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.
- ASALAT Convict vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 18 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
- ASADULLAH BEG vs ASHIQ AND Another1978 SCMR 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a service and rehabilitation matter where the petitioner, a refugee, challenged an order dated 30-7-1962 passed by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, which sliced away certain land from his allotment as it exceeded the permissible ceiling of 12.5 acres under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme. The petitioner's belated revision and subsequent writ petition before the Lahore High Court were dismissed due to laches and negligence. The core legal question was whether an allegedly ex parte and void order could be quashed despite prolonged delay and laches, and whether the petitioner had a legal right to retain land exceeding the prescribed ceiling. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that even assuming the impugned order had defects, the petitioner could not be granted land in excess of the permissible ceiling prescribed by law, and the High Court correctly refused relief. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte order passed without notice can be quashed despite prolonged laches on the part of the petitioner?
- Can a petitioner claim relief for land allotment that exceeds the permissible ceiling fixed under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme?
- ASAD ALL vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 384 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-03Read full judgment →
- ARIF HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 649(1) · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-13Read full judgment →
- ARBAB alias BAGH vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 745 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-06Read full judgment →
- ANWAR KHAN vs The STATE1978 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, who was accused of giving a fatal hatchet blow to the deceased during an occurrence on 29-9-1974. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of the right of private defence and the delay in the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that without evidence on record, a prima facie case of self-defence cannot be raised at the bail stage, and mere delay in trial is insufficient to grant bail in heinous offences like murder. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to expedite the disposal of the case.
Questions settled- Can the plea of self-defence be considered at the bail stage without evidence on the record?
- Is mere delay in the conclusion of a murder trial a sufficient ground for the grant of bail?
- AND Another vs MAULA DAD AHD Other1978 SCMR 264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court which accepted a writ petition and declared certain orders of the Land Reforms Authorities to be without lawful authority. The first respondent had gifted agricultural land to his minor sons, which was previously mortgaged with the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. The Land Reforms Authorities had rejected the gift on the ground that the property was mortgaged without the mortgagee bank's consent and counted the land towards the transferor's total holding under Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The High Court held that the gift was not barred under the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance or its rules, as a transfer during the subsistence of a mortgage is not void. The Supreme Court considered contentions regarding physical possession, the applicability of section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, and the completeness of the gift. Finding no force in the contentions, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Land Reforms Authorities were not justified in treating the gifted land as belonging to the transferor.
Questions settled- Whether a gift of agricultural land encumbered by a mortgage is void under the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance 1961 without the consent of the mortgagee bank?
- Does a transfer of immovable property during the subsistence of a mortgage automatically render the transfer void for the purposes of land reform declarations?
- Can the question of completeness of a gift based on pending mutation be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court as a mixed question of law and fact?
- AN WAR vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 664 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-29Read full judgment →
- AMTUL WAHAB ZIA vs BEGUM BIBI Ete.1978 PLD Lahore 150 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-18Read full judgment →
- AMIR KHAN vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, DERA GHAZI KHAN1978 PLC 388 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-05-24Read full judgment →
- AMIR KHAN vs FATEH KHAN ETC.S1978 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in a Regular Second Appeal. The dispute concerned the construction of a wall and the existence of a right of passage through the respondent's land. The petitioner sought to challenge the High Court's refusal to vacate a stay order, which had been confirmed based on evidence (Exh. 4) indicating the existence of a passage to the north of the plaintiff's lawn. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the core question of whether an appeal is maintainable against an interlocutory order of the High Court in such circumstances. The Court held that no appeal lies against an interlocutory order of this nature. Furthermore, the Court observed that the High Court had sufficient prima facie grounds to confirm the stay order based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that interlocutory orders are generally not subject to appeal before the Supreme Court in this context.
Questions settled- Is an appeal maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the High Court in a Regular Second Appeal?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an interlocutory order where the High Court has prima facie evidence supporting a stay order?
- AMIR BAKHSH auto 12 OTHERS vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD (Through 8 Legal1978 PLD Baghdadul Jadid 7 · Baghdad-ul-JadidRead full judgment →
- AMIR AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 147 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
- AMIR AND 2 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SAEED AND 2 OTHERSPLD 1978 Rev. 57 Punjab · Board of Revenue · 1977-11-30Read full judgment →
- AMINUDDIN vs WAPDA1978 PLC 330 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1977-09-30Read full judgment →
- AMIAD CTC. vs THE TATE1978 P Cr. L J 498 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-12Read full judgment →
- AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI vs Tins1978 PLC 87 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-16Read full judgment →
- AMEEJEE VALIJEE & SONS vs M. V. AZEEM AND 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-18Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 623 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH AND 4 Other vs THE STATE1978 PLD Karachi 792 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences awarded by the Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, to the appellants for murder and related offences. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony regarding identification in moonlight at a distance, the evidentiary value of a dying declaration, and the credibility of weapon recoveries and ballistic reports. The Sindh High Court held that identification from a considerable distance on an 18th-lunar-day night following a sudden awakening from sleep was unsafe for sustaining capital convictions, that the dying declaration and recoveries suffered from significant infirmities and tutoring, and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court laid down that where identification under moonlight from a distance is doubtful and corroborative evidence is unconvincing, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants and the rejection of the reference for the confirmation of death sentences.
Questions settled- Is identification of culprits in moonlight from a distance of 52 to 70 feet safe for recording a conviction in a murder case?
- Does a dying declaration retain credibility when recorded in the presence of interested relatives and when inconsistent with ocular testimony?
- Can a conviction be sustained on weapon recoveries when independent witnesses are not associated and the defense claims the weapons were foisted by the police?
- Does uncorroborated medical and motive evidence suffice to prove the guilt of the accused when eyewitness testimony is found unreliable?
- ALLIED BANK OP PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI vs DILDAR MUHAMMAD PERVEZ1978 PLC 115 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
- ALLAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 269 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 803(2) · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
- ALLAH YAR vs ABDUL HAQ ETC.1978 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan for the second time via a petition for leave to appeal arising from property and land settlement disputes. The core legal question concerns the rightful inheritance of land abandoned by a deceased refugee, Butey Khan, and the standing of a third-party informant to challenge allotments made to recognized legal heirs. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the High Court—establishing that Gamun Khan was the sole and nearest legal heir of the deceased—were unexceptionable, and that the petitioner, an informant lacking a proprietary claim or locus standi as an heir, could not maintain a challenge against the inheritance adjudication or demand the specific land allotted to the rightful heirs. The key principle laid down is that a third-party informant in settlement proceedings possesses no locus standi to contest the determination of legal heirs between rival claimants or to claim allotment of land restored to the rightful heirs.
Questions settled- Does a third-party informant have the locus standi to challenge the determination of legal heirs in land settlement proceedings?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding inheritance by settlement authorities and the High Court warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can an informant demand the allotment of land restored to the recognized legal heirs of a deceased refugee?
- ALLAH WASAYA TEXTILE & FINISHING MILLS LTD.,MULTAN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 37 · Labour Court · 1975-04-01Read full judgment →
- ALLAH WARAYO vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 241 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-04Read full judgment →
- ALLAH RAKHA vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1978 SCMR 437 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent landlord against the petitioner tenant under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, seeking possession of a shop on the ground of bona fide personal use. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, but the appellate court and subsequently the Lahore High Court in second appeal accepted the landlord's claim. Before the Supreme Court, the tenant contended that a prior ejectment application withdrawn in 1972 pursuant to a compromise rendered the subsequent 1975 application barred by res judicata under Section 14 of the Ordinance, and that the prior compromise reflected adversely on the landlord's good faith. The Supreme Court held that Section 14 applies only to cases 'decided' by the Rent Controller and not to withdrawn applications based on private settlements, and that a prior postponement of need does not eternally debar a landlord from seeking ejectment when need subsequently arises. Finding no legal or factual error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts on good faith, the Court dismissed the petition, granting the tenant time to vacate.
Questions settled- Whether the withdrawal of a prior ejectment application on the basis of a private compromise constitutes a 'decision' by the Rent Controller so as to attract the bar of res judicata under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959?
- Does the withdrawal of a previous ejectment application pursuant to a compromise permanently debar a landlord from filing a subsequent ejectment application for personal use?
- What is the scope of interference by the Supreme Court with concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide requirement of a landlord in rent matters?
- ALLAH RAKHA vs COL. ABDUL GHAFOOR1978 PLD Lahore 1364 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-29Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LYALLPUR1978 PLC 469 · Labour Court · 1977-02-25Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SHEIKHUPURA AND 2 OTHERs1978 PLD Lahore 370 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA vs DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SHEIKHUPURA AND 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 370 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA AND Another vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 289 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ALLAH DAD AND OTHERS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1978 PLD Lahore 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-20Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DAD AND Other vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1978 PLD Lahore 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-20Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DAD AND 2 Other vs THE STATE1978 PLD Supreme Court 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the convictions and death sentences imposed for the murder of two individuals. The core legal questions concerned whether a murder conviction is sustainable when the corpus delicti is missing; whether the abscondence of an accused provides sufficient corroboration of guilt; whether an omission to question an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding specific evidence vitiates the trial; and whether the death sentence was appropriate. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions and sentences. The Court held that a conviction for murder can be sustained even without the recovery of the dead body, provided homicidal death is established through reliable evidence. It affirmed that abscondence is relevant evidence of guilt under Section 8 of the Evidence Act 1872, though its weight depends on the circumstances. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an omission to question an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, provided no failure of justice occurred.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the corpus delicti is missing?
- Does the failure to question an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding specific evidence automatically vitiate a conviction?
- Is abscondence of an accused admissible as evidence of guilt under the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can interested ocular testimony be relied upon for conviction without independent corroboration?
- ALLAH BUX alias HUDA BUX vs TBB STATB1978 P Cr. L J 346 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JHANG, AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 765 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-17Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JHANG, AND 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 765 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-17Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH AND Another vs THE STATE1978 PLD Supreme Court 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of interested witnesses, corroborated by the recovery of crime empties and weapons, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The appellants challenged the genuineness of the recoveries, citing procedural omissions in the inquest report and delays in forensic analysis. The majority of the Supreme Court held that the convictions were sound. The Court ruled that the ocular testimony, while requiring careful scrutiny due to the witnesses' relationship with the deceased, was corroborated by the forensic evidence. It further established that procedural irregularities, such as failing to list crime empties in the inquest report or delays in sending items to the ballistic expert, do not automatically invalidate the evidence if the recovery is otherwise established and the chain of custody remains intact. The Court affirmed that such omissions are directory rather than mandatory and do not necessarily cast doubt on the investigation's bona fides.
Questions settled- Does the failure to mention crime empties in an inquest report under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate the recovery evidence?
- Can the ocular testimony of interested witnesses be relied upon for a conviction if corroborated by forensic evidence?
- Does a delay in sending crime empties to a ballistic expert automatically imply manipulation of evidence?
- Are the requirements of Rule 25.35 of the Punjab Police Rules regarding the listing of articles in an inquest report mandatory or directory?
- ALLAH BACHAYA vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 848 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-20Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 127 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-22Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND OTHERSPLD 1978 Rev. 28 Punjab] · Board of Revenue · 1977-07-12Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD And Others vs FAZLA AND Other1978 SCMR 228 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition challenged the Supreme Court's order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal concerning a dispute over agricultural evacuee land. The petitioners sought to rely on an ad interim status quo order from a 1958 High Court writ petition to establish their continued possession of the disputed land, a document they failed to produce during the initial hearing. The core legal question was whether the failure to produce available documents during the original proceedings constitutes a valid ground for review. The Court held that the review petition must be dismissed. It reasoned that the document in question was part of the record of the earlier writ petition and could have been procured with reasonable diligence; therefore, forgetfulness was not a valid excuse. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle that a party cannot be permitted to introduce new evidence after the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal to create grounds for review. Equitable claims regarding long-standing possession do not constitute valid grounds for review of a final order.
Questions settled- Can a party introduce new evidence in a review petition that was available but not produced during the original proceedings?
- Does the failure to exercise reasonable diligence in procuring documents for an initial hearing constitute a valid ground for review?
- Can equitable arguments regarding long-standing possession serve as a basis for reviewing a final order?
- ALI MUHAMMAD (THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS) vs HUSSAIN BAKHSH AND Other1978 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a review petition filed against the judgment of this Court dismissing the petitioner's civil appeal, which had upheld the High Court's decision setting aside the transfer of an entire property (Haveli) in favor of the petitioner by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question in the review petition is whether new pleas regarding the locus standi of the respondents and their status as Jammu & Kashmir refugees can be raised for the first time in review proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that contentions not raised before the lower settlement authorities and the High Court, and which proceeded on admitted facts during the main appeal, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in review. The key principle laid down is that new factual pleas and grounds not previously urged cannot be entertained in a review petition.
Questions settled- Whether new pleas regarding locus standi can be raised for the first time in review proceedings?
- Can a party challenge factual positions admitted or not denied during the main hearing in a subsequent review petition?
- ALI JAN vs MUHAMMAD AND Another1978 SCMR 312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil dispute over the tenancy and possession of agricultural land situated in village Rangi of Kalat Division. The original plaintiff instituted a suit for a declaration and permanent injunction, claiming to be the permanent tenant (Maurusi Bazgar), which was decreed by the Qazi. On appeal, the Majlis-e-Shoora reversed the decision and dismissed the suit. However, a Single Judge of the High Court accepted the subsequent second appeal and restored the Qazi's judgment. The core legal questions involved the proper appreciation of evidence by the High Court and whether a new plea regarding the jurisdiction of civil courts under the Land Revenue Act could be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court had duly considered and weighed the evidence on record, and refusing to entertain the new jurisdictional plea not raised in the lower forums.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's finding based on the appreciation of evidence can be challenged on the ground that individual testimonies were not explicitly discussed?
- Can a new plea regarding the jurisdiction of civil courts under the Land Revenue Act be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Whether a suit for declaration and permanent injunction is incompetent if the plaintiff is found to be in possession of the land?
- ALI JAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 653 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
- ALI GOHAR vs The STATE1978 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind, which dismissed the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail in a criminal case. The petitioner was charged under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including Section 302, following a violent political confrontation where gunfire resulted in deaths and injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing bail given the petitioner's arguments regarding the ambiguity of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) concerning the identity of the shooter, a plea of alibi, and the petitioner's advanced age. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the presence of ocular evidence from injured witnesses who specifically attributed the gunfire to the petitioner established sufficient grounds to deny bail. The court affirmed that where there is positive attribution of a specific criminal act by eyewitnesses, the exercise of judicial discretion to refuse bail is proper and does not constitute a case of 'no evidence.'
Questions settled- Does the presence of ocular evidence from injured witnesses implicating an accused in a murder case justify the denial of bail?
- Is the High Court's discretion in refusing bail properly exercised when there is specific attribution of gunfire to the accused in the F.I.R.?
- Can a plea of alibi and the age of the accused override positive ocular evidence in a bail application?
- ALI ASGHAR vs CHAIRMAN, SUMMARY MILITARY COURT AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 773 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-14Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 109 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-05-14Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMED vs EMPLOYEES UNION, M. M. ISPAHANI TEA LTD., RAWALPINDIAND1978 PLC 335 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1977-08-17Read full judgment →
- ALI AHMAD AND 2 Others vs The STATE1978 SCMR 384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, filed under Article 185(2)(a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court which reversed the trial court's acquittal and convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder, sentencing them to transportation for life. The core legal question centered on the reliability of the ocular testimony, the corroborative value of recoveries, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the acquittal, holding that the prosecution's narrative was riddled with material contradictions regarding the time of occurrence, unexplained injuries to a victim who had no prior enmity, doubtful recoveries, and improbable witness conduct, thus entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing an acquittal based on a re-evaluation of evidence that suffered from material contradictions?
- Does the presence of semi-digested food in the deceased's stomach create a strong doubt regarding the prosecution's alleged time of occurrence?
- Whether uncorroborated ocular testimony of interested witnesses can sustain a conviction for murder when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's narrative?
- What is the evidentiary value of alleged weapon and blood-stained clothing recoveries when kept by an accused for an extended period without independent corroboration?
- AKRAM MASIH AND ANOTHRS vs TAB STATE1978 P Cr. L J 554 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-10Read full judgment →
- AKRAM KHAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1978 SCMR 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court granting bail to the respondent in a case involving Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred by granting bail based on a plea of alibi, citing precedent suggesting such pleas should be reserved for trial. The Supreme Court observed that while earlier jurisprudence suggested alibi pleas should be left for trial, subsequent rulings established that each case must be decided on its own merits, as no universal rule can be applied. In the present case, the High Court had exercised its discretion by considering official documentation from the respondent's military unit confirming his duty status at the time of the occurrence. Finding no evidence that the High Court's order was unreasonable, perverse, or an improper exercise of discretion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision. The Court affirmed that bail decisions involving alibi pleas are fact-specific and do not require a uniform rule of exclusion.
Questions settled- Can a plea of alibi be considered by the High Court when deciding on a bail application?
- Is there a universal rule requiring that a plea of alibi must always be left for the trial court to decide?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's exercise of discretion in granting bail?
- AKRAM KHAN AND 3 OTHERSAccued vs THE STATE1978 PLD Peshawar 150 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-05-14Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR ZAMAN vs MESSRS DILAWAR BROTHERS, KARACHI ,1978 PLC 266 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN ANJUM vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LYALLPUR ,1978 PLC 471 · Labour Court · 1977-07-24Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 95 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-03Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 727 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-12Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI AND ANOTHERACCUSED/APPELLANT vs THE STATE1978 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-05Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI AND Another vs THE STATE1978 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-12-05Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI AND ANOTHER vs GUL MOHOMED SHAH AND ANOTHER Opponents1978 P Cr. L J 143 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-03Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI AND ANOTHER Accuseds vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 593 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-12-05Read full judgment →
- AISHA MAI vs SULTAN ETC.1978 P Cr. L J 758(1) · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-03Read full judgment →
- AISH ETC vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 373 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-19Read full judgment →
- AHMED AND Another vs MESSRS KARACHI STEAM NAVIGATION Co. LTD., KARACHI1978 PLD Karachi 387 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-27Read full judgment →
- AHMED ALI KHAN vs Mst. ABEDA BANO1978 PLD Karachi 136 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
- AHMAD HASAN AND Another vs MUHAMMAD DARAZ AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Supreme Court 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges the dismissal of a revision petition by the Peshawar High Court, which upheld a civil court decree for the ejectment of tenants from a shop in the Malakand Protected Area. The core legal question was whether the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 applied to the area, thereby ousting civil court jurisdiction, and whether the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 required prior notice for the suit. The Supreme Court held that the Ordinance did not apply because the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance Application to Certain Tribal Areas of the North-West Frontier Province Regulation I of 1973 explicitly modified the definition of 'Urban Area' to mean only areas declared as such by government notification. As no such notification existed for the disputed area, the Ordinance was not operative. Furthermore, the Court refused to entertain the plea regarding the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as it was a new factual contention not raised in subordinate courts. The judgment establishes that specific statutory modifications in regulations governing Tribal Areas override general definitions in principal legislation, and new factual pleas cannot be raised for the first time in revision.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 apply to the Malakand Protected Area in the absence of a government notification declaring it an 'Urban Area'?
- Can a party raise a new factual contention regarding the lack of notice under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for the first time during a revision petition?
- Does the definition of 'Urban Area' in the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 automatically apply to Tribal Areas without specific government notification under the applicable Regulation?
- AHMAD ETC. vs FAZAL MOHAMMAD1978 PLD Lahore 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-04Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ETC vs FAZAL MOHAMMAD1978 PLD Lahore 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-04Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN (REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL Hair) vs BEGUM BIBI AND 11 others1978 PLD Lahore 239 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-15Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN (REFEREN BY HISLEGAL HEIRS ) vs BEGUM BIBI AND 11 Other1978 PLD Lahore 239 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-16Read full judgment →
- AHMAD BAKHSH vs AHMAD AND 3 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 203 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-02Read full judgment →
- AHMAD BAKHSH vs AHMAD AND 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 203 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-02Read full judgment →
- AHMAD BAKHSH AND Another vs KHURSHID AKBAR KHAN AND 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 838 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
- AHMAD BAKHSH AND AN vs KHURSHID AKBAR KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLD Lahore 838 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
- AHBAB COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 273 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
- AHBAB CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. vs COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1978 PLD Lahore 273 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTANISLAMABAD vs MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 253 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-06Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN vs RIAZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER1978 PLC 151 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
- AFTAB ALI vs THF STATE AND 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 807 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
- AFTAB ALAM Alias MATOO vs TRIBUNAL AND A. C. 8T S. D. M. (CENTRAL), KARACHI AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Karachi 305 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, following a police report alleging the petitioner was a person of bad character. The core legal question was whether the police report and the subsequent order of the Tribunal satisfied the statutory requirements regarding the specificity of allegations and the procedural mandates for issuing warrants. The High Court held that the proceedings were legally flawed because the police report failed to provide essential details regarding the nature, time, and place of the alleged acts. Furthermore, the Tribunal failed to apply its mind to the facts, did not record reasons for issuing non-bailable warrants, and neglected to specify which clause of the Act was applicable. The Court established that a Tribunal must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including providing specific details of charges and recording reasons for coercive orders, as failure to do so constitutes an abuse of the process of law and renders the proceedings liable to be quashed.
Questions settled- Does a police report under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 require specific details of the time, place, and nature of the alleged acts to be legally valid?
- Is a Tribunal required to record reasons when issuing non-bailable warrants under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Can proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 be quashed if the Tribunal fails to specify which statutory clause is attracted to the case?
- AFTAB AHMED vs THE STATE Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 632 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-24Read full judgment →
- AFAQUZ ZUBAIR vs MUHAMMAD IDRISPLD 1978 Karachi 9 84 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
- ADMINISTRATOR, TOWN COMMITTEE, TAUNSA vs YAR MUHAMMAD1978 PLC 42 · Labour Court · 1975-04-07Read full judgment →
- ADAMJEE PAPER AND BOARD MILLS LTD., NOWSHERA vs SHER MOHAMMAD1978 PLC 328 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1977-07-31Read full judgment →
- ABID KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 811 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-20Read full judgment →
- ABID HUSSAIN vs GHULAM RASOOL AND 3 Other1978 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over admission to an Engineering College seat reserved for the Chaghai District. The petitioner, Abid Hussain, challenged the High Court's judgment that favored the respondent, Ghulam Rasool. The Selection Committee had initially rejected the respondent's application solely because he received his education in Sind. The High Court, however, determined that the respondent was a bona fide resident of Chaghai District, relying on revenue records and official certificates, despite his education outside the province. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court could interfere with the Selection Committee’s decision and whether the respondent’s residency status was correctly determined. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s finding of fact regarding the respondent's residency was based on substantial evidence and was not open to review. Furthermore, the Court established that a laconic administrative finding, lacking proper reasoning, does not preclude judicial review. It clarified that bona fide resident does not necessitate continuous physical presence in the province at all times.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with an administrative finding that is laconic and lacks proper reasoning?
- Does the term bona fide resident for provincial admission purposes require continuous physical presence in the province?
- Is a finding of fact by a High Court based on evidence open to review by the Supreme Court?
- ABDUS SATTAR AND Another vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SATTAR AND AN vs Hafiz MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Lahore 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 247 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-07Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN ETC. vs THE STATE1978 P Cr. L J 620 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-03-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAUF AND Another vs Mst. ZAINAB And 3 Other1978 SCMR 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a second appeal regarding a suit for possession of a house. The plaintiff, an orphan female, sued the defendants (her relatives) for possession, asserting ownership. The defendants claimed title through adverse possession. The trial court, the District Judge in appeal, and the High Court all ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding she was the owner and the defendants had not established adverse possession. The Supreme Court addressed contentions regarding the misreading of evidence, the admissibility of a prior admission by a defendant, the non-consideration of a dower deed, and the exclusion of a Jirga decision. The Court held that the defendant's prior admission was properly considered, and documents like the dower deed were correctly excluded as they were not put to the plaintiff at trial. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that possession by relatives of an orphan female living with them does not constitute adverse possession. The petition was dismissed as substantial justice had been done.
Questions settled- Can an admission made by a defendant in a previous suit be used against them in a subsequent suit if it was put to them during examination?
- Does the possession of property by relatives of an orphan female living with them constitute adverse possession?
- Can documents not put to the opposite party during trial be relied upon to bind that party?
- ABDUR RASHID vs SAEED AKHTAR1978 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a civil revision regarding the refusal of a temporary injunction. The petitioner, having filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, sought an injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restrain the respondent from selling the property and dispossessing him. While the trial court initially granted the injunction, the Additional District Judge vacated it on appeal. The High Court upheld this decision, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, noting that the property was occupied by the petitioner's relatives as tenants rather than by the petitioner in his own right as a transferee. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's findings, holding that in the absence of a prima facie case, the petitioner was not entitled to injunctive relief. The petition was dismissed as the Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner entitled to a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance if they fail to establish a prima facie case?
- Can a court grant a temporary injunction to restrain dispossession when the petitioner is not in possession of the property in their own right?
- ABDUR RASHID vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLC [C. S. T.) 49 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1977-08-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID AND Another vs The STATE1978 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the enhancement of sentences from transportation for life to death by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the death penalty was appropriate for the appellants, Abdur Rashid and Ali Jan, given the nature of their involvement and the evidence of constructive versus direct liability. The Supreme Court held that where a conviction for murder is based on constructive liability under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than the direct infliction of a fatal blow, the death penalty is generally not warranted. Consequently, the Court reduced the death sentence of Abdur Rashid to transportation for life, as his involvement was constructive. Similarly, the Court reduced Ali Jan's death sentence to transportation for life for the murder of Mohabbat Ali due to lack of direct evidence of a fatal blow, but upheld the death sentence for the murder of Riasat Ali, as the evidence established he struck the deceased on the head with a formidable weapon, demonstrating clear intent to kill.
Questions settled- Is the death penalty appropriate for a conviction based solely on constructive liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does striking a victim on the head with a formidable weapon establish sufficient intent to justify a death sentence?
- Can an appellate court reduce a death sentence to transportation for life when the evidence shows the accused did not inflict the fatal blow directly?
- ABDUR RAHMAN MOBASHIR AND 3 OTHERS vs Sped AMIR ALI SHAH BOKHARI1978 PLD Lahore 113 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHMAN MOBASHIR AND 3 Other vs Syed AMIR ALI SHAH BOKHARI1978 PLD Lahore 113 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-12Read full judgment →
- AMIN vs The STATE1978 SCMR 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction and sentence under the Customs Act for smuggling contraband goods, namely wrist-watches and chains hidden in a cavity of a truck. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution proved conscious possession and whether the burden shifted to the accused to provide a lawful excuse under the relevant statutory provisions. The Supreme Court held that once the petitioner was found in conscious possession of the smuggled goods, the burden correctly shifted to him under the statute to prove a lawful excuse, which he failed to do by neglecting to produce the permanent driver in defense. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and the High Court's acquittal of the co-accused.
Questions settled- Whether the burden of proving a lawful excuse for possessing smuggled goods shifts to the accused under Section 156(89) of the Customs Act?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused due to lack of evidence of conscious possession vitiate the conviction of the main accused found in conscious possession?
- What constitutes conscious possession of contraband goods found concealed in a vehicle?
- ABDULLAH vs FAQIR ULLAH AND 6 OTHERS1978 PLD SC (A J & K) 135 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1978-05-29Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID vs MUHAMMAD SHAFT AND ANOTHER1978 PLD Quetta 66 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition under sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code was directed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner and Magistrate First Class, Pishin, whereby the petitioner was ordered to remove an alleged obstruction on a public way and flood water channel. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate could pass an absolute order under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code without first passing a conditional order, recording evidence, and following the mandatory procedure prescribed under sections 133 to 139-A of the Code. The Balochistan High Court held that the Magistrate flagrantly violated the mandatory provisions of sections 133 to 139-A of the Criminal Procedure Code by failing to pass a conditional order or follow the prescribed procedure. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Magistrate for re-trial in strict compliance with the statutory provisions, while also deprecating the practice of directly approaching the High Court in revision without first seeking remedy from the Sessions Court.
Questions settled- Whether a Magistrate can pass an absolute order under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code without first passing a conditional order?
- Is it mandatory for a Magistrate to follow the procedure laid down under sections 133 to 139-A of the Criminal Procedure Code in public nuisance proceedings?
- Does a direct revision petition to the High Court, once admitted, warrant a decision on merits despite the availability of an alternate forum in the Sessions Court?
- Can an absolute order passed in violation of mandatory procedural provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code be sustained on the basis of admissions in a written statement?