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.
- SHERA vs THE STATE1980 PLD Rev. 52 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1980-03-24Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs ABDUL RASHID AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the cancellation of a land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The petitioner, an informer, alleged the respondent’s allotment was fraudulent due to a discrepancy in the recorded parentage. The delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner had declared the allotment fraudulent based solely on a report by an Extra-Assistant Commissioner who inspected records at the Central Record Office. The High Court set aside this order, finding that the delegate had abdicated his jurisdiction by failing to apply his own mind to the primary record. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that an adjudicatory authority cannot surrender its discretion to a third party. Furthermore, the Court held that the High Court acted within its constitutional jurisdiction by examining the nature of the inquiry conducted by the Central Record Office to ensure that its intervention did not inadvertently validate an illegality. The petition was dismissed, as the delegate's reliance on a third-party report without personal verification constituted a failure to exercise jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does an adjudicatory authority abdicate its jurisdiction by relying solely on the findings of a third party without applying its own mind to the primary record?
- Can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction examine the nature of an inquiry conducted by an administrative body to ensure the legality of its own order?
- Is a discrepancy in parentage in a verified claim form necessarily fraudulent if it constitutes a clerical mistake?
- SHER KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Baluchistan High Court cancelling the post-arrest bail granted to the petitioners by the Sessions Court in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Sessions Court in granting bail where the petitioners were only alleged to have instigated the fatal attack and lacked any discernible motive. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in interfering with the Sessions Court's discretion, particularly given that the role attributed to the petitioners was akin to a lalkara and there was an absence of motive. The key principle laid down is that superior courts should not lightly interfere with the bail discretion properly exercised by a trial court where the incriminating material against the accused is open to further inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can validly interfere with the discretion exercised by a Sessions Court in granting bail without strong and exceptional grounds?
- Does an allegation of instigation or lalkara alone justify the cancellation of post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Is the absence of a discernible motive a relevant consideration for granting bail to an accused charged with murder?
- SHER ALI vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the appropriate sentence for the appellant, Sher Ali, who was convicted of murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court sentenced the appellant to death, a decision upheld by a majority of the Peshawar High Court following a difference of opinion between the two judges of the Division Bench. The core legal question was whether the death penalty was the appropriate sentence given the circumstances of the case, specifically the nature of the dispute and the appellant's conduct. Upon review, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's majority view regarding the sentence. The Court held that, considering the totality of the circumstances—including the nature of the altercation and the relationship between the parties—the extreme penalty of death was not warranted. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the death sentence and commuting it to life imprisonment, thereby establishing that the imposition of the death penalty requires a careful balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors.
Questions settled- Whether the death penalty is mandatory in cases of premeditated murder?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a sentence confirmed by a majority of the High Court bench?
- Does the existence of a prior land dispute and the relationship between parties constitute mitigating factors for sentencing in a murder case?
- SHER AFZAL KHAN vs FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH,. ETC.1980 PLD Peshawar 99 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-07Read full judgment →
- SHER AFGHAN AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS SIDD1QUE & SAEED LTD., KARACHI1980 P Cr. L J 435 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-29Read full judgment →
- Sheikh SALIM ALI vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 509 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-23Read full judgment →
- Sheikh GHULAM HUSSAIN vs PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 309 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-28Read full judgment →
- SHEIKH AKHTAR ALI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS42 TAX 47 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
- Sheikh ABDUR REHMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1980 PLC (C. S.) 531 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ANWAR AND ANOTHER vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, PUNJAB1980 PLD Lahore 133 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-22Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L 1 718 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-12-31Read full judgment →
- SHARIFULLAH vs MUMTAZ AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Peshawar 87 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises from a suit for possession by pre-emption. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's initial suit because he failed to deposit the required pre-emption money within the time fixed by the court under Section 23(4) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950. The plaintiff subsequently filed a fresh suit for the same land. The core legal question was whether the rejection of a plaint under Section 23(4) of the Act precludes a plaintiff from filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Section 23(4) for non-deposit of pre-emption money does not bar the plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit, subject to the law of limitation. The Court reasoned that Section 23(4) is supplementary to Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the effect of such rejection is analogous to that under the Code, which expressly permits the filing of a fresh plaint under Order VII, Rule 13.
Questions settled- Does the rejection of a plaint under Section 23(4) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950, preclude the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action?
- Should an order dismissing a suit for failure to deposit pre-emption money under Section 23(4) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950, be treated as a rejection of the plaint?
- Is the rejection of a plaint under Section 23(4) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950, appealable as a decree?
- Shariat Bench] Mst. FARISHTA vs THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF LAW, ISLAMABAD1980 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the validity of Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, which allows the children of a predeceased son or daughter to inherit from their grandparent, arguing it is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Court first addressed the jurisdictional challenge, holding that the Shariat Bench has the authority to review the Ordinance because it is a legislative enactment, not "Muslim Personal Law" (Shariat) itself, and thus falls within the scope of Article 203-B of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. On the merits, the Court examined the Qur'anic verses and Sunnah regarding inheritance. It concluded that the Qur'an prescribes specific shares for heirs and that the inclusion of grandchildren as heirs when a son is present contradicts these established divine limits. Consequently, the Court declared Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and directed its repeal, suggesting alternative legislative measures to address the potential distress of orphaned grandchildren, such as encouraging testamentary wills.
Questions settled- Does the Shariat Bench have jurisdiction to examine the validity of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, under Article 203-B of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, regarding the inheritance of a predeceased son or daughter, repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Does the term 'Muslim Personal Law' in the explanation to Article 203-B of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include legislative enactments that amend Shariat?
- Shariat Bench] GUL HASSAN KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter involves petitions seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and other mercy laws are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam regarding Qisas, Diyat, and pardon for offences affecting the human body. The core legal questions concern whether the penalties prescribed for murder and related provisions on commutation and compounding are repugnant to Islamic injunctions, and whether minors are subject to Qisas. The Peshawar High Court held that provisions denying the right of pardon, compounding, and Diyat, as well as executive powers of commutation for offences affecting the human body, are repugnant to Islamic injunctions, and that minors cannot be subjected to Qisas though they may be liable to Ta'azir. The key principle laid down is that under Islamic law, offences affecting the human body are compoundable through pardon or Diyat by the heirs, and executive authorities lack the power to commute sentences for such offences.
Questions settled- Whether penalty prescribed by the Pakistan Penal Code for murder is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Whether a person who was a minor at the time of the commission of murder can be subjected to Qisas?
- Whether the provisions of sections 54 and 55 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sections 401 and 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Whether provisions regarding compoundability and commutation of sentences relate to the procedure of a Court or Tribunal under Article 203-B of the Constitution?
- SHARAFUDDIN Etc. vs GHULAM SABRI Etc.1980 CLC 108 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-14Read full judgment →
- SHANGHAI SILK MILLS, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 71 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-26Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHER ALI KHAN vs MAJORGENERAL SHER ALI KHAN AND 13 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 539 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-18Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD HUSSAIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SIND, HOME1980 PLC (C. S.) 579 (2) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
- SHAMIMUR REHMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 345 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged Martial Law Regulation No. 103 and Order No. 22 of 1972, which dissolved the Rehmania Fauji Sugar Mills Limited and transferred its assets to the Fauji Foundation. The core legal question was whether a legislative instrument promulgated by an individual authority could be challenged on grounds of mala fide and whether such an instrument, if conceived in bad faith for collateral purposes, constitutes valid law or a void executive fiat. The Court held that the impugned Regulation and Order were issued mala fide for collateral purposes—specifically to secure Army investments—rather than for a legitimate public purpose. Consequently, the Court declared them void ab initio, ruling that mala fide acts are not protected by constitutional validation clauses. The judgment establishes that legislative instruments issued by an individual are subject to judicial scrutiny for mala fide and collateral purpose. Furthermore, it affirms that the power of eminent domain requires a public purpose, and principles of natural justice must be read into statutes affecting proprietary rights, rendering arbitrary expropriation without hearing invalid.
Questions settled- Can a legislative instrument issued by an individual authority be challenged on the grounds of mala fide?
- Does the doctrine of eminent domain require a public purpose for the compulsory acquisition of private property?
- Are principles of natural justice applicable to legislative instruments that affect the proprietary rights of individuals?
- Does the constitutional validation of legislative measures under Article 281 of the Interim Constitution protect acts done mala fide?
- SHAILAJA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS1980 CLC 2075 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
- Shaikh MUSLEHUDDIN vs I. G. OF POLICE, SIND AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 552 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
- SHAHZADO AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The three petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had maintained their convictions under sections 307, 323, and 326 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting their co-accused Razul on the basis of an alibi. The core legal question was whether the acceptance of an alibi and the acquittal of one co-accused on the ground of doubt requires the rejection or independent corroboration of ocular testimony against the remaining co-accused. The Supreme Court held that giving the benefit of doubt to one accused out of abundant caution does not weaken the probative value of consistent eyewitness testimony against other co-accused whose presence and participation are fully established by injured witnesses. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistan, and a court is fully competent to sift the evidence, acquit one accused on doubtful grounds, and maintain the convictions of others based on reliable ocular testimony.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal of one co-accused on the basis of an alibi necessarily renders the ocular evidence doubtful against the remaining co-accused?
- Is a court competent to sift the evidence and acquit one accused out of abundant caution while maintaining the conviction of others?
- Does the granting of benefit of doubt to one accused weaken the probity of eyewitness testimony against co-accused?
- SHAHZADO AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 298 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
- SHAHZAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 PLD Lahore 54 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged an order by a Special Court, constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, which cancelled the petitioners' bail without prior notice or legal representation. The core legal questions concerned whether the Act excluded the High Court’s revisional and inherent powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the High Court could exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the Act does not impliedly bar the High Court's revisional or inherent powers regarding interlocutory orders, nor does it restrict the High Court's constitutional supervisory authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the bail cancellation order, ruling that it violated fundamental principles of natural justice by denying the accused sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard through counsel. The judgment establishes that bail cannot be cancelled without adequate notice, and that the High Court retains its supervisory and inherent jurisdiction over subordinate courts unless such powers are explicitly and clearly excluded by statute.
Questions settled- Does the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 exclude the High Court's revisional powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases pending before a Special Court?
- Is a bail cancellation order valid if passed without providing the accused sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard?
- Does Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 empower the High Court to correct orders passed by a subordinate court in violation of law?
- SHAHUL HAMID vs TAHIR ALI1980 SCMR 596 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata. The appellant, Shahul Hamid, sought to challenge the lower courts' finding that his status as a tenant was concluded by a previous judgment. Previously, the appellant had obtained a favorable decree declaring him a tenant, but the defendants' appeal against that decree was withdrawn by consent, with a stipulation that the findings would not operate as res judicata in future proceedings. The core legal question was whether parties can, by consent, waive the application of the principle of res judicata or whether such an agreement is void as against public policy. The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of res judicata is founded on public policy to settle litigation and cannot be waived by the consent of parties or by court orders. The Court affirmed that statutory provisions like Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory, and there can be no estoppel against a statute. Consequently, the previous judgment remained binding, and the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can parties by mutual consent or agreement waive the application of the doctrine of res judicata?
- Does a court order allowing the withdrawal of an appeal with a condition that findings will not operate as res judicata bind the parties in future litigation?
- Is there an estoppel against a statutory provision like Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court grant liberty to file a fresh suit in a manner that contradicts the mandatory provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- SHAHU AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 PLD Lahore 568 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-21Read full judgment →
- SHAHIDUNNA BI KHAN vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 977 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-26Read full judgment →
- SHAHIDA PERVEEN vs MUHAMMAD INAYAT AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 14 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, regarding the custody of the petitioner, a minor female. The core legal question is whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, should interfere with a lower court's custody order when the petitioner's age and the validity of her marriage are disputed facts. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Sessions Judge’s order was lawful and not subject to interference. The Court determined that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum to resolve disputed questions of fact, such as the petitioner's age or the authenticity of a Nikah document. The Court established that where a girl is a minor and the credentials of her alleged husband are the subject of a pending criminal trial, it is improper to grant custody to the husband as it would prejudice the trial. Consequently, placing the minor in the custody of her father is a lawful exercise of judicial discretion when the alternative is indeterminate detention in a shelter home.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to determine disputed questions of fact regarding a person's age?
- Is it appropriate to grant custody of a minor to an alleged husband when the legality of the marriage is the subject of a pending criminal trial?
- Does a Sessions Judge act with lawful authority when ordering a minor to be placed in a shelter home pending the resolution of custody disputes?
- SHAHIDA PARVEEN vs DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 7 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition concerning the custody of a minor girl, Mst. Shahida Parveen, who had been allegedly abducted and married. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, should determine the disputed age and marital status of an alleged abductee to grant her custody to her alleged husband, or whether she should remain in the custody of her father pending criminal trial. The Court held that the determination of age and the validity of marriage are complex questions of fact unsuitable for resolution in constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that where a criminal case for abduction is pending, it is safer to grant custody to the father to avoid potential legal complications regarding the validity of the marriage, legitimacy of offspring, and potential charges of zina should the marriage be later declared void. The principle laid down is that the High Court should refrain from exercising constitutional jurisdiction to determine disputed facts in matrimonial matters when alternative, adequate remedies exist in ordinary courts, such as family courts or criminal trials.
Questions settled- Should the High Court determine disputed questions of fact regarding an abductee's age in a constitutional writ petition?
- Is it appropriate to grant custody of an alleged abductee to an alleged husband when the validity of the marriage is the subject of a pending criminal trial?
- Can the High Court refuse to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction when alternative remedies are available in ordinary courts?
- SHAHID JAVID MALIK vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1980 PLD Lahore 176 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the punitive action taken by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education against a candidate accused of using unfair means in an Intermediate Examination. The petitioner was charged under board rules for possessing unauthorized material, refusing to obey the superintendent, and copying. He denied the allegations and offered a counter-version involving the supervisor. The Discipline Committee penalized him, and the Jury of Appeal dismissed his subsequent appeal without granting a personal hearing. The core legal questions involve the observance of natural justice, the right to cross-examination, and the interpretation of rules governing personal hearings in administrative appeals. The Lahore High Court held that the rules of natural justice were violated because the Discipline Committee failed to examine the superintendent in the presence of the petitioner, and misleading notes on the charge-sheet deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity for a personal hearing before the appellate authority. The court set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter to the Jury of Appeal for a fresh decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal appearance.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of a discipline committee to examine the superintendent in the presence of a candidate accused of using unfair means violates natural justice?
- Does the right to a personal hearing in an administrative appeal get waived if the candidate fails to explicitly request it due to misleading instructions on the charge-sheet?
- Whether an appellate authority in examination malpractice cases has the power to remand the matter for fresh decision after granting a personal hearing?
- SHAHEEN OIL, TRADERS vs IMDAD ALI SHAH AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an eviction order against the appellants from a commercial property. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellants were sub-tenants, whether the property had been damaged to impair its value, and whether the landlords' claim for personal use was bona fide. The court held that the finding of sub-letting could not be sustained as there was no evidence of rent payment by the appellants to the original tenant, but upheld the eviction order on the grounds of damage to the property and the landlords' bona fide personal requirement. The court established that even if the appellants were not sub-tenants, they were liable for eviction if the property was damaged or if the landlord established a bona fide personal need for the premises. Furthermore, the court affirmed that a tenant or occupant is liable to eviction if the property is damaged to impair its value, regardless of the specific nature of the tenancy, provided the occupant has been given a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.
Questions settled- Can an inference of sub-tenancy be drawn in the absence of evidence showing rent payment by the alleged sub-tenant to the original tenant?
- Is an eviction order sustainable against occupants even if they are not classified as sub-tenants, provided the grounds for eviction such as property damage or personal requirement are established?
- Does the construction of an oil tank without landlord permission constitute damage to property with a view to impair its value?
- SHAHBAZ ASHRAF KHAN CHEEMA vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION1980 PLC (C. S.) 472 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-01-18Read full judgment →
- SHAHAMAD BAIG vs MUNAWAR SULTANA1980 CLC 351 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-02Read full judgment →
- SHAH NAWAZ vs SHER BAHADUR AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal petitions filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the conviction of Sher Bahadur for the murder of Amir Khan but altered his sentence from death to imprisonment for life. The convict appealed against his conviction, while the complainant sought the restoration of the death penalty. The core legal question concerned whether the circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession, recoveries of incriminating articles such as the severed head and blood-stained weapons from the accused's room, and testimonies of last seen witnesses, was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of direct ocular evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the proved incriminating circumstances and recoveries were conclusive against the accused, and upheld both the conviction and the reduction of sentence based on mitigating circumstances including the tender age of the accused and family honor. The Court affirmed that once robust circumstantial recoveries are established, theoretical speculations regarding age or state of mind cannot avail the accused.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of lower courts on circumstantial evidence and recoveries can be sustained in the absence of ocular testimony?
- Does the tender age of an accused combined with mitigating factors of family honor justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Are recoveries of incriminating articles and weapons from a room rented and controlled by the accused sufficient to prove guilt in a murder trial?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 257 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-04Read full judgment →
- SHAH MUHAMMAD (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) AND ANOTHER vs Mst.1980 CLC 937 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-19Read full judgment →
- SHAH JEHAN KHAN vs THE CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTION1980 CLC 544 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-17Read full judgment →
- Shah ABDUL HAMID vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 448 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
- SHAFT MUHAMMAD AND 4 OTHERS vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & SETTLEMENT1980 CLC 489 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-03Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 184 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1980 PLC (C. S.) 199 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-10-24Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR HUSSAIN ASGHAR ALI vs MESSRS MIAN KHURSHID AHMED & CO. AND 5 OTHERS1980 CLC 2092 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SHABBIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court whereby a State appeal against the acquittal of the petitioners for an offence under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code was accepted, the acquittal set aside, and the case remanded for recording additional statements and fresh decision. The trial magistrate had convicted the petitioners based on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, identification parades, and a confession. The lower appellate court set aside the conviction, influenced largely by its view that the victim was of unsound mind, alongside other infirmities in the prosecution case. The High Court reversed the acquittal without addressing those other infirmities. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the High Court ought to have examined the various points and infirmities noted by the lower appellate court before setting aside the acquittal, and stayed the remand proceedings while maintaining the petitioners' bail.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is required to examine all material infirmities and points considered by the lower appellate court before setting aside a judgment of acquittal?
- Whether a judge's personal observation regarding the mental state of a witness, without expert opinion, is a sufficient ground for acquittal?
- Whether the other evidentiary points considered in a judgment of acquittal are separable from the finding regarding the victim's mental capacity?
- SHABBIR AHMED KHAN. vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1980 CLC 2123 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
- SHABBIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 920 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for bail filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning a criminal case involving murder and related charges under the law. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the investigation findings and the plea of alibi supported by prosecution witnesses. The court decided to convert the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where the investigation report and supporting statements of prosecution witnesses lend credence to a plea of alibi, a case for further inquiry is made out, rendering the accused a fit person for the grant of post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when prosecution witnesses support a plea of alibi during investigation?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and grant bail based on the merits of the case?
- Sh. MUHAMMAD RASHID vs Mst. ZARNIGAR QAISER SHEIKH1980 PLD Lahore 61 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil revision petition challenging the order of the Guardian Judge, Lahore, returning an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for presentation to a competent court due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of 'where the minor ordinarily resides' under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act when minors are removed from Pakistan to England by their mother. The Lahore High Court held that although fraudulent removal by a guardian can rebut the presumption of a minor's ordinary residence, if the minors have subsequently settled down in a foreign jurisdiction and established actual residence there, the domestic court lacks territorial jurisdiction under section 9. The court laid down the principle that ordinary residence is a question of fact rather than legal domicile or nationality, and once minors have settled abroad, local courts cannot assume jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act.
Questions settled- Whether the Guardian Judge has jurisdiction under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act when minors are removed to and settled in a foreign country?
- Does the fraudulent or deceitful removal of minors from the jurisdiction of a court permanently fix their ordinary residence at the place of removal?
- Can legal domicile or dual nationality override the actual factual ordinary residence of minors for the purpose of determining court jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act?
- Does the High Court have the power under the Letters Patent to transfer and decide a guardianship matter over which the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction?
- Sh. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, FOOD, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 532 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD AYYUB vs NAZIR AHMAD SHAMI ETC.1980 CLC 895 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-28Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD ALAM vs Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN1980 SCMR 679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the dismissal of his second appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the ejectment order passed by the Additional District Judge. The landlady sought the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed shop on the ground of personal need. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the appellate court reversed the decision, finding the personal need duly established, a view subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a pardanashin lady's plea of personal need for conducting business is mala fide or lacking in bona fides merely due to her status or previous disputes between the tenant and her husband. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts' concurrent findings on the bona fide personal need were well-reasoned, supported by precedent, and warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that the pardanashin status of a landlady and minor disputes with her husband do not inherently negate the bona fides of her personal requirement for ejectment.
Questions settled- Whether the personal need of a pardanashin lady for business can be considered lacking in bona fides merely due to her status?
- Does a prior dispute between a tenant and a landlord's husband render an eviction application for personal need mala fide?
- SH. MOHAMMAD ZAKI ,SH. RAHIMUDDIN, ETC. vs INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME42 TAX 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the liability of successor Mutawallis for income tax arrears incurred by their predecessor. The petitioners, who became Mutawallis of a Waqf property, challenged notices issued by the Income Tax Officer demanding payment of tax arrears left unpaid by the previous Mutawalli. The High Court had dismissed their writ petitions, holding that the successor Mutawallis were liable for the tax arrears of their predecessor under the Income Tax Act, 1922. The petitioners argued that they were not executors, administrators, or legal representatives of the deceased Mutawalli under Section 24B of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and thus could not be held personally liable for the predecessor's tax debts. The Supreme Court observed that the issue was one of first impression involving questions of law of public importance. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's interpretation regarding the scope of liability for successor trustees under the relevant tax legislation.
Questions settled- Are successor Mutawallis personally liable for income tax arrears incurred by a predecessor Mutawalli under the Income Tax Act 1922?
- Does Section 24B of the Income Tax Act 1922 apply to successor Mutawallis who are not executors, administrators, or legal representatives of a deceased Mutawalli?
- Sh. FAZAL ELAHI vs MUHAMMAD SADDIQ AND 7 OTHERS1980 PLD Lahore 489 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
- Sh. FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs CHIEF ENGINEER, HIGHWAYS, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 286 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
- Sh. BASHIR AHMED vs NISAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 302 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an eviction petition filed by a landlord against a tenant on grounds of default and subletting. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit rent under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, without accounting for a prior advance payment of Rs. 2,000 intended for rent adjustment. Consequently, the tenant’s defence was struck off for non-compliance. The Additional District Judge reversed this order, holding that the advance payment should have been adjusted, rendering the deposit order unjustified, and further ruled that subletting occurring after the petition's filing could not be adjudicated within the existing proceedings. The High Court upheld the appellate decision, affirming that advance payments adjustable towards rent must be considered when passing Section 13(6) orders. Furthermore, the Court established that a fresh cause of action, such as a new instance of subletting arising during the pendency of an eviction petition, cannot be incorporated into the existing petition and necessitates a separate, fresh application. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Should an advance payment intended for rent adjustment be considered when passing an order under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a ground for eviction, such as subletting, that arises after the filing of an eviction petition be adjudicated within the existing proceedings?
- Is a tenant liable for default if the court's order for rent deposit under Section 13(6) fails to account for adjustable advance payments?
- Sh. ATA MUHAMMAD vs MAJOR ZUBAIR MAHMOOD KHAN AND 7 OTHERS1980 CLC 446 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Development), Government of Punjab, which restored a plot of land to the original allottees after a compromise, effectively cancelling the subsequent allotment made to the petitioner by a Co-operative Society. The core legal questions were whether the Co-operative Society had the authority to cancel the original allotment, whether the petitioner had a vested legal right to the plot, and whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the restoration order. The Court held that the land vested in the Government, not the Society, and the Society lacked the authority to cancel the original allotment. The petitioner’s allotment was subject to the doctrine of lis pendens as it occurred during pending litigation. The Court ruled that it would not exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 to perpetuate an illegal act or to assist a party whose claim was based on an unauthorized cancellation, especially where the petitioner had no enforceable legal right.
Questions settled- Does a Co-operative Society have the authority to cancel an allotment of land that vests in the Provincial Government?
- Can a petitioner invoke writ jurisdiction to enforce an allotment made during the pendency of litigation regarding the same property?
- Is the High Court bound to issue a writ if doing so would perpetuate an illegal act or result in manifest injustice?
- Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to an allotment made by a society when the property is already subject to pending litigation?
- Sh. ABDUL REHMAN vs Mst. MUSARRAT BEGUM AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 781 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-03Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN vs Miss1980 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed by the Secretary, Health Department, Government of Baluchistan, seeking to challenge an earlier order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan that had dismissed a civil petition as having become infructuous. The core legal question was whether the court should adjudicate on the entitlement for reserved seats under category B of paragraph 13 of the Prospectus, despite the underlying issue having been rendered moot by the dismissal of the petition. The Supreme Court declined to review its prior order, holding that the controversy regarding the reserved seats did not constitute a live issue, nor did the previous dismissal contain an error patent on the face of the record. The court maintained its decision to dismiss the petition as infructuous, while clarifying that the substantive legal question regarding seat entitlement remains open for consideration should it arise in future litigation. The principle affirmed is that the court will not entertain review petitions on issues that are no longer live or where no clear error on the record exists.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be entertained when the underlying issue has become infructuous?
- Does a controversy that is no longer a live issue constitute an error patent on the face of the record?
- SEARLE (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs MONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD1980 PLD Karachi 171 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
- SAWAN KHAN AND OTHERS PIRO AND OTHERS vs Mir HAIL KHAN AND OTHERS1980 PLD Rev. 9 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1978-09-11Read full judgment →
- SATTAR MUHAMMAD AND 6 OTHERS vs CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, AZAD J & K GOVERNMENT AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD SC (A J & K) 46 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
- SARWAR KHAN vs MIR ALI AND 10 OTHERS1980 CLC 110 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-09-14Read full judgment →
- SARTAJ AHMED ANSARI AND 2 OTHERS vs SHAH MIR AND 2 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 479 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
- SARFRAZ alias FARAZA. vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that enhanced the appellant's sentence from life imprisonment to death for the murder of a court bailiff. The appellant, convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, challenged the enhancement of his sentence, arguing that the incident occurred suddenly without premeditation and that the trial court's original sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction to enhance the sentence and whether the circumstances warranted the death penalty. The Court held that the appellant's actions—attacking the bailiff upon learning of an attachment warrant and continuing to strike the victim multiple times on vital body parts while the victim was incapacitated—demonstrated clear intent to kill rather than a sudden loss of self-control. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the brutality of the assault and the lack of mitigating circumstances justified the imposition of the death penalty. The principle established is that repeated blows to vital organs following an initial attack negate claims of sudden provocation or lack of premeditation.
Questions settled- Does the infliction of multiple blows on vital parts of a victim's body after the victim has been incapacitated negate a plea of sudden provocation?
- Can a High Court enhance a sentence from life imprisonment to death in the exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction?
- Is the absence of derogatory language from a public official executing a warrant sufficient to reject a claim of sudden loss of self-control by the accused?
- SARFARAZ alias FARAZ Accused vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1163 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-23Read full judgment →
- SARDOOL KHAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & PROJECT DIRECTOR, JHANG1980 PLC (C. S.) 116 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-11-17Read full judgment →
- SARDAR vs THE STATE1980 PLD Lahore 40 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-23Read full judgment →
- SARDAR vs GHULAM NABI AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from a dispute over land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The petitioner, a refugee, challenged the allotment of specific land to the respondent, claiming it was originally proposed for him. The respondent had secured the allotment in 1959, and the petitioner, despite raising initial objections, failed to challenge the order for nearly a decade. When the petitioner finally appealed in 1969, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner initially allowed the appeal, but the Settlement Commissioner reversed this, ruling the appeal time-barred and holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, did not apply to proceedings under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that because the petitioner was present and had raised objections at the time of the original allotment, he had full knowledge of the order. Consequently, the plea of ignorance was rejected, and the finding that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred was affirmed.
Questions settled- Is Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to appeals filed under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Can an allottee claim ignorance of an allotment order if they were present and raised objections at the time of the original allotment?
- Does the failure to challenge an allotment order for a decade preclude a subsequent appeal on the grounds of limitation?
- Sardar SAWAL KHAN vs GUL BARAN COAL Co., QUETTA AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Quetta 55 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-04-14Read full judgment →
- Sardar MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1980 CLC 1117 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-01-30Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MIR USMAN TAREEN vs Syed MUHAMMAD HASSAN & SONS AND 21980 SCMR 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a coal mining lessee, challenged an administrative letter issued by the Joint Director, Mineral Development, Baluchistan, which alleged unauthorized encroachment by the petitioner into the mining area granted to the respondents. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction, arguing that the administrative instructions were issued without a hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The trial court initially granted an ad interim injunction, but this was subsequently recalled by the District Judge on appeal, and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to that appellate order. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel, recognizing the difficulty in sustaining the petition, sought to withdraw the proceedings. The Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to seek an amendment of the plaint in the trial court and to file a fresh application for an injunction. The Court clarified that such applications would be decided by the trial court in accordance with the law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner withdraw a leave to appeal petition before the Supreme Court while reserving the right to amend pleadings in the trial court?
- Does the withdrawal of a petition before the Supreme Court preclude a litigant from seeking fresh injunctive relief in the trial court?
- SARDAR MIR KHWAJA AND 7 OTHERS vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL1980 CLC 1305 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-21Read full judgment →
- SARDAR AND 3 mums vs THE STATE1980 PLD Rev. 41 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1980-03-19Read full judgment →
- SARDAR ALI vs S. H.O, WARBURTON1980 P Cr. L J 1058 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
- SARBLAND KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1980 PLC (C S) 400y · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1980-04-14Read full judgment →
- SAR DAR ALI BHOLA vs M. V. COOS BAY AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Karachi 450 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
- SANOBER TAHIRA vs DIRECTOR EDUCATION, LAHORE ETC_1980 PLC (C. S.) 537 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SANAULLAH BURNEY AND OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 728 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-21Read full judgment →
- SANAULLAH BURNEY AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 981 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-21Read full judgment →
- SANA ULLAH GILL vs Mst. ELVEENA1980 PLD Lahore 668 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-19Read full judgment →
- SANA ULLAH AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. ALLAH RAKHI AND Another1980 CLC 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
- SAMIUDDIN QURESHI vs FINANCE MEMBER, RAILWAY BOARD, LAHORE1980 PLC (C. S.) 207 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
- SAMANAD KHAN vs SAROO1980 CLC 1600 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-01Read full judgment →
- SALIM vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1230 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
- SALEHON AND OTHERSs vs STATE1980 SCMR 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the High Court's reversal of a trial court's acquittal of four appellants convicted for the murder of one individual and murderous assault on two others. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in relying on eyewitness testimony that the trial court had previously rejected due to alleged discrepancies. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court was justified in its conviction. The Court determined that the inconsistencies in the eyewitnesses' statements were minor and did not detract from their overall veracity. Crucially, the Court emphasized that the presence of the injured witnesses at the scene was corroborated by the numerous injuries they sustained during the incident. Furthermore, the Court found the motive for the crime—a land dispute—and the recovery of incriminating weapons from the appellants sufficient to establish the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment reaffirms that minor contradictions do not invalidate testimony when corroborated by independent medical evidence and physical facts.
Questions settled- Does the existence of minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony automatically render such evidence unreliable?
- Can the presence of injuries on a witness serve as corroboration of their presence at the scene of a crime?
- Is the reversal of an acquittal by a High Court justified when the trial court's rejection of evidence is based on minor inconsistencies?
- SALEH MUHAMMAD. vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SUMMARY MILITARY1980 PLD Karachi 26 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, KARACHI AND 2 oTHERs1980 PLD Karachi 240 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- SALEEM AKHTAR vs THE STATE1980 PLD Lahore 127 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a second application for post-arrest bail filed by two brothers accused of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that they acted in self-defense and that the incident fell under Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Additionally, the petitioners argued that their continued detention was unlawful due to procedural irregularities regarding their absence during remand proceedings before the Sessions Judge. The Court held that a previous rejection of a bail application does not bar a subsequent application, as bail orders are not judgments under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding the merits, the Court ruled that the presence of minor injuries on the accused does not automatically establish a right of private defense at the bail stage, as this requires evidence at trial. Finally, the Court determined that a technical defect in remand proceedings, such as the absence of the accused, does not override the merits of a capital charge. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the rejection of a previous bail application bar a subsequent application for bail?
- Does the presence of minor injuries on an accused person create a presumption of self-defense sufficient to grant bail in a murder case?
- Does the absence of an accused person during a remand order by a Sessions Judge render their detention illegal and entitle them to bail?
- Is an order granting or cancelling bail a judgment within the meaning of Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- SALAHUDDIN BHATTI AND 3 OTHERS vs HABIB BANK LID., LAHORE AND 31980 PLD Lahore 173 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-08Read full judgment →
- SAKHI MUHAMMAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ELECTION TRIBUNAL, JHELUM1980 CLC 1857 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
- SAKHI MUHAMMAD vs AHMAD KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1980 CLC 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge setting aside a civil judge's decree in a declaratory suit regarding land inheritance. The core legal question is whether, under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, the son of a pre-deceased daughter is entitled to a share in inheritance upon the reopening of succession under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, when the original owner died before the promulgation of the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that Section 4 applies to deaths occurring before or after the Ordinance, provided the succession opens after its promulgation, thereby entitling the pre-deceased daughter's son to inherit. The key principle laid down is that beneficial and remedial legislation such as Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, must be construed justly and liberally to alleviate the sufferings of orphaned grandchildren, making its provisions applicable whenever succession opens after the law comes into force.
Questions settled- Does Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 apply when the death of the propositus occurred before the promulgation of the Ordinance?
- Is the son of a pre-deceased daughter entitled to inheritance upon the reopening of succession under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
- What is the scope and interpretation of the phrase 'in the event of death of any son or daughter of propositus before the opening of succession' under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
- SAJID ALI vs Mst. ABIDA BEGUM AND ANOTHER1980 CLC 312 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
- SAIN BUX AND 4 OTHERS vs OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND1980 CLC 1395 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, exercising suo motu powers under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, whereby he set aside gift alienations of agricultural land made by the first petitioner to his minor sons. The core legal question was whether the revisional authority could invalidate gift alienations on grounds of non-genuineness of entries and absence of mutation records that were contrary to the actual facts and record. The Sindh High Court held that the revisional order was based on a misconception of facts, erroneous assumptions regarding the registers used, and self-contradictory reasoning, as the gifts were duly recorded in the Dakhil Kharij Register and supported by mutation entries. The court laid down the principle that an order passed by a revisional authority on assumptions contrary to the record and without legal justification is void, and that entries in the Dakhil Kharij Register and corresponding revenue forms, when duly made and not genuinely doubted, sufficiently establish the validity of agricultural land transactions under the Land Reforms Regulation.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by a revisional authority under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 on facts contrary to the record is sustainable in law?
- Can a gift alienation of agricultural land be invalidated on the ground of absence of changes in Village Form VIII-A when proper mutation entries exist in the Dakhil Kharij Register?
- Does a revisional authority have legal justification to disregard contemporaneous revenue records and gift entries without supporting evidence or cogent grounds?
- SAIFULLAH AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L L 1105 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
- SAIDUR REHMAN vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave was filed against the decision of the Peshawar High Court maintaining the appellant's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that following a dispute over a boundary line ('banna'), the appellant, armed with a pistol and accompanied by a stick-wielding co-accused, arrived at the scene, abused the deceased, and fatally shot him in the chest. During trial, an eye-witness disclosed that prior to the shooting, grappling had occurred in which the deceased overpowered the appellant. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code, thereby reducing the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part I, on the ground of exceeding the right of private defence. The Supreme Court held that Exception 2 to Section 300 was inapplicable because the appellant acted with premeditation, full preparedness, and had initiated the incident armed with a deadly weapon. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 were accordingly affirmed.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who acts with premeditation and full preparedness can claim the benefit of Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can an accused plead the right of private defence under Exception 2 to Section 300 PPC if he provoked the aggression while armed with a firearm?
- Whether grappling preceding a fatal shot reduces an offence from murder under Section 302 PPC to Section 304 Part I PPC where premeditation is present?
- SAIDUL ZAFAR MIRZA vs Kazi ZAFAR ABBAS1980 CLC 993 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-25Read full judgment →
- SAID MUHAMMAD vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the confiscation of the appellant's vehicle by Customs authorities under the Customs Act, 1969. The appellant’s car, acting as a pilot for another vehicle suspected of carrying smuggled goods, failed to stop at a Customs road-block (Naka-Bandi) and fled. The core legal question was whether a vehicle not directly carrying contraband, but acting as an escort or pilot for smuggling, falls within the ambit of Section 164 of the Customs Act, 1969, thereby rendering it liable to confiscation under Section 156(1)(80) for failing to stop when signaled. The Supreme Court held that the statutory language of Section 164 is sufficiently broad to encompass not only vehicles directly transporting smuggled goods but also those escorting or piloting such vehicles to facilitate the smuggling mission. The Court affirmed that a road-block constitutes a valid signal to stop. Consequently, the Court upheld the confiscation, establishing the principle that pilot vehicles facilitating smuggling operations are subject to the same penal and confiscatory provisions as the primary transport vehicles under the Customs Act.
Questions settled- Can a vehicle acting as a pilot or escort for smuggled goods be confiscated under the Customs Act, 1969, even if it is not carrying contraband itself?
- Does a road-block (Naka-Bandi) established by Customs officials constitute a valid signal to stop under Section 164 of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Does the pendency of a criminal case under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bar proceedings for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1969?
- SAID MIAN AND ANOTHES vs Mian SAID BAGHDAD AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a reference regarding the Supreme Court's authority to order the arrest of an acquitted person pending the disposal of an appeal against an acquittal order passed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court possesses the power to issue warrants for the arrest of an acquitted accused during the pendency of an appeal, given the absence of an express provision similar to Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to High Courts. The Court held that it possesses such power, affirming that the order for non-bailable warrants was legal and proper. The Court reasoned that Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which empowers the Court to issue directions for 'complete justice,' includes the ancillary power to secure the attendance of any person. Consequently, the Court has the inherent authority to order detention or arrest to ensure the effective exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and to prevent the defeat of the judicial process.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have the power to order the arrest of an acquitted person pending the disposal of an appeal against acquittal?
- Does Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 confer upon the Supreme Court the power to issue warrants of arrest to secure the attendance of an accused?
- Is the power to order the arrest of an accused pending appeal an ancillary or incidental power to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction?
- SAID HABIB vs Haft MATIUR REHMAN AND 5 OTHERS1980 CLC 1450 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land and for a declaration that a subsequent registered sale deed in favour of the appellant is void. Both lower courts decreed the plaintiffs' claim, holding that the agreement of sale was duly executed and the subsequent sale deed was ineffective. In the second appeal, the appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient, that the document was a mere receipt, and that he was a protected bona fide purchaser for value without notice under section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court held that the failure to cross-examine marginal witnesses amounted to an admission of the document's execution, that the deed was clearly an agreement to sell rather than a receipt, and that the plea of a bona fide purchaser without notice, being a question of fact, must be specifically raised in the pleadings and substantiated by evidence, neither of which the appellant had done. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Does the failure to cross-examine marginal witnesses on the execution of a document amount to an admission of its execution?
- Whether an agreement to sell can be construed as a simple receipt or acknowledgement of money?
- Can a subsequent transferee raise the plea of being a bona fide purchaser for value without notice for the first time in appeal without pleading it in the trial court?
- What are the essential requirements for a subsequent transferee to claim protection under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- SAHIB KHAN AND OTHERS vs GHULAM DASTGIR AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 561(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 30-11-1973 in a land settlement case, which petition is barred by 189 days. The core legal question is whether the explanation offered by the petitioners regarding illness, inability to contact a legal adviser, and a mistaken impression about the filing of petitions during the Supreme Court summer vacation constitutes sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. The court holds that the explanation provided by the petitioners does not amount to a sufficient cause and ground for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that vague and unsupported assertions of illness and misconceptions regarding court vacations do not furnish sufficient ground to excuse a substantial period of delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether illness combined with a mistaken impression about court vacations constitutes sufficient cause for condoning a delay of 189 days?
- Can vague assertions of being unable to contact a legal adviser justify the condonation of delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal?
- SAHIB DIN AND ANOTHER vs Mst. HASH AM BIBI AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 121 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-06-07Read full judgment →