Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.

• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 57 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GULSHAN AND Others vs MUHAMMAD INAYAT AND Another1978 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-22
  quashment of proceedingscriminal trespassF.I.R.civil disputespecial leave to appealprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court order dismissing a petition for the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners, accused of offences including criminal trespass and assault, argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, concerning the title and possession of land transferred by settlement authorities. They further contended that the allegations in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) did not disclose criminal offences and that they had no knowledge of a High Court stay order regarding the property. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core question of whether criminal proceedings should be quashed when the underlying dispute involves property rights. The Court held that the criminal court is not concerned with the title to the property and that the allegations in the F.I.R. and the challan prima facie disclosed the commission of criminal offences. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the prosecution should not be stifled at the initial stage, and the petitioners' defences must be raised during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed solely on the ground that the underlying dispute is of a civil nature regarding property title?
  • Should a High Court quash criminal proceedings if the F.I.R. and challan prima facie disclose the commission of criminal offences?
  • Is the criminal court the appropriate forum to determine the title to property in a criminal prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAROOQUE KHAN vs MESSRS KARACHI CLUB AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 574 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1978-01-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAIZ RASOOL AND ANOTHER vs NAZIR BEGUM ETC.1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 74 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1977-10-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD EJAZ ALAM AND Another vs CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, PUNJAB UNIVERSITY1978 PLD Lahore 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN vs MESSRS JAN LACE & GENERAL MILLS, KARACHI1978 PLC 181 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTH AND5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 300 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 367 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BIBI vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 483 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BIBI vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD Erc.1978 PLD Lahore 483 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 837 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM1976 PLD SC (A J & k) 71 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs NIZAM DIN1978 PLD Lahore 31 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-30
  dissolution of partnershiprendition of accountslimitation periodLocal Commissionerdelegation of judicial powersecondary evidencecopying agencycivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The core legal questions concerned the computation of the limitation period for filing an appeal when the copying agency fails to provide a specific date for delivery of copies, and the extent to which a court may delegate its fact-finding powers to a Local Commissioner. The court held that where a copying agency fails to provide a specific date for the delivery of copies, the time spent obtaining the copy is calculated until the actual date of delivery, not the date of preparation. Furthermore, the court held that a trial court cannot delegate the determination of material issues to a Local Commissioner; a Commissioner's report is merely evidence for the court's consideration, not a final finding. The court affirmed that the trial court must independently evaluate evidence and cannot rely on inadmissible secondary evidence, such as unverified photostat copies. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to decide the matter on its merits without further reliance on improper delegation of judicial functions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the time spent obtaining a copy for an appeal include the period until actual delivery if the copying agency fails to provide a specific date for preparation?
  • Can a trial court delegate the determination of material issues in a suit to a Local Commissioner?
  • Is a photostat copy of a photostat copy of a certified copy admissible as secondary evidence under the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Must a trial court independently evaluate evidence rather than treating a Local Commissioner's report as a final finding?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs DIN MUHAMMAD ETC.1978 P Cr. L J 749 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM vs NATIONAL BANK OP PAKISTAN, GUIRANWALA1978 PLC 212 · Labour Court · 1976-03-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 889 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ATIQ vs THB STATE1978 P Cr. L J 375 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM BODLA AND 5 OTHERS vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 323 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM BODLA AND 5 Other vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 323 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Another vs THE STATE1978 PLD Supreme Court 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-18
  Summary & questions settled

  The provided judgment text is extremely brief, consisting only of the phrase "ORDER OF THE COURT S. A. H." It does not contain any details regarding the nature of the matter, the core legal questions addressed, the court's decision or holding (ratio decidendi), or any legal principles laid down. Consequently, it is not possible to construct a factual headnote of the requested length or content based solely on the information provided in the judgment text.

  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 6 OTHLRS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 597 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 6 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 796 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 6 Other vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 796 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAFConvict vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1087 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1452 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE1978 PLC 34 · Labour Court · 1975-03-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNTAENT OF PUNJAB AND 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 214 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 214 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHID vs IYAZ KHAN AND OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 919 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs Mian HABIBUR REHMAN1978 PLD Lahore 990 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ETC. vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ETC vs MUHAMMAD SARWAR Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND 7 Other vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 94 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs MUHAMMAD NAZIR Alias BILLA AND AHOTHER1978 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-14
  murderacquittalresiled witnessestransferred evidencecriminal revisionretrialleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld the acquittal of the respondent for murder by the Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution case rested on an eyewitness account where witnesses initially supported the prosecution under Section 164 and during commitment proceedings, but resiled at the trial and were declared hostile, leading to their earlier statements being transferred to the sessions file under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether such transferred statements could serve as the basis for conviction in light of attendant circumstances, and whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the acquittal or order a retrial. The Supreme Court held that while transferred statements can form the basis of a conviction if evaluated with care and caution, ordering a retrial at this stage would be an exercise in futility because amendments introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1971 and subsequent ordinances omitted the provision corresponding to Section 288, meaning the prior statements could no longer be treated as substantive evidence in a fresh trial. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of statements transferred to the sessions file under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when eyewitnesses resile at trial?
  • Whether the superior courts should interfere with an acquittal order in revision when the trial court's view of the evidence is not perverse or whimsical?
  • Is it appropriate to order a retrial when subsequent legislative amendments have omitted the statutory provision under which the previous evidence was admitted?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ vs MUHAMMAD TAHIR1978 SC M R 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-10
  evictionwilful defaultrent arrearspublic auctiondisplaced personsleave to appeallandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's second appeal against an eviction order. The respondent, having purchased the disputed property through a public auction, sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment, damage to the property, and personal bona fide need. The petitioner contended that the eviction application was incompetent for failing to specify the rent amount and argued that his non-payment of rent was not wilful due to the pendency of a separate constitutional petition challenging the respondent's title. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. It held that the eviction application sufficiently specified the rent arrears. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner’s long-standing indifference and failure to pay rent for thirteen years, despite having full knowledge of the auction and the cancellation of his own claim, constituted wilful default. Consequently, the Court affirmed the eviction order, ruling that the petitioner could not rely on the pendency of collateral litigation to justify prolonged non-payment of rent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a constitutional petition regarding property title justify a tenant's failure to pay rent?
  • Is an eviction application incompetent if it fails to specify the exact quantum of rent?
  • Does a tenant's long-standing indifference regarding property title disputes constitute wilful default in rent payment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR Convict vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 729 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 657 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD DAUD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Quetta 187 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-06-28
  territorial jurisdictioncriminal trialsuo motu powersscheduled offencesCriminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinanceconclusion of trialreference to Deputy Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the orders of an Additional Sessions Judge who, during a dacoity trial, suo motu questioned his territorial jurisdiction and subsequently referred the case to the Deputy Commissioner under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. The petitioner contended that the court could not raise the jurisdiction issue suo motu and that, as the trial had effectively concluded with the closing of evidence, the court lacked the authority to make such a reference. The High Court held that a court has a primary, independent duty to ensure it possesses jurisdiction before proceeding, and it may raise this issue suo motu at any stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a trial does not terminate until the pronouncement of judgment; therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge retained the authority to refer the case. The Court established the principle that a trial conducted without jurisdiction is legally void, and the statutory power to refer a case to the Deputy Commissioner remains exercisable until the final judgment is rendered.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court suo motu raise the question of its own jurisdiction to try an offence?
  • Does a criminal trial conclude before the pronouncement of judgment?
  • Can a court refer a case to the Deputy Commissioner under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, after the evidence has been closed but before judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AQIL vs SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 649 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-29
  industrial disputeworkman definitionwrit jurisdictionlabour courtstanding ordersdiscretionary reliefindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which reversed a Labour Court's decision granting reinstatement to the petitioner. The petitioner, an Incharge of a Printing Section, sought relief under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, claiming status as a "workman" entitled to protections under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core questions were whether the petitioner qualified as a "workman" and whether an order under Section 34 constituted an appealable "award" or a non-appealable "decision." The Court held that the petitioner, engaged in supervisory duties, was not a "workman" under the Standing Orders Ordinance. Furthermore, it ruled that an order under Section 34 is a "decision," not an "award," as it enforces pre-existing rights rather than adjudicating an industrial dispute. Although the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to set aside the order, as doing so would perpetuate an illegal reinstatement. The principle established is that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be used to restore an order that is substantively unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person employed in a supervisory capacity a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does an order passed by a Labour Court under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, constitute an 'award' or a 'decision'?
  • Can a High Court refuse to set aside an order passed without jurisdiction if doing so would perpetuate an injustice?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN1978 PLD Lahore 1330 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 716 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-10
  court-feeFamily Courtad valoremmemorandum of appealstatutory interpretationdower and maintenancecivil court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order by a District Judge requiring the payment of ad valorem court-fee on a memorandum of appeal filed against a Family Court decree for dower and maintenance. The petitioner argued that the nominal court-fee of one rupee, applicable to plaints under Section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, should extend to appeals. The Court held that the exemption provided in Section 19 is strictly limited to the 'plaint' and does not encompass the 'memorandum of appeal.' Applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Court reasoned that the legislature’s explicit mention of 'plaint' necessarily excluded appeals from the concession. Furthermore, the Court determined that a Family Court functions as a civil court, and appeals filed before a District Court are subject to the general provisions of the Court Fees Act 1872. Consequently, the memorandum of appeal must be stamped ad valorem according to Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act 1872, as the legislature intended to discourage vexatious litigation after the initial decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does the nominal court-fee of one rupee prescribed for plaints in Family Courts under Section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 apply to memoranda of appeal?
  • Is a Family Court considered a civil court for the purposes of the Court Fees Act 1872?
  • Does the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius apply to the interpretation of Section 19 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR ETC. vs QADIR ETC.S1978 SCMR 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-14
  petition for leave to appeallimitationcondonation of delayreview applicationabatementlegal representatives
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition and a subsequent order dismissing a review application. The core legal question concerned whether a writ petition could be decided in the absence of the petitioners and whether a review application could be treated as an application under Order XXII, Rule 9(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court held that the petition against the main judgment was hopelessly barred by 432 days with no sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay. Furthermore, the Court held that a point not urged before the High Court could not be permitted to be taken up for the first time before the Supreme Court, and the review application was rightly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that new legal grounds or points not raised before the lower court cannot be urged for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal, and a time-barred challenge without sufficient cause cannot be entertained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal barred by a long delay can be entertained without showing sufficient cause for condonation?
  • Can a party raise a new legal point for the first time before the Supreme Court that was not urged before the High Court?
  • Whether a review application can be treated as an application under Order XXII, Rule 9(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when it was not urged as such before the lower court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 302 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY1978 PLD Lahore 926 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN vs GUJRANWALA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK1978 PLC 164 · Labour Court · 1975-11-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN BALUCH vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND ANOTHERs1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 106 · Balochistan Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN AND OTHERS vs SHAMROZ KHAN AND OTHERS1978 PLD Peshawar 141 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-10-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN AND Other vs SHAMROZ KHAN AND Other1978 PLD Peshawar 141 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-10-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 200 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN AND 3 Others vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND Another1978 SCMR 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-07-19
  ejectmentdefault in rentservice of noticeDisplaced Persons Actsecond appealconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the ejectment of tenants from a property transferred by the Settlement Department. The respondents, having acquired the property, issued a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, to the petitioners, who subsequently defaulted on rent payments for two years. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The petitioners challenged the service of the statutory notice, alleging the recipient was illiterate and unable to sign the acknowledgment, and contested the High Court's view regarding the necessity of Section 30 notice following the repeal of the 1958 Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the factual findings regarding the service of notice were concurrently decided against the petitioners by the lower courts and could not be re-agitated. Furthermore, the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the legal question regarding the necessity of notice post-repeal, as the evidence confirmed the notice was duly served and the default was established, justifying the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a finding of fact regarding the service of a notice be agitated in a second appeal?
  • Does the failure to produce a witness to testify on the authenticity of a signature on an acknowledgment due card preclude a finding of valid service?
  • Is an eviction order justified where a tenant defaults on rent payments after receiving a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN AND 10 OTHERS vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN AND 10 Other vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALTAF AND 2 OTHERS vs SIDDIQUE SHAH AND 2 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 744 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD Alias MAMMI ETC vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALIAND 12 Other vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, FAISALABAD AND 31978 PLD Lahore 1325 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD alia MAMMI ETC. vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 9 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1977-03-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS BOARD, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 1 · Labour Court · 1975-02-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 73 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI AND 12 OTHERS vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, FAISALABAD AND 31978 PLD Lahore 1325 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI alias MAMMI vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 859 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs ATTAULLAH KHAN RANA AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 727 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM BUTT vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-12
  natural justicedepartmental inquirybiasright to cross-examinationmisconductservice lawIndustrial Relations Ordinanceadequate alternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a railway servant, challenged his removal from service, alleging bias in the inquiry committee and a lack of evidence to support the charges of misconduct. The core legal questions were whether the inquiry was vitiated by the alleged bias of a committee member and whether the denial of the right to cross-examine key witnesses violated the principles of natural justice. The High Court held that the inquiry was fundamentally flawed. The court ruled that an unrepudiated allegation of bias against an inquiry officer, coupled with the reliance on ex parte reports without examining the complainant or witnesses, constituted a clear violation of natural justice. The court emphasized that the burden of proving misconduct lies with the administration, and findings cannot be based on hearsay evidence where the accused is denied the opportunity to cross-examine. Consequently, the court set aside the removal order, rejecting the respondents' argument that the petitioner should have pursued an alternate remedy under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, as the violation of natural justice warranted immediate judicial intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unrepudiated allegation of bias against a member of an inquiry committee vitiate the findings of that committee?
  • Is a departmental inquiry valid if it relies on ex parte reports without providing the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant or witnesses?
  • Can a petitioner bypass the remedy under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 when the grievance involves a violation of the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM BUTT AND 2 Other vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1978 PLD Karachi 90 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-12
  compulsory retirementcivil servantworkmanRailway employeesstatutory interpretationjurisdictionprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the compulsory retirement of Railway employees. The core legal question was whether the Civil Servants Act, 1973, applied to these employees, thereby authorizing their compulsory retirement, or if their status as "workmen" under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, excluded them from that Act's purview. The Court held that the Civil Servants Act, 1973, explicitly excludes persons defined as workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the Factories Act, 1934, from the definition of "civil servants." Consequently, the impugned retirement orders issued under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, were without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court determined that even if the Railway Administration possessed independent authority to retire employees under the Railway Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service) Rules, 1964, the failure to adhere to the mandatory procedural requirements—specifically the report by an appropriate authority and a hearing by a committee—rendered the action legally unsustainable. The principle established is that an authority cannot rely on a statute inapplicable to the class of employees, nor can it bypass mandatory procedural safeguards when exercising administrative powers.

  Questions settled

  • Are Railway employees who qualify as 'workmen' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, excluded from the definition of 'civil servants' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can an administrative authority justify a compulsory retirement order by citing an inapplicable statute?
  • Does the failure to follow mandatory procedural requirements, such as committee hearings, invalidate a compulsory retirement order issued under the Railway Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service) Rules, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Alias IKRAM vs The STATE1978 SCMR 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-22
  special leave to appealprivate defensevicarious liabilitycommon intentiondying declarationculpable homicidecredibility of witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that convicted the petitioner under Section 304, Part I, read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The High Court had rejected the prosecution's primary evidence, including the dying declaration and eye-witness accounts, due to the suppression of material facts regarding injuries sustained by the accused. Consequently, the High Court accepted the defense's plea of private defense but ruled that the accused had exceeded this right. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the petitioner can be held vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for facilitating the offense, given that the specific evidence attributing the act of holding the deceased to the petitioner was derived from eye-witness testimony previously deemed unreliable by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to further examine the petitioner's culpability and the propriety of applying Section 34 in the absence of reliable corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be held vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the primary evidence supporting the specific act of facilitation is deemed unreliable?
  • Does the suppression of material facts by the prosecution regarding injuries sustained by the accused render the entire prosecution case unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to the right of private defense if the prosecution suppresses material facts regarding the initial aggression?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM alias BHOLA vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 901 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN AND 3 OTHERS vs SAID KHAN1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 6 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1977-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR JAFFAR vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-01-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR AND 4 Others vs THE STATE AND Another1978 SCMR 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-16
  cancellation of bailvicarious liabilityunlawful assemblycommon objectpost-arrest bailcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order cancelling the bail of five petitioners accused of murder under sections 302, 334, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly cancelled bail for all petitioners, given that some were alleged to have caused specific injuries to the deceased while others were only alleged to have caused simple injuries to the complainant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly exercised its discretion in cancelling bail for the three petitioners who allegedly caused injuries to the deceased, as their case fell under the prohibition of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. However, the Court distinguished the cases of two petitioners who were not alleged to have injured the deceased, finding their bail cancellation unjustified. The principle laid down is that vicarious liability under sections 148 and 149 does not automatically preclude bail for co-accused who did not inflict injuries on the deceased, particularly when their specific roles are distinguishable from those who caused the fatal injuries.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be cancelled for co-accused who are not alleged to have inflicted injuries on the deceased in a murder case?
  • Does the existence of vicarious liability under sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically bar the grant of bail?
  • Is the High Court's discretion in cancelling bail subject to interference if the roles of individual co-accused are distinguishable?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AHMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 864 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 891 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN vs THE STATE1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 92 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-05-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Alias KALA vs The STATE1978 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-05
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealappellate discretioncriminal convictionSection 426 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court refusing to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, who was convicted under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner challenged the conviction on merits, arguing that medical evidence contradicted ocular testimony, the recovery of the weapon was doubtful, and the trial court drew improper inferences regarding his conduct. The core legal question was whether the High Court's refusal to suspend the sentence and grant bail under Section 426(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was arbitrary or capricious. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's exercise of discretion was not arbitrary. The Court emphasized that while Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides a mechanism for bail for specific sentences, the appellate court retains discretion. The Court further declined to issue directions for the early disposal of the appeal, noting that such requests should be directed to the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's refusal to suspend a sentence and grant bail pending appeal constitutes an arbitrary exercise of discretion?
  • Does the appellate court have the authority to deny bail to a convict sentenced to imprisonment between three and seven years under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the Supreme Court issue directions to the High Court regarding the day-to-day management or early disposal of a pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFSAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs KHADIM HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 143 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-06-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABDUL MAJID AND 3 Other vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1978 PLD Karachi 931 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ,NAWAZ AND Other vs SULTAN KHAN1978 PLD Lahore 923 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMA ANWAR ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 811 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAM MAD IQ B AL vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 507 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-24Read full judgment →
• MUHABBAT vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 72 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mue HARMANN PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES (REGD.), LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OP HEALTH & POPULATION PLANNING (HEALTH DIVISION), ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 445 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• MUBEEN KHAN vs MANAGER/OWNER, PUBLIC OIL MILLS, MULTAN1978 PLC 58 · Labour Court · 1975-04-11Read full judgment →
• Mt. ZEENAT BIBI AND 3 OTHERS vs MEHR DIN AND ANOTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mt. SALEEMA BEGUM vs THE STATEPLD 1978 Rev. 69 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mt. RAZIA BEGUM vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND others1978 PLD Lahore 696 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mt. RAHILA vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-09Read full judgment →
• Mt. NASIM AKHTAR vs NOOR REHMAN AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mt. MUSARRAT BIBI vs Mst. SAIRA BIBI1978 PLD Lahore 932 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mt. MEHRAI vs Mat NOOR BHARI AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 771 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mt. MAHAJANI vs Mat. MEHTABI AND 4 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 22 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mt. JIANDI vs MUHAMMAD UMERPLD 1978 Rev. 63 Sind · Board of Revenue · 1977-07-26Read full judgment →
• Mt. JAMILA BEGUM vs AWAMUNNA SS AND 15 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1376 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-05Read full judgment →
• Mt. JAMAN vs DILAWAR AND OTHERS1978 PLD (Rev.) 13 · Board of Revenue · 1977-07-26Read full judgment →
• Mt. IRSHAD BIBI vs BASHIR AHMAD1978 PLD Lahore 518 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-13Read full judgment →
• Mt. IQBAL BEGUM vs Sh. ASHRAF PERVAIZ AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
• Mt. INAYAT BIBI vs ABDUL AZIZ AND 4 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mt. IJAZ FATIMA vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONERII AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 769 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-21Read full judgment →
• Mt. HAMIDA BEGUM vs THE STATE1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 102 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mt. HAMIDA BEGUM vs SIRAJ DIN1978 PLD Lahore 1128 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-04Read full judgment →
• Mt. FATIMA AND ANOTHER vs S. H. O. POLICE STATION, GOLRA SHARIF AND 21978 PLD Lahore 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-03Read full judgment →
• Mt. DILSHAD BEGUM vs MEMBER, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI1978 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-03-15Read full judgment →