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.

• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 7 OTHERS1980 CLC 296 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-04-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs GHULAM NABI AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 619 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ETC. vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR MADNI ETC.1980 SCMR 754 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-01
  temporary injunctionco-ownersjoint holdingrevisional jurisdictionirreparable lossleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court which granted a temporary injunction in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners from digging earth on land leased by one of the co-owners for a brick-kiln. The core legal question was whether a single co-owner of joint undivided property can lease land and permit a third party to dig earth without the consent of the other co-owners, and whether the High Court could interfere in revision with concurrent orders of the lower courts refusing temporary injunctions. The Supreme Court held that one co-owner cannot exclusive lease or alter the character of joint undivided holding without consent, and the failure of the lower courts to appreciate the irreparable loss from deep digging constituted a material irregularity correctable in revision. The petition was dismissed, affirming the interim injunction against digging while permitting the existing brick-kiln to operate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-owner of joint undivided property enter into a lease agreement and hand over possession to a third party without the consent of the other co-owners?
  • Does extensive digging of earth up to a depth of several feet on joint land constitute an irreparable loss and a radical change in the property's nature warranting a temporary injunction?
  • When can the High Court interfere in revisional jurisdiction with orders passed by the courts below regarding temporary injunctions?
  • Whether the failure of lower courts to consider the potential irreparable loss of property amounts to a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Rev. 44 · Sindh Revenue Board · 1979-12-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1212 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs PERVAIZURREHMAN AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH ETC. vs BASHIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-17
  bail cancellationwitness intimidationcriminal appealpost-arrest bailprosecution witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail by the High Court. The petitioners were originally granted bail by the Sessions Judge in a case involving charges under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court subsequently cancelled this bail on the grounds that, while released, the petitioners murdered one prosecution witness and injured another in the pending case. The petitioners contended that one of them was not named in the initial First Information Report. The Supreme Court observed that multiple witnesses had implicated both petitioners during the police investigation. The Court held that the murder and injury of prosecution witnesses in the pending case created a clear risk of intimidation to the remaining witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the cancellation of bail was justified due to the petitioners' conduct while on bail, which threatened the integrity of the ongoing trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is the cancellation of bail justified when an accused person murders or injures prosecution witnesses while released on bail?
  • Does the failure to name an accused in the First Information Report preclude the cancellation of bail if subsequent investigation implicates them?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 575 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 54 OTHERS vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTRN AND 2 OTHERS1980 CLC 1656 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY (J &1980 CLC 593 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1974-11-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSA1N vs BULLEH KHAN1980 CLC 608 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-06
  civil revisionpre-emptionremandadditional evidencerevisional jurisdictionrebuttal evidenceOrder XLI Rule 27
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a suit for possession through pre-emption. The trial court dismissed the suit upon finding that the respondent failed to establish a superior right of pre-emption against the petitioner. On appeal, the respondent applied to submit additional documents as evidence. Without passing a formal order on the application or giving reasons, and without providing the petitioner an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, the appellate court relied on the documents and decreed the suit. The petitioner challenged this judgment in revision before the High Court. The core legal issues were whether an appellate court can consider additional evidence without issuing a formal order and allowing rebuttal, and whether a revisional court has jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to remand a case. Accepting the revision, the High Court set aside the appellate decree and remanded the case. It held that revisional powers under Sections 115 and 151 of the Code include the authority to remand a case when circumstances require it.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 have the authority to order a remand?
  • Can an appellate court rely on documents as additional evidence without passing a formal order under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is an appellate court obligated to afford the adverse party an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal when additional evidence is admitted?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs THE STATE1980 PLD Azad J & K 46 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1976-05-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF PRISONS AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 584 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-06-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-11
  compulsory retirementservice lawcolourable exercise of powershow-cause noticeservice tribunalspecial leave to appealstigma
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind Service Tribunal, which upheld the compulsory retirement of a police officer after twenty-five years of service. The petitioner contended that his retirement was a colourable exercise of power, arguing that the order was motivated by previous departmental proceedings and a show-cause notice that had been dropped. The core legal question was whether a retirement order, issued following dropped departmental proceedings, constitutes a removal or dismissal requiring a show-cause notice, or if it remains a valid retirement simpliciter. The Supreme Court held that since the retirement order carried no stigma and was not based on misconduct, it did not amount to removal or dismissal. Consequently, the Court found the petitioner's reliance on precedents involving misconduct-based terminations inapplicable. The Court affirmed that where a retirement order is issued without stigma, it does not trigger the procedural protections required for disciplinary removal. The petition for leave was dismissed, as the Court declined to address academic questions regarding the Tribunal's reasoning.

  Questions settled

  • Does a retirement order issued after twenty-five years of service, which contains no stigma, constitute a removal or dismissal requiring a show-cause notice?
  • Can a retirement order be challenged as a colourable exercise of power solely because it followed a dropped show-cause notice?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal to address academic questions regarding the reasoning of a Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASHAM KHAN vs Malik BASHIR AHMAD1980 SCMR 801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-11
  contempt of courtwritten statementfalse denialsservice matterconstitutional petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Baluchistan dismissing the petitioner's contempt application. The petitioner had filed a service-related constitutional petition in which respondents filed a delayed written statement containing allegedly false denials. The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings, which were later dismissed by the High Court after hearing the matter on a request for early disposal. The core legal question was whether the delayed filing of a written statement and making incorrect denials therein constitute contempt of court, and whether the High Court's dismissal order lacked proper application of mind and adequate opportunity of hearing. The Supreme Court held that the late filing of a written statement permitted by court time allowance and incorrect denials of facts do not automatically constitute contempt of court without proof of intention. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down that mere delay in filing pleadings or incorrect factual denials in a written statement do not amount to contempt unless a clear intention to obstruct justice is established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the late filing of a written statement beyond the time allowed by the court constitute contempt of court?
  • Does the incorrect denial of certain facts in a written statement always constitute contempt of court?
  • Can a court hear and decide a main contempt application when it is fixed for hearing on an application for early disposal?
  • Whether an order dismissing a contempt application without elaborate discussion constitutes a non-speaking order lacking application of mind?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 725 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-22
  inherent jurisdictionquashment of proceedingsdouble jeopardystay of proceedingscriminal procedureprosecutorial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind, which disposed of an application filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, facing separate prosecutions under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act for the same underlying facts, sought to stay one proceeding to avoid prejudice to his defense, specifically regarding the non-prosecution of a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the High Court could direct the prosecution to proceed with only one case at a time when multiple prosecutions arise from the same transaction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's impugned order, which directed the prosecution to proceed with only one case at a time at their discretion, was clear and sufficient to address the petitioner's grievance. The Court affirmed that while double punishment for the same facts is impermissible, the High Court correctly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to regulate the sequence of trials in the interest of justice. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court, under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, direct the prosecution to proceed with only one case at a time when multiple prosecutions arise from the same facts?
  • Does the simultaneous prosecution of an accused for different offences arising from the same transaction violate the principle against double punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAROON vs DISTRICT FOOD CONTROLLER, BAHAWALPUR AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-05
  ration depotlicence cancellationinter-court appealcompetency of appealmartial law instructionalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of Inter-Court Appeals by the Lahore High Court. The petitioners' ad hoc or temporary licences for running Ration Depots were terminated pursuant to Martial Law Instruction No. 22 upon the recommendation of the Depots Allotment/Review Board. The petitioners challenged their termination through writ petitions, which were dismissed in limine, and subsequent Inter-Court Appeals were likewise dismissed as incompetent under the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, because the applicable law provided an alternate remedy of appeal. The core legal question was whether an appeal was competent against the termination order under the applicable law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that an appeal was indeed available to the Deputy Director under sub-clause (2)(h) of Clause (6) of the West Pakistan (Foodstuffs) Distribution Order, 1967, rendering the High Court's dismissal of the Inter-Court Appeal correct, while clarifying that the time spent bona fide in pursuing remedies before the High Court could be pleaded for condonation of delay if appeals were now filed before the appropriate authority. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Inter-Court Appeal is competent against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court when the underlying law provides for an appeal to a tribunal or authority?
  • Does the West Pakistan (Foodstuffs) Distribution Order, 1967 provide for an appeal against the cancellation of a ration depot licence?
  • Can time spent bona fide in pursuing a remedy before a wrong forum be pleaded as an excuse for limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs SABIR AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-09
  special leave to appealevacuee propertyallotment cancellationwrit petitionequitable reliefremand
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing his writ petition in limine. The dispute relates to land allotments following the 1947 Partition, where the petitioner claimed as the nephew of the alleged deceased allottee, Sabir, while the first respondent claimed to be Sabir himself, alleging he was still alive. After protracted litigation and remands, the Assistant Commissioner acting as a notified officer restored the land to the petitioner on an ex parte basis. The Additional Commissioner subsequently remanded the case for a fresh decision, which the High Court upheld despite finding the order technically not revisable, on the ground that equitable relief ought not to be granted to perpetuate injustice or deny a hearing on merits. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court rightly refused equitable relief in the interest of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is bound to grant equitable relief under Article 199 when an order is found to be technically not revisable?
  • Can an ex parte decision affecting property rights be set aside in the interest of justice to allow a hearing of both parties?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs GHULAM RASUL AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-28
  pre-emptionburden of proofwithholding evidencedocumentary evidenceoral evidenceadverse inferencesuperior right of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's suits for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on being a collateral of the vendors and an owner in the Patti/estate, had discharged the burden of proof regarding these claims. The petitioner relied on oral evidence, having intentionally withheld available documentary evidence, specifically the pedigree-table and Jamabandi. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof. The Court affirmed that when the best available documentary evidence is intentionally withheld by a party, adverse inferences are justified. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that oral evidence regarding relationship and ownership is inadmissible when documentary evidence is available and withheld, citing the provisions of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them, confirming that the High Court committed no illegality in its assessment of the evidence and the resulting presumption against the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the intentional withholding of available documentary evidence by a party justify an adverse inference regarding the facts sought to be proved?
  • Is oral evidence admissible to prove relationship and ownership in a pre-emption suit when the relevant documentary evidence was available but withheld?
  • Does the burden of proof regarding the superior right of pre-emption lie on the claimant?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAWAJA AND ANOTHER vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K1980 PLC (C. S.) 564 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1980-05-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAMI DUDD I N vs FEROZ AHMED AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Karachi 337 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HALEEM CHOHAN vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 128 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-07
  bail before arrestbail after arrestbail cancellationjudicial confessionbank fraudorganized crimeeconomic crimejurisdiction of additional sessions judge
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple petitions concerning pre-arrest bail, post-arrest bail, and bail cancellation arising from an organized bank fraud involving millions of rupees misappropriated through fictitious accounts and forged foreign remittance documents. The core legal questions involve the entitlement of accused persons to pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in heinous, pre-planned economic crimes, the weight to be attached to judicial confessions implicating co-accused, the scope of concessions granted to women under criminal procedure, and the jurisdiction of Additional Sessions Judges regarding offenses triable by Special Judges. The Lahore High Court held that bail before arrest is granted only in rare cases where the implication is doubtful or malicious, that judicial confessions duly corroborated are sufficient to implicate co-accused, and that being a woman does not confer an absolute right to bail in major organized crimes, particularly when the accused is a principal perpetrator. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petitions for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail and suo motu cancelled the bail earlier granted to the female co-accused, establishing principles regarding judicial discretion in organized economic offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail before arrest can be claimed as a matter of right irrespective of the nature of the offense and the quantum of evidence?
  • Can a judicial confession by a co-accused be used to implicate another accused person?
  • Does the status of being a woman entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right in cases involving organized and pre-planned crimes?
  • Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to grant bail in cases exclusively triable by a Special Judge involving public servants and scheduled offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAKEEM vs Mst. FITIMA BIBI AND others1980 CLC 1799 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ AND ANOTHER vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1980 PLD Lahore 553 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HABIBUDDIN FAZIL vs MUHAMMAD RAFEEQ1980 CLC 623 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GULZAR HIJAZI AND 4 Other vs AZAD GOVT. OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND 6 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 586 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GHIASUDDIN vs KHAN ALAM AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-18
  redemption of mortgagelimitation periodevacuee propertyrehabilitation and settlement authoritiesspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal concerning land in Kohat. The plaintiff originally filed a suit for a declaration of ownership and redemption of an evacuee-mortgage, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate and high court. The core legal question revolved around whether the application for redemption of the mortgage was barred by the sixty-year period of limitation, and whether the Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities possessed jurisdiction to order redemption as opposed to the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The Supreme Court held that the redemption application was filed well within the limitation period calculated from the accrual of the right of redemption, and that the jurisdictional plea regarding the authority of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities could not be raised for the first time before the apex court. The petition was accordingly dismissed on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for the redemption of mortgage rights was barred by limitation when calculated from the date the right to redeem accrued?
  • Can a new plea regarding the jurisdiction of Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities versus the Custodian of Evacuee Property be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAZIL AND OTHERS vs AJAIB HUSSAIN AND OTHERS1980 PLD Azad J & K 22 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-03-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 426 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ ALI KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, HEALTH AND SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Karachi 193 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AHMED KHAN LODHI vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND, HOME DEPARTMENT AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 680(1) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-03-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ESSA vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS1980 SCMR 848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-24
  judicial confessionghairatappreciation of evidenceculpable homicideocular evidencegrave and sudden provocationbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that acquitted two respondents and reduced the conviction of a third respondent from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The core legal questions concerned the propriety of the High Court’s reappraisal of ocular evidence and the legal requirement to accept a judicial confession in its entirety. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly identified the unreliability of the prosecution’s ocular witnesses, who were distant from the scene and biased. Since the prosecution failed to prove its case through other means, the Court relied on the accused’s judicial confession. The key principle laid down is that where a conviction rests solely on a judicial confession, that confession must be accepted in toto. Consequently, because the accused’s confession included a specific plea of ghairat (grave and sudden provocation), the Court upheld the application of the First Exception to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, justifying the conviction under Section 304, Part I, rather than Section 302.

  Questions settled

  • Must a judicial confession be accepted in its entirety if the prosecution's case rests solely upon it?
  • Does a plea of ghairat in a judicial confession bring an offense under the First Exception to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an appellate court entitled to interfere with a trial court's appreciation of ocular evidence if the findings are based on flawed premises?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ESSA vs SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, THATTA AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 550 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN vs SHAUKAT ALI1980 CLC 1454 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN vs DARKAT ALI ETC.1980 CLC 862 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN BASHIR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 541 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-04-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 232 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs MUHAMMAD ALI1980 CLC 135 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BIBI vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER_ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, LYALLPUR AND 8 OTHERS1980 SCMR 739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-22
  agreement of associationsettlement schemetransfer of propertysuo motu reviewstamp dutyprovisional transfer order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court regarding the transfer of a property under settlement laws. The core legal question revolves around the validity of an agreement of association executed for the payment of the transfer price and whether subsequent rules could invalidate an agreement validly made under the law prevalent at the time. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly ruled that the agreement of association executed on November 17, 1959, was governed by paragraph 33 of Settlement Scheme No. 1 and could not be invalidated by rules promulgated subsequently on February 13, 1960, nor could it be rejected as insufficiently stamped once the penalty had been realized and the document impounded. The court affirmed that suo motu review proceedings initiated by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not provide a valid ground to disturb the initial transfer and association. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to restore the initial transfer and provisional transfer order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement of association executed under Settlement Scheme No. 1 can be invalidated by rules promulgated subsequent to its execution?
  • Can an insufficiently stamped agreement of association be acted upon after the document has been impounded and the penalty realized?
  • Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner can set aside a valid transfer and association through suo motu review proceedings without lawful justification?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BHAI AND ANOTHER vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Karachi 166 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-27
  transportation for lifeimprisonment for liferemission of sentencesconstitutional petitionretrospective effectprison rulespremature release
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three consolidated constitutional petitions filed by convicts serving sentences of transportation for life, addressing the computation of their sentences in light of earned remissions and subsequent legal amendments. The core legal questions involved whether amendments introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 and subsequent government policies regarding minimum substantive sentences have retrospective effect, and how ordinary and special remissions should be calculated under the West Pakistan Prisons (Remission of Sentences) Rules, 1965. The court held that the 1972 amendments and later policy decisions cannot be applied retrospectively to disadvantage convicts whose cases are governed by pre-amendment law and the 1965 Rules, where transportation for life is reckoned as 20 years and maximum ordinary remissions are capped at 4 years, excluding special remissions under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that substantive rights of convicts regarding sentence duration and computation of remissions crystalize at the time of conviction and cannot be curtailed by subsequent retrospective statutory amendments or inconsistent executive policy decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amendments introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 to section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 have retrospective effect on sentences awarded prior to their enactment?
  • How are ordinary and special remissions to be calculated for a life convict under the West Pakistan Prisons (Remission of Sentences) Rules, 1965?
  • Can an executive policy decision override or implicitly amend statutory rules framed under the Prisons Act, 1894?
  • When is a life convict entitled to be released forthwith based on actual substantive sentence and earned remissions?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs VENSIMAL AND 4 OTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 409 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-14
  ejectmentpersonal usestatutory tenantsecond appealresidential buildinglandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the appellant landlord against the respondent statutory tenants seeking possession of a house at Hyderabad for personal use. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the lower appellate court reversed the order on the grounds that the appellant failed to disclose his address and demanded a higher rent, inferring mala fides. The core legal question is whether a landlord residing in a house belonging to their son or having previously vacated rented premises is barred under rent restriction laws from seeking eviction for personal use. The Sindh High Court held that occupation of accommodation belonging to a son by courtesy does not constitute a residential building owned by the landlord for the purposes of the statute, and that the restriction regarding previously vacated buildings does not extend to rented premises. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the appellate court's judgment and restoring the eviction order with a four-month grace period.

  Questions settled

  • Does the occupation of a house belonging to a son by courtesy constitute ownership or possession of a residential building by the landlord under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Whether the requirement that a landlord has not vacated a building without sufficient cause extends to previously vacated rented premises?
  • Can a landlord obtain possession of premises for personal use when residing in accommodation provided by a family member?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 152 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1980 CLC 1077 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR BUTT vs M. v. TAHERI1980 PLD Karachi 458 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-23
  admiralty suitmaritime lienport duesmooring chargesstatutory lienpriority of claimsretrospective operation
  Summary & questions settled

  This admiralty matter concerns competing claims over the sale proceeds of an arrested vessel, specifically between decree-holders holding claims for crew wages and necessaries, and the Karachi Port Trust claiming priority for port dues and mooring charges under the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886. The core legal questions involve whether the Karachi Port Trust has priority over maritime liens of masters and crews, and whether enhanced mooring charges under a subsequent notification could be applied retrospectively. The court held that the Karachi Port Trust's statutory power to distrain, arrest, and sell the vessel for dues falls outside the ordinary rules of priority and stands paramount to maritime liens, including seamen's wages. However, the court also held that subordinate legislation enhancing mooring charges cannot be applied retrospectively to affect rates during periods falling within the initial months governed by lower scheduled rates, interpreting ambiguous fiscal provisions in favour of the subject. The court accordingly adjusted the payable amounts out of the remaining sale proceeds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Karachi Port Trust is entitled to priority on account of mooring charges or port dues over the claim under the decrees passed in favour of the master and crews and the decree passed on account of necessaries supplied to the vessel?
  • Whether the claim by the Karachi Port Trust on account of mooring charges under an enhanced notification is according to law when applied retrospectively?
  • Can an authority exercising delegated rule-making powers affect vested rights or create new liabilities retrospectively in the absence of explicit statutory authority?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND 5 OTHERS vs ALLAH DAD AND ANOTHER1980 PLD Lahore 141 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) AND 9 OTHERS vs FATEH1980 CLC 1581 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BANARAS AND 3 OTHERSs vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 695 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-03
  criminal appealattempted murdersimple hurtconstructive liabilitybenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecorroborationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves cross-appeals arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a murder and assault incident stemming from a pre-existing party faction and enmity between related parties. The core legal question was whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code was sustainable when their co-accused were acquitted of constructive liability under Sections 148 and 149, and where the injuries caused were simple in nature. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in the absence of a charge under Sections 148 and 149, each accused is responsible solely for their own individual act, and since the injuries inflicted were simple, the offence fell under Sections 323 and 324 rather than Section 307. The Court laid down the principle that where eye-witnesses are related and inimical, independent corroboration is essential, and in the absence of constructive liability or corroboration, an accused cannot be convicted of attempted murder for causing simple hurt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing simple injuries when constructive liability under Sections 148 and 149 is not established?
  • Is independent corroboration required for the testimony of related and inimical eye-witnesses in criminal trials?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the appreciation of evidence and acquittal of an accused by the High Court when no misreading or non-reading of evidence is pointed out?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs IQBAL AHMAD alias AHMAD AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 191 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-18
  criminal revisionacquittalpolice challanprivate complaintinherent jurisdictioncompetency of revisionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which had dismissed the petitioner's revision petition under Section 439-A in limine as incompetent. The petitioner's original complaint under Section 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, initiated via a police challan, had resulted in the acquittal of the accused by a Magistrate. The petitioner's application to the District Magistrate to prefer a State appeal was rejected, prompting the revision before the Sessions Court. The High Court analyzed the impact of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 on the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. It held that while a private complainant in a case initiated via private complaint has a right of appeal under Section 417(2) (barring revision under Section 439(5)), no such right of appeal exists for a private complainant in a police challan case. Consequently, a revision petition before the Sessions Judge under Section 439-A is fully competent in police challan cases. Although a second revision before the High Court was barred by Section 439(4)(b), the High Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to set aside the illegal order and remand the matter for a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private complainant in a case instituted upon a police challan can file a revision petition before the Sessions Judge under Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an order of acquittal?
  • Does the right of appeal granted to a private complainant under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases initiated on a police challan?
  • Does the bar on a second revision under Section 439(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prevent the High Court from invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to set aside an illegal order of the Sessions Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)1980 SCMR 872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-04
  special leave to appealurban propertysettlement lawstransfer of propertypossessionconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court, which dismissed his application for the transfer of an urban property under Scheme No. 9 framed under the settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the concurrent factual finding regarding the petitioner's lack of possession of the disputed land warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The court held that the question of possession is essentially a finding of fact, which was arrived at after considering relevant material and did not suffer from any misreading, omission of evidence, or violation of any principle of law in the appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact on the question of possession by settlement authorities and lower courts will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court unless vitiated by misreading, non-consideration of evidence, or legal error in appreciation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding of fact regarding possession by lower courts warrants interference in a petition for special leave to appeal?
  • Does the appreciation of evidence by settlement authorities give rise to a substantial question of law when based on relevant material?
  • Is a petitioner eligible for the transfer of urban property under settlement schemes without proving actual possession?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND ANOTHER vs HAQ NAWAZ1980 PLD Lahore 506 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAHADUR vs THE STATE1980 SC MR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-05
  murderdeath sentencepetition for leave to appealocular testimonyweapon recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed his appeal and confirmed his death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Sat Bharai. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts were sustainable on the basis of the ocular testimony and corroborative evidence, particularly regarding the alleged motive and weapon recovery. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through reliable eye-witness testimony corroborated by the recovery of the crime weapon stained with human blood, and that the alternative defense suggestion of accidental death during sudden provocation was entirely unsupported by evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of guilt in a capital case are sustainable when supported by corroborated eye-witness testimony?
  • Can a defense suggestion of accidental death during provocation be accepted without any supporting evidence?
  • Does the recovery of a crime weapon stained with human blood provide sufficient corroboration in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZIZ KHAN vs ABDUL HAMID AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLD Azad J & K 51 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM vs THE SESSIONS JUDGE, JHELUM AND 7 OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 999 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN vs I.-G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 21 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 SCMR 269 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-28
  pre-arrest bailcorruptioncriminal breach of trustFirst Information ReportSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the refusal of pre-arrest bail by the Peshawar High Court and the Sessions Judge to the petitioners, who were implicated in a criminal case registered under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) and Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding alleged substandard construction of a drain in Town Committee, Paharpur. The core legal question concerns whether the circumstances and lack of specific material evidence warranted the grant of pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that the points raised regarding the vagueness of the First Information Report, the lack of particularized specifications, the status of the contractor, and potential departmental intrigue justified pre-arrest bail, and the lower courts erred by omitting to apply the relevant law. The Court accordingly converted the petition into an appeal and accepted it, granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a named first informant and vague details in a First Information Report justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does a failure by lower courts to consider material aspects of a corruption case warrant interference by the Supreme Court in bail matters?
  • Are allegations stemming from departmental intrigues and lack of specific violation of specifications valid grounds for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 598 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1980-07-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, SIND AND 3 OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 557 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1979-01-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN vs I.-G. OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 493 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-01-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 429 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYOOB vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAH AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 760 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs The STATE1980 SCMR 908 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-30
  abiana documentsdishonest preparationwrongful losswrongful gainmens reaforgerypublic servant misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his conviction for dishonestly preparing false 'abiana' (water rate) documents, which had been upheld by the High Court under Section 218 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the mere preparation of incorrect documents did not constitute an offence under Section 218, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, because the essential ingredient of intending to cause loss or injury to any person was absent. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, finding that the record was false to the petitioner's knowledge and dishonestly prepared. The Court held that by showing individuals as liable for water rates when they were not, or conversely omitting those who were liable, the petitioner's actions caused wrongful loss to some and wrongful gain to others. Consequently, the requisite mens rea for the offence was established. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the trial court's finding regarding the dishonest intent was unexceptionable, and dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere preparation of false or incorrect documents constitute an offence under Section 218 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the intent to cause wrongful loss or gain a necessary ingredient for a conviction under Section 218 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 742 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-09
  quashment of proceedingsnon-cognizable offencepolice investigationMotor Vehicles Ordinancecomplaintcognizance of offencesummary disposalcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965, arguing that the police investigation into this non-cognizable offence was conducted without the requisite Magistrate authorization under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering the trial void. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the failure to include summary disposal concessions in the challan copy vitiated the proceedings. The Court held that the investigation by a police officer without prior authorization does not invalidate the trial. Relying on established precedent, the Court ruled that such a police report can be treated as a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allowing the Magistrate to take cognizance. Furthermore, the Court determined that the omission of summary disposal information in the initial challan copy is not a fatal defect, as the accused retains the right to exercise those concessions. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the investigation of a non-cognizable offence by a police officer without prior Magistrate authorization invalidate the subsequent trial?
  • Can a police challan filed without prior authorization be treated as a complaint under Section 190(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to include summary disposal concessions in a challan copy vitiate the criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASUR AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 795 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION MAMUN1980 PLD Lahore 116 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB1980 PLC (C. S.) 123 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-12-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs FAZAL KARIM1980 CLC 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN vs Mst. MUKHTAR FIRDOUS AND OTHERS1980 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-29
  review petitionstay ordervoid orderdiscretionary reliefsettlement lawdivisibility of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition arose from a dispute over the transfer and divisibility of a residential property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Initially, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner divided the property between the petitioner and the respondents. The Additional Settlement Commissioner reversed this, holding the house indivisible and transferring the whole to the petitioner. On second revision, the Chief Settlement Commissioner restored the division, despite being informed of an oral stay order granted by the High Court on the same day. The High Court subsequently set aside the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order on jurisdictional grounds. On appeal, the Supreme Court's majority restored the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order, holding that the revision was competent and that the division was equitable. In the review petition, the petitioner argued that an order passed in violation of a stay order is void ab initio and that the majority erred in relying on contrary jurisprudence. The Supreme Court dismissed the review, holding that even if the order was technically void, the discretionary writ jurisdiction would not be exercised to strike down an order that achieved substantial justice and equity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by an authority in violation of a stay order granted by a superior court is void ab initio or merely invalid?
  • Can the Supreme Court refuse to strike down a void order in its discretionary writ jurisdiction if the order has achieved substantial justice and equity?
  • Does a disagreement on the legal effect of a violated stay order constitute an error apparent on the face of the record sufficient to justify a review of a judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P.1980 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-24
  review petitioncondonation of delayprocedural compliancelimitation periodSupreme Court rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 9th April 1978. The core legal question was whether the delay of 16 days in re-filing the review petition, following the initial return of the petition for lack of a Senior Advocate's signature, could be condoned based on the petitioner's plea of ignorance regarding the procedural requirements of the Court's rules. The Supreme Court held that the review petition was incompetent upon its initial filing because it lacked the mandatory signature of a Senior Advocate as required by the Rules of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court determined that the subsequent re-filing of the petition was time-barred by 16 days, and the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that ignorance of procedural rules, specifically the requirement for a Senior Advocate's signature on a review petition, does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay in filing.

  Questions settled

  • Does ignorance of procedural rules regarding the signing of a review petition constitute sufficient ground for condonation of delay?
  • Is a review petition filed without the signature of a Senior Advocate competent under the Rules of the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAKI vs VICECHANCELLOR, GOMAL UNIVERSITY, D. I.1980 PLD Peshawar 128 · Peshawar High Court
  locus poenitentiaedecisive stepvested rightconstitutional petitionuniversity admissionwithdrawal of recommendationservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by an employee and academic staff association president of Gomal University against the Vice-Chancellor, challenging the withdrawal of recommendations previously issued for the petitioner's admission to Ph.D. and LL.M. programmes at external universities. The core legal question was whether a recommending authority retains the power of 'locus poenitentiae' to withdraw or rescind recommendations after the applicant has been selected for admission and notified, but before physically joining the course. The Peshawar High Court held that once recommendations are acted upon, tests are cleared, selection is made, and the candidate is duly notified, a valuable vested right is created, constituting a 'decisive step'. Consequently, the recommending authority cannot unilaterally withdraw the recommendations. The court laid down the principle that the power to recede (locus poenitentiae) ceases once an order takes legal effect and creates rights in favour of an individual, making actual physical implementation or joining of the course unnecessary to lock in the right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a recommending authority can withdraw recommendations for university admission after the candidate has been selected and notified?
  • Does the power of locus poenitentiae remain available to an authority until actual physical implementation of an order?
  • At what stage does a decisive step occur to bar the withdrawal of a beneficial administrative order?
  • Whether an academic employee acquires a vested right upon being selected for a higher education course pursuant to recommended applications?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Erc, vs MUHAMMAD ALI1980 CLC 551 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF1980 CLC 467 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-11
  ejectmentsecond appealclosing of evidenceCode of Civil ProcedureRent Controllerreasonable opportunitylandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an order of ejectment passed against the appellants by the Rent Controller on the grounds of default and personal need, which was upheld by the Additional District Judge. The core legal questions involved whether the Rent Controller is strictly bound by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the adjournment and closing of evidence, and whether the appellants were afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case under the relevant rent legislation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a Rent Controller is not bound to follow the strict procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in every case, provided a reasonable opportunity to show cause and present a viewpoint is afforded to the tenant in accordance with the statute. The key principle laid down is that rent proceedings are governed by the specific provisions of the rent statute rather than the strict technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the nature of the inquiry is largely left to the discretion of the Rent Controller.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller strictly bound to follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during ejectment proceedings?
  • Does a tenant have an absolute right to insist on the production of evidence in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure before a Rent Controller?
  • What constitutes a reasonable opportunity for a tenant to present their viewpoint under subsection (2) of section 13 of the Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND ANOTHER vs NASIM AKHTAR AND 12 OTHERS1980 CLC 616 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND ANOTHER vs IMAM BAKHSH AND 2 OTHERS1980 SCMR 879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-04
  concurrent findings of factspecial leave to appealfraudulent sale mutationprocedural irregularityestoppel in second appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from three civil petitions for special leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, including the High Court, which decreed suits filed by the respondents declaring alleged land sales to be fictitious and fraudulent. The core legal questions involved whether concurrent findings of fact regarding fraudulent transactions could be disturbed, whether consolidating evidence across multiple suits without timely objection vitiates the trial, and whether a plea of estoppel could be raised for the first time in second appeal. The Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with, that a procedural irregularity in recording evidence waived during a protracted trial cannot be raised belatedly, and that a plea of estoppel founded on facts cannot be introduced for the first time in second appeal. The key principle laid down is that procedural acquiescence during trial precludes subsequent technical challenges, and concurrent findings of fact supported by record will not be disturbed by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a fraudulent sale mutation be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
  • Does consolidating evidence into one file during trial vitiate the proceedings when no objection was raised by the parties?
  • Can a plea of estoppel, being a plea of fact, be raised for the first time in a second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM alias MUHAMMAD MEHDI vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRAT AND AisiomER1980 P Cr. L J 707 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASIF SULTAN AND ANOTHER vs NASIR JAFFER AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 395 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs MUHAMMAD AJAIB1980 PLD Lahore 311 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-18
  election petitiondisqualificationthrown away votesnotorious disqualificationlocal councils electiondeclaration of election void
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an election dispute where the petitioner, Muhammad Ashraf, challenged the election of respondent No. 1, Muhammad Ajaib, to a peasant seat in a Union Council. The Election Tribunal declared the returned candidate's election void after he admitted to being disqualified as a depot holder and owner of more than 40 kanals of land, but the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's claim to be declared elected in his place. The core legal question is whether an unsuccessful candidate who secured fewer votes is entitled to be declared elected upon the unseating of the returned candidate due to disqualification. The Lahore High Court held that the votes cast in favour of the disqualified candidate cannot be treated as 'thrown away' unless the disqualification was notorious and the voters had prior notice of the facts creating it. The Court ruled that because the disqualification depended on complex legal interpretations and facts not notoriously known at the time of the poll, the minority candidate could not be seated, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unsuccessful candidate securing fewer votes is automatically entitled to be declared elected when the returned candidate's election is declared void?
  • When can votes cast in favour of a disqualified candidate be regarded as thrown away?
  • Does a disqualification depending on legal argument and complex facts justify treating votes cast for the disqualified candidate as wasted?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs MOHAMMAD LATIF AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 481 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN vs REVENUE E. A. C. AND 7 OTHERS1980 CLC 1504 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-24
  compulsory acquisitionland acquisitionpublic purposemala fideswrit jurisdictionpresumption of regularityprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the compulsory acquisition of his land for a 'Live Stock Extension Project', alleging mala fides, lack of public purpose, and procedural irregularities regarding notifications and service of notices. The petitioner contended that the authorities acted in collusion with other landowners to exclude their land and include his, and that the acquisition was not for a public purpose. The Court held that the determination of 'public purpose' is primarily a function of the Government, and courts should not sit in appeal over such decisions unless compelling reasons exist. Regarding mala fides, the Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner, who failed to provide specific evidence of personal motive or bad faith. The Court found that the acquisition was for a compact plot and that the procedural requirements, including notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were substantially complied with. The Court affirmed that official acts carry a presumption of regularity and dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner's objections were time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Is the determination of what constitutes a 'public purpose' under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 subject to judicial review?
  • Does the burden of proof for establishing mala fides in administrative actions lie with the petitioner?
  • Can a court interfere with land acquisition proceedings on the ground of mala fides without specific evidence of personal motive or bad faith?
  • Are official acts of public authorities entitled to a presumption of regularity?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD KHAN AND OTHERS1980 CLC 2068 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. AND 91980 CLC 1400 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 4 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 91980 PLC (C. S.) 400hh · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 3 ontERss vs PRESIDENT, SUMMARY MILITARY1980 P Cr. L J 81 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 1062 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ALIAS TAOO vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 94 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs THE MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE1980 P Cr. L J 97 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-25
  Summary Military CourtMartial Law Ordercognizance of offenceillegal investigationprostitutionstatutory maximum finetransfer of casenon-cognizable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner's sister and eight others by a Summary Military Court under Sections 3, 6, and 10 of the West Pakistan Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance 1961. The petitioner contended that the transfer of the case from an ordinary criminal court to the Military Court was unlawful, that the police investigation violated Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding non-cognizable offences, and that the fine imposed exceeded the statutory maximum under the Ordinance.

  The High Court held that under Martial Law Order No. 4 (as reconstituted by M.L.O. 37), Summary Military Courts have jurisdiction to try any offence under any law and can take cognizance on a police report or information without requiring a Magistrate's sanction. Furthermore, an illegality in investigation does not invalidate a trial or strip a court of jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 unless it causes grave miscarriage of justice. However, while Military Courts generally possess broad sentencing powers under M.L.O. 4, they cannot exceed the maximum statutory fine prescribed by the substantive special law under which the accused is charged.

  Questions settled

  • Does an illegality or lack of statutory sanction during police investigation deprive a trial court of jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Summary Military Court take cognizance of a non-cognizable offence without prior sanction from a Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a Military Court bound by the maximum sentence of fine prescribed in the special substantive law under which an accused is tried?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs SALIM AKHTAR MALIK AND ANOTHER1980 P Cr. L J 393 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs Mst. DILSHAD BEGUM1980 CLC 669 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ alias ASHIQ ALI vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 652 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ MALLAL vs CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, ISLAMABAD1980 PLC (C. S.) 445 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1979-01-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD QURESHI vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA AND ANOTHER1980 PLC (C. S.) 454 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-12-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND 2 OTHERS vs SELECTION BOARD THROUGH ITS1980 PLD Peshawar 208 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF vs AZAD GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS1980 PLD Azad J & K 5 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-09-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AREF EFFENDI vs EGYPT AIR1980 SCMR 588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-02
  temporary injunctionagency contracttermination of agencystatus quospecial leave to appealinterim relief
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an agent for the respondent airline, filed a civil suit challenging the termination of his agency agreement and sought a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo pending the suit's outcome. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the agent lacked a sufficient interest in the subject matter to warrant an injunction. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the case involved substantial questions of law and fact, including the circumstances under which an agency contract may be revoked and the applicability of Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872. The Court held that given the complexity of the issues, which required a thorough examination of evidence, the High Court was not justified in refusing the temporary injunction. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the injunction on specific terms, requiring the rendering of accounts and the provision of bank guarantees by both parties to protect their respective interests, while emphasizing that these interim measures did not constitute a final opinion on the merits of the pending suit.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a contract of agency be cancelled or revoked by a principal?
  • Whether Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 is applicable to a specific agency termination dispute?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo in an agency dispute pending the trial of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWER AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1980 P Cr. L J 59 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs MEHR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1980 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-26
  criminal reviewbail cancellationmurderright of private defencestatutory review grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition filed against the order of the Supreme Court which had previously cancelled the bail allowed to the petitioner by the High Court in a murder case. The core legal question was whether a review of the order cancelling bail is warranted on the ground that the court omitted to consider the petitioner's plea of private defence and supportive statements from local residents. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the petitioner's plea of self-defence and his injuries had indeed been duly noticed and considered by the Court when it rendered its previous decision, even though specific detailed references to the statements before the Investigating Officer were not explicitly detailed in the judgment. The key principle laid down is that a review of an order on a bail matter is not justified merely because certain pieces of evidence or statements were not elaborately discussed, provided the core plea and material circumstances of the case were taken into account.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once cancelled can be restored through a review petition when the plea of private defence was already considered?
  • Does the failure to make detailed reference to statements before the Investigating Officer constitute a patent error on the face of the record for the purposes of review?
  • Can a court's assessment of evidentiary value at the bail stage be re-examined in review without showing that material aspects of evidence were entirely overlooked?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. AND 2 OTHERS1980 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND OTHERS1980 PLC (C. S.) 562 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, BHALWAL1980 PLC (C. S.) 211 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN vs ALI AFSAR AND OTHERS1980 P Cr. L J 649 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →