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.
- Massas ALLWIN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs KHURSHID AHMAD1978 PLC 312 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-15Read full judgment →
- MASOODUL HASAN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-02Read full judgment →
- MARBLE INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs KHAIR MUHAMMAD AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 601 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mar. INAYAT BIBI AND 8 Others vs UMAR DIN AND 3 Other1978 SCMR 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves a review petition arising from a long-standing property dispute over an evacuee house in Gujranwala, initially occupied by Hakam Din, the predecessor of the petitioners. The core legal question concerned whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner and subordinate settlement authorities had the jurisdiction to reopen a finalized matter and transfer the property to the occupant after multiple rounds of litigation had concluded against him up to the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the settlement authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen the concluded matter and order the transfer of the house or issue a Provisional Transfer Order to the occupant after he had exhausted his remedies and lost his case up to the High Court. The key principle laid down is that administrative or settlement authorities cannot reopen past-closed transactions or exercise review powers without lawful authority once the judicial and quasi-judicial hierarchy's final pronouncements have attained finality.
Questions settled- Whether settlement authorities have the jurisdiction to reopen a concluded matter after a party has lost their case up to the High Court?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner possess the power to direct a subordinate authority to reconsider the genuineness of an allotment after final adjudication?
- Can a party obtain the transfer of an evacuee house through settlement proceedings after failing in all prior legal challenges?
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 175 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
- MAPAL KHAN vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR. ZONE "A", LAHORE AND 31978 PLD Lahore 766 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
- MAPAL KHAN vs MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE "A", LAHORE AND 31978 PLD Lahore 766 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 354 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-28Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 55 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1977-10-18Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs RETD. COL. FAIZ AHMAD AND 3 Other1978 SCMR 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal case concerning a land dispute over Khasra No. 733 in Rawalpindi Cantonment, which culminated in an armed clash and firearm injuries to four prosecution witnesses. The trial magistrate convicted the respondents under section 307/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the Lahore High Court allowed their appeal and set aside their convictions and sentences. The petitioner argued that the High Court misread the evidence and wrongly relied on an unexhibited written complaint, and that the defence plea of private defence was improbable. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the respondents established exclusive possession of the disputed land through authentic revenue records and oral testimony, whereas the prosecution witnesses were committing criminal trespass. The Court affirmed that persons in settled possession of property are entitled to exercise the right of private defence against aggressors under section 97 and section 101, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, provided they do not cause more harm than necessary.
Questions settled- Whether a person in settled possession of immovable property has the right of private defence of property against a trespasser?
- Can the owner of property take the law into their own hands to evict someone instead of resorting to due process of law?
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's conviction based on revenue records and defence evidence establishing exclusive possession?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN vs MANAWER AHMAD, MANAGER, SHEZAN RESIDENCE, MULTAN1978 PLC 249 · Labour Court · 1975-09-03Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 885 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-23Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN AND 6 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS1978 P Cr. L J 601 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-19Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 858 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR AHMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR1978 PLD Lahore 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-02Read full judgment →
- MANSHA vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 867(2) · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-11Read full judgment →
- MANSAB ALI vs ZAFAR ALI1978 PLC 91 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1977-08-23Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, WAPDA, GUBERG III, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS vs ABDUL1978 PLC 506 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-24Read full judgment →
- MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNITED TEXTILE MILLS LTD MULTAN vs MIAN MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 309 · Labour Court · 1975-05-09Read full judgment →
- Malik ZIAUDDIN vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA ETC.1978 P Cr. L J 496 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-01Read full judgment →
- Malik UMAR RAAYAT TIWANA ETC vs Malkani SAHIBZADI . TIWANA Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
- Malik UMAR HAYAT TIWANA ETC. vs Malkani SAHIBZADI TIWANA ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD SAMAD ISHAQ vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD SAMAD ISHAQ vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Ear.1978 PLD Lahore 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND Another vs Mst. RUQAYA BEGUM AND 2 Other1978 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a second appeal against the ejectment of the petitioners-tenants from the disputed house. The respondent-landlady sought ejectment under Section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, but the District Judge reversed the decision and ordered ejectment on both grounds. On second appeal, the High Court set aside the finding on default but affirmed the finding that the premises were required in good faith for the landlady's personal use and occupation. The Supreme Court heard the petition and evaluated the contention that another property purchased in the name of the landlady's minor son made her the beneficial owner. The Supreme Court held that no evidence was adduced to establish benami ownership, noting that the husband could afford the purchase. Consequently, the concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide personal requirement were upheld and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal use must be denied relief if another property is purchased in the name of a minor son during the proceedings?
- Can a presumption of benami ownership be raised without evidence when a property is purchased in the name of a minor child?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts on the issue of bona fide personal requirement?
- Malik MUHAMMAD ISHAQ vs LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, LAHORE AND 71978 PLD Lahore 458 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs GHULAM RASUL AND Another1978 SCMR 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the order of the Additional District Judge and restored the Rent Controller's order directing the petitioner-tenant to vacate the disputed shop. The core legal question involved whether the landlords established a bona fide personal requirement for the shop, given that one landlord was occupying a rented shop and was asked to vacate it by his own landlord. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the first appellate court's finding of fact, as that finding was based on a clear misreading of a material witness's evidence. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that a finding of fact by an appellate court based on a misreading of evidence is not sacrosanct and may be legitimately set aside in second appeal. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a finding of fact by a first appellate court be set aside in second appeal if it is based on a misreading of evidence?
- Does the occupation of a rented shop by a landlord preclude him from seeking the ejectment of his own tenant for bona fide personal use?
- Whether the High Court is justified in re-evaluating oral testimony when the lower appellate court has misread the statement of a witness?
- Malik MIR HASSAN KHAN AND Another vs COMMISSIONER OP INCOME TAX1978 PLD Karachi 408 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-13Read full judgment →
- Malik GUL HASSAN AND 2 Other vs Malik Haji ISMATULLAH AND 6 Other1978 PLD Quetta 164 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-06-16Read full judgment →
- Mersss NISHAT INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs GUL ZAMAN1978 PLC 146 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-20Read full judgment →
- Malik GHULAM JILANI vs MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD GUL, JUDGH, SUPREME COURT OP PAKISTAN1978 SCMR 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a constitutional petition that challenged the appointment of Mr. Justice Muhammad Gul as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner contended that the respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria under Article 178(2)(a) of the Interim Constitution, arguing that the requirement of having been a Judge of a High Court for five years necessitated actual judicial functioning, rather than merely holding the office while serving in other government roles. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional provision requires only that a person has held the office of a Judge for the requisite period, not that they must have actively performed judicial duties throughout that time. The Court affirmed that holding an office of profit in the Service of Pakistan, provided remuneration is not increased, does not terminate a Judge's tenure. Consequently, the Court ruled that the respondent remained a Judge of the High Court during his tenure as Secretary, Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, and thus satisfied the eligibility criteria for elevation to the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Does the requirement of having been a Judge of a High Court for five years under the Interim Constitution necessitate actual judicial functioning or merely holding the office?
- Does the appointment of a High Court Judge to an office of profit in the Service of Pakistan result in the termination of their judicial office?
- Can a Judge of a High Court or Supreme Court hold an office of profit in the Service of Pakistan if their remuneration is not increased?
- Malik FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs BASHIR AHMAD1978 PLC 282 · Labour Court · 1975-10-15Read full judgment →
- MAJORGENERAL FAZALIRAZIQ, CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE vs Ch. RIAZ AHMAD1978 PLD Lahore 1082 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
- MAJOR-GENERAL FAZAL-I-RAZIQ. CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE vs Ch. RIAZ1978 PLD Lahore 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated via a private complaint under Section 295-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging injury to religious sentiments. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate possesses the jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint and record preliminary evidence absent the government authorization mandated by Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the provisions of Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a mandatory condition precedent for the institution of proceedings for the specified offences. Consequently, the Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or record preliminary evidence without the requisite authorization from the Central or Provincial Government. The Court further clarified that the act of recording preliminary evidence constitutes taking cognizance of the offence. The key principle established is that where a statute requires government sanction for prosecution, the absence of such sanction renders the entire proceedings, including preliminary inquiries, void for lack of jurisdiction, regardless of whether formal process has been issued against the accused.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate have jurisdiction to record preliminary evidence in a private complaint under Section 295-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without government authorization?
- Is the requirement of government sanction under Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence?
- Does the act of recording a complainant's statement and preliminary evidence constitute taking cognizance of an offence?
- Can a trial court proceed with a private complaint if the offence alleged requires government sanction under Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- MAJ. SHUJAIT ALI vs Mst, SURRAYA BEGUM1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 118 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-06-13Read full judgment →
- MAJ. (RETD.) MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs PAKISTAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION1978 PLD Lahore 1367 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-17Read full judgment →
- MAJ. (R) MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs PAKISTAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION1978 PLD Lahore 1367 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-17Read full judgment →
- MAIRAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 308 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction of Mairaj Muhammad Khan, a former Minister of State, by a Special Tribunal under the Defence of Pakistan Rules. The appellant challenged his conviction on grounds of procedural irregularities, specifically the denial of an open public trial due to the venue being shifted to a jail, and the denial of the right to defend himself. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision to hold the trial in camera within jail premises, without sufficient judicial justification, violated the fundamental principle of open justice. Furthermore, the Court found that the Tribunal erred by pronouncing judgment without allowing the appellant to present his defence, effectively denying him a fair trial. Consequently, the conviction was set aside. The Court emphasized that publicity in the administration of justice is a vital safeguard against judicial abuse and persecution. Given the appellant's prolonged incarceration, the harshness of the sentence, and the lack of evidence supporting the sedition charge, the Court declined to order a retrial, setting aside the conviction entirely.
Questions settled- Does the proviso to Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require a Magistrate to exercise judicial discretion based on material evidence before excluding the public from a trial?
- Can a Special Tribunal lawfully proceed to judgment without affording the accused an opportunity to present a defence?
- Is a trial held within jail premises inherently inconsistent with the requirement of an open public trial?
- Should a retrial be ordered when the accused has already served a substantial portion of the sentence and the prosecution's case lacks merit?
- MAHMUDUL HASSAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 116 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-21Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD ALI alias PAWA vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 769 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-27Read full judgment →
- MAHMMAD SALEEM RANA AND ANOTHER vs Sh. SALEEM HASSAN AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 521 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-14Read full judgment →
- MAHBOOB BEG vs SHARIF BEG AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-17Read full judgment →
- Mae RAVI RAYON LTD. vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE AND 21978 PLD Lahore 387 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-06Read full judgment →
- M. WAZIR AND ANOTHER vs MESSRS ATHAR TEXTILE & ANWAR TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI1978 PLC 416 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-03-07Read full judgment →
- M. H. JAN MUHAMMAD vs SECOND SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 31978 PLD Karachi 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-16Read full judgment →
- M. GUL ASLAM KHAN vs SUGAR MILLS, SERAI NAURANG, BANNU1978 PLC 539 · Labour Court · 1977-11-28Read full judgment →
- M. GHIASUDDIN vs CHAIRMAN, KARACHI PORT TRUST1978 PLC 350 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-14Read full judgment →
- M. A. H. BEG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LABOUR WELFARE (CONCILIATION) vs Seth1978 PLC 25 · Labour Court · 1975-05-19Read full judgment →
- M USTAFA vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 761 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-27Read full judgment →
- M UHAMMAD IDRIS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 P Cr. L J 808 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-10Read full judgment →
- M UHAM MAD SALEEM vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 844 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-29Read full judgment →
- LIAQAT ALI vs HABIB BANK LTD., SAHIWAL1978 PLC 442 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-11-28Read full judgment →
- LEEMON vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 232 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
- LATIF vs THF STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-23Read full judgment →
- LATIF vs THE STATE1978 PLD Lahore 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-23Read full judgment →
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ALI1978 PLD Lahore 1372 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-21Read full judgment →
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER. vs Haji MUHAMMAD AFZAL1978 PLD Peshawar 109 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-04-26Read full judgment →
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND Another vs Haji MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND Other1978 PLD Peshawar 109 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-04-26Read full judgment →
- LAL DIN vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND Another1978 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the custody (superdari) of a tractor. The petitioner claimed ownership, alleging that the respondent had manipulated registration documents due to political enmity and had filed false theft reports. The tractor had been initially entrusted to the respondent on superdari following the first theft case. Although a subsequent theft case filed by the respondent was declared false by the police and the discharge report was accepted by the Magistrate, the original theft case remained pending. The petitioner challenged the High Court's dismissal of his revision petition, which had upheld the Magistrate's order granting superdari to the respondent. The Supreme Court held that since the initial theft case had never been cancelled and the original order of superdari in favor of the respondent had not been withdrawn or recalled, the respondent remained entitled to the possession of the tractor. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the petition, affirming that the tractor should remain in the respondent's custody.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of an original theft case entitle the initial superdar to retain custody of the property despite a subsequent false case report?
- Can a court interfere with an order of superdari when the underlying criminal case has not been cancelled or the order recalled?
- LAKH MIR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 472 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-15Read full judgment →
- LADY DR. S. B. ZAMAN vs KHALID FAROOQ AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 803 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-15Read full judgment →
- LADY DR. S. B. ZAMAN vs KHALID FAROOQ AND 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 803 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-15Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs MESSRS MACHINE TOOLS MANUFACTURERS FACTORY, LAHORE1978 PLC 4 · Labour Court · 1976-12-01Read full judgment →
- LABOUR UNION vs AGRICULTURE ENGINEER, TORNAB1978 PLC 573 · Labour Court · 1977-05-12Read full judgment →
- KUNWAR IMAM DIN vs LIAQAT ALI AND Another1978 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the interim order of the Lahore High Court suspending the life imprisonment sentence of the first respondent, who was convicted of murder by the Sessions Court. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's discretion in suspending the sentence pending appeal based on discrepancies in the dying declaration and trial court observations regarding ocular testimony. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the view taken by the High Court in re-examining the appraisal of evidence was both reasonable and within its judicial discretion. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts possess valid discretion to suspend sentences pending appeal when the trial court's appraisal of evidence presents arguable doubts or requires re-examination, warranting no interference by the apex court at the leave stage.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has the discretion to suspend a sentence of imprisonment pending the hearing of an appeal?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's order suspending a sentence when the view taken is reasonable and within its discretion?
- KOHINOOR CHEMICAL Co. LTD., KARACHI AND 2 Other vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL1978 PLD Karachi 233 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
- KOHINOOR CHEMICAL Co. LTD. vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION1978 PLD Karachi 872 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
- KHYBER VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS LTD., LAHORE vs MEHBOOB GILLANI1978 PLC 316 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-12-31Read full judgment →
- KHYBER SPINNING COMPANY, LAHORE vs CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB LABOUR1978 PLD Lahore 909 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-30Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 198 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-10Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD YAHYA AND OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 924 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-27Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD YAHYA AND Other1978 PLD Lahore 924 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-27Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD vs LAHORE OMNI BUS SERVICE THROUGH ITS District1978 PLC 229 · Labour Court · 1975-09-27Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD ETC. vs The STATE1978 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioners against the dismissal of their pre-trial bail application by the Lahore High Court in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given that eyewitnesses allegedly did not support the prosecution case and conflicting police investigation reports existed regarding their implication. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the case presented scope for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as eye-witnesses did not support the case against certain petitioners and conflicting police reports cleared them. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, accepted it for two of the petitioners (Khushi Muhammad and Akbar), and granted them bail, while dismissing the petition of the third petitioner (Taj Din) against whom incriminating material was found during investigation. The key principle laid down is that where eyewitnesses do not support the prosecution and investigation reports present controversial versions favoring innocence, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted when eye-witnesses do not support the prosecution case?
- Does a conflict in police investigation reports regarding the implication of an accused create a case for further inquiry under criminal procedure?
- Whether specific overt acts attributed to an accused via sota blows preclude the grant of bail when investigation findings are contradictory?
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD ETC. vs BOOTA ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD ETC vs BOOTA ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
- KHUDIADAD vs DEPUTY MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE `D', BALUCHISTAN1978 PLD Quetta 177 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This full bench judgment of the Balochistan High Court addressed constitutional petitions challenging the validity of Martial Law Order No. 4 of 1977, which established Special and Summary Military Courts. The core legal questions concerned whether Martial Law Order No. 4 was a valid piece of legislation under the extra-constitutional regime and the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction to review orders of Military Courts. The Court held that Martial Law Order No. 4 is a valid piece of legislation and that the Chief Martial Law Administrator possesses both executive and legislative authority, including the power to amend the Constitution or enact sub-constitutional legislation under the law of necessity as recognized in Begum Nusrat Bhutto's case. Furthermore, the High Court held that while Military Courts are not inferior tribunals subject to appellate or revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can grant relief and correct findings in cases where there is non-compliance with or misapplication of mandatory provisions of Martial Law Orders.
Questions settled- Whether Martial Law Order No. 4 is a valid piece of legislation?
- What is the extent and the nature of jurisdiction that a High Court can exercise while dealing with constitutional petitions challenging orders, findings, and judgments of Military Courts?
- Does the Chief Martial Law Administrator possess the power to promulgate Martial Law Orders of a sub-constitutional nature?
- Whether the establishment of Military Courts is in conflict with the supremacy of the 1973 Constitution as declared by the Supreme Court?
- KHUDA DAD vs MAJOR MAQBOOL HUSSAIN ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs Syed MUHAMMAD HABIB SHAH HASHMI1978 SCMR 89 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order issued under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959. The respondent landlord sought the eviction of the petitioner tenant on grounds of personal requirement and unauthorized subletting. The Rent Controller ordered eviction based on the landlord's bona fide personal requirement, despite rejecting the subletting claim. This decision was upheld by the District Judge, who additionally affirmed the subletting allegation, and subsequently by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the landlord sufficiently established the requirement for the premises in good faith, particularly when the landlord had not definitively decided which family members would occupy the property. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement were sound. The Court established that under Section 13(3) of the Ordinance, a landlord need only prove the premises are required in good faith for their own occupation or that of their children; it is immaterial which specific family member occupies the property, provided the requirement is genuine.
Questions settled- Does a landlord need to specify which family member will occupy the premises to satisfy the requirement of 'personal use' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959?
- Can a tenant challenge a landlord's claim of personal requirement based on the landlord's failure to decide which specific family member will reside in the property?
- Is a landlord's requirement for additional space considered bona fide if they already own another house?
- KHUDA BAKHSH AND Other vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1978 PLD Lahore 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
- KHUDA BAKHSH AND AN vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL1978 PLD Lahore 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
- KHATIJA vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 348 · Sindh High Court · 1973-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal petition seeking the quashment of proceedings initiated against the petitioner for alleged offenses under Sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate legally took cognizance of the case where the initial complaint was filed with Martial Law authorities, not a Magistrate, and the police report recommended a 'C Class Summary' rather than a charge sheet. The Court held that the Magistrate’s cognizance was illegal under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the document did not qualify as a complaint, and the police report did not support prosecution. Furthermore, the Court found the allegations regarding a breach of marriage promise failed to establish the essential ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against all accused, ruling that continuing the case would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. The judgment establishes that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance based on an invalid complaint or a police report recommending closure, nor can they record witness statements to manufacture grounds for cognizance.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate take cognizance of an offence based on a complaint filed with Martial Law authorities?
- Does a police report recommending a 'C Class Summary' constitute a valid basis for a Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a breach of promise to marry sufficient to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a Magistrate record witness statements under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before taking cognizance of an offence?
- KHANA ETC./ vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 799 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
- KHANA ETC vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ETC.1978 PLD Lahore 799 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
- KHAN ZAMAN vs SHAMEER ETC.1978 P Cr. L J 842 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-04Read full judgment →
- Khan MIR KHAN ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 779 · Lahore High Court · 1974-09-30Read full judgment →
- KHAN ASADULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS vs Sheikh ISLAMUD DIN1978 PLD Lahore 711 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-14Read full judgment →
- KHAN ASADULLAB KHAN AND Other vs Sheikh ISLAMUD DIN1978 PLD Lahore 711 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-14Read full judgment →
- KHAN AND ANOTHER Convict vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 24 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-24Read full judgment →
- KHAMISANI SONS, KARACHI vs MOHAMMAD IQBAL1978 PLC 445 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-03-03Read full judgment →
- KHALIL AHMAD KHAN vs SULTAN AHMAD SHAMI AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 779 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-07Read full judgment →
- KHALID SHAMIM A pplicant/Accused vs THE STATE Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 605(1) · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-06Read full judgment →
- KHALID JAVED GILLANI vs THE STATE1978 PLD SC 256 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for pre-trial bail in a murder case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether courts are precluded from making a tentative assessment of evidence, particularly concerning a plea of alibi supported by defense material, when deciding a bail application under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or whether prosecution allegations must be treated as sacrosanct. The Supreme Court held that courts are under a legal obligation to make a tentative assessment of the material produced by both the prosecution and the defense—including the F.I.R., police statements, and defense evidence such as an alibi—to determine if reasonable grounds exist for believing the accused is guilty, without conducting an elaborate sifting of evidence or prejudging the case. The Court laid down the principle that the power to withhold bail in non-bailable offences is not arbitrary and requires a balanced, tentative evaluation of all surrounding circumstances and evidence rather than treating the prosecution case as incontrovertible at the bail stage.
Questions settled- Whether a court is required to make a tentative assessment of evidence produced by both the prosecution and the defense when deciding a bail application under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused solely by treating the statements in the First Information Report as sacrosanct without examining the surrounding circumstances and defense material?
- Does an elaborate sifting of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a bail application?
- Whether the discretion to refuse bail in cases punishable with death or imprisonment for life is wrested away only when the investigating agency satisfies the court prima facie of reasonable grounds of guilt?
- KHALID ETC. vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 800 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-15Read full judgment →
- KHAISTA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 605(2) · Peshawar High Court · 1977-11-24Read full judgment →
- KHAIRPUR TEXTILE MILLS Lm., KHAIRPUR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI1978 PLD Karachi 505 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-22Read full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs TEE STATE AND Another1978 SCMR 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against an order of the Lahore High Court granting bail to respondent No. 2 in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the High Court's order was vitiated by factual errors and misreading of the record, particularly regarding the presence of an explanation for the accused's injuries in the First Information Report (FIR). The petitioner further argued that because the case involved common intention under Section 34, the respondent was vicariously liable for the murder and his case could not be distinguished. The Supreme Court, while noting that some observations of the High Court were indeed contrary to the record, independently evaluated the facts. The Court observed that the respondent was only attributed with causing simple injuries to the complainant, and the fatal head injury to the deceased was attributed solely to a co-accused. The Court held that, prima facie, it was too early to hold the respondent vicariously liable for murder in the absence of evidence showing a shared common intention to cause death. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an accused charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be granted bail if the specific role attributed to him is limited to causing simple injuries and there is no prima facie evidence of sharing a common intention to cause death?
- Does a factual error or misreading of the record by the High Court automatically vitiate a bail order if the Supreme Court, upon independent evaluation of the facts, finds the accused otherwise entitled to bail?
- Is vicarious liability for murder under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to be assumed at the bail stage when the individual act of the accused is distinct and non-fatal?
- Kh. ABDUL WAHEED AND Another vs GOVERNMENT OF' THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 811 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
- Kh. ABDUL WAHEED AND ANOTHER vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 811 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
- KEWALRAM DAYARAM SHAHANI vs NAWAB ALI1978 PLD Karachi 79 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance was filed by the appellant landlord against an order of the Additional District Judge, which had set aside the Rent Controller's order striking off the tenant's defence for non-compliance with a rent deposit order. The tenant had failed to pay rent since 1949 and subsequently failed to deposit both the arrears and the future monthly rent as directed by the Rent Controller under Section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The tenant argued that the deposit order was illegal because it demanded arrears beyond the three-year limitation period. The High Court held that a rent deposit order contains two distinct, non-cumulative directions: one for arrears and another for future rent. Even if the direction regarding arrears was legally flawed or barred by limitation, the direction to deposit future rent remained valid and binding as an interlocutory order. Since the tenant admittedly failed to deposit any future rent, he committed a willful default, justifying the striking off of his defence. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate order, and restored the Rent Controller's eviction order.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant's failure to deposit future rent under an interim order justifies striking off their defence even if the direction to deposit past arrears is legally disputed?
- Are the statutory provisions requiring the deposit of rent arrears and future rent cumulative or independent in character?
- Does an interlocutory rent deposit order remain operative and binding on the tenant during the pendency of ejectment proceedings until a final order is made?