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.
- JUMA KHAN vs NABI BAKHSH AND 11 Other1979 PLD Quetta 14 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-03Read full judgment →
- JHANG BAHADUR AND 3 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD PERVAIZ AND 3 OTHERS1979 CLC 337 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises out of a suit for possession of land by pre-emption. The trial court decreed the suit upon determining the market value of the land to be Rs. 3,048, after finding that the ostensible sale price of Rs. 9,400 was neither fixed in good faith nor actually paid. On appeal, the District Judge modified the decree to fix the market value at Rs. 4,000 based on an offer made by the plaintiffs' counsel and accepted by the defendants' counsel. The defendants appealed to the High Court, contending that their counsel lacked the authority to accept the increased offer. The core legal question is whether a counsel, authorized by a Vakalatnama to make statements or enter into compromises, can validly accept a settlement offer without separate, explicit authorization. The court held that the general authority conferred through the Vakalatnama was sufficient and binding, preventing the appellants from wriggling out of the commitment. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine, laying down the principle that counsel acting under a duly executed Vakalatnama containing compromise powers can lawfully bind their clients in settlement offers.
Questions settled- Whether a counsel authorized by a Vakalatnama to make statements or enter into compromises can accept a settlement offer on behalf of the client without separate additional authority?
- Does a client have the right to wriggle out of a commitment made by their counsel acting within the scope of a duly executed Vakalatnama?
- JEHANGIR IQBAL KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 3 Other1979 PLD Peshawar 67 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-06-03Read full judgment →
- JAVED IQBAL vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, MANAGER, NORWICH1979 PLC 20 · Labour Court · 1975-09-25Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN Ere.1979 PLD Lahore 152 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-22Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD AND Other vs SHER MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Supreme Court 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from petitions for special leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, which accepted writ petitions filed by respondents challenging the cancellation of their temporary agricultural land allotments. The respondents, displaced persons from Jammu and Kashmir, were allotted land temporarily in 1959, which was later purportedly cancelled in 1968 without notice to them, and subsequently re-allotted to the petitioners. The core legal questions involve whether agricultural land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees could be cancelled behind their backs and re-allotted to other claimants, and whether such temporary allottees are protected under settlement laws and repeal enactments. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation orders passed without affording an opportunity of being heard were void and without lawful authority, and that paragraph 4-A (ix) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme as well as section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 protect the temporary allottees' rights to retain or purchase the land. The court laid down the principle that temporary allotments made to Jammu and Kashmir refugees cannot be arbitrarily cancelled without notice and that such allottees possess statutory protections against displacement by non-claimants.
Questions settled- Whether agricultural land temporarily allotted to a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir can be cancelled without notice and opportunity of being heard?
- Does paragraph 4-A(ix) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme exclude land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees from being allotted to other claimants?
- What is the effect of section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 on agricultural land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees?
- Whether a failure of natural justice by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in cancelling an allotment can be ignored if not cured in appeal or revision?
- JAMSHED ALI KHAN vs SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION), MINISTRY OF FOREIGN1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 125 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1978-11-14Read full judgment →
- JAMROZ KHAN vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N. W. F. P. AND Other1979 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition regarding agricultural land. The core legal questions involve whether the Assistant Commissioner's order rectifying the Khasra Girdawari violated section 163(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, whether the application was barred by limitation, and whether the petitioner was condemned unheard. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having failed to raise the objection regarding prior permission for review before the departmental authorities, could not raise it for the first time in writ proceedings, and further found that the petitioner had no case in equity or law since he had been lawfully ejected in 1968 pursuant to a decree. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot urge a new legal objection in constitutional writ jurisdiction if it was not raised before the lower departmental forums, and discretionary writ remedies will not be issued in aid of injustice.
Questions settled- Can a party raise an objection regarding the lack of prior permission for review under section 163(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 for the first time in writ proceedings?
- Whether constitutional writ jurisdiction can be invoked in aid of injustice when a party has no case in equity or law?
- JAMIL SILK INDUSTRIES, KARACHI vs SIND LABOUR COURT No. V AND 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 723 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-23Read full judgment →
- JAMIL AHMED vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 432 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-24Read full judgment →
- JAMAL DIN vs KARIM WEAVING FACTORY1979 PLC 535 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-03-11Read full judgment →
- JALAL DIN vs SAEED AHMAD AND Other1979 PLD Supreme Court 879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The petitioner (vendee) challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had decreed the suit in favor of the respondent (pre-emptor), the vendor's uncle. The core legal question was whether the existence of nearer heirs of the vendor, who were not parties to the suit, precluded a more remote heir from exercising the statutory right of pre-emption under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the right of pre-emption vests in the entire line of heirs in order of succession. The court established that the existence of a nearer heir who does not exercise their right does not bar a remoter heir from suing. The order of succession is only relevant in determining priority between competing claimants (pre-emptor versus vendee or rival suitor). Consequently, a remoter heir may validly maintain a pre-emption suit provided they are entitled to inherit under personal law, regardless of the existence of non-suing nearer heirs.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a nearer heir who does not sue bar a more remote heir from exercising the right of pre-emption?
- Is the right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 vested in the whole line of heirs or only the nearest heir?
- Can a pre-emptor maintain a suit for pre-emption if nearer heirs of the vendor exist but are not parties to the suit?
- JAFFAR HUSSAIN AND 12 Other vs PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES (APPELLATE)1979 PLC (C. S. T.) 89 · Punjab Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- ISMAIL TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs JAMALUDDIN AND ANOTHER1979 PLC 536 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-03-27Read full judgment →
- ISLAND TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs V/O TECHNOEXPERT AND ANOTHER1979 CLC 307 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by the first defendant seeking a stay of a civil suit instituted by the plaintiffs for the recovery of damages and price adjustments arising from an agreement for the supply of a complete textile plant. The core legal questions centered on whether the arbitration clause excluded the jurisdiction of the civil courts, whether subsequent memoranda fell within the scope of arbitration, whether the defendant had taken steps in the proceedings disentitling them to a stay, whether allegations of fraud ousted arbitration, whether the location of evidence in Karachi rendered arbitration in Moscow inconvenient, and whether the presence of a second defendant not party to the arbitration barred the stay. The Sindh High Court held that the arbitration clause validly excluded court jurisdiction, that subsequent agreements incorporated the arbitration term, that contesting an injunction without prejudice did not constitute a step in the proceedings, and that allegations of fraud or foreign location did not vitiate the agreement. The court stayed the suit against the first defendant and referred the disputes to arbitration, laying down that parties must strictly honor international commercial arbitration commitments.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration clause providing for reference to a foreign arbitration tribunal excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts?
- Does contesting an interim injunction application without prejudice amount to taking a step in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Whether allegations of fraud and misrepresentation against a defendant bar the reference of a dispute to arbitration?
- Can a suit be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 when there are multiple defendants and one of them is not a party to the arbitration agreement?
- IRSHAD vs The STATE1979 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition arising from criminal proceedings. The core legal question concerns the extent and scope of the Court's jurisdiction in a criminal review petition, specifically whether re-evaluation of evidence is permissible, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed upon the petitioner, Irshad, who was convicted alongside his brother for rape based on the statement of the prosecutrix. The Supreme Court held that the scope of review in criminal matters is strictly confined to an error of law on the face of the order and does not permit a fresh examination of evidence. However, considering the circumstances of the case and with no objection from the State Counsel, the Court reduced the petitioner's sentence to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that criminal review cannot be used as an avenue to re-examine evidence, though sentence modification may be considered under mitigating circumstances when consented to or unopposed by the State.
Questions settled- What is the scope of review in criminal matters before the Supreme Court?
- Can the Supreme Court enter upon a fresh examination of evidence in a criminal review petition?
- Under what circumstances can a sentence be reduced to the period already undergone?
- IRSHAD AND Others vs The STATE1979 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which refused to suspend the convictions and sentences of the petitioners pending their appeal. The petitioners, along with others, were convicted by a Magistrate for offences including abduction and rioting. While the High Court granted bail to some co-accused, it denied the same to the petitioners, citing specific allegations of physical involvement in the abduction and assault of the complainant. The core legal question was whether the High Court exercised its discretion arbitrarily in distinguishing the petitioners' cases from those of the co-accused who were granted bail. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to grant bail was justified because the petitioners were specifically implicated by the prosecutrix and the complainant in the commission of the offences. The Court affirmed that where specific overt acts are attributed to accused persons, their cases are distinguishable from those of co-accused lacking such allegations. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no error of law or violation of justice principles in the High Court's discretionary order and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail to some co-accused while granting it to others constitutes an arbitrary exercise of discretion?
- Does the presence of specific allegations of physical involvement in a crime justify distinguishing the cases of co-accused for the purpose of bail pending appeal?
- IRIS SAMMUEL GILL vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1979 PLD Lahore 467 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-24Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 644 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-23Read full judgment →
- IQBAL HUSSAIN AND 16 OTHERS vs AHMAD1979 CLC 69 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-10Read full judgment →
- IQBAL BIBI vs MUBARAK ALI1979 CLC 489 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
- INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ADVISER (NORTH), PESHAWAR vs ZAFAR IQBAL1979P LC 246 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI vs OMER HALIM1979 CLC 356 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-09Read full judgment →
- INDUS DYEING AND MANUFACTURING Co. LTD., KARACHI vs SINDH ALBOUR1979 PLC 53 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-01Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH AND 4 Others vs The STATE1979 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioners who are accused of murder under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolves around whether bail should be granted based on an alleged alibi and challenges to the credibility of an approver's statement at the bail stage. The Supreme Court held that at the bail stage, courts cannot embark upon a detailed inquiry into factual matters or deep appreciation of evidence, and since the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing bail was neither arbitrary nor perverse, the petition for leave to appeal must be dismissed. The key principle laid down is that deep-seated factual inquiries and assessment of the reliability of an approver's statement or pleas of alibi are matters to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence, and should not be made the basis for granting bail when reasonable grounds exist connecting the accused to the crime.
Questions settled- Whether a court can embark upon a detailed inquiry into factual matters and the reliability of an approver's statement at the bail stage?
- Does a plea of alibi supported by hospital records warrant the grant of post-arrest bail without recording evidence?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing bail when such discretion has not been exercised arbitrarily or perversely?
- INAYAT KHAN AND ANOTHER vs BERGRI COTTONGINNING & PRESSING1979 PLC 481 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
- IMTIAZ ALI MALIK vs Mst. SURRYA BEGUM ETC.S1979 SCMR 22 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-08-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court which accepted a constitution petition and declared the cancellation of residential plot allotments made to the respondents by the Provincial Government to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of the petition before the Supreme Court under the Law Reforms Act, 1972, where an intra-court appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court was not availed of, and whether valuable property rights accrued from the administrative allotments. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petition was not competent as the petitioner failed to avail of the remedy of an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court in terms of Section 3 of the Law Reforms Act, 1972. The key principle laid down is that a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court is not competent against an original order of a Single Judge of the High Court where an appeal to a Division Bench is provided by law and has not been exhausted.
Questions settled- Is a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court competent against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court when an intra-court appeal to a Division Bench was not availed of?
- Whether the cancellation of residential plot allotments without notice or an opportunity of being heard is lawful?
- Can a subsequent allottee challenge the restoration of plots to prior allottees when the initial allotment withdrawal was declared without lawful authority?
- IMDADULLAH AND ANOTIER vs THE STATE--Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 236 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
- IMDAD ALI KHOSO vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 496 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-09Read full judgment →
- IMAM UD DIN vs NAZAR HUSSAIN AND Another1979 P Cr. L J 371 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-18Read full judgment →
- IMAM BUX vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 1008 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-28Read full judgment →
- IMAM BUX AND 4 Others vs THE STATE-1979 P Cr. L J 943 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-19Read full judgment →
- IMAM BOX vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 731 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- ILLAHI BUX AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 554 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-07Read full judgment →
- ILAM DIN Etc vs MUIIAMMAD SHARIF, ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 832 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-25Read full judgment →
- IKRAMUDDIN SYED AND TAJ MUHAMMAD QURESHI vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND ETC.S CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SIND Etcs1979 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-13Read full judgment →
- IBRAHIM vs Syed WALAYAT ALI BOKHARY AND Other1979 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition regarding the residential portion of a property in Lyallpur jointly transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The parties executed an agreement of association, but a dispute arose concerning alleged unauthorized interpolations and insertions in the document relating to share division and payment conditions. The core legal question involved whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the concurrent factual findings and interpretations of the settlement authorities regarding the genuine form and effect of the agreement of association. The Supreme Court held that the interpretation placed by the High Court on the revisional order was tenable, as the Settlement Commissioner based his findings on the agreement in its original form without unauthorized additions, rendering his order just and fair and immune from interference in writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that superior courts will not interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with concurrent factual findings and evaluations of documents by administrative tribunals unless tainted by illegality or perversity.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction with concurrent factual findings of settlement authorities regarding interpolations in an agreement of association?
- Can settlement authorities examine the original form of an agreement of association to determine the rights of parties in a joint property transfer?
- HUSSAIN NAQI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1979 PLD Lahore 810 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
- HUSSAIN BUX vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAIRPUR AND 8 Other1979 PLD Karachi 475 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-17Read full judgment →
- HUSONA ETC vs T. D. A., BHAKKAR1979 PLD Lahore 830 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-10Read full judgment →
- HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL SOCIETY vs THIRD SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND ANOTHBR1979 PLD Karachi 529 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter relates to a case titled Holy Family Hospital Society vs Third Sind Labour Court, Karachi and another, before the Sindh High Court. However, no text of the judgment was provided in the context to summarize the factual background, legal questions, court decisions, or ratio decidendi.
- HAZRAT ULLAH vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 1104 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the suspension of sentence and grant of post-conviction bail on medical grounds. The petitioner had been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death and ten years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. The core legal question was whether the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which permits bail for sick, infirm, or aged persons, can be invoked in an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426 during the pendency of an appeal. The High Court, relying on a psychiatric report demonstrating that the 90-year-old petitioner was severely depressed, senile, non-communicative, physically infirm, and on the serious ill list, accepted the application. The Court held that the principle embedded in the proviso to Section 497(1) applies to suspension of sentence applications under Section 426, granting bail on medical grounds subject to furnishing required security bonds.
Questions settled- Can the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked in an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426?
- Whether extreme old age, senility, and severe physical infirmity constitute valid grounds for suspension of a death sentence and admission to bail pending appeal?
- HAYAT ETC. vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 361 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-24Read full judgment →
- HAYAT ALI vs SAUDAGAR ETC.1979 PLD Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-05Read full judgment →
- HASAN AMIN vs THE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAM ABAD1979 CLC 565 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ vs FALAK SHER ETC.1979 P Cr. L J 15 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- HAMID AHMAD vs THE STATE AND 15 Other1979 PLD Lahore 684 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-08Read full judgment →
- HAMEED AKBAR vs THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1979 CLC 456 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-23Read full judgment →
- HAKOO AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 677 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-18Read full judgment →
- HAKIM KHAN vs AURANGZEB AND Another1979 SCMR 625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a declaratory suit challenging a gift of agricultural land made by a grandfather to his minor grandsons via a sanctioned mutation. The petitioner contended that the gift of an undivided share (mushaa) was invalid due to lack of delivery of possession, as someone else should have accepted possession on behalf of the minor donees. The core legal questions were whether formal delivery of possession to an independent party was necessary when the donor himself was the natural guardian of the minor donees, and whether the declaratory suit filed fourteen years after the mutation was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that where a donor acts as the natural guardian raising minor donees, his declaration and appearance before revenue authorities to sanction the mutation effectively transfer possession. Statutory entries in Jamabandis carry a presumption of truth which outweighs contradictory oral evidence. Consequently, the gift was valid, and the suit was barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908.
Questions settled- Is physical delivery of possession to a third party required to complete a gift to minor donees when the donor is their natural guardian?
- Does an entry in revenue Jamabandis carry a statutory presumption of truth regarding possession over oral testimony?
- What limitation period applies under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 to a suit for declaration challenging a gift mutation?
- HAKIM ALI vs The STATE1979 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and a sentence of death for the murder of Mst. Walian. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether a conviction on a capital charge could be sustained on the testimony of a sole eye-witness, and in light of contentions regarding delayed first information report recording and disbelieved recoveries. The Supreme Court found the testimony of the sole eye-witness and corroborating witnesses to be authentic, convincing, and unblemished, thereby establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case—specifically that the deceased and a prosecution witness were living in open adultery, causing grave frustration and anger to the appellant who had visited to persuade them to discontinue their association—the court held that the death penalty was not the proper sentence. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the appeal while modifying the sentence of death to transportation for life.
Questions settled- Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained upon the testimony of a sole eye-witness?
- Does the disbelieving of recovery evidence and delays in recording the first information report vitiate an otherwise proved prosecution case?
- Whether mitigating circumstances arising from social context and frustration justify the reduction of a death sentence to transportation for life?
- HAKIM ALI AND 3 Others vs The STATE1979 SCMR 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioners, who were jointly accused of murder and other offences under Sections 302, 324, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that they were empty-handed and did not cause the fatal injuries, which were attributed to co-accused armed with knives. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the petitioners allegedly clasped the eye-witnesses to facilitate the knife attacks, making it impossible to rule out their participation at this stage. The Court rejected the plea for bail under the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on age, as the supporting birth register entry was doubtful and there was no evidence of sickness or infirmity. Furthermore, the Court held that a subsequent police investigation finding the petitioners guilty after an initial finding of innocence does not constitute 'two versions' of the prosecution to warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can bail be granted under the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground of advanced age without proof of sickness or infirmity?
- Does a subsequent police investigation reversing an initial finding of innocence create 'two versions' of the prosecution so as to make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can empty-handed accused who allegedly facilitated the principal accused by holding the victims be denied bail in a murder case?
- HAKAM DIN vs MUHAMMAD IRSHAD1979 PLD Supreme Court 887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arose from eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, on grounds of personal need, rent default, and unauthorized sub-letting. The tenant challenged the landlord's title, contending that the property transfer via an unregistered partnership deed was legally ineffective under the Registration Act 1908 and the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The core legal question was whether a tenant could dispute the landlord's ownership when the original landlord had acknowledged the respondent's title and relinquished interest. The Supreme Court held that the partnership deed constituted an acknowledgement of pre-existing title rather than a transfer requiring registration. The Court ruled that where the original landlord acknowledges the new landlord's title and severs connection with the property, the tenant lacks the locus standi to challenge the internal arrangements or the validity of the title transfer between the parties. Consequently, the eviction order was upheld, establishing that a tenant cannot go behind the established title of a landlord who has been recognized by the previous owner.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge the title of a landlord when the original landlord has acknowledged the new landlord's title and relinquished interest?
- Does an acknowledgement of a pre-existing title in a partnership deed require registration under the Registration Act 1908?
- Is a tenant entitled to question the inter se relations regarding property ownership between a previous landlord and the current landlord?
- Hajl SAID KHAN vs AYA KHAN AND Another1979 SCMR 577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order passed by the Peshawar High Court in a Regular First Appeal, wherein the High Court allowed the production of additional evidence at the instance of the plaintiff-pre-emptor. The core legal question concerns the propriety of allowing additional evidence during the pendency of a first appeal in a pre-emption suit where the plaintiffs claimed superior rights as co-sharers based on previous sales and inheritance entries in the revenue record. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances of the case, including the concurrent findings of the trial court regarding the co-sharership and the contention that the respondents failed to deposit the pre-emption money within the stipulated time after the suspension order expired. Ultimately, the petition challenges the interim exercise of discretion by the High Court in admitting additional evidence and the alleged failure to comply with the deposit decree. The key principle revolves around the appellate court's power to allow additional evidence and the strict legal consequences of failing to deposit pre-emption money as ordered by the court.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court allow additional evidence to be produced during the pendency of a Regular First Appeal in a pre-emption suit?
- What are the consequences of failing to deposit the pre-emption money within the time specified after the expiry of a suspension order?
- Does the entry of a sole owner in the column of ownership in revenue records destroy the claim of a pre-emptor asserting co-sharership on the basis of a prior sale?
- Haji WALI MUHAMMAD AND Another vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1979 PLD Karachi 449 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji SHER BAHADUR vs Syed RAZIK HUSSAIN1979 SCMR 251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave arises from concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, the District Judge, and the High Court of Baluchistan ordering the ejectment of the petitioner from a residential house in Quetta. The respondent landlord sought ejectment on the ground that the premises were reasonably and in good faith required for his personal use and occupation, as his existing accommodation consisting of two rooms was inadequate for his family of eight members, whereas the petitioner occupied a larger five-room house. The petitioner contested the application, alleging mala fides, previous withdrawn ejectment proceedings on different grounds, and availability of other properties. The Rent Controller and appellate courts evaluated the evidence and concurred that the landlord's personal need was genuine and bona fide. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide personal requirement, based on proper appreciation of evidence, do not warrant interference in special leave. The key principle established is that concurrent factual determinations on the adequacy of residential accommodation and the bona fides of a landlord's personal need are final unless shown to be perverse or suffering from a legal flaw.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent factual findings regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement for a residential house can be interfered with in special leave?
- Does the withdrawal of a prior ejectment application on different grounds bar a landlord from filing a subsequent ejectment application on the ground of personal need?
- Whether inadequacy of existing residential accommodation for a landlord's family constitutes a valid ground for ejectment?
- Haji Sheikh MERAJ-UD-DIN And Another vs Haji Seth ABDUL GHAFOOR RISHI1979 PLD Quetta 118 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-12-08Read full judgment →
- Haji SAID AHMAD ETC. vs Mst. RASULAN BIBI ETC.S1979 SCMR 417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a regular second appeal regarding the validity of a land mutation. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court and the High Court correctly upheld a mutation in favor of a second wife, and whether the absence of a specific plea regarding the second marriage in the written statement vitiated the trial. The Supreme Court held that the finding regarding the widow's status was a finding of fact, which was conclusive and not subject to interference. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the trial was not vitiated by the lack of a specific plea, as the plaintiffs had notice of the evidence and cross-examined witnesses without seeking to lead rebuttal evidence. Finally, the Court affirmed that the petitioners, as transferees from heirs, lacked the locus standi to challenge a long-standing mutation where the original heirs had never objected. The principle established is that findings of fact by appellate courts are conclusive, and procedural defects in pleadings do not vitiate a trial where the opposing party had full opportunity to contest the evidence.
Questions settled- Is a finding of fact regarding the existence of a widow, upheld by the lower appellate court, conclusive in a regular second appeal?
- Does the failure to specifically plead a second marriage in a written statement vitiate the trial when the opposing party cross-examined witnesses on the issue?
- Do transferees from heirs have the locus standi to challenge a long-standing mutation of inheritance where the original heirs raised no objection?
- Haji SAEED GUL vs MIR ALAM KHAN, S. H. O., POLICE STATION TAL, KOHAT1979 PLD Peshawar 184 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
- Haji REHMATULLAH AND Another vs THE STATE-1979 P Cr. L J 36 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-23Read full judgment →
- Haji NAIMATULLAH KHAN AND Another vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1979 PLD Peshawar 104 · Federal Shariat Court · 1979-07-02Read full judgment →
- Haji NABI BAKHSH vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS1979 PLC 273 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-11-07Read full judgment →
- Haji MIR AFTAB vs The STATE1979 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellant's application for suspension of sentence and release on bail under section 426(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant, convicted of murder following a sudden fight and sentenced to imprisonment for life, sought bail on grounds of old age (over 70 years) and sickness, supported by a competent Medical Board's report diagnosing duodenal ulcer and chronic trachoma. The High Court had dismissed the application, holding that the onus to establish sickness or infirmity for a convicted person is heavier than for an under-trial person. The core legal question was whether the standard of sickness or infirmity required to grant bail to a convicted person under section 426(1) is higher than that for an under-trial person under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that once a person is found to be sick and infirm, the court cannot arbitrarily quantify or impose a heavier burden of sickness for a convict compared to an under-trial person, and suspended the appellant's sentence, granting him bail.
Questions settled- Whether the onus to establish sickness or infirmity for the grant of bail is heavier in the case of a convicted person than in the case of an under-trial person?
- Can an appellate court refuse bail under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by quantifying the degree of sickness of a convicted person?
- Does a medical board report diagnosing duodenal ulcer and chronic trachoma satisfy the criteria for a sick and infirm person under the law?
- Haji KAMAL KHAN vs MUHAMMAD NAEEM AND 4 Other1979 PLD Quetta 69 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Quetta, discharging respondents in a complaint case regarding forgery under sections 465, 466, 469, 471, and 474 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned the correct procedure to be followed by magistrates and sessions courts in handling complaints for offences exclusively triable by a Court of Session following amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the legality of discharging accused persons based on non-production of documents and physical appearance. The Balochistan High Court held that while the complaint should have been initially filed before a magistrate rather than directly in the Court of Session, the procedural defect caused no prejudice and did not vitiate the proceedings. The High Court further held that a court cannot discharge accused persons based on their physical appearance or the non-production of documents allegedly in the possession of the accused. The impugned order of discharge was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge for a fresh hearing.
Questions settled- What is the correct procedure for instituting and processing a complaint for an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the filing of a complaint directly in the Court of Session instead of before a Magistrate vitiate the trial if no prejudice is caused?
- Can a court discharge an accused person on the basis of his physical appearance or the non-production of a document allegedly in the possession of the accused?
- What is the scope and applicability of taking cognizance and holding a preliminary inquiry under sections 190, 193, and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Haji JAIN AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 41 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-08Read full judgment →
- Haji HAKIM KHAN AND Another vs GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P. THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS, PESHAWAR AND 3 Other1979 PLD Supreme Court 929 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment concerning a long-standing blood feud. The petitioners sought to enforce a 1949 order by a Political Agent declaring the respondent a 'dushman' (enemy) and prohibiting his entry into their village, following his conviction for murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the repeal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, and the enactment of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975, invalidated the previous order, and whether the respondent’s return to the village violated the petitioners' rights under the prevailing customary law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the public importance of the issues and the existence of conflicting High Court precedents. Pending final adjudication, the Court maintained the Lawyer Magistrate's order requiring security bonds but modified it to explicitly prohibit the respondent from entering the village, emphasizing that this interim measure did not constitute a license for violence. The Court identified the need to reconcile customary blood-feud practices with modern constitutional guarantees and statutory criminal procedures.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, invalidate previous orders declaring a person a 'dushman' under customary law?
- Can a Political Agent's order prohibiting a person from entering a village be enforced after the enactment of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975?
- Does the delegation of power under Article 139 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 authorize the Deputy Secretary to hear revision applications against orders of Divisional Commissioners?
- Haji FAZAL ELLAHI KUSHTIWALA AND 2 OTHERS vs ABDUL KHALIQ1979 CLC 76 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-21Read full judgment →
- Haji FAZAL ELAHI vs Miss FARAH NAZ AND Another1979 SCMR 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order granting bail to a female respondent accused of murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its judicial discretion under the proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which allows for the release on bail of women, minors, or sick persons, even in capital cases. The petitioner argued that the heinous nature of the crime, involving a firearm, precluded the grant of bail. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s discretion was not exercised perversely or illegally. The Court affirmed that while the proviso confers discretion rather than an absolute right, the policy of the law favors granting bail to such categories of persons unless specific circumstances disentitle them. The Court clarified that the mere heinousness of an offense does not automatically negate the statutory discretion provided for women and minors. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court's order, emphasizing that appellate courts should not disturb such discretion absent clear legal error.
Questions settled- Does the proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, grant an absolute right to bail for women and minors in capital cases?
- Can an appellate court interfere with the exercise of discretion by a High Court in granting bail under the proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, absent a showing of perversity or illegality?
- Does the heinous nature of a crime, such as murder committed with a firearm, automatically disqualify a woman or minor from being granted bail under the proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Haji FA1Z MUHAMMAD AND 9 Others vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
- Haji AURANGZEB vs TAE STATE1979 PLD Quetta 148 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-01-17Read full judgment →
- Haji AMIR BUX vs SONO KHAN1979 PLD Karachi 45 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-06Read full judgment →
- Haji AMIR ALI vs The STATE1979 SCMR 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for bail in a case involving an alleged attempt to murder under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing bail by misreading evidence and failing to conduct a proper tentative assessment of the prosecution and defense materials. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by misinterpreting the medical evidence regarding the complainant's injuries and by misapplying the legal standard for bail. The Court emphasized that in bail applications, the judiciary must perform only a tentative appreciation of evidence rather than reaching conclusive findings that might prejudice the trial. The key principle laid down is that while courts are reluctant to interfere with discretionary bail orders, they must intervene when the lower court ignores material evidence, misreads the record, or expresses findings in a manner that prejudices the parties' cases in the subsequent trial.
Questions settled- Should a court in a bail application reach conclusive findings on evidence that might prejudice the trial?
- Is a court required to conduct a tentative appreciation of evidence when deciding a bail application?
- Can a bail order be set aside if the court misreads the medical evidence regarding the complainant's injuries?
- Haji ALI KHAN vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR1979 PLC 196 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
- HAJI AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 460 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, convicting the appellants for the murder of Ghulam Haider. The prosecution's case rested on an alleged motive of illicit relations, last-seen (vajtakkar) evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and subsequent weapon and clothing recoveries. The core legal questions involved the reliability of uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions, the evidentiary value of recoveries from open jungle spaces accessible to the public, and the effect of an unproven motive in a circumstantial evidence case. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the motive, discarded the vajtakkar evidence, rejected the joint extra-judicial confessions as weak and uncreditable, and found the recoveries doubtful. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, set aside their convictions and sentences, and acquitted them. The key principle laid down is that where direct evidence is absent and circumstantial evidence—such as motive, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries—is discredited or found doubtful, the conviction cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Whether a joint extra-judicial confession is of any evidentiary value in a criminal trial?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of recoveries effected from open places accessible to the general public?
- What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when the motive set up is not established by the evidence?
- Haji ABDUR RASHID AND Other vs Tin STATE AND 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 274 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-08Read full judgment →
- Haji ABDUL KHALIQ AND 8 Others vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1979 P Cr. L J 503 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
- Hajan BAKHTAWAR AND ANOTHER vs GHULAM RASOOL AND 3 OTHERS1979 CLC 229 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-28Read full judgment →
- HAIDER SHAH vs Syed MUHAMMAD AZIM AND Other1979 SCMR 611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of an acquittal appeal by the High Court in a case involving charges under Section 304/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents, based on the rejection of interested eye-witness testimony and the acceptance of a defence version supported by an independent witness, was legally sound. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal was justified, affirming that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reasoned that the complainant party's eye-witnesses were unreliable, particularly as they denied the injuries sustained by the accused, whereas the defence version—supported by an independent witness—established that the complainant party were the aggressors. The Court laid down the principle that where the prosecution fails to establish its motive, its eye-witnesses are interested and contradicted by medical evidence, and a credible independent witness supports the defence's plea of self-defence, an acquittal is proper and warrants no interference in appeal.
Questions settled- Can an acquittal be overturned when the prosecution fails to prove its motive and the eye-witnesses are found to be interested and unreliable?
- Is the plea of self-defence sufficiently established when the prosecution's own evidence shows the complainant party initiated the attack?
- Does the fact that a witness is declared hostile automatically render their entire testimony inadmissible or unreliable?
- Are injuries sustained by the accused relevant factors in determining the aggressor in a criminal altercation?
- Hafiz MUHAMMAD HANIF vs AHMAD DIN1979 CLC 429 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-28Read full judgment →
- Hafiz IMAM BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH ETC.S1979 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court order granting bail to four respondents in a case involving charges under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The deceased had been subjected to a beating by the respondents, resulting in multiple injuries, subsequent hospitalization, a splenectomy, and eventual death. The High Court had granted bail, reasoning that the medical evidence was inconsistent and that the fatal injury could not be specifically attributed to any individual respondent. The Supreme Court, upon review, found that the High Court had misread the medical reports and failed to properly consider the prosecution's case regarding common intention and vicarious liability. The Supreme Court held that the death appeared to be a direct consequence of the injuries inflicted by the respondents, and the High Court's assessment of the evidence was flawed. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, cancelled the bail granted to the respondents, and ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrants for their arrest.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to grant bail when the medical evidence regarding the cause of death is contested?
- Is a court justified in granting bail by disregarding the prosecution's case regarding common intention and vicarious liability?
- Can bail be cancelled if the appellate court finds that the lower court misread the medical evidence and ignored salient facts?
- HABIBUR REHMAN vs MESSRS DAWOOD HOSIERY MILLS, KARACHI1979 PLC 39 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-01-30Read full judgment →
- HABIBUR REHMAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other1979 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over admission to a medical college against seats reserved for students domiciled in the Orakzai Agency. The fourth respondent, who secured higher marks than the petitioner, initially submitted a domicile certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Kohat because the Orakzai Agency had not yet been created at the time of its issuance. Upon learning that a certificate from the Political Agent of the newly created Orakzai Agency was required, he obtained and submitted the correct certificate after the interview date but a month before the final admission list was announced. The authorities rejected his application, but the High Court allowed his writ petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that in the absence of any mandatory statutory provision to the contrary, the late submission of a corrected domicile certificate does not debar an otherwise qualified candidate, provided the certificate is produced before the final admission list is announced. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the late submission of a corrected domicile certificate debar a candidate from admission if it is submitted before the final results are announced?
- Whether a domicile certificate issued by a previous administrative authority remains valid or must be replaced upon the creation of a new administrative agency?
- Can a candidate with higher merit be denied admission solely due to a procedural delay in submitting a corrected domicile certificate in the absence of mandatory prohibitory rules?
- HABIBUR REHMAN AND Another vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD1979 PLD Peshawar 4 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-11-17Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH vs DIRECTOR, OF HEALTH SERVICES, N. W. F. P. AND Othierss1979 SCMR 504 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, directed against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a Senior Clerk, was dismissed from service after disciplinary proceedings under the N.-W.F.P. Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Service Tribunal accepted the petitioner's appeal on the technical ground that the inquiry was conducted in violation of mandatory rules, set aside the dismissal order, and directed a fresh inquiry while declining to order immediate reinstatement or back benefits pending the outcome. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the dismissal while ordering a fresh inquiry and withholding reinstatement and emoluments. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order did not amount to an improper remand, as the Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits and rightly left the matter of reinstatement and back benefits to be determined by the competent authority in accordance with the relevant rules. The petition was accordingly dismissed with clarifications.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to direct a fresh inquiry upon setting aside a departmental dismissal order on technical grounds?
- Does the setting aside of a dismissal order by the Service Tribunal automatically entitle a civil servant to reinstatement and back benefits?
- Whether an order by the Service Tribunal declining immediate reinstatement pending a fresh inquiry constitutes an unlawful remand under the N.-W. F. P. Service Tribunal Act, 1974?
- HABIBULLAH AND Another vs The STATE1979 SCMR 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to two petitioners accused of murder. The petitioners sought bail primarily on the ground of inordinate delay in the trial process, noting that the case had been transferred back to the Sessions Judge after the Additional Sessions Judge declined to proceed. The High Court had previously directed the Sessions Judge to conclude the trial within two to three months, prioritizing it over other matters. The core legal question was whether the transfer of the case and the alleged delay justified the grant of bail despite the High Court's explicit directive for an expeditious trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners' claim of delay was premature as the time frame fixed by the High Court for the trial's completion had not yet expired. The Court affirmed that where a higher court has issued clear directions for an expeditious trial, the accused cannot seek bail on grounds of delay before that specified period has elapsed without progress.
Questions settled- Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of delay when a higher court has already issued specific directions for an expeditious trial?
- Is a petition for bail premature if the time frame set by the High Court for the conclusion of a trial has not yet expired?
- Does the transfer of a case from an Additional Sessions Judge back to a Sessions Judge constitute an inordinate delay justifying bail?
- HABIBUL WAHAB EL KHEIRI vs Ch. SAEED AHMAD1979 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a quashment application regarding criminal defamation proceedings. The core legal question was whether the insertion of Section 198-A into the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 divested Magistrates of jurisdiction to try private complaints of defamation filed by public servants, mandating that such cases be tried exclusively by a Court of Session upon a complaint by a Public Prosecutor. The Supreme Court held that Section 198-A does not exclude the jurisdiction of Magistrates over private complaints. The Court clarified that Section 198-A creates an additional mechanism for the Government to initiate prosecution via a Public Prosecutor in the Court of Session, but it does not derogate from the right of an aggrieved person to file a private complaint under Section 198. The principle established is that Section 198-A is supplementary to, not a replacement for, Section 198, and the 'notwithstanding' clause in Section 198-A was intended to bypass former commitment proceedings, not to alter the forum for private complaints.
Questions settled- Does Section 198-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exclude the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to try a private complaint of defamation filed by a public servant?
- Is the procedure under Section 198-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exclusive for cases involving the defamation of public servants?
- Does the right of an aggrieved person to file a private complaint under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 remain intact despite the enactment of Section 198-A?
- HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI vs ZAKI MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUIE AND 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 179 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-14Read full judgment →
- HABIB BANK LTD. vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HOSPITAL EQUIP MENT SUPPLY1979 SCMR 10 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed by Habib Bank Limited against an order of a learned Single Judge, which had dismissed the Bank's application requiring the Official Liquidator to furnish a bank guarantee regarding his remuneration. The core legal question was whether an Official Liquidator is legally required to furnish a bank guarantee for remuneration while performing duties under the supervision of the Court. The Supreme Court held that there was no merit in the petition. The Court affirmed the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, establishing the principle that an Official Liquidator remains under the direct control, direction, and supervision of the Court until the discharge of their duties. Consequently, the Court found no legal necessity for the Official Liquidator to furnish a bank guarantee for remuneration, as the Court's oversight provides sufficient accountability. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Is an Official Liquidator required to furnish a bank guarantee for their remuneration while performing duties under the supervision of the Court?
- Does the Court retain control, direction, and supervision over an Official Liquidator until the discharge of their duties?
- HABIB Alias MULLAH AND 10 Others vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1979 SCMR 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding a land allotment dispute between displaced persons. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in upholding concurrent findings by settlement authorities that the land in dispute had been validly allotted to the respondent prior to the petitioners' claim. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the departmental authorities and the High Court correctly determined that the land was already transferred to the respondent on an earlier date, rendering the subsequent allotment to the petitioners' predecessor invalid due to the unavailability of the land. The Court found no question of law or constitutional error in the impugned judgment. The principle laid down is that where concurrent findings of fact are established regarding the validity of land allotments and the authenticity of underlying documents, and no constitutional error is demonstrated, the Supreme Court will not interfere with such findings in its appellate jurisdiction, particularly when the property was not available for transfer at the time of the subsequent claim.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by settlement authorities and the High Court?
- Is an allotment of land valid if the property was already transferred to another party on an earlier date?
- Does the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court require the presence of a substantial question of law?
- GULZAR ALI AND Another vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER-1979 P Cr. L J 768 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
- GULZAR AHMAD AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 671 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-17Read full judgment →
- GULLAN AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 325 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
- GUL ZARIN vs FAIZULLAH ETC.S1979 SCMR 501 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the estate of a deceased person, Bawar Khan, in the Dir region. The petitioner claimed ownership of land based on an alleged sale deed, while the respondents, the deceased's brothers, asserted their right to inherit the property. The matter underwent multiple rounds of adjudication by local Qazis and administrative authorities, with conflicting findings regarding the validity of the sale deed. Ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner, upheld by the Additional Commissioner, the Provincial Government, and the Peshawar High Court, determined that the sale deed was a fictitious and concocted document and ordered the distribution of the property among the legal heirs. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the case should have been adjudicated under Chapter IV of the Dastur-ul-Amal of Dir State, which governs immovable property disputes, rather than inheritance laws. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to raise this specific legal contention in the lower courts, precluding its consideration at the appellate stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of fact that the sale deed was fraudulent.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a new legal contention in the Supreme Court that was not pleaded or argued in the courts below?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the authenticity of a document?
- GUL TAJ AND Another vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 452 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-26Read full judgment →
- GUL RAHIM vs PROJECT MANAGER, PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT1979 PLC 240 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1978-07-30Read full judgment →
- GUL MOHAMMAD vs THE STATE1979 P Cr. L J 845 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-17Read full judgment →
- GUL MARJANI vs PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPO--RATION1979 PLC 222 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1978-07-30Read full judgment →
- GUL BAHAR vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, SUKKUR, ETC1979 PLC 344 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- GUL AMIR vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS - Respondents1979 P Cr. L J 995 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-10Read full judgment →
- GUJRAT KHAWAJGAN CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. vs Sheikh MAZHAR1979 PLC 10 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-01-29Read full judgment →