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 SIDDIQ vs Haji KARIM BAKHSH1979 CLC 427 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 885 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MANZOOR AHMAD 7 Other1979 PLD Lahore 620 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs FAZAL MUHAMMAD AND Other1979 SCMR 144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-28
  lambardar appointmentLand Revenue Rulesdisqualification of headmandismissal of headmanstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition regarding the appointment of a lambardar. The core legal question was whether Rule 18(d) of the Land Revenue Rules, which provides for the dismissal of a headman who has mortgaged his holding and delivered possession to the mortgagee, could be applied to disqualify a candidate at the time of their initial appointment. The Supreme Court examined the text of Rule 18(d) and observed that the provision explicitly pertains to the 'dismissal' of headmen rather than the criteria for their initial appointment. The petitioner's counsel conceded that the rule was not relevant to appointment matters. Consequently, the Court held that Rule 18(d) was not attracted in the circumstances of the case and upheld the High Court's order. The principle laid down is that statutory provisions governing the dismissal of an official cannot be conflated with or applied to the qualifications required for the initial appointment of that official.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 18(d) of the Land Revenue Rules apply to the initial appointment of a lambardar?
  • Is the provision regarding the dismissal of a headman who has mortgaged his holding applicable to the qualification criteria for appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs CHAND TARA SILK FACTORY1979 PLC 325 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs AL-HABIB TEXTILE BLEACHING MILLS, KARACHI1979 PLC 160 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 4 Other vs Tim STATE. PLD 1979 Lahore 809 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAREEE AND 9 Other vs MESSRS HOTEL COLUMBUS LTD. AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 463 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ vs The STATE1979 SCMR 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-11
  post-arrest bailtampering with prosecution witnessaffidavit of prosecution witnessdiscretion of High Courtpetitions for special leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the orders of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's applications for post-arrest bail. The core legal question concerns the propriety of refusing bail on the ground that the accused attempted to tamper with the prosecution case by obtaining an affidavit from a prosecution witness who disowned his police statement. The Supreme Court held that the matter of bail is essentially within the discretion of the High Court, and since the High Court exercised its discretion reasonably based on material before it without violating any fundamental principles of the administration of criminal justice, interference was unwarranted. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts will not interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal of bail unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or in violation of fundamental principles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether obtaining an affidavit from a prosecution witness disowning his police statement constitutes tampering with the prosecution case disentitling an accused to bail?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal of bail when no fundamental principle of justice has been violated?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right when incriminating articles are recovered from premises connected to him?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAH vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTANAND ANOTHER1979 CLC 85 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAH ALAM vs MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR1979 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-16
  rent evictiondefault in payment of rentburden of proofappreciation of evidencecontradictory pleadingsequitable relieflandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding an eviction order against a tenant. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of rent default, personal requirement, and material impairment of the property. The core legal question was whether the landlord's contradictory statements regarding the commencement date of the rent default—alleged in the pleadings versus stated in evidence—vitiated his claim, and whether the burden of proof was correctly applied. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellate court had correctly reconciled the apparent contradiction in the landlord's testimony by accounting for the time elapsed since the institution of proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that while the Rent Controller initially misallocated the burden of proof, the Additional District Judge rectified this by relying on established evidence, specifically a diary maintained by the landlord recording payments. The Court affirmed that a tenant who contumaciously denies the landlord's title is disentitled to equitable relief. The principle established is that minor testimonial inconsistencies, when satisfactorily explained and supported by independent documentary evidence, do not invalidate a claim for eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between a landlord's pleadings and testimony regarding the date of rent default automatically invalidate an eviction application?
  • Can an appellate court rectify a misallocation of the burden of proof made by a Rent Controller?
  • Does a tenant's contumacious denial of a landlord's title disentitle the tenant from seeking equitable relief in eviction proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs Sh. SARDAR ALI1979 CLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 790 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-18
  constitutional jurisdictiondeed of associationsettlement authoritiestransfer of propertydisputed executionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of shop No. 4-C, Block-I, Jahania, District Multan, which was transferred to the petitioner, Muhammad Shafi, in November 1960. The petitioner subsequently executed an agreement of association with Muhammad Din, respondent No. 2, but later denied its execution and validity before the Settlement authorities, contending that the agreement was never properly accepted or admitted by a competent authority. The core legal question concerned whether the Settlement authorities could enforce an unaccepted and disputed agreement of association against a transferee who denied its execution. The Lahore High Court held that the mere filing or initial processing of a deed of association does not amount to its acceptance, and settlement authorities cannot enforce such an agreement if the execution is disputed by a party, leaving the aggrieved party to seek remedy before a civil court. Consequently, the petition was allowed, setting aside the Settlement Commissioner's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere submission of a deed of association amounts to its acceptance by the Settlement authorities?
  • Can the Settlement authorities enforce an agreement of association when one of the parties denies its execution?
  • What is the remedy for a party when an agreement of association is disputed or avoided before the Settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, LAHORE1979 SCMR 461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-20
  co-operative societiesarbitrationjurisdictionembezzlementcivil liabilitybusiness of the societywrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's challenge to proceedings initiated against him under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The petitioner, a former Branch Manager of the Punjab Provincial Co-operative Bank Limited, faced allegations of embezzlement. The Department initiated arbitration proceedings under Section 54 of the Act to recover the funds, while a separate police investigation was ongoing. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Registrar to refer the dispute to arbitration, arguing it did not touch upon the 'business of the society' and alleging mala fides. The High Court upheld the proceedings, finding the dispute fell within the scope of Section 54. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, holding that the authority assuming jurisdiction must determine, in the first instance, whether the dispute relates to the business of the society. The Court affirmed that the petitioner remains entitled to raise the jurisdictional objection regarding the applicability of Section 54 before the designated authority.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dispute regarding the embezzlement of funds by a former bank manager considered a dispute touching the business of a society under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
  • Does the authority assuming jurisdiction under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 have the power to determine in the first instance whether a dispute falls within its scope?
  • Can proceedings under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 be initiated simultaneously with a criminal investigation for the same alleged embezzlement?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs BASHIR AHMAD AND ASR1979 PLD Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI Etcs vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND 5 Other1979 PLD Lahore 169 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 2 OTHERS vs MUNSHI AND 3 OTHERS1979 CLC 230 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-10
  Letters Patent Appealco-sharershamilat landexclusive possessionforcible dispossessionjoint possessionpossessory title
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a dispute over a site measuring 4 marlas and 79/131 sarsais in village Samburi, Sialkot. The appellants, who were co-sharers in joint property (shamilat), alleged they were in exclusive possession of the site before being forcibly dispossessed by the respondent co-sharers, and sought a decree for exclusive possession. The trial and first appellate courts decreed the suit, but a learned Single Judge of the High Court modified the decree to joint possession, holding that the appellants could not seek exclusive possession in an ordinary suit without proving a better title. On appeal, the Division Bench considered whether a co-sharer forcibly dispossessed of joint property can recover exclusive possession via an ordinary suit rather than a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Court held that while a co-sharer in exclusive possession cannot be ousted except through partition, once dispossessed, their remedy to regain exclusive possession without proving superior title is strictly limited to a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, within the six-month limitation period. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer who has been forcibly dispossessed of joint property recover exclusive possession through an ordinary civil suit without proving a better title than the ousting co-sharer?
  • Is a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 the exclusive possessory remedy for a dispossessed co-sharer to regain possession without proving title?
  • Does a co-sharer in possession of a specific portion of joint property have a right to retain it against other co-sharers until partition?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs THE STATEPLD 1979 Lahore 711(2) · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ vs The STATE1979 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SANADIAND 2 Other vs ABDUL WALI SHAH1979 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-11-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs SUB MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 284 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM MIRZA vs ANOTHBR R1979 PLD Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAFDAR MEER vs Mst. FAHMEEDA BEGUM1979 PLD Lahore 541 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED KADRI vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU &1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 100 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1979-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED AZHAR vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, PUNJAB AND Other1979 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-14
  constitutional petitionquashment of proceedingsOffence of Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979jurisdiction of courtsacademic exerciseHadd punishmentwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order dismissing a constitutional petition seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Pakistan Penal Code for theft. The petitioner argued that no case existed against him, that the Offence of Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, ousted the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, and that the potential trial before a Summary Military Court was unwarranted. The Supreme Court held that the petition was premature because no order referring the case to a Military Court had been passed, rendering the challenge academic. Regarding the Ordinance, the Court held that it did not establish a new hierarchy of exclusive courts; rather, it empowered existing courts of competent jurisdiction to apply Islamic punishments (Hadd) where applicable, while retaining the Pakistan Penal Code for cases not meeting the evidentiary threshold for Hadd. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Ordinance did not divest ordinary courts of jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, as factual disputes regarding police mala fides and the petitioner's involvement required evidence to be established at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Offence of Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 establish a new hierarchy of courts with exclusive jurisdiction?
  • Can a court adjudicate the validity of a potential future order by a Martial Law authority that has not yet been passed?
  • Can the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, resolve factual disputes regarding the mala fides of the police?
  • Does the Offence of Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 divest ordinary courts of jurisdiction to try theft cases?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND 2 Other1979 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  acquittalmurderocular evidencecorroborationmedical evidencerecovery of weapontime-barred petitioncondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This case arose out of a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant, Muhammad Sadiq, against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which altered the conviction of respondent Fateh Mohammad from murder to Section 326 PPC and reduced respondent Mohammad Sarwar's sentence from death to life imprisonment for the murder of Fazal and assault on Muhammad Sadiq. Concurrently, respondent Mohammad Sarwar filed a time-barred petition for leave to appeal against his conviction. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the ocular evidence could be safely relied upon without independent corroboration. The Court observed that the ocular testimony was riddled with material inconsistencies regarding the time and manner of the occurrence, the motive alleged by the prosecution was unproven, and the medical evidence contradicted the alleged distance from which the shots were fired. Furthermore, the recovery of the gun violated mandatory legal provisions as it lacked public witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court condoned the delay in Mohammad Sarwar's petition, accepted the appeals, and acquitted both accused due to failure of proof.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court condone delay in a time-barred petition for leave to appeal filed by a convicted accused during the hearing of a complainant's appeal?
  • Whether ocular evidence that is inherently improbable and contradicted by medical evidence can form the basis of a criminal conviction without corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery made without the attestation of public witnesses in disregard of statutory provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND Another vs The STATE1979 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-29
  review petitionlimitationdeath sentencegeneral amnestycommutation of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  These review petitions arise from an order of the Supreme Court dismissing petitions for special leave to appeal against sentences of death. The review petitions themselves were barred by 73 days, with no satisfactory explanation provided for the delay. The core legal question concerns whether the review petitions are maintainable despite the delay and whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of a presidential general amnesty circular granting commutation of death sentences. The Supreme Court held that the review petitions are barred by limitation and that the circular is inapplicable as the death sentences were not pending execution at the relevant time, while noting that review is not the appropriate remedy for such a plea. The Court established the principle that delay without satisfactory explanation warrants dismissal of review petitions and that a general amnesty applying to death sentences pending execution at a specific date cannot cover sentences confirmed at a later date.

  Questions settled

  • Whether review petitions filed with a delay and without satisfactory explanation are liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation?
  • Does a presidential general amnesty commuting death sentences pending execution on a specific date apply to death sentences confirmed after that date?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND Another vs THE CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF_C. M. L. A. AND ANOTHER1979 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-06
  mercy petitiondeath sentenceChief Martial Law Administratorconstitutional petitiondiscretionary powerjudicial reviewLaws (Continuance in Force) Order 1977
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had declined to interfere with the rejection of the petitioners' mercy petition following their conviction and sentence of death for murder. The core legal questions involve whether the Chief Martial Law Administrator possesses the power under Article 48 of the Constitution to advise the President on mercy petitions in the absence of a Prime Minister, and whether the rejection of such petitions is open to judicial review under Article 199. The Supreme Court held that under Article 3(1) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977, the Chief Martial Law Administrator effectively stepped into the role of the Prime Minister to advise the President, and that the disposal of mercy petitions is a discretionary matter not subject to interference in the absence of clear proof of bias or colorable exercise of power. The key principle laid down is that the Chief Martial Law Administrator is the competent authority to deal with mercy petitions under the constitutional framework operating during martial law, and presidential decisions thereon are discretionary and generally immune from constitutional interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Martial Law Administrator has the power to act under Article 48 of the Constitution in place of the Prime Minister regarding mercy petitions?
  • Can the High Court interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution with the President's discretionary decision on a mercy petition?
  • Does the rejection of a mercy petition become open to judicial review on the ground of bias without strong data or exactitude?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADDIQ vs SECRETARY EDUCAT10N, GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND Other1979 SCMR 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-25
  service lawsenioritycadreservice tribunalinter-provincial allocationspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal, Baluchistan, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his seniority ranking. The petitioner, a former Junior Research Fellow in the Punjab government, was allocated to the Province of Baluchistan following the disintegration of One Unit. He sought to have his seniority as an Assistant Professor fixed from the date of his initial appointment as a Junior Research Fellow, arguing that the posts were of the same grade and therefore interchangeable. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim seniority over other respondents in the Department of Education despite not having held the post of Assistant Professor within the same cadre prior to his absorption. The Supreme Court upheld the Service Tribunal's decision, holding that the petitioner had no established right to claim seniority over respondents who were already senior in the same cadre and had been promoted prior to his allocation. The court affirmed that seniority cannot be claimed across different cadres based solely on comparable grades.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim seniority in a new cadre based on the principle of comparable grade from a previous ex-cadre post?
  • Does a civil servant have an established right to seniority over colleagues in a department if they did not hold the post within the same cadre prior to absorption?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SABIR vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE II, RAWALPINDI Aim 2 Ors1979 PLD Lahore 353 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs THE STATE-1979 P Cr. L J 427 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs PAKISTAN AND Other1979 SCMR 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-12
  death sentencestay of executionShariat Benchrepugnancy to Islamcompounding of offenceconstitutional jurisdictioninterim relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a writ petition seeking to stay the execution of a death sentence. The petitioner, having been sentenced to death for murder, contended that he had compounded the offence with the legal heirs of the deceased in accordance with Islamic law. He argued that the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the execution of death sentences were repugnant to the injunctions of Islam and that the execution should be stayed pending a decision by the Shariat Bench on this issue. The Supreme Court held that under Article 203-D of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, proceedings in any court or tribunal are not required to be stayed or adjourned merely because a petition has been filed challenging the validity of a law on the grounds of repugnancy to Islamic injunctions. Consequently, the High Court correctly refused to stay the execution, as it lacked the jurisdiction to grant such interim relief under Article 199 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a petition before a Shariat Bench challenging a law as repugnant to Islam require the stay of pending judicial proceedings?
  • Does a High Court have the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to stay the execution of a death sentence pending a decision by a Shariat Bench on the validity of the relevant procedural laws?
  • Are courts required to adjourn proceedings if a question regarding the repugnancy of a law to Islamic injunctions is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAZAQ vs GHULAM YASIN AND Others1979 P Cr. L J 429 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID vs The STATE1979 SCMR 92 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-25
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilityunlawful assemblycommon objectmurdersupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, Muhammad Rashid, who was charged along with co-accused under sections 302, 307, 148, 109, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempted murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused formed an unlawful assembly, pursued the complainant, and inflicted injuries while a co-accused committed murder in prosecution of their common object. The core legal question was whether courts at the bail stage can examine the applicability of constructive or vicarious liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that courts are justified at the bail stage in examining whether a case of constructive liability is made out based on the available material, subject to established rules of caution. The key principle laid down is that the question of vicarious liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be evaluated during bail adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can courts examine the question of constructive liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the bail stage?
  • Whether an accused alleged to have caused only simple injury while being a member of an unlawful assembly is entitled to bail?
  • Does the application of the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar bail for an accused connected via an unlawful assembly?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE AND Other1979 SCMR 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-15
  quashment of proceedingsprivate complaintcognizancepolice investigationoral orderrehearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a petition for the quashment of criminal proceedings. The core legal questions involve the competence of a High Court to recall or rehear an orally pronounced order before it is signed and sealed, and whether an application made to an executive authority (Deputy Commissioner) directing police investigation constitutes taking cognizance of a private complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that an oral pronouncement not yet signed and sealed does not bar the High Court from rehearing the matter, and that referring an application to the police under section 156(3) without recording the complainant's statement under section 200 does not amount to taking cognizance of a private complaint, leaving the police free to investigate. The key principle laid down is that until a judgment or order is formally signed and sealed, the court retains jurisdiction to reconsider its view, and executive forwarding of a grievance to the police for investigation distinct from taking judicial cognizance under section 200 is legally permissible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can rehear and reconsider an order that was orally pronounced but not yet signed and sealed?
  • Does forwarding an application to the police by an executive authority amount to taking cognizance of a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a magistrate refer a matter to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording the statement of the complainant?
  • When is a court precluded from referring a matter to the police for investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs Mst. LAL KHATOON AND 2 Others1979 P Cr. L J 598 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND ANOTHER vs NAZIR AHMAD AND 2 OTHERS1979 CLC 95 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-30
  arbitration awarddissolution of partnershipappellate jurisdictionrendition of accountsscope of referencepecuniary jurisdictionsuit valuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil revision and connected appeals arising from a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, wherein the trial court referred the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrators issued an award directing the payment of money and the transfer of a factory, which the trial court subsequently made a rule of the court. The District Judge set aside the judgment and decree, finding the arbitration proceedings vitiated. The core legal questions were whether an appeal lies against a decree passed in terms of an award under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940, the determination of the appellate forum based on jurisdictional value, and the scope of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The Court held that an appeal against an order dismissing objections to an award is maintainable under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940, and Section 17 does not bar such an appeal. It further held that the scope of arbitration is limited to matters in difference within the suit, and extraneous disputes cannot be included. The principle established is that the appellate forum in a suit for accounts is determined by the value fixed in the plaint until a final decree for a larger sum is passed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940 bar an appeal against an order dismissing objections to an award when that order is part of a composite judgment passing a decree?
  • Is the appellate forum in a suit for accounts determined by the value fixed in the plaint or the amount decreed?
  • Can a dispute extraneous to the original suit be referred to arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does the failure of arbitrators to appoint an umpire when differences arise vitiate the arbitration proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 189 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs Mst. AKBARI BEGUM1979 PLD Lahore 262 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 25 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-07-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 392 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 977 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DERA GHAZI KHAN AND 4 Others1979 P Cr. L J 831 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs ANWAR ALI ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 756 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs ABDUR REHMAN AND 2 Other1979 SCMR 377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-23
  bail cancellationblind murderinvestigation reportjudicial discretioneye-witness credibilitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to eight respondents accused of murder. The core legal question was whether police investigation reports, which characterized the incident as a "blind murder," are binding on the court when deciding bail applications, and whether the High Court erred in granting bail based on these reports. The Supreme Court held that while police investigation reports are not strictly binding on the courts, they constitute relevant material that may be considered during the bail stage to assess the strength of the prosecution's case. Applying this principle, the Court upheld the bail for seven respondents, finding the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses doubtful. However, the Court cancelled the bail of the eighth respondent, Abdul Qayum, noting that specific evidence—his role in luring the deceased from his home—distinguished his position and established a prima facie link to the crime. The principle established is that investigative findings, though non-binding, are permissible considerations for courts in evaluating bail entitlement.

  Questions settled

  • Are police investigation reports binding on a court when deciding a bail application?
  • Can a court consider police investigation reports at the bail stage?
  • Does the presence of specific evidence linking an accused to the crime warrant the cancellation of bail despite a 'blind murder' finding by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ KHAN vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF J & K AND ANOTHER1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 56 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-07-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQ ANWAR vs Mst. GULEYASMIN AND ANOTHER1979 P Cr. L J 519 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PUNHAL vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LARKANA AND ANOTHER1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 49 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1977-12-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PANNA H AND Another vs THE STATE1979 PLD Karachi 519 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NOORUL HUSNAIN (THROUGH HIS 6 HEIRS) AND Another vs SIND1979 PLD Karachi 460 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs The STATE1979 SCMR 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-04
  review petitionre-appraisal of evidencecriminal appealself-defencespecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a review petition filed by Muhammad Nazir against the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan refusing to grant special leave to appeal. The core legal questions involve whether discrepancies in evidence warrant a re-appraisal of testimony in review, how injuries sustained by an accused during an incident are considered, and whether a plea of sudden fight and self-defence can be sustained in the absence of corroborative recoveries such as the weapon used. The Court held that contentions relating to the re-appraisal of evidence do not furnish a ground for review, and that the trial evidence conclusively established the petitioner's guilt without material effect from minor discrepancies, while the plea of self-defence and failure to consider injuries were properly addressed and dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence or revisit concurrent factual findings of guilt when the trial record conclusively supports the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be maintained on the ground that the evidence was discrepant and ought to be re-appraised?
  • Whether injuries sustained by an accused during an occurrence can form the basis for review when duly considered by the courts below?
  • Does the absence of motive and the occurrence of a sudden fight automatically entitle an accused to the right of self-defence without supporting recoveries?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 327 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-11-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 154 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SABIR vs HABIB BANK LTD., BAHAWALPUR1979 PLC 271 · Labour Court · 1978-11-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM, INSPECTOR, FOODGRAIN, VEHARI vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 333 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NADIR KHAN vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VEHARI E TC.1979 PLD Lahore 37 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSA vs JAMAL MUHAMMAD Etc.S1979 SCMR 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-25
  pre-emptionadditional evidenceremandcourt-fee deficiencyrejection of plaintconsolidated suits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over pre-emption rights regarding land, where two rival suits were consolidated. The trial court dismissed the respondent's suit, citing his failure to produce the latest Jamabandi to prove ownership and his failure to rectify a court-fee deficiency. The trial court decreed the petitioner's suit. On appeal, the Additional District Judge allowed the respondent to produce additional evidence (the Jamabandi) and held that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without issuing a specific direction to deposit the court-fee. The case was remanded for a fresh decision. A Single Judge of the Lahore High Court upheld this remand, finding the appellate court's decision to allow additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be justified. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitioner's appeal, affirming that the lower appellate court acted within its discretion to allow additional evidence and that the rejection of a plaint for court-fee deficiency requires prior specific direction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court allow the production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a trial court justified in rejecting a plaint for deficiency in court-fee without first issuing a specific direction to the plaintiff to deposit the required amount?
  • Does the failure to produce a Jamabandi at the trial stage preclude an appellate court from allowing its production as additional evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR vs Ch. KHURSHID ALAM1979 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-29
  rent restrictioneviction orderclerical errorinherent powermisdescription of propertyexecution of orderreview jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a second appeal concerning the correction of a property description in an eviction order. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction to correct a patent misdescription of the suit property in an eviction order after the order has been affirmed on appeal, or whether such an act constitutes an impermissible review of the judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller retains the inherent power to rectify clerical errors or patent misdescriptions on the face of the record to ensure the order accurately reflects the subject matter of the dispute, especially where the parties were fully aware of the property's identity throughout the litigation. The Court clarified that such rectification does not amount to a review of the judgment. Furthermore, it established that an order of a Rent Controller is not a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, but is merely executed as if it were one. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the correction served the interests of substantial justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to correct a patent misdescription of property in an eviction order after the order has been affirmed on appeal?
  • Does the correction of a clerical error in an eviction order by a Rent Controller constitute an illegal review of the order?
  • Is an order passed by a Rent Controller considered a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUEEN vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHIWAL AND 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MOINUL ISLAM vs MESSRS OPAL LABORATORIES, KARACHI1979 PLC 131 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-02-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MOBIN AND 3 Other vs PRESIDENT, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT1979 PLD Lahore 659 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MISKEEN AND 31 Other vs GOKAL SHIPPING & TRADING1979 PLC 158 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-07-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MANZUR AHMAD AYYAZ AND ANOTHER vs LT.COL. MUHAMMAD1979 P Cr. L J 642 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD M1SKIN vs Mst. NASIM AKHTAR AND 3 OTHERS1979 CLC 558 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1979-06-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVED KHAN vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ETC.1979 PLC 307 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVED IQBAL vs MESSERS PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR1979 PLC 204 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-12-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAN AND 2 Others vs The STATE1979 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-23
  post-arrest bailsmugglingcontrabanddiscretionary jurisdictionprima facie caseleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Muhammad Jan, Bahadur Sher, and Gul Bar against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed their application for post-arrest bail. The petitioners were apprehended by police on the Peshawar-Kohat Road while transporting a truck containing contraband items, including 25 air-conditioners, a significant quantity of charas, and foreign cloth, with the vehicle's number plates removed. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing bail on the grounds that the petitioners' individual culpability required further inquiry. The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners' contention, holding that the material on record established a prima facie case of involvement for all three accused. The Court found no flaw in the High Court's exercise of discretionary jurisdiction regarding the denial of bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's order, while noting that the petitioners could reapply for bail if additional material became available later in the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere assertion that individual culpability requires further inquiry automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretionary refusal of bail when a prima facie case is established?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against an order dismissing a bail application where no legal flaw is demonstrated?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMIL AND 8 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR1979 CLC 470 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAFFAR vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Other1979 SCMR 106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-29
  special leave to appealinterim stay ordermedical college admissionwrit jurisdictionreview petitioninternal working of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had declined to grant an interim stay order in a review petition regarding the petitioner's admission to a medical college. The petitioner, Muhammad Jaffar, had been admitted to Punjab Medical College against a reserved seat for Tribal Agencies, but his admission was subsequently challenged by respondent Javed Iqbal via a writ petition, which the High Court allowed. The petitioner sought a stay order in his review petition, claiming the High Court's refusal was based on the erroneous assumption that the previous order had already been complied with. The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere in the High Court's internal proceedings or factual determinations regarding the status of compliance. The Court emphasized that such matters of fact fall within the domain of the High Court and that the petitioner should seek relief directly from the High Court or the Chief Justice regarding the urgency of the hearing date. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's internal management of its docket and hearing dates?
  • Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere in factual determinations regarding the compliance of a High Court order during special leave proceedings?
  • Can a petitioner seek relief from the Supreme Court regarding the urgency of a hearing date in the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISSA vs BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND 21979 PLD Karachi 783 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs Tam STATE1979 PLD Karachi 31 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-01
  unlicensed armssearch and seizureCode of Criminal Proceduremashirnamacriminal revisionpolice searchrespectable inhabitants
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges a conviction for possession of unlicensed arms under section 13(E) of the Arms Ordinance, primarily based on the prosecution's failure to comply with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns whether the failure to secure two respectable inhabitants of the locality as witnesses to a police search vitiates the subsequent conviction. The Court held that the mandatory requirement of section 103 is designed as a safeguard against police chicanery and the potential for false implication. While acknowledging that rare, exigent circumstances might justify a departure from this rule, the Court emphasized that such exceptions must be clearly established. In this instance, the police failed to provide a valid justification for bypassing the statutory requirement. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, setting aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the gross violation of section 103 resulted in a failure of justice. The principle established is that courts must strictly enforce the requirement for independent search witnesses to ensure transparency and prevent the fabrication of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to comply with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically vitiate a search?
  • Can police officers serve as the required respectable inhabitants of the locality for a search under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances may a police officer be relieved of the obligation to secure independent witnesses for a search under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs SHER KHAN AND 4 OTHERS-1979 P Cr. L J 438 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1979 SCMR 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-11
  service matterseniority and promotionjurisdiction of civil courtService Tribunalterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional barspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave arises from a revisional order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil suit filed by the petitioner, a Research Assistant, against the Province of Punjab regarding seniority and promotion. The core legal question was whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit relating to the seniority and promotion of a civil servant, or if such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that matters of seniority and promotion pertain to the terms and conditions of service, over which the Service Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction under the relevant statutes and Article 212 of the Constitution, thereby barring the jurisdiction of civil courts. The key principle laid down is that civil courts cannot entertain suits concerning service matters such as seniority and promotion when an administrative tribunal has been established with exclusive jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a civil servant to establish seniority and claim promotion?
  • Do seniority and promotion fall within the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters where an Administrative Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction?
  • Can a civil servant claim promotion as a matter of right through a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs PATTEN MALAK AND Other1979 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-22
  bail cancellationcommon intentionineffective firingjudicial discretionmurdercriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the complainant, Muhammad Ismail, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents, Pattan Malak, Nowsher, and Bakhtmand, by the Peshawar High Court. The respondents were accused of murder alongside a co-accused, Namdad, in a case involving a dispute over a hedge. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the respondents on the basis that their firing was ineffective, despite the charge being under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was a valid exercise of discretion. The Court reasoned that because the dispute arose suddenly and the respondents' firing did not cause any injuries, their case was distinguishable from that of the co-accused who allegedly fired the fatal shot. The key principle laid down is that at the bail stage, the court may distinguish between the roles of co-accused, even where Section 34 is invoked, if the facts and circumstances warrant such differentiation, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with such discretionary orders absent fundamental legal or factual infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be granted to co-accused in a murder case where their firing remained ineffective?
  • Does the invocation of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude the grant of bail to co-accused whose firing did not cause injury?
  • Is the grant of bail by the High Court a matter of discretion that the Supreme Court will only interfere with if there is a fundamental legal or factual infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAWABSHAH AND 3 Other1979 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-03
  allotment of landmunicipal propertyvoid ab initiolocal governmentstatutory interpretationexecutive authoritypublic auction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the allotment of a plot of land in Nawabshah, initially granted to the petitioner by the Chief Minister of Sind and subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the Chief Minister possessed the legal competence to directly transfer or dispose of land vested in Municipalities and People's Councils under the Sind People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Minister lacked the authority to alienate Municipal property. The Court determined that the power to transfer such land is vested exclusively in the People's Councils, subject to specific statutory procedures. Consequently, the initial allotment order by the Chief Minister was void ab initio, and the subsequent cancellation order was legally sound. The judgment affirmed that statutory provisions governing the disposal of Municipal property must be read as a whole, and the executive government cannot bypass the established legal framework for local self-government to unilaterally dispose of Municipal assets, as any contract not executed in conformity with the governing statute is not binding.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Minister have the authority to directly transfer or dispose of land vested in Municipalities and People's Councils?
  • Is a contract for the transfer of Municipal property binding if it is not executed in conformity with the provisions of the Sind People's Local Government Ordinance 1972?
  • Does the amendment to Section 42(4) of the Sind People's Local Government Ordinance 1972 empower the Provincial Government to dispose of Municipal property directly?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs Baboo FEROZE DIN1979 CLC 516 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs AHMAD NAWAZ MALIK, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MUZAFFARGARH AND Another1979 SCMR 147 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-08
  transfer of casebailcancellation of bailjudicial biasremandcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed an application to transfer a murder trial from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh. The petitioner alleged that the Sessions Judge acted improperly by granting bail to two accused persons, Muhammad Ismail and Muhammad Aslam, purportedly in defiance of High Court orders and based on false medical evidence. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the petitioner failed to provide necessary documentation to support these allegations. Regarding Muhammad Ismail, the Court held that the bail order predated the High Court's relevant order, rendering the allegation of defiance factually impossible. Regarding Muhammad Aslam, the Court found that his detention had been declared illegal by the High Court due to violations of statutory remand provisions, and the Sessions Judge had acted conscientiously in subsequent proceedings. The Court held that mere dissatisfaction with bail orders does not constitute valid grounds for case transfer and that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any bias or illegal exercise of discretion by the trial judge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere grant of bail by a trial court constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a criminal case?
  • Can a trial court be accused of flouting a High Court order if the trial court's order was passed before the High Court's order was issued?
  • Is a failure to comply with statutory remand provisions a valid ground for declaring detention illegal?
  • Does a petitioner's failure to document the record in a petition for leave to appeal justify its dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs SIND LABOUR COURT No. IV, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Karachi 730 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs PRESIDENT, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, LAHORE1979 P Cr. L J 204 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs HO TM DIN (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS)1979 CLC 554 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Alias SAJJAD vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 473 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INAYAT vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 154 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS KHAN vs THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN1979 PLC 1 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-02-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IJAZ vs THE S. H. O., POLICE STATION, RAJANA, FAISALABAD1979 SCMR 490 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-17
  writ of mandamusregistration of FIRcognizable offencejudicial discretionspecial leave to appealalternative remedyprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed his writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner had requested the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Station House Officer to register a criminal case under Sections 364, 342, and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court is mandatorily required to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the registration of an F.I.R. under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 whenever a cognizable offense is reported. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court is under no absolute obligation to grant such relief. The Court affirmed that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is a matter of judicial discretion, and the High Court properly exercised its discretion by directing the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies, such as filing a private complaint, rather than seeking police intervention. The judgment establishes that the mere allegation of a cognizable offense does not entitle a party to a writ of mandamus.

  Questions settled

  • Is the High Court mandatorily required to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the registration of an F.I.R. under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the mere report of a cognizable offense entitle a complainant to a writ of mandamus for the registration of a case?
  • Is the refusal of the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus for the registration of an F.I.R. a valid exercise of judicial discretion when alternative remedies exist?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM. Alias MUBARIK ALI KHAN Petitioner vs SUPERINTENDENT1979 PLD Lahore 225 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 275 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-06
  murderattempted murdersudden fightdeath sentence commutationpremeditated murdercriminal appealPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Muhammad Ibrahim, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, for the murder of Niaz Ali and the attempted murder of several others under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the incident constituted a sudden fight under the fourth exception to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby mitigating the offense. The Court held that the prosecution evidence, including the presence of premeditation, the use of lethal weapons, and the specific motive, negated the defense's claim of a sudden fight. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction. However, regarding the sentence, the Court exercised judicial discretion to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment, citing the appellant's advanced age of seventy years and his suffering from tuberculosis. The judgment establishes that the defense of a sudden fight requires evidence of a spontaneous, unpremeditated altercation, which is invalidated by proof of prior motive and organized preparation for violence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of prior motive and preparation with lethal weapons negate the defense of a sudden fight under Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can advanced age and serious illness serve as valid grounds for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the prosecution proves the accused arrived armed with deadly weapons and shouted a lalkara?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND 2 Other1979 PLD Supreme Court 943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-27
  murderacquittaleye-witness credibilitymedical evidencechance witnessinterested witnessappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the acquittal of two respondents by the High Court in a murder case under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, overturning the trial court's conviction and death sentence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by disbelieving the prosecution's eye-witnesses and rejecting the motive. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal. The Court held that the eye-witnesses were unreliable, characterizing them as chance and interested witnesses whose presence at the scene was doubtful. Crucially, the Court established that medical evidence, specifically the nature and pattern of the injuries, directly contradicted the eye-witnesses' account of how the attack occurred. The Court reasoned that the injuries indicated the deceased was attacked while lying on a cot, whereas the witnesses claimed he was attacked after rising. Furthermore, the Court noted that the physiological state of the deceased suggested death occurred at a time inconsistent with the prosecution's narrative, rendering the eye-witness testimony inherently untrustworthy and the prosecution's case doubtful.

  Questions settled

  • Can medical evidence regarding the nature and position of injuries be used to discredit the testimony of eye-witnesses?
  • Does the presence of digested food and bodily waste in a deceased person's system provide evidence regarding the time of death?
  • Is a witness who lacks a valid reason for being at the scene of a crime considered a chance witness whose testimony requires corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Haji MUHAMMAD TUFAIL.1979 PLD Lahore 654 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN (REPRESENTED BY HEIRS)- vs Haji HASSAN MUHAMMAD1979 PLD Lahore 41 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 180 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN 3 AND Other1979 SCMR 617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-24
  execution proceedingswrit jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictionevictionprocedural lawwitness examinationcompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arose from execution proceedings initiated by respondents to evict the petitioner from a garage following a final judgment by the Supreme Court. During execution, the petitioner filed objections claiming an oral compromise had been reached, allowing him to remain as a tenant upon payment of rent and litigation costs. The Executing Court disallowed the petitioner's request to examine additional witnesses because he failed to file a list of witnesses as required by procedural law. The petitioner challenged this order through revision and subsequently a writ petition, both of which were dismissed. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with the Executing Court's procedural order regarding witness examination. The Supreme Court held that the Executing Court acted within its jurisdiction, and its orders, even if allegedly erroneous, were not subject to interference via constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Court further observed that the petitioner's claim of an undocumented oral compromise after years of litigation was implausible, concluding that the objections were merely a device to frustrate the eviction process.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by an Executing Court regarding the examination of witnesses?
  • Is an Executing Court's procedural order subject to challenge via a writ petition if the court acted within its jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure to file a list of witnesses under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 justify the refusal to examine witnesses in execution proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN AND 4 Others vs The STATE1979 SCMR 345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-12-21
  review petitionexpectancy of lifeprivate defenceacquittaldeath sentencemiscarriage of justiceappellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks a review of a Supreme Court judgment that had set aside the acquittal of the petitioners, restoring their convictions and sentences, including a death sentence for petitioner Mohammad Hassan. The petitioners argued that the Court had overlooked medical evidence regarding charring on the deceased's bodies, which they contended supported a plea of private defence, and further argued that the death sentence should be commuted based on the doctrine of expectancy of life following their initial acquittal. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the arguments merely sought a re-examination of the merits, which is impermissible in review proceedings. The Court affirmed that the evidence, including the nature of injuries and the plea of private defence, had been fully considered in the original judgment. Regarding the sentence, the Court clarified that the doctrine of expectancy of life is not an absolute rule but depends on the facts of each case, particularly concerning delays in appellate disposal, and does not apply where an acquittal resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a review petition an appropriate forum for the re-examination of evidence on merits?
  • Does the doctrine of expectancy of life automatically preclude the imposition of a death sentence following the reversal of an acquittal?
  • Under what circumstances does the doctrine of expectancy of life apply to cases involving the reversal of an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF vs AHMAD HUSSAIN1979 SCMR 118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-01
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantpersonal bona fide requirementimpairment of utilityspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing his second appeal in limine, which upheld his ejectment from a rented shop. The respondent landlord had filed an ejectment petition on the grounds of default in rent, impairment of utility by damaging wooden fixtures, and personal bona fide requirement for his jobless graduate son to start a carpet business. The Rent Controller found against the tenant on the grounds of impairment of utility and personal requirement, while ruling in his favor regarding the default in rent, and ordered eviction. The High Court dismissed the tenant's appeal. The Supreme Court considered the concurrent findings of fact established through evidence regarding the bona fide personal requirement and the damage to fixtures. Holding that the findings were well-founded and unrebutted by the tenant, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, granting four months to vacate the premises subject to the regular payment of rent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement for ejectment can be interfered with when unrebutted?
  • Does damaging wooden fixtures of a rented premises constitute impairment of its utility warranting eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF AND Others vs KHUSHI MUHAMMAD ETC.S1979 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-20
  bail cancellationdelay in challannon-submission of challancriminal procedurejudicial discretionmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order cancelling the bail previously granted to the petitioners in a case involving sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the delay in the submission of the challan (charge sheet) provided sufficient grounds for the grant of bail, thereby rendering the High Court's cancellation order improper. The Supreme Court held that while inordinate delay in the submission of a challan can be a valid ground for bail, it is not an absolute rule. Courts must examine the specific circumstances causing the delay. In this instance, the delay was partly attributable to the petitioners' own actions and procedural complications, rather than solely the prosecution's failure. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to cancel the bail, emphasizing that the petitioners' request for further investigation made the commencement of the trial uncertain. The principle laid down is that delay in challan submission must be evaluated contextually, and bail is not justified where the accused contributes to the delay or where the case falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the delay in the submission of a challan automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
  • Should a court consider the reasons behind the delay in the submission of a challan when deciding a bail application?
  • Can a court cancel bail if the accused has contributed to the delay in the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANEEF AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-04
  taking cognizanceCourt of Session jurisdictionColumn No. 2 accusedsummoning of accusedmurderbenefit of doubtcorroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the murder of Rana Muhammad Yaqub. Four accused were convicted under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in death sentences for two and life imprisonment for the others, alongside connected appeals and a revision petition. The core legal questions addressed the jurisdiction of the Court of Session to directly summon accused persons whose names were placed in Column No. 2 of the police report under the amended Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the applicability of Section 191 and Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the interpretation of 'taking cognizance'. The Court held that under the altered legal scheme, the entire case is sent to the Court of Session under Section 190(3), empowering the Sessions Judge to summon accused individuals placed in Column No. 2 upon taking cognizance of the offence, and that such cognizance relates to the case/offence rather than solely the named offenders. On merits, the Court laid down principles regarding the necessity of corroboration for accused persons found innocent in successive police investigations, ultimately acquitting three appellants on benefit of doubt while confirming the conviction and death sentence of the fourth.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Court of Session can lawfully summon accused persons whose names were placed in Column No. 2 of the police report when the case is sent to it under Section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the summoning of an accused whose name is placed in Column No. 2 attract the mandatory requirement of informing the accused of their right to be tried by another court under Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What constitutes 'taking cognizance of an offence' by a court or magistrate under the criminal procedure framework?
  • Does Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a Court of Session from taking cognizance of an offence against persons not initially sent up for trial by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD H.USSAIN vs GULREZ KHAN Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 182 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GUL AND Another vs NAZAR ABBAS AND Other1979 SCMR 258 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-16
  rent restrictionlandlord and tenantejectment applicationinterlocutory rent depositcivil court decreerelationship of landlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which directed the petitioners to deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent during the pendency of a second appeal filed by the respondents. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in ordering the deposit of rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, based on a civil court decree declaring the respondents' ownership, which was obtained after the initial ejectment application was filed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court was entitled to consider the subsequent civil court decree as evidence of ownership. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged original landlord had appeared before the Rent Controller and disclaimed ownership, supporting the respondents' claim. The Court emphasized that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they had paid rent to any party, indicating an attempt to evade liability. The judgment reaffirms that courts may consider subsequent developments, such as civil decrees, to establish the prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant for the purpose of interlocutory rent deposit orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court consider a civil court decree obtained after the filing of an ejectment application when determining a request for rent deposit?
  • Is a tenant entitled to withhold rent payments on the pretext of a dispute regarding the ownership of the premises?
  • Does the disclaimer of ownership by a previous alleged landlord support a finding of the landlord-tenant relationship for the purpose of a rent deposit order?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR vs ALI HAIDER1979 CLC 84 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAZAL Alias BODI vs The STATE1979 SCMR 9 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-22
  post-arrest bailconsistency in bailco-accused bailmurder caseSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing his third application for post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary ground urged before the Supreme Court was that a co-accused, to whom an identical role was attributed, had already been released on bail by the High Court, and that the petitioner was entitled to similar relief on the principle of consistency. The Supreme Court did not examine the merits of the case or the question of statutory delay, but converted the petition into an appeal and held that the petitioner must be released on bail to maintain consistency in the judicial treatment of co-accused persons facing the same allegations. The Court laid down the principle that where a co-accused assigned a similar role has been granted bail within the same case, the principle of consistency requires that subsequent similarly situated accused persons should likewise be granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person is entitled to bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused with an identical role has already been released on bail?
  • Does the release of a co-accused on bail furnish a valid ground for the grant of bail to another co-accused assigned a similar role?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DURYAB YOUSUF QURESHI vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE1979 PLD Lahore 406 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-03Read full judgment →