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.
- NASAR JAVED vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 99 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
- NAQIBULLAH AND Anons vs THE STATE1978 PLD Supreme Court 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the convictions and death sentences of two appellants for murder, primarily based on their retracted judicial confessions. The Supreme Court examined the admissibility and evidentiary value of these confessions, the sufficiency of corroborative evidence, and the impact of procedural irregularities. The Court affirmed that while confessions, even if retracted, can form the sole basis of conviction if found true and voluntary, prudence dictates material corroboration. It reiterated that instructions for magistrates in recording confessions are directory, not mandatory, but emphasize a solemn duty to ensure voluntariness. The Court found the corroboration for Wasal Khan's confession, based on 'last seen' evidence, insufficient, especially as he was not questioned on this circumstance under Section 342, Cr.P.C. Similarly, the medical evidence of injuries on Naqibullah was deemed conjectural and not conclusively linked to the incident. Consequently, the Court granted the benefit of doubt, setting aside the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for conviction in a criminal case?
- What is the evidentiary value of 'last seen' evidence in a murder trial?
- Is non-compliance with Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, a mere irregularity or a fatal flaw?
- What precautions must a Magistrate take to ensure a confession is voluntary and admissible?
- How should medical evidence of injuries on an accused be assessed for corroboration in a murder case?
- NAJ1B RAZA REHMANI vs THE STATE1978 PLD Supreme Court 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The case against the appellant rested entirely on an unseen crime, supported solely by an alleged judicial confession (Exh. P. Z.) and a letter (Exh. 18). The trial court and the Peshawar High Court convicted the appellant, holding that the retracted confession was corroborated by the letter and circumstantial evidence. On appeal, the Supreme Court evaluated whether the statement qualified as a confession and whether a retracted confession could sustain a conviction without independent corroboration in material particulars.
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and allowed the appeal. The Court held that a statement containing self-exculpatory facts—specifically, that the appellant fired at the deceased in exercise of the right of private defence under Section 100, PPC to prevent an attempt to commit sodomy—does not constitute a confession. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a confession or admission cannot be split up to accept inculpatory parts while rejecting exculpatory parts, nor can a retracted confession form the sole basis of conviction without material corroboration.
Questions settled- Whether a statement containing self-exculpatory facts that negative the alleged offence can legally constitute a valid confession?
- Can a court split an accused's admission or confession to accept the inculpatory portion while rejecting the exculpatory portion?
- Is it prudent to base a criminal conviction solely on an uncorroborated retracted confession?
- NAIK RIAZ vs MUHAMMAD KHAN AND Another1978 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a review petition filed by the applicant Riaz, seeking review of an order granting leave to appeal against his acquittal for murder and directing the issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest. The core legal question concerned the effect of a defective notice containing an incorrect parentage of the respondent, which allegedly violated Order VI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules and resulted in the respondent being condemned unheard. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that although a clerical mistake occurred in addressing the notice to the wrong parentage, it did not render the leave-granting order coram non judice, particularly as counsel for the applicant did not challenge the leave order itself but rather the issuance of warrants. The Court further held that given the daylight occurrence, the specific attribution of the fatal shot, and the nature of the capital offence, the issuance of non-bailable warrants was entirely appropriate. The key principle laid down is that minor clerical errors in notices that do not invalidate the core proceedings do not warrant setting aside leave to appeal, and non-bailable warrants remain justified in serious capital cases where prima facie a daylight murder is properly attributed to the accused.
Questions settled- Does an incorrect parentage in a notice sent to a respondent render an order granting leave to appeal coram non judice?
- Whether non-bailable warrants of arrest are justified when granting leave to appeal against an acquittal in a daylight murder case?
- Can an order granting leave to appeal be reviewed solely on the ground of a clerical error in the notice addressed to the respondent?
- NAIB SUBEDAR AHMED KHAN vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. JHELUM1978 PLD Lahore 794 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
- NAGARIA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs MOHAMMAD ZADA1978 PLC 457 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
- NABI BAKHSH vs ALI BAKHSH1978 PLD (Rev). 15 · Board of Revenue · 1977-09-19Read full judgment →
- M: FAZAL BI AND 8 OTHERSRepondent vs GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 5 OTHERS1978 PLD SC (A I & K) 57 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-01-25Read full judgment →
- MUTTAQI HUSSAIN RIZVI vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 703 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Suo motu civil revision before the Sindh High Court examining whether a civil suit challenging a civil servant's reversion and seeking promotion to Grade 17 was maintainable before the civil court. The respondent had been reverted from Sub-Divisional Officer to Sub-Engineer pursuant to a departmental inquiry and had filed a civil suit for a declaration and injunction. The High Court held that the order of reversion arose directly from disciplinary proceedings under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973, falling squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under the Sind Service Tribunals Act 1973, and civil court jurisdiction was expressly barred by Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court further ruled that while promotion itself is not a vested right that can be enforced through courts, the right to be considered for promotion when eligible is a vested right. Because the respondent did not possess the required degree and was ineligible, his claim was untenable. The revision was allowed and the plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters challenging a civil servant's reversion resulting from a departmental inquiry?
- Whether a civil servant has a vested right to promotion to a higher post or grade that can be enforced by a civil suit or writ petition?
- Whether an eligible civil servant possesses a vested right to be considered for promotion enforceable through the courts when excluded from the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction?
- Does the word 'eligible' in Section 9 of the Sind Civil Servants Act 1973 mean entitled to promotion as of right?
- MUSTAFA R. C. C. PIPE WORKS vs If#$ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXPLD 1978 Karmil! 483 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
- MUSTAFA KHAN AND Another vs Hakim ABDUL MUGHANI AHD 3 Other1978 SCMR 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the transfer of evacuee property, specifically whether property No. 24 constituted a separate property or a rear portion of property No. 43 transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The core legal question revolved around the entitlement of the petitioner to the property in dispute and the validity of his withdrawal of his transfer form. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition lacked merit as the petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn his L.H. Form, thereby relinquishing any claim to the property, and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's factual findings after spot inspection contained no error of law. The court established the principle that a party who has formally withdrawn their transfer form has no subsisting claim or locus standi for the transfer of the property, and factual determinations made by settlement authorities following spot inspections and supported by record will not be lightly interfered with.
Questions settled- Does a claimant who has withdrawn their L.H. Form retain any right to seek the transfer of evacuee property?
- Can the High Court interfere with factual determinations made by settlement authorities following a spot inspection in writ jurisdiction?
- MUSTAFA KHAN AND 3 Other vs MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHERS1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 75 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-02-05Read full judgment →
- Mussrs GULZAR CINEMA ETC vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 4 Other1978 PLD Karachi 500 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-24Read full judgment →
- Mussas AHSAN INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs SALEEM ANWAR1978 PLC 421 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-04-18Read full judgment →
- Muss DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs ALFATAH LABOUR UNION1978 PLC 244 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQUE AHMED vs MESSRS GOKUL SHIPPING & TRADING CORPN. LTD., KARACHI1978 PLC 362 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-09Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMED vs Mrs. MUMTAZ ZOHRA RIZVI1978 PLD Karachi 188 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a second appeal arising from concurrent judgments of the lower courts ordering the ejectment of the appellant-tenant from premises owned by the respondent-landlady on the ground of bona fide personal requirement under the West Pakistan Urban Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings regarding the landlady's good faith could be vitiated by her past conduct of enhancing the rent prior to initiating eviction proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were properly reached, as the tenant failed to establish that the rent increases were extorted under compulsion or that the demand for possession lacked honesty. The Court laid down the principle that in personal requirement cases, once the landlord proves the reasonableness of their need, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove dishonesty or mala fides, and the mere fact of a past rent increase, without evidence of an outstanding demand for further enhancement or coercion, does not negate the good faith of the claim. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with a four-month grace period granted to the tenant to vacate.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement can be interfered with in a second appeal?
- What constitutes 'good faith' under the West Pakistan Urban Restriction Ordinance, 1959 in the context of seeking eviction for personal use?
- Does a past enhancement of rent by the landlord prior to instituting eviction proceedings necessarily establish mala fides and defeat a claim of personal requirement?
- Upon whom lies the onus to prove the lack of good faith or dishonesty of purpose when a landlord seeks eviction on the ground of personal need?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL1978 PLC 81 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-10Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD ETC. vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 507 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-04Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD ETC vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 507 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-04Read full judgment →
- MUSHARRAF KHAN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Peshawar 113 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-03-17Read full judgment →
- MUSHARRAF KHAN vs THB STATE1978 PLD Peshawar 113 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-03-17Read full judgment →
- MUSADDAQ AHAD SHAH vs FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, KARACHI1978 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition against the cancellation of his candidature for the Central Superior Service Examination by the Federal Public Service Commission. The core legal question was whether a candidate who appeared in an LL.B. examination before the application deadline, was placed in a compartment, and subsequently cleared the remaining papers in a subsequent examination before the viva voce test, satisfied the eligibility and provisional application requirements under Note (ii) of Condition No. 5 of the examination rules. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent appearance in the remaining papers was merely a supplementary examination completing the original result, rather than a separate self-contained examination, and that the appellant had fulfilled the requirements by communicating his passed result prior to the viva voce test. The Court declared the cancellation of candidature without lawful authority, establishing that clearing a compartment in a supplementary examination in continuation of an earlier examination satisfies provisional eligibility timelines.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent appearance in remaining papers to clear a compartment constitute a separate self-contained examination or a continuation of the original examination?
- Whether provisional candidature for a competitive examination remains valid when a candidate clears a compartment and communicates the passing result before the viva voce test?
- MUREEDA vs ABDUL KARIM1978 P Cr. L J 785 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-26Read full judgment →
- MURAD vs MUHAMMAD ASLAMPLD 1978 Rev. 17 (Punjab) · Board of Revenue · 1977-08-21Read full judgment →
- MURAD BAKHSH vs FIDA HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 412 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-17Read full judgment →
- MUNSIF SHAH vs The STATE1978 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
- MUNSHI vs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KARACHI1978 PLC 392 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-09-12Read full judgment →
- Munshi MIR ZAMAN KHAN vs COLLECTOR, POONCH AND ANOTHER1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 129 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-02-27Read full judgment →
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JHANG vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1978 PLD Lahore 498 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-16Read full judgment →
- Munhi MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN AND ANOTHER vs KHADAM HUSSAIN1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 73 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-02-25Read full judgment →
- Munhi ALLAH DITTA vs PUNJAB PROVINCE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 81 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1974-11-18Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. BILORA BI AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLD SC(A 1 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-11-02Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR DIN vs GUL ZAMAN1978 P Cr. L J 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-06-23Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZUDDIN vs THE STATEPLD 1978. Supreme Court 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness and alleged recoveries of incriminating items. The central legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained based on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness whose testimony contained significant discrepancies and infirmities, and whether the corroborative evidence provided was sufficient to support such a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be maintained. The Court observed that while a conviction may theoretically rest on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness, as a rule of prudence, such evidence must be absolutely reliable or corroborated by independent, high-probative evidence. In this case, the eye-witness's testimony was inconsistent, the motive was unproven, and the corroborative evidence, consisting of recoveries proved only by the Investigation Officer, was insufficient to cure the infirmities in the ocular account. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that where the prosecution's case is heavily flawed, the corroborative evidence must be of substantial probative value.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness without independent corroboration?
- What is the required standard of corroborative evidence when the primary ocular testimony is found to be unreliable?
- Is the evidence of an Investigation Officer alone sufficient to prove the recovery of incriminating articles in a murder case?
- Mums Mob MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX1978 PLD Karachi 414 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-17Read full judgment →
- MULTAN COTTON INDUSTRIES, MULTAN vs MEHNAT KASH UNION1978 PLC 97 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-20Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR HASSAN vs MAJOR KHAWAR HUSSAIN ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1353 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-16Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs MUZAFFAR QADIR AND OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs MUZAFFAR QADIR AND Other1978 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-25Read full judgment →
- MUJIBUNNISA BEGUM AND 4 Other vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SANGHAR AND 6 Other1978 PLD Karachi 979 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-14Read full judgment →
- MUHMMAD SALEEM RANA AND Another vs Sh. SALEEM HASSAN AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 521 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs SULTAN KHAN AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs SULTAN KHAN AND 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 981 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAFAR vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 412 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUNUS vs SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD., LAHORE -1978 PLC 323 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1977-05-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs Hakim MUHAMMAD AHMAD AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 815 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUSConvict vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 82 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 82 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AND ANOTHERS vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 723 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AND Another vs MUHAMMAD YAQOOB AND 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 723 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs THE SATE1978 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed the appellant's appeal and enhanced his sentence from life imprisonment to death for a murder committed under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the solitary eyewitness was present at the spot and whether his testimony, corroborated only by the appellant's abscondence and the absence of motive for a false charge, was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the solitary eyewitness was not present at the time of the occurrence, given numerous inconsistencies in his statement, the sketchy nature of the First Information Report, the lack of blood or weapon evidence at the spot, and contradictions with the medical evidence. The Court laid down the principle that abscondence is merely a piece of corroborative evidence which by itself proves nothing and cannot substitute for reliable ocular testimony, and that a conviction cannot be sustained on an unsafe and doubtful eyewitness account.
Questions settled- Whether abscondence alone is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused person in the absence of reliable ocular evidence?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness whose presence at the scene is rendered doubtful by material contradictions and attending circumstances?
- Does the non-existence of motive for a false charge automatically validate the prosecution's case against the accused?
- MUHAMMAD YASIN vs The STATE1978 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was upheld by the High Court based solely on a dying declaration after ocular testimony and recoveries were disbelieved. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction for murder can be safely based solely on a dying declaration when parts of it are found to be false and tainted by potential tutoring in the presence of interested relatives without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that while a conviction can be based solely on a dying declaration if it is free from taint, a dying declaration found to be partly false and recorded in circumstances allowing for tutoring requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant on the benefit of the doubt, laying down the principle that uncorroborated dying declarations that are partly false or tainted cannot form the sole basis for a capital conviction.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be based solely on a dying declaration?
- Whether a partly false dying declaration requires independent corroboration before it can be relied upon for a conviction?
- Is it safe to base a murder conviction on an uncorroborated dying declaration recorded in the presence of the deceased's relatives?
- MUHAMMAD YASIN vs MAQSOOD AHMAD1978 PLD Lahore 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 812 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 4(1)(b) of the Passports Act 1974. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner travelled to Dubai from Pakistan without a valid passport and was subsequently deported and arrested. The petitioner contended that because Section 7 of the Passports Act 1974 grants only a qualified power of arrest to officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, the offence is non-cognizable. Consequently, the investigation conducted by the Federal Investigation Agency without a Magistrate's permission under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was a nullity. The High Court of Sindh held that a qualified power of arrest excludes general powers of arrest and does not render an offence cognizable. The inclusion of the Passports Act 1974 in the Schedule of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 does not convert non-cognizable offences into cognizable ones. Since the investigation was conducted without the requisite permission, it was a nullity, and the resulting police report could not be treated as a valid complaint. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a qualified power of arrest granted to specific police officers under a special statute render an otherwise non-cognizable offence cognizable under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the inclusion of a special statute in the Schedule of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 automatically convert non-cognizable offences under that statute into cognizable ones?
- Can an investigation conducted into a non-cognizable offence without the permission of a Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 form a valid basis for prosecution?
- Can a police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a non-cognizable case investigated without authorization be treated as a valid complaint under Section 4(1)(h) of the Code?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs SULEMAN1978 PLD Karachi 515 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB AND Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1978 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the verification of land claims by refugees from India, specifically concerning the 'Ghair Mahfooz' portion of Shamlat land. The petitioners challenged a High Court order that had disposed of their writ petition based on a consent agreement between the parties' counsel. The core legal question was whether a consent order, which resolved a long-standing dispute regarding land allotments based on the principle of priority in time, could be challenged or reviewed after the parties had agreed to its terms in open court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the subsequent review application, as the original order was a consent order dictated in the presence of the petitioners' counsel. The Court affirmed that it is inappropriate to reopen a matter that has been conclusively settled by the mutual agreement of the parties. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, establishing the principle that consent orders, being binding agreements between parties, are not subject to review or appeal on the merits of the underlying dispute.
Questions settled- Can a consent order passed by a High Court be challenged or reviewed?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against a consent order?
- Does a court have justification to review an order that was dictated in the presence of the parties' counsel and agreed upon by them?
- MUHAMMAD vs LALU AND 14 OTHERS1978 PLD Rey. 23 · Board of Revenue · 1977-07-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD USMAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 76 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD USMAN vs RABAN AND 4 Other1978 SCMR 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, whereby four respondents accused of double murder under sections 302, 34, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code were granted post-arrest bail, while the bail application of their co-accused Rajab was rejected. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail to co-accused where medical evidence and circumstances suggest the fatal injuries on the deceased were inflicted by a single assailant, supporting the High Court's view regarding the motive. The Supreme Court held that the impugned bail order of the High Court was unexceptionable and declined to interfere, noting that observations made in bail orders do not prejudice the trial court, which must decide the case strictly on evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted to co-accused when medical evidence indicates fatal injuries were inflicted by a single assailant?
- Do observations made by a superior court in a bail order prejudice the subsequent trial of the accused?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with an order granting post-arrest bail passed by the High Court?
- MUHAMMAD USMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER vs MIRAJ DIN AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 790 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed in default, leading the plaintiffs to file an application for its restoration alongside an application for a temporary injunction. The trial court dismissed the injunction application as incompetent due to the absence of a pending suit, a view upheld by the lower appellate court which also rejected the applicability of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question addressed is whether a court can grant a temporary injunction under its inherent powers when a suit is not formally pending but an application for its restoration is under consideration. The Lahore High Court held that while Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 apply strictly to pending suits, the court retains inherent powers under section 151 to grant interim relief to prevent the frustration of potential restoration and to maintain the status quo in the interest of justice. The key principle laid down is that inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be invoked to issue a temporary injunction during restoration proceedings when Order XXXIX does not apply.
Questions settled- Can a temporary injunction be granted under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a suit has been dismissed and is only subject to a restoration application?
- Whether the inherent powers of a court under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be invoked to issue a temporary injunction during the pendency of an application for the restoration of a dismissed suit?
- Does an appellate court deal with a matter in its revisional jurisdiction when no such objection was raised or noticed in the proceedings before it?
- MUHAMMAD UMAR vs ROKHAN AND Other1978 SCMR 9 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMAR AND 3 Other vs Munshi YAR MUHAMMAD1978 PLD Quetta 107 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 797 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 5 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 87 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 5 Other1978 PLD Lahore 87 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs MANAGER SADIQABAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MULTAN1978 PLC 252 · Labour Court · 1975-09-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SULEMAN ETC vs ABDUL GHANI1978 PLD Supreme Court 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioners against a sale dated 19-2-1973. A preliminary objection was raised that a right of pre-emption did not exist in the colony area where the land was situated, pursuant to a notification under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913. Although a subsequent notification rescinding the prohibition was issued on 19-2-1973, it was published in the official Gazette on 2-3-1973. The Civil Judge rejected the plaint, a decision reversed by the Additional District Judge, but restored by the Lahore High Court, which held that the notification took effect upon publication in the Gazette. The Supreme Court examined whether a declaration under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 required publication in the official Gazette to become effective. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the term "notification" under the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 1956 means publication in the official Gazette, and notifications curtailing or extending citizens' rights cannot take retrospective effect prior to such publication.
Questions settled- Does a notification issued under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 take effect from the date of its signing or from the date of its publication in the official Gazette?
- What is the legal definition and requirement of a "notification" under the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 1956?
- Can a notification affecting the rights of citizens be given retrospective operation prior to its actual publication in the official Gazette?
- MUHAMMAD SUBTAIN SHAH vs The STATE1978 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of offenses under sections 447, 440, 342, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The allegations involved the petitioner and others trespassing on the complainant's land, destroying crops, and wrongfully confining an individual. The petitioner contended that the case was malicious, arguing that the land was barren, the crop destruction story was fabricated, and that civil disputes regarding land possession were pending. The core legal question was whether the High Court's refusal to grant pre-arrest bail was justified given the petitioner's claims of innocence and malicious prosecution. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's arguments required a factual inquiry inappropriate for bail proceedings. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the grant of bail is a discretionary matter, and since the High Court had not exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously, there was no ground for interference. The judgment reinforces the principle that factual controversies should not be resolved during bail hearings.
Questions settled- Can a court conduct a detailed inquiry into factual matters while deciding a bail application?
- Is the grant of bail a discretionary matter that appellate courts will only interfere with if exercised arbitrarily or capriciously?
- Does the existence of a pending civil dispute regarding land ownership automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving trespass?
- MUHAMMAD SIRAJ vs PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, LABOUR AND SOCIAL WELFARE, ISLAMABAD AND 4 Other1978 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court at Dacca dismissing the petitioner's writ petition against his removal from government service for misconduct. The petitioner contended that respondent No. 4, who initiated disciplinary proceedings and removed him, was not his appointing authority and lacked jurisdiction, and that any delegation of such power by the Ministry of Health was ultra vires. The Supreme Court held that the petition was competent despite the creation of Bangladesh since it was filed before its recognition and the respondents were based in Pakistan, and condoned the delay in filing due to abnormal conditions in East Pakistan. On the merits, the Court found that the competent authority had validly delegated disciplinary powers to respondent No. 4 through relevant government notifications issued in consultation with the Establishment Division under the Rules of Business, 1962. The Court further held that the petitioner was afforded a full opportunity to defend himself. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a subordinate authority can be validly delegated disciplinary powers to initiate proceedings and remove a civil servant?
- Whether delay in filing a petition from the former East Pakistan can be condoned in view of abnormal historical conditions?
- Whether consultation with the Establishment Division under the Rules of Business, 1962 is necessary for the delegation of disciplinary powers concerning government servants?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 100 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND Another vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, KARACHI1978 PLD Karachi 384 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Time STATE1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 146 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-06-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 546 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUHAMMAD AMIN DAR1978 PLD Lahore 1273 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 929 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), JAUHARABAD1978 PLD Lahore 774 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Atlas MAULVI vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 699 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF alia MAULVI vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ KHAN AND 2 OTHERS vs The STATE1978 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court whereby the petitioners were refused pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 307, 379, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The allegations against the petitioners were that they made a murderous assault on the complainants, causing multiple firearm and blunt weapon injuries, and robbed a licensed revolver. The core legal question was whether the existence of a cross-case and rival versions of the incident rendered the matter one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby entitling the accused to pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to pre-arrest bail as the case lacked prosecution mala fides and involved serious allegations of a concerted murderous assault with deadly weapons resulting in numerous injuries. The court laid down the principle that the mere existence of a cross-case does not automatically warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail where the accused are charged with serious overt acts involving deadly weapons and causing multiple injuries.
Questions settled- Whether the existence of a cross-case between parties automatically entitles the accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Does a case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely because there are rival versions of the prosecution?
- Are accused persons charged with a murderous assault and causing multiple injuries with deadly weapons entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs ZAHIR HUSSAIN AND ANOTRER1978 PLD Lahore 862 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs ZAH1R HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 862 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 831 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs HASSAN ABBAS KAZMI, ETC1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 30 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1974-11-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs HAKAM ALI AND 7 Other1978 SCMR 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to the respondents in a criminal case involving charges under sections 307, 392, 395, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting post-arrest bail where both parties sustained injuries in the course of the occurrence and cross-versions existed, making it uncertain which party was the aggressor. The Supreme Court held that where members of both sides received injuries and it cannot be determined with certainty at the pre-trial stage which party initiated the aggression, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the High Court's discretion in granting bail will not be interfered with unless found perverse, arbitrary, or capricious. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted when both parties have sustained injuries and it is uncertain which side was the aggressor?
- Does the existence of a cross-version or private complaint make a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion of the High Court in granting bail?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs GHULAM QADIR ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises out of proceedings under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, concerning the redemption of land mortgaged by a local owner to a non-Muslim mortgagee who subsequently migrated to India at Independence. The core legal question was whether the right to redeem the mortgage had become time-barred under Article 148 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, after the expiry of sixty years, and whether the Custodian had the jurisdiction to order redemption. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act regarding limitation periods do not run in favour of the Custodian who merely steps into the shoes of the evacuee mortgagee, and that section 13 of the Limitation Act excludes the time during which the mortgagee was absent from Pakistan. The Court affirmed that the Custodian possesses the power under section 25 read with section 41 of the 1957 Act to allow redemption of such properties. The key principle laid down is that limitation does not extinguish a local mortgagor's right to redeem property from the Custodian upon the mortgagee's migration to India, as the Custodian is not a successor-in-interest for the purpose of claiming limitation benefits.
Questions settled- Whether the period of limitation under Article 148 of the Limitation Act continues to run against a local mortgagor after the evacuee mortgagee has migrated to India?
- Does the Custodian of Evacuee Property qualify as a successor-in-interest entitled to claim the benefit of limitation laws?
- Whether the Custodian has jurisdiction under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 to order the redemption of a mortgage after sixty years from its execution?
- Do Articles 148 and 120 of the Limitation Act apply to applications filed before the Custodian under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI TAHIR vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 177 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 14 OTHERS vs HAYAT KHAN AND 5 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 14 Other vs HAYAT KHAN AND 5 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SEEM KHAN vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 284 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAYYAB KHAN vs AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENTAND 41978 PLC (C. S. T.) 112 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAYAB KHALID: vs MAJOR AURANGZEB KHANNonApplicant1978 PLD Azad J & K 10 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-03-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR ETC. vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION)1978 SCMR 272 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal concerns a dispute over the inheritance of a deceased refugee right-holder, where mutations were sanctioned in favor of one set of heirs while excluding others. The core legal questions were whether the Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a second revision against an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, and whether the provisions of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme permitted the re-opening of inheritance mutations. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's order that the Settlement Commissioner lacked the authority to hear a second revision. The Court upheld the remand to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, directing a fresh decision that balances the petitioners' arguments regarding limitation and laches against the respondents' claims. The Court held that Paragraph 67 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme provides a mechanism for re-determining inheritance claims, recognizing that initial mutations were often provisional and made without the participation of all potential heirs due to the displacement caused by the partition of the subcontinent.
Questions settled- Does a Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to entertain a second revision against an order passed by an Additional Settlement Commissioner?
- Are initial mutations of inheritance for refugee right-holders considered provisional under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
- Can inheritance mutations be re-opened to include heirs who were previously excluded due to the circumstances of partition?
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND 2 Other vs ABDUL LATEEF AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND 2 Other vs ABDUL LATBEF AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →