision proceedings?
- TAJ MUHAMMAD AND 6 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 927 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
- TAHIR ALI vs Mst. MASOODI BEG UM AND 4 OTHERS1980 CLC 1332 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a second appeal arising from an ejectment order passed against a tenant on the ground of personal requirement. The core legal questions were whether a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab) Act, 1958, was valid despite failing to specify the rent amount, whether the protection period under Section 30 commences from the initial notice or subsequent notices, and whether the landlord's personal requirement was established. The Court held that the notice was valid, as non-mention of rent does not invalidate it. It further ruled that the six-year protection period commences from the date of the initial notice, not subsequent ones. Regarding personal requirement, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the landlord's personal requirement includes the needs of family members and dependents, and that there is no legal requirement for the landlord to personally testify if other evidence is sufficient. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the ejectment order while granting the appellant four months to vacate, provided rent is paid.
Questions settled- Does the failure to specify the rate of rent in a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab) Act, 1958, invalidate the notice?
- Does the six-year protection period for a tenant under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab) Act, 1958, recommence upon the service of subsequent notices?
- Is a landlord required to personally appear as a witness to prove the ground of personal requirement for ejectment?
- Does the term 'for his own occupation' in the context of personal requirement include the needs of the landlord's family and dependents?
- TAGIO vs ALI SHERPLD 1980 Rev, 49 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1978-10-15Read full judgment →
- T. P. LOBO vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 748 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Service Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against his reversion from the post of Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks to his substantive post of Examiner of Trade Marks. The core legal questions involve the legality of reverting an ad hoc appointee without a show-cause notice and whether an ad hoc promotion confers a vested right against reversion when the post is allocated for direct recruitment. The Supreme Court held that an ad hoc appointee to a higher post or grade is liable to reversion without notice under the statutory framework governing civil servants. The Court laid down the principle that civil servants holding posts on an ad hoc basis have no legal grievance against reversion to their lower posts, particularly when the vacancy falls within a quota designated for direct recruitment and the statutory provisions explicitly permit such reversion without prior notice.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant appointed to a higher post on an ad hoc basis is entitled to a show-cause notice prior to reversion?
- Does an ad hoc promotion to a post create a right to regular retention against a vacancy allocated for direct recruitment?
- Can a civil servant appointed on an ad hoc basis challenge his reversion when the post is subjected to direct recruitment in accordance with recruitment rules?
- Syed ZULFIQAR HUSSAIN vs INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, LAHORE AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 120 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
- Syed TALIB HUSSAIN vs CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD1980 PLC (C. S.) 506 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-02-25Read full judgment →
- Syed SHAH IBRAHIM vs WAPDA THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Peshawar 110 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-07Read full judgment →
- Syed SHAFIQUE AHMAD SHAH vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 524 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-24Read full judgment →
- Syed SHABBIR AHMED SHAH AND 2 OTHERS vs PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 349 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions called into question the seizure and detention of allegedly smuggled motor cars by the Pakistan Coast Guards. The primary legal question raised was whether the Pakistan Coast Guards possess the jurisdiction to seize and detain motor cars as smuggled goods under the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973 and the Customs Act, 1969, where such cars have not been specifically notified under clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969, notwithstanding any prohibition under the Import and Export Control Act, 1950. The Sindh High Court held that the definition of 'smuggling' under clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969 is restricted to the items expressly specified therein or notified by the Federal Government, and does not extend to all goods prohibited under other laws, which instead fall under a separate category governed by clause (9) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Coast Guards lacked jurisdiction to seize the motor cars as smuggled goods, allowed the petitions, and reaffirmed the established legal principle distinguishing between smuggling under clause (s) and general import-export violations.
Questions settled- Does the definition of smuggling under section 2(s) of the Customs Act 1969 include all goods whose import or export is prohibited by any law, or is it limited to specified and notified goods?
- Do the Pakistan Coast Guards have the jurisdiction to seize and detain goods that do not fall within the definition of smuggling under section 2(s) of the Customs Act 1969?
- How do clauses (8) and (9) of section 156 of the Customs Act 1969 operate in relation to prohibited imports and exports?
- Syed SABIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRAT AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 125 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
- Syed QASIM SHAH AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY or LAW, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Peshawar 239 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed NAJMUL HASSAN AND OTHERS vs SHAH SAWAR AND OTHERs1980 CLC 1866 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order by the Additional District Judge allowing the respondents to amend their plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during the appellate stage. The original suit, concerning succession to landed property, had been dismissed by the trial court after a seven-year trial. The respondents sought to introduce a new plea contradicting their original pleadings regarding the status of a defendant as the daughter of the deceased. The core legal question was whether an appellate court may permit an amendment that introduces a new, inconsistent case and necessitates a de novo inquiry. The High Court held that while the power to allow amendments is wide and should be exercised liberally to advance justice, it must be refused when the amendment introduces a totally different, new, and inconsistent case or substitutes a new cause of action. Consequently, the court set aside the order allowing the amendment, ruling that a defeated litigant cannot be permitted to evade the consequences of a judgment by devising a new case at the appellate stage.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court allow an amendment to a plaint that introduces a new and inconsistent case?
- Should an amendment to pleadings be allowed if it necessitates a de novo inquiry into the case?
- Is a party entitled to amend their plaint to contradict admissions made in the original pleadings?
- Syed NADIR SHAH vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PISHIN AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Quetta 29 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected constitutional petitions challenged the cancellation of a local certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and the consequent refusal of the Selection Committee to grant him a seat in an engineering college. The matter came before the Chief Justice as a reference following a difference of opinion between two learned judges of a Division Bench, where one judge accepted the petitions and the other dismissed them. The core legal questions involved whether the cancellation of the local certificate without prior notice violated principles of natural justice, whether the petitioner held a vested right, and whether the High Court could examine the factual controversy regarding the petitioner's paternity. The Chief Justice agreed with the view that the cancellation of the local certificate without notice and proper inquiry was without lawful authority and of no legal effect, as it adversely affected the petitioner's vested rights. The Court held that natural justice requires a fair hearing before a vested right is taken away, and directed that the petitioner be granted the engineering seat. The key principles laid down relate to the necessity of notice and inquiry prior to the cancellation of local or domicile certificates affecting substantive rights.
Questions settled- Whether the cancellation of a local certificate without prior notice to the holder violates the principles of natural justice?
- Does the recipient of a local certificate acquire a vested right that entitles them to a show-cause notice before cancellation?
- Can the High Court examine disputed questions of fact and paternity in its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Whether a subsequent notice issued after the cancellation of an order cures the initial defect of failing to provide a pre-decisional hearing?
- Syed MURTAZA SHAH vs ZIARAT ALI1980 CLC 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
- Syed MURTAZA SHAH vs MAMufti NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 138 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-09Read full judgment →
- Syed MUNAWAR ALI vs MEHTA W. N. KOHLI1980 CLC 1561 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-08-19Read full judgment →
- Syed MUKHTAR ALI AND ANOTHER vs GIIULAM RASOOL CHAUDHARY AND 21980 PLD Lahore 623 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
- Syed MASOOD AHMED vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1135 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
- Syed M UBARAKALI/ vs INAYAT HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER/1980 PLD Karachi 254 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-13Read full judgment →
- Syed LAL HUSSAIN SHAH vs KAUSAR HUSSAIN SHAH1980 SCMR 765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil dispute between a father and son regarding a parcel of land originally acquired through a gift. The petitioner-father had executed a subsequent gift of the same land in favour of his son, the respondent, as part of a tactical device to facilitate the withdrawal of a prior pending cancellation suit filed by the original donor. The petitioner subsequently filed a suit for a declaration and permanent injunction, alleging that the subsequent gift was fictitious and procured through fraud and that it lacked the essential legal requirement of delivery of possession since tenants were in cultivating possession and had not attorned to the donee. Both lower courts and the High Court concurrently held against the petitioner on the question of fraud, and the High Court further held that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the validity of the gift on the ground of non-delivery of possession having expressly stated in the gift transaction that possession was delivered. Upon a petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the view of the High Court regarding estoppel, concluding that the petitioner could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate, and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a donor who has stated in a gift transaction that possession was delivered is estopped from subsequently challenging the gift on the ground of non-delivery of possession?
- Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court regarding the absence of fraud be interfered with without sufficient justification?
- Whether a gift executed as a device to facilitate the withdrawal of a pending suit can be invalidated by the donor on the plea of its fictitious nature?
- Syed KHAQAN ALI ZAIDI vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT1980 PLC (C. S.) 400ggg · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Syed JAFFER HUSSAIN AKHARI vs TAUSIQ AHMAD ALVI1980 CLC 1040 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-15Read full judgment →
- Syed IKRAM GARDEZI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-15Read full judgment →
- Syed HADI HUSSAIN SHAH vs MALIK SHAH AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD Quetta 47 · Balochistan High Court · 1967-07-27Read full judgment →
- Syed GHULAM ABBAS AND OTHERS vs Mst. KHURSHID BEGUM1980 CLC 1636 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-03-17Read full judgment →
- Syed BUNYAD ALI SHAH vs Mst. BIBI KHAIRUNNISA AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1768 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-04-08Read full judgment →
- Syed BASHIR AHMAD BOKHARI vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH THE SECRETARY EDUCATION, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 16 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 404 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
- Syed ALI HYDER KAZMI vs Mst. NAQI BANO AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 1782 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
- Syed ALI ABBAS vs ALLAH BAKHSH AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon an application filed by the parties under Order XLIX, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, requesting the Court to dispose of the petition in accordance with the terms of a compromise agreement. The compromise, supported by affidavits from the widow of the deceased petitioner and the respondent, delineated the division of property, specifically regarding the transfer of residential portions, the usage of shared passages, and the exclusive ownership of specific areas, including a small shop. The core legal question was whether the Court could dispose of the pending petition based on the settlement reached between the parties. The Court, finding the agreement to be lawful and noting no objections to its terms, held that the petition should be disposed of in accordance with the compromise. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may exercise its authority to dispose of a petition in terms of a lawful compromise agreement submitted by the parties, provided the terms are clear and acceptable to all involved.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court dispose of a petition based on a compromise agreement reached between the parties?
- Is a compromise agreement regarding property division enforceable if it is supported by affidavits and signed by the parties' counsel?
- Syed AHMED SAEED KIRMANI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 295 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-29Read full judgment →
- Syed AFTAB HUSSAIN SHAH vs REVINUE COMMISSIONER, AZAD GOVERNMENT1980 PLC (C. S.) 512 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1980-01-28Read full judgment →
- Syed ABID HUSSAIN SHERAZI vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 384 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDUS SATTAR CHISHTY vs AFTAB MALIK1980 SCMR 742 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an eviction petition filed by a landlord against a tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and the landlord's personal bona fide requirement for the premises. The core legal questions were whether the tenant had defaulted under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether the landlord had sufficiently established his bona fide personal need for the property. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence and the law regarding the alleged rent default and the landlord's personal requirement. The Court found that the tenant failed to prove the timely tender of rent and that the landlord, living in overcrowded conditions, had established a prima facie case for personal need. The key principles laid down are that a landlord who proves ownership of no other property and demonstrates a genuine need for accommodation satisfies the burden of proof for personal requirement, and that courts must not ignore clear evidence of such need or misinterpret statutory provisions regarding rent default, particularly when the tenant fails to substantiate claims of payment.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's demand for enhanced rent in a notice of attornment automatically invalidate a claim of bona fide personal requirement for the premises?
- What is the effect of a tenant's failure to produce the original receipt or postman's endorsement when claiming rent was tendered by money order?
- Can a court condone a rent default based on a cursory appreciation of evidence without properly examining the statutory requirements of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does a landlord who owns no other property and lives in overcrowded conditions satisfy the burden of proof for personal requirement of the demised premises?
- SURRAYA MI vs AKHLAQ AHMAD1980 CLC 2091 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-06Read full judgment →
- SURRAYA BIBI vs ABDUR RASHID1980 CLC 785 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order of the Guardian Judge, Sialkot, granting custody of a minor son, Ghulam Farid, to his father, the respondent, Abdur Rashid. The appellant, the mother, argued that the father had failed to provide maintenance for seven years, demonstrating a lack of interest in the minor's welfare, and that the child's long-standing intimacy with the mother made a change in custody detrimental. The Court observed that the parties had previously agreed, during the dissolution of their marriage, that the mother would hand over the minor to the father upon the child reaching seven years of age. The Court held that under Muslim Law, a father is entitled to the custody of a male child after the age of seven, as the child then requires the father's guidance, education, and supervision to prevent juvenile delinquency. The Court affirmed that the father's past failure to provide maintenance was excused by the mother's own statement, and the child's prior association with the mother did not override the father's legal right to custody upon the child reaching the age of seven.
Questions settled- Does a father have the right to the custody of a male child under Muslim Law once the child has attained the age of seven years?
- Can a mother's previous agreement to hand over custody of a minor to the father upon the child reaching a certain age be enforced?
- Is the long-standing association of a minor with the mother a sufficient ground to deny the father's legal right to custody after the child reaches the age of seven?
- SULTAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR AND 5 OTHERS1980 CLC 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
- SULTAN KHAN AND ANOTHER vs DAUD ALI KHAN ETC.1980 PLD Rev. 1 · Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa · 1978-04-19Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN JAFER AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 739 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN AND ANOTHER vs PRESIDENT, SPECIAL MILITARY COURT No, 3, SIBI AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLD Quetta 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-03-28Read full judgment →
- SUKHDEV vs SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, SIND AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 543(1) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-07-01Read full judgment →
- SUDHAKAR MANIBHAI AND KULINSINGH MANIBHAI vs COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX41 TAX 78 · Gauhati High CourtRead full judgment →
- SUBMAJOR (RETD.) AZIZ AHMED vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND 8 OTHER1980 PLD Peshawar 204 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
- SUBHAN BEG AND 18 OTHERSs vs PAKISTAN STATE OIL Co. LTD., RAWALPINDI1980 PLD Peshawar 113 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking a direction to the respondent, Pakistan State Oil Company Limited, to regularly supply kerosene oil to the petitioner as a distributor. The petitioner argued that as the legal successor to Daud Petroleum Limited under the Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act, 1974, the respondent was legally bound to continue supplies under the existing agreement. The core legal questions were whether contractual rights and duties can be enforced through a constitutional petition in the nature of mandamus, and whether the High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction over a respondent located outside its territorial limits whose impugned actions occurred outside said limits. The Peshawar High Court held that the right to supply flowed from a contract and not from statute, as section 24 of the Act merely gave continuity to existing contracts without creating independent statutory rights or duties. Furthermore, contractual rights cannot be enforced via constitutional jurisdiction, and remedies lie in civil suits for damages or specific performance. Additionally, the Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 because the respondent resided and the impugned stoppage of supplies occurred outside the High Court's territorial jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether contractual rights arising from an agreement can be enforced through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does section 24 of the Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act, 1974 create an independent statutory duty to supply goods, or does it merely preserve existing contractual terms?
- Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ against a respondent that resides and performs the impugned act outside the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction?
- SUBA KHAN vs REHMAT DIN AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 589 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit where the trial court initially dismissed the plaint for failure to deposit the required 'zare-e-panjam'. Subsequently, the trial court reviewed and set aside this dismissal, acknowledging that the initial deposit calculation was erroneous because it was based on the entire property rather than the specific portion in dispute. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court possessed the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction and whether it could validly review its own order of rejection. The Court held that the trial court possessed the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction, as the actual valuation, calculated based on land revenue rules, fell within its limits. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the trial court's exercise of review jurisdiction, ruling that the initial calculation error constituted an error apparent on the face of the record under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court established that a party's valuation of a suit cannot confer or divest a court of jurisdiction if the law dictates otherwise; the court must independently determine jurisdiction based on the evidence.
Questions settled- Can a party's valuation of a suit confer or deprive a court of pecuniary jurisdiction if the law dictates otherwise?
- Is a trial court empowered to review an order of rejection of a plaint if the initial deposit calculation was based on an error apparent on the face of the record?
- How is the jurisdictional value of a suit determined when land revenue is payable?
- SUB. NAWAB KHAN vs DATA ETC.1980 CLC 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
- STATE vs SHAFAIT KHAN1980 P Cr. L J 646 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
- STATE vs PUTTAN alias SIHTE HASSAN AND 23 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 1034 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-09Read full judgment →
- STATE vs NAYYAR MIRZA AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 96 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MUHAMMAD GHAUS AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 914 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MANGTA AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 1093 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
- STATE vs MADRASI Accused1980 P Cr. L J 648 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
- STATE vs KHADIM HUSSAIN SHAH AND OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 988 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ISHAQUE1980 P Cr. L J 597 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-26Read full judgment →
- STATE vs HIDAYATULLAH1980 PLD Azad J & K 18 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
- STATE vs BAGH HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 86 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-11-11Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ANWARUL HAQ1980 P Cr. L J 547 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-06Read full judgment →
- STATE vs ABDUL QAYYUM AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 465 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
- STATE THROUGH ADVOCATEGENERAL, N.W. F. P., PESHAWAR vs BARKAT ALI1980 SCMR 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondents of double murder charges. The prosecution relied on dying declarations and eyewitness testimony, asserting that the assailants were identified by the light of a 100-watt electric bulb in the courtyard. The High Court, however, doubted the presence of the eyewitnesses and the credibility of the 'lighted bulb' theory, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s rejection of this evidence justified Supreme Court interference. The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether the bulb was lit constituted a matter of appreciation of evidence. Finding that the High Court’s conclusion was a possible view, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the acquittal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Supreme Court will not disturb a High Court’s finding on the appreciation of evidence if that finding represents a possible view, even if an alternative interpretation of the facts exists.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's finding on the appreciation of evidence if the view taken is a possible one?
- Is the presence of a lighted bulb at the scene of a crime a matter of fact to be determined through the appreciation of evidence?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to re-evaluate the credibility of eyewitnesses in a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal?
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI vs Mst. SARWAT1980 CLC 1953 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-02Read full judgment →
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1980 CLC 626 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-16Read full judgment →
- SOUTHERN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN1980 CLC 75 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
- SOHAN LALL vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT1980 PLC (C. S.) 639 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-06-29Read full judgment →
- SODHO AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 441 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-09Read full judgment →
- Smt. VIDAYABAI AND ontEas vs NOORAJMAL1980 SCMR 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an eviction proceeding initiated against a tenant, Jiandmal, whose heirs contested the matter after his death. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction application, but the Additional District Judge allowed the respondent's appeal. Subsequently, the petitioners' second appeal in the Sind High Court was dismissed based on a concession made by their counsel. The core legal question revolves around whether a counsel has the authority to compromise an appeal involving minor petitioners without the court applying its mind to whether the compromise is in the interest of the minors, and the applicability of principles akin to Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to rent cases. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remanding the matter for a fresh decision. The court held that the beneficial principle of equity enshrined in Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to rent cases involving minors.
Questions settled- Whether the beneficial principle enshrined in Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to rent cases involving minors?
- Can an appeal be dismissed on the basis of a counsel's concession when the petitioners are minors without considering their best interests?
- SIRAJUL ISLAM vs UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR THROUGH VICECHANCELLOR, PESHAWAR AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 158 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- SIRAJUDDIN vs RAISUDDIN AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 1066 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
- SIRAJUDDIN KHAN vs CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION), SUKKUR AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 701 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal and subsequent review petition by the Sind Service Tribunal regarding a claim for salary arrears. The petitioner, a former Store-keeper, sought payment for two periods during which his services were terminated. Following the abatement of his civil suit under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner appealed to the Sind Service Tribunal, which dismissed his claim. Instead of filing a timely appeal before the Supreme Court as mandated by Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Tribunal, which was rejected for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner subsequently filed the present petition before the Supreme Court, seeking condonation of delay on the grounds of a mistaken belief regarding the availability of a review remedy. The Supreme Court held that ignorance of the law does not justify delay and that the petition was time-barred, as it was not filed within the prescribed 60-day limitation period following the Tribunal's initial order.
Questions settled- Does a Service Tribunal possess the inherent power to review its own orders under the Sind Service Tribunal Act 1973?
- Can ignorance of the law be accepted as a valid ground for condonation of delay in filing a petition before the Supreme Court?
- What is the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved party after a Service Tribunal dismisses an appeal under the Sind Service Tribunal Act 1973?
- SIRAJ-UD-DIN AND Other vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 184 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-28Read full judgment →
- SIND TRADING COMPANY vs Haji AHMED ISMAIL1980 CLC 1021 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-07Read full judgment →
- SIND STAR SYNDICATE, KARACHI vs SYNTHETIC CHEMICAL. Co. LTD AND onIns1980 CLC 1351 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application under section 152 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by defendant No. 2 seeking rectification of a judgment and decree and recall of a writ of attachment issued against it. The core legal question was whether a decree could be passed against defendant No. 2 as a parent establishment in the absence of privity of contract or a specific legal liability distinct from defendant No. 1, and whether the omission of the defendant's name in the judgment was an accidental slip or omission rectifiable under section 152 C.P.C. The court held that defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 are separate legal entities, that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, and that no decree could be passed against defendant No. 2. The court further held that the failure to specify defendant No. 1 in the judgment was an accidental slip and ordered the rectification of the judgment and decree to reflect that the suit was decreed against defendant No. 1 only, withdrawing the attachment against defendant No. 2.
Questions settled- Can a decree be passed against a parent company in a suit for breach of contract entered into solely by its subsidiary in the absence of privity of contract?
- Does an accidental omission to specify the judgment-debtor in a judgment constitute a clerical or arithmetical mistake rectifiable under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are a nationalized company and its parent establishment distinct legal entities capable of independent liabilities?
- Does nationalization of a company under the Economic Reform Order 1972 merge its legal personality with the Federal Government?
- SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION vs GREAVES COTTON & Co.1980 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Sind High Court judgment that remanded a case to the Sind Employees' Social Security Institution. The core legal question was whether a notification extending the West Pakistan Social Security Ordinance, 1965, to a specific establishment at a particular address also encompassed employees working at the company's separate Head Office. The petitioner argued that the High Court erred in applying the Supreme Court's precedent in Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Sind Employees' Social Security Institution, contending that the definition of 'establishment' should be interpreted broadly to include the entire organization regardless of location. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly applied the binding precedent set in the Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. case. The Court affirmed that the previous interpretation of 'establishment' and 'employee' under the Ordinance was comprehensive and did not require review. Consequently, the Court upheld the remand order, maintaining that the inquiry into whether Head Office employees were connected to the notified establishment's work was appropriate under the established legal framework.
Questions settled- Does a notification extending the West Pakistan Social Security Ordinance, 1965, to a specific establishment address automatically include employees working at the company's separate Head Office?
- Is the definition of 'establishment' under the West Pakistan Social Security Ordinance, 1965, broad enough to include an entire organization regardless of the location of its various units?
- SIKANDER ALI SAMEJO vs GHULAM MOHAMMED BHAMBHRO AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 542 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-06-30Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND 3 OTHERS Proforma1980 CLC 562 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-11-04Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR AND 2 oTHERS vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the concurrent convictions of the three appellants by the Sessions Judge and the High Court under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Muhammad Yusuf. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular testimony from interested witnesses (the uncle and friend of the deceased), the reliability of weapon recovery evidence, and the veracity of the appellant Sikandar's plea of private defence and self-inflicted injuries. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that minor discrepancies in the testimony of truthful witnesses do not vitiate the prosecution's case, that ocular accounts supported by prompt FIRs, medical evidence, and natural presence of witnesses are reliable, and that injuries sustained by an accused during a fatal struggle do not establish self-defence where the nature and multiplicity of the victim's stab wounds demonstrate a concerted attack. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on a careful appraisal of ocular and medical evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court unless a material legal error is shown.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related or interested eye-witnesses can form the basis of a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
- Can an accused's plea of private defence be sustained when the nature, number, and placement of injuries on the deceased negate the possibility of self-inflicted or defensive harm?
- Does the presence of minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses render their entire account untrustworthy?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court regarding appreciation of evidence are open to interference by the Supreme Court in the absence of a legal error?
- SIKANDAR ALAM vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1980 PLC (C. S.) 590 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
- SIDDIQUE SHAH vs THE STATE1980 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
- SHERDIL vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, which maintained the petitioner's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murders of his wife and her cousin, while reducing his death sentence to imprisonment for life, and also upheld his conviction under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions addressed involve the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the sufficiency of medical evidence regarding the cause of death when an autopsy is conducted months after exhumation, and the evaluation of defence witnesses in cases involving allegations of a 'Kari' motive. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt were unexceptionable, as the medical evidence adequately connected the head injuries with the cause of death and the defence version failed to create reasonable doubt. The Court laid down that a medical officer's opinion stating a probable cause of death based on injuries observed during autopsy, when corroborated by prompt ocular testimony and the absence of any supervening cause, is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained when the medical officer's opinion on the cause of death is stated as probable following an exhumation and delayed autopsy?
- Does a discrepancy between the oral description of a weapon as a gun versus a rifle by eyewitnesses create a fatal contradiction with medical evidence?
- Whether the testimony of defence witnesses can outweigh consistent and prompt eyewitness and dying declaration accounts supported by a proven motive?
- SHERDIL AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 919 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-30Read full judgment →