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.
- STATE vs AMANULLAH AND ANOTHERSAccused1978 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-21Read full judgment →
- STATE vs AMANULLAH AND ANOTHER Accused1978 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-21Read full judgment →
- STATE vs AKBAR ALI SHAH1973 PLD Rev. 7 · Board of Revenue · 1977-05-27Read full judgment →
- STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL, SIND vs Qazi PERVEZ IQBAL ETC.1978 PLD Supreme Court 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions under the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, involving three individuals found in possession of high explosives in a shared hostel room. The core legal question was whether the accused, as mere licensees of the premises, could be held liable for "possession" or "control" of the explosives found therein, absent direct evidence of ownership or conscious knowledge. The Supreme Court held that the convictions were unsustainable. The Court ruled that "possession" and "control" under the Act require proof of conscious possession and knowledge of the nature of the substance. Mere occupancy or presence in a room where incriminating articles are stored does not automatically establish joint possession or control, particularly for licensees who lack legal interest in the premises or the items. The Court further clarified that the burden of proof under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Court) Ordinance XVIII of 1974 only shifts to the accused once the prosecution has established a prima facie case of possession, which was not achieved in this instance. The appeals were allowed, and the accused were acquitted.
Questions settled- Does mere presence in a room where explosives are stored constitute 'possession' or 'control' under the Explosives Substances Act, 1908?
- Can a licensee be held criminally liable for the possession of items belonging to another person found within shared premises?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities (Special Court) Ordinance XVIII of 1974 before the prosecution establishes a prima facie case of possession?
- STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL, SIND vs NABI BUX1978 PLD Karachi 380 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
- STAFF UNION (REGD.) vs MESSRS INTERNATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE1978 PLC 2 · Labour Court · 1976-02-11Read full judgment →
- STAFF UNION (REGD.) vs MESSRS INTERNATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE1978 PLC 69 · Labour Court · 1976-02-11Read full judgment →
- SOOMAR vs THE STATE ETC1978 P Cr. L J 678 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-02Read full judgment →
- SONY KABUSHIKI KAISHA vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 161 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision allowing the registration of the trademark 'SONY' for sports goods (Class 28), opposed by the appellant, who holds registrations for 'SONY' in Class 9 for electronic goods. The core legal question was whether the registration of an identical trademark for unrelated goods is likely to cause deception or confusion under Section 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, and if the appellant established sufficient reputation to warrant refusal. The court held that the appeal must be dismissed, finding that the appellant failed to prove that the use of 'SONY' for sports goods would cause deception or confusion among the public, given the distinct nature of the goods, different trade channels, and insufficient evidence of the appellant's reputation in the sports goods market. The court affirmed that while Section 8(a) protects the public from deception, the likelihood of confusion must be determined based on the totality of facts, including the nature of the mark, class of customers, and trade channels, rather than mere identicality.
Questions settled- Does the registration of an identical trademark for unrelated goods automatically constitute deception or confusion under Section 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
- Is a common or related field of trade a prerequisite for establishing the likelihood of confusion in trademark opposition cases?
- Does the refusal of a trademark registration on the grounds of potential deception create a monopoly for the opponent in the trademark?
- On whom does the initial burden of proof lie to establish the likelihood of deception or confusion in trademark opposition proceedings?
- SOHAILA vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 709 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-06Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ DIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, COOPERATIVE1978 PLD Lahore 1399 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-19Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ DIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, CO OPERATIVE1978 PLD Lahore 1399 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-19Read full judgment →
- SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY vs EMPLOYEES UNION1978 PLC 422 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-27Read full judgment →
- SIND FINE TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs PEOPLE's MUNICIPALITY, SHIKARPUR1978 PLD Karachi 449 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the levy, demand, and recovery of octroi by the People's Municipality, Shikarpur, on goods imported by the petitioner factory, based on Provincial Government notifications dated 21-3-1973 and 7-5-1973 extending municipal limits. The core legal questions were whether the extension of municipal limits specifically and exclusively for the purpose of collecting octroi was valid under the Sind People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972, and whether procedural requirements for inviting objections were properly fulfilled. The Sindh High Court held that extending municipal boundaries solely for the purpose of levying octroi, while treating other municipal provisions as unsuited or inapplicable, constitutes a colourable exercise of power and is not permissible under the scheme of the Ordinance. The Court declared the impugned notifications and the consequent demand and recovery of octroi to be without lawful authority, directing the refund of all sums recovered.
Questions settled- Can the Provincial Government extend municipal limits solely for the purpose of collecting octroi without applying other municipal provisions?
- Whether a public notice published for the extension of municipal limits satisfies the requirements of law without individual notices to affected factory owners?
- Does the power of the Government to alter municipal limits under the Sind People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972 include piecemeal extension for selective taxation?
- SIND EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 119 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-04Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR NAWAZ vs ALLAH NAWAZ AND Other1978 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court concerning a criminal incident involving an unlawful assembly, resulting in multiple murders and injuries in Tehsil and District Mianwali. The trial court had convicted several accused persons under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, imposing varying sentences including the death penalty. Upon appeal, the High Court acquitted some accused, set aside certain convictions, altered other charges, and reduced the sentence for one of the convicts to life imprisonment, while upholding the conviction of Allah Nawaz for murder. Both the convict and the injured complainant challenged the High Court's judgment before the Supreme Court. The core legal question involves the reappraisal of ocular and circumstantial evidence regarding partisan witnesses, common intention, and the sustainability of convictions and acquittals in a cross-fire incident. The Supreme Court held that the conclusions reached by the High Court required a detailed re-appraisal of the evidence on record. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the convictions of certain accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the testimony of injured and partisan witnesses be solely relied upon to sustain a murder conviction without corroboration?
- Whether the imposition of a lesser penalty of life imprisonment is warranted when the deceased had an illicit affair with a family member of the accused party?
- SIBTAIN SHAH ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 490 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and death sentences of two appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sargodha. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with sticks, attacked and killed the deceased over a land dispute and subsequent physical altercation. The appellants contended that the First Information Report was inadmissible as corroborative evidence, that the deposition of an absent eye-witness transferred under Section 33 of the Evidence Act 1872 was inadmissible, and that the fatal injury resulted from an accidental fall. The High Court held that the First Information Report was admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act 1872 to corroborate the informant's testimony. It further held that the trial court was justified in admitting the absent witness's prior statements as his presence could not be secured without undue delay. Finding the eye-witness accounts credible and corroborated by medical evidence, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the death sentences to life imprisonment, as it was unclear which appellant's blow proved fatal.
Questions settled- Can a First Information Report be used to corroborate the testimony of an informant under Section 157 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Under what circumstances can the deposition of an absent witness recorded by a Committing Magistrate be transferred to the Sessions file under Section 33 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Whether a sentence of death should be commuted to life imprisonment where multiple accused are involved and it is unclear whose specific blow caused the fatal injury?
- SHUJAUDDIN vs PAKISTAN COAST GUARDS, KARACHI AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses several consolidated constitutional petitions challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Pakistan Coast Guards regarding searches, seizures, and arrests conducted at various locations within Karachi, including markets, residential areas, and highways. The core legal question is whether these disputed locations fall within the 'limits of the port' of Karachi and are thus excluded from the 'coastal area' under the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973. The court held that the word 'port' and its limits in the Act must be interpreted in their ordinary popular and commercial sense as places intended for the landing and shipment of goods and passengers, rather than by reference to specialized definitions under the Customs Act or Ports Act. Finding that the disputed inland locations do not constitute part of the port and fall within the defined coastal area, the court dismissed the petitions and upheld the legality of the actions and subsequent proceedings. The key principle laid down is that terms used in a statute without cross-definition must be construed in their ordinary, popular, or commercial sense, and cannot be limited or expanded by reference to unrelated enactments in pari materia.
Questions settled- Whether the term 'port' in the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973 should be interpreted according to its ordinary popular meaning or by reference to definitions in customs and port legislation?
- Do inland locations in Karachi such as markets and residential housing societies fall within the 'limits of the port' as excepted from the 'coastal area' under the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973?
- Does the Pakistan Coast Guards have the territorial jurisdiction to operate, arrest, and investigate smuggling offences in areas of Karachi outside the port limits?
- SHIFA LABORATORIES, LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, HEALTH,1978 PLD Lahore 1040 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
- SHIFA LABORATORIES, LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, HEALTH, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND POPULATION, PLANNING AND HEALTH DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 1040 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
- SHERO Alias SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 368 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected revision applications under Section 22(2) of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 challenged the orders of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals against interim detention orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal under Sections 8(1) and 8(3)(b) of the Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were habitual offenders, drug dealers, or associated with prostitution, but the underlying police reports contained only vague, general allegations without specifying any concrete acts, times, or places, and lacked evidence of general repute. The High Court held that because the Act curtails personal liberty, its provisions must be strictly observed. To establish a 'habit', the prosecution must prove a repetition of similar acts, and general reputation must be distinguished from inadmissible rumour or police suspicion. Since the reports lacked the particulars required under Section 6 of the Act, and the interim detention orders were passed without any objective inquiry to establish an emergency, the Court quashed the proceedings as being without lawful authority.
Questions settled- What evidentiary standard is required to prove a person is a thief or offender 'by habit' under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975?
- Can a police officer's report based on suspicion or police records of suspected cases be treated as admissible evidence of general repute?
- Is an order for interim detention under Section 8(3)(b) of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 valid if passed without a formal inquiry to establish an emergency?
- What is the legal effect of failing to provide specific particulars of time, place, and acts in a police report under Section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975?
- SHERA AND 7 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 165 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SHERA AND 2 Others vs The STATE1978 SCMR 93 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased with spears in broad daylight, motivated by a long-standing blood feud over the murder of the appellants' father. The trial court convicted three appellants and acquitted three co-accused for lack of corroboration, but the Lahore High Court upheld the appellants' convictions and ordered a retrial of the acquitted accused. On appeal before the Supreme Court, the core legal question was whether the ocular testimony was credible and sufficiently corroborated by motive and medical evidence, and whether distant relationship rendered an eye-witness interested. The majority of the Supreme Court held that the ocular evidence was consistent, plausible, and supported by the motive and the nature and number of injuries found on the deceased. The court clarified that distant, indirect village relationships do not render a witness interested without substantial evidence of bias. Consequently, the majority dismissed the appeals, while a dissenting judge favored acquittal.
Questions settled- Does a distant or indirect relationship in a village community automatically render an eye-witness interested or inimical?
- Can the consistency between the number of injuries on the deceased and the number of alleged assailants serve as corroboration of ocular testimony?
- Whether ocular testimony from relatives is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction when supported by established motive and medical evidence?
- Is corroboration of ocular evidence an inflexible requirement in every criminal trial where witnesses are related to the deceased?
- SHER SHAH vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 541 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-24Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L I 404 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-11Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 791 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-06Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD AND Another vs MUNIR AHMAD AND 2 Other1978 SCMR 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerned a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld an order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The dispute arose over an evacuee plot adjacent to a house transferred to the petitioners. The plot was claimed by another party who served a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioners approached the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for clarification, who determined the plot was separate from their house and they were in illegal possession. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass this order, rendering it a nullity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the petitioners themselves had invoked the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's jurisdiction, they could not subsequently challenge it. The Court found no fault with the High Court's decision not to exercise its writ jurisdiction, concluding that substantial justice had been done.
Questions settled- Can a party who has invoked the jurisdiction of an authority later challenge that authority's jurisdiction?
- Is a High Court justified in refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of petitioners who themselves invoked the jurisdiction of the authority they are challenging?
- Does a Deputy Settlement Commissioner have jurisdiction to clarify the status of an evacuee plot claimed to be part of a transferred evacuee house?
- SHER MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 603 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-16Read full judgment →
- SHER AHMAD KHAN AND 4 OTHERSCroObjector vs LAND ACQUISITION1978 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
- SHER AHMAD KHAN AND 4 Othercross-Objectors vs LAND ACQUISITION1978 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
- SHEEDO vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 385 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-26Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 644 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-24Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT SAEED vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 716 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-07-29Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI vs DISTRICT COUNCIL, HYDERABAD1978 PLD Karachi 760 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-01Read full judgment →
- SHAU KAT SAEED vs THE STATE1978 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before a Full Bench of the Balochistan High Court to resolve a legal uncertainty regarding the admissibility of judicial confessions recorded after a delay of 24 hours. The core question was whether a delay exceeding 24 hours in recording a judicial confession is fatal, rendering the confession automatically inadmissible. The Court answered the question in the negative. It held that there is no inflexible rule of law mandating the rejection of a confession solely because it was recorded more than 24 hours after the accused's arrest. The Court established that while prolonged police custody may cast suspicion on a confession, the admissibility of such a statement depends on the surrounding facts and circumstances rather than a rigid time limit. The Court emphasized that judicial scrutiny must focus on whether the confession was voluntary and free from inducement, threat, or promise, rather than applying a mechanical rule based on the duration of detention. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits.
Questions settled- Is a judicial confession automatically inadmissible if it is recorded more than 24 hours after the arrest of the accused?
- Does the mere fact of an accused remaining in police custody for a period exceeding 24 hours render a subsequent judicial confession involuntary?
- What is the legal effect of a delay in recording a judicial confession on its admissibility in criminal proceedings?
- SHARI F U L HASSAN vs THE STATE AND 3 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 821 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHER JANG vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 167 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-09Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD ALI QURESHI vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, KARACHI Another1978 PLD Karachi 429 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-17Read full judgment →
- SHAMIMUL HAQ HASHMI vs MANAGING DIRECTOR. PUNJAB LIVESTOCK, DAIRY1978 PLD Lahore 752 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-05Read full judgment →
- SHAMIMUL HAQ HASHMI vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB LIVESTOCK, DAIRY1978 PLD Lahore 752 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-06Read full judgment →
- SHAMIMUL HAQ AND 2 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 800 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
- SHAM BADSHAH vs HAFIZ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI1978 PLC 248 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
- SHAKAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD LAL AND ANOTHER1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 126 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-04-19Read full judgment →
- SHAIKH NASIR ALI SHAIKH NAZAR ALI vs MUHAMMAD SALIM1978 PLD Karachi 1096 · Sindh High Court · 1969-06-09Read full judgment →
- Shaikh AFTAB AHMED MUHAMMAD AHMED ABDUL HAMEED SIDDIQUI vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 78 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- SHAHZADO vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 664 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-24Read full judgment →
- SHAHZADI BEGUM vs KHALID SALIM and ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L 1 387 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-06Read full judgment →
- SHAHZADA S. SHAIKH vs IVTH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI1978 PLC 391 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-10-18Read full judgment →
- Shahzada MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Mst. HANIFA BEGUM AND Other1978 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the division of a property by settlement authorities. The core legal question was whether the settlement authorities acted without lawful authority in their mode of dividing the property, specifically regarding the allocation of possession among various claimants. The Supreme Court held that the division of property under settlement laws inherently involves adjustments and shifts in possession. The Court affirmed that as long as the settlement authority's order is not arbitrary, fanciful, or capricious, and aims to accommodate occupants fairly, the court will not interfere with the mode of division. The key principle laid down is that the High Court and the Supreme Court will not interfere with the discretionary mode of property division by settlement authorities provided the order is just, fair, and based on a reasonable assessment of the facts, even if the resulting allocation does not satisfy every party's individual preferences or claims.
Questions settled- Can the High Court or Supreme Court interfere with the mode of property division by settlement authorities if the order is not arbitrary, fanciful, or capricious?
- Does the fact that a party is dissatisfied with the specific unit allocated to them during a property division render the settlement order without lawful authority?
- SHAHID MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER vs CAPT. JAFFAR ALI SHAH AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 622 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-24Read full judgment →
- SHAHBAZ TUFAIL vs The STATE1978 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's second bail application in a murder case under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of being a juvenile (just over 16 years of age at the time of the offence) and acting in self-defence, further arguing that the prosecution suppressed the true version of the occurrence and failed to record a counter First Information Report. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings that the second bail application was not maintainable as no new grounds were made out, the medical evidence estimated the petitioner's age at about 18 years, the birth and matriculation certificates produced were inconsistent, and under the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bail cannot be claimed as of right merely on the ground of tender age. Furthermore, the question of self-defence is a matter for the trial court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a second bail application in the High Court is maintainable when it raises no new grounds distinct from the previous unsuccessful application?
- Can an accused person claim bail as of right under the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely on the ground of being of tender age?
- Whether the plea of self-defence and the evaluation of suppressed prosecution evidence can be conclusively determined at the bail stage or should be left for the trial court?
- SHAHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 361 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-19Read full judgment →
- SHAHAB UD DIN vs The STATE1978 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1965-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant, an officiating Sub-Judge and First Class Magistrate, under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for accepting illegal gratification. The appellant was convicted by a Special Judge and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which sentence was subsequently reduced by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court failed to consider material documents demonstrating alleged enmity between the appellant and a key prosecution witness, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, thereby vitiating the conviction, and whether the defense's theory of planted currency notes was tenable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the minor administrative friction between the appellant and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was insufficient to establish fabrication or malice, and that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below based on credible, independent witness testimonies remained unimpeachable. The key principle laid down is that minor administrative disagreements do not constitute actionable enmity or bias to discredit independent official witnesses in a corruption case.
Questions settled- Whether minor administrative disagreements between a judicial officer and an official witness are sufficient to establish enmity and discredit the witness's testimony?
- Does the failure of an accused to establish crucial physical dimensions regarding a defense theory weaken the credibility of that defense?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the reliability of raid witnesses open to interference by the Supreme Court without compelling grounds?
- SHAH NAWAZ AND Other vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1978 PLD Supreme Court 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their application to purchase excess land that had been cancelled from their allotments due to information provided by claimants concerning fraudulent or excessive allotments. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had an unconditional right to purchase the resumed excess land under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975, or whether informants possessed a preferential right to such land under pending proceedings saved by the law. The Supreme Court held that the right to purchase under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 is subject to limitations, qualifications, and pending proceedings saved under section 2 of the said Act, and that informants who successfully supplied information regarding bogus or excessive allotments under section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act XLVII of 1958 have a preferential right to the resumed land. The Court laid down that occupants of excess land cannot claim the purchase option under the repeal law when orders of cancellation and pending informant entitlement proceedings were finalized prior to or saved under the statutory repeal framework.
Questions settled- Whether an allottee of excess land has an unconditional right to purchase the same under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975?
- Do informants who provide information regarding bogus or fraudulent allotments have a preferential right to the resumed land under section 14(1-A) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act XLVII of 1958?
- How do pending proceedings concerning informant entitlements affect the availability of land for purchase under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 Cr. PLJ 529 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- SHAFI MU HAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 557 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-12Read full judgment →
- SHADI SHAH AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 224 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-19Read full judgment →
- SHADI KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND 3 Other1978 PLD Supreme Court 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, arising from a petition filed by Shadi Khan against Muhammad Saleem and others, addresses the legality of a bail order granted by the Lahore High Court under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court had granted bail to the respondents on the erroneous factual assumption that they were detained without an order of remand and that the case stood adjourned sine die. The core legal question was whether an order of remand by a Sessions Judge without specifying a precise date for the next hearing constitutes a violation of Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's bail order, holding that given the deletion of committal proceedings, a remand order committing the accused to custody until the case is fixed for hearing amounts to substantial compliance with Section 344, and the interregnum must be regarded as reasonable under the circumstances. The key principle laid down is that the provisions of Section 344, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, should not be construed too rigidly so as to cause administrative impossibilities following the direct transmission of cases to the Court of Session.
Questions settled- Does a remand order by a Sessions Judge without specifying a precise future date for hearing violate Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an order of remand be treated as illegal on the ground that the case stands adjourned sine die following the deletion of committal proceedings?
- What constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement of 'for such time as it considers reasonable' under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in trials before the Court of Session?
- SHABIRULHASSAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 797 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-04Read full judgment →
- Sh. SABEDUDDIIN vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 667 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-16Read full judgment →
- Sh. REHMAT ALI Etc vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 686 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-10Read full judgment →
- Sh. REHMAT ALI ETC vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS1978 PLD Karachi 668 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-08Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs INSPECTORGENERAL OF PRISONS, PUNJAB, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 15 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS, PUNJAB. LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 15 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD SALIM vs LAHORE RACE CLUB AND 4 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1098 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-09Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD SALIM vs LAHORE RACE CLUB AND 4 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1098 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-09Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD MASKEEN vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 169 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
- Sh. MAQBOOL AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR ALI1978 PLD Lahore 258 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal under Section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 arose from the striking off of the tenant's defence under Section 13(6) of the Ordinance for failing to deposit rent with the Rent Controller. The tenant had instead tendered the rent directly to the landlord via money orders in advance during and after appellate proceedings. The core legal question was whether tendering rent directly to the landlord, rather than depositing it with the Rent Controller, constitutes compliance with an order passed under Section 13(6). The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the striking off of the defence. The Court held that the term 'default' implies fault, defect, or neglect of duty, and a failure simpliciter on a non-essential condition—such as the forum of deposit—does not constitute default where the essential requirements of parting with the money for the landlord's benefit before the due date are met. The case was remanded for trial on the merits.
Questions settled- Whether tendering rent directly to the landlord instead of depositing it with the Rent Controller constitutes compliance with an order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- What constitutes a 'default' within the meaning of Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does a technical failure to deposit rent in the specified forum amount to a default if the tenant has bona fide parted with the money for the landlord's benefit before the due date?
- Sh. HAJI MUHAMMAD vs Malik NIAZ ALI AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1333 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-18Read full judgment →
- Sh. HAJI MUHAMMAD vs Malik NIAZ ALI AND 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1333 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-18Read full judgment →
- Seth PEHLAJ RAI vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (III) BALUCHISTAN AND 51978 PLD Quetta 146 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
- ZARDOSH KHAN vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 787 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-10Read full judgment →
- SERVIS INDUSTRIES LTD., LAHORE THROUGH ITS MANAGER vs Syed MEHMOOD1978 PLC 466 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-01-05Read full judgment →
- SEER ZAMAN vs MUHAMMAD AZAD AND Another1978 SCMR 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the complainant Sher Zaman against the grant of bail to the respondent Muhammad Azad by the High Court in a case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting post-arrest bail on the ground of a protracted period of incarceration and delayed trial. The Supreme Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court in releasing the accused on bail after prolonged detention and anticipated trial delay was neither illegal nor perverse. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the bail granted to the accused.
Questions settled- Whether prolonged incarceration without the prospect of an early trial constitutes sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- When can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail?
- SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, N: W. F. P. GOVERNMENT, PESHAWAR AND 21978 PLD Supreme Court 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a Peshawar High Court judgment regarding the retrospective application of an amendment to the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. The core legal question was whether the amendment to Standing Order 12, which increased the gratuity rate from 15 to 20 days' wages, applied to the entire period of service for workmen whose services were terminated after the amendment's promulgation. The Supreme Court held that while the amendment is not retrospective in creating new rights for past terminations, it is prospective in operation. Consequently, for any workman whose services are terminated after the amendment, the new rate of 20 days' wages applies to their entire period of completed service. The Court established that a statute is not retrospective merely because it uses past facts, such as years of service, as the basis for calculating a benefit that accrues after the enactment. The presumption against retrospectivity applies to the accrual of the right, not the quantum calculation for rights accruing after the law's commencement.
Questions settled- Does the calculation of gratuity based on past years of service render a statutory amendment retrospective?
- Is the amendment to Standing Order 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 retrospective?
- Are workmen whose services are terminated after the promulgation of the amending Ordinance entitled to gratuity at the enhanced rate for their entire period of service?
- SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS & WORKS1978 PLC 158 · Labour Court · 1976-02-23Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (WEST PAKISTAN) NOW N: W. F. P. DEPARTMENT1978 PLD Supreme Court 264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application filed under Order XLIX, rule 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Pakistan by the respondent, seeking leave to amend his plaint to include a prayer for consequential relief in the form of a money decree. The core legal question was whether such an amendment, intended to align the pleadings with the relief already granted by the lower courts, would fundamentally alter the nature or subject matter of the suit. The Supreme Court held that while courts should liberally allow amendments to pleadings to ensure complete justice, such amendments must not change the suit's character. The Court permitted the amendment but restricted the claim to the quantity of timber originally pleaded (42,000 units) rather than the higher amount erroneously decreed by the lower courts, noting that a trial court cannot decree an amount exceeding the pleaded claim without a formal amendment. The key principle established is that while procedural flexibility exists to facilitate justice, amendments must remain consistent with the original subject matter and factual claims asserted by the plaintiff.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff amend a plaint to add a prayer for consequential relief if the lower courts have already granted such relief?
- Does the amendment of a plaint to include a prayer for consequential relief necessarily change the nature or subject matter of the suit?
- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to decree an amount in excess of what was claimed in the original plaint without an amendment?
- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (WEST PAKISTAN) NOW N.-W. F. P. DEPARTMENT1978 PLD Supreme Court 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over a timber contract where the government confiscated the respondent's security and timber after a failure to complete operations within the stipulated time. The respondent sued for a declaration, claiming the government's action was illegal because an extension had been granted. The trial court and High Court decreed the suit, granting a money decree despite the original plaint only seeking a declaration. The core legal questions were whether the Chief Conservator of Forests was the competent authority to grant the extension and whether a money decree could be passed in a suit for mere declaration without amending the plaint. The Supreme Court held that the government was bound by its admission in the written statement regarding the Chief Conservator's authority. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, cannot result in a money decree without a prayer for consequential relief. Consequently, while allowing the amendment of the plaint to include the money claim, the Court restricted the decree to the amount originally claimed, rejecting the excess awarded by lower courts.
Questions settled- Can a court grant a money decree in a suit filed solely for a declaratory decree without an amendment to the plaint?
- Is a party permitted to withdraw an admission made in a written statement by amending the pleadings?
- Does Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow a court to grant a relief larger than that claimed in the plaint?
- What is the effect of a failure to pray for consequential relief in a suit filed under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Sbeikh REHMAT ALI AND Another vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 510 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
- SATT BHARI vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL1978 PLD Lahore 993 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-14Read full judgment →
- SARWAR KHAN vs TEM STATE1978 P Cr. L J 574 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-08Read full judgment →
- SARWAR KHAN ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 877 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
- SARTAJ INDUSTRIES LTD. vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 5 OTHERS1978 PLC 207 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-12-13Read full judgment →
- SARFARAZ ALL vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 621 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
- SARDARAN BIB1 vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 758(2) · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-23Read full judgment →
- Sardar SIKANDAR MAYA I' KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 12 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-11-06Read full judgment →
- Sardar SALEEM HAIDER AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 187 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 29 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-29Read full judgment →
- Sardar MUHAMMAD JAFFAR KHAN LAGHARI- Petitioner vs The ELECTIONPLD 1978 Lahore 76 . · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-19Read full judgment →
- Sardar MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs SARKAR1978 PLD Azad J & K 8 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-04-16Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 748 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-27Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN AND 4 OTHER vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, MULTAN1978 PLC 264 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-10-28Read full judgment →
- SARDAR KHAN alias SARDARA vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL AND 4 0THERS1978 P Cr. L J 266 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
- SARDAR BAIG vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 690 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arose from a murder reference and criminal appeal filed by Sardar Baig, who was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Sharif Baig and for causing gunshot injuries to five prosecution witnesses, receiving a death sentence and terms of imprisonment. The central legal question before the High Court was whether the conviction could be sustained when the ocular testimony directly contradicted the medical evidence regarding the distance from which the shots were fired and the victim's capacity to move after sustaining fatal injuries.
The High Court rejected the appellant's defence version as absurd. However, upon scrutinizing the prosecution's case, the court observed that the medical evidence proved the gunshot wounds had blackened margins (indicating a range of under four feet) and caused instantaneous death, contradicting the eye-witnesses and site plan which claimed the shots were fired from 56–57 feet away and that the deceased ran 77–80 feet afterward. Reaffirming the principle that where medical evidence directly contradicts ocular testimony on material points, medical evidence must be preferred, the High Court held it unsafe to rely on the twisted testimony of the witnesses. The appeal was accepted and the appellant acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether medical evidence must be preferred when it directly contradicts ocular testimony on material aspects of an occurrence?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular evidence where eyewitnesses give a false version of the manner of occurrence to negate potential self-defence?
- What is the evidentiary effect on the prosecution case when expert medical testimony proves the victim's death was instantaneous, contradicting eyewitness claims that the victim ran after being shot?
- Sardar ASHIQ MUHAMMAD KHAN MAZARI AND 2 OTHERS vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 878 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
- Sardar ASHIQ MUHAMMAD KHAN MAZARI AND 2 Other vs CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL1978 PLD Lahore 878 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
- SARDAR AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 238 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
- SAMIUL HAQ vs SETHI STRAW BOARD MILLS LTD1978 PLC 109 · Labour Court · 1975-12-28Read full judgment →
- SAMIN KHAN vs LAND COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR DIVISION, PESHAWAR AND Other1978 SCMR 459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had upheld an order by the Land Commissioner cancelling the allotment of a plot of land. The core legal question was whether the allotment of land to the petitioner's predecessor-in-title was valid, given that the site had been occupied by a primary school since 1926. The Supreme Court held that the allotment was ab initio illegal and void because the land, being occupied by a school, did not constitute 'land' subject to resumption and allotment under Martial Law Regulation No. 64. The Court affirmed that the Land Commissioner correctly cancelled the allotment upon discovering the manipulation of revenue records. The key principle laid down is that where an allotment is procured through the concealment of material facts—specifically that the property was not subject to land reform regulations—the allotment is void ab initio, and the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction to protect such an illegally obtained title.
Questions settled- Can an allotment of land be sustained if the property was not subject to land reform regulations at the time of resumption?
- Does the existence of a public institution like a school on a plot of land preclude its classification as 'land' under Martial Law Regulation No. 64?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an order cancelling an allotment that was procured through the manipulation of revenue records?
- SALIMUDDIN AHMED MUFTI vs ABDUL AZIZ Accused1978 P Cr. L J 287 · Drug Court · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →