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.
- NISAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
- NICK KAJTAZI vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under the Customs Act 1969 was filed by an American citizen challenging his sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000, which was imposed by the Special Judge Customs and Taxation, Karachi, following the appellant's plea of guilty to smuggling 44 kilograms of Charas. The sole issue before the High Court was the quantum of sentence. The appellant contended that as a foreigner who pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, a sentence of fine alone was sufficient. The High Court analyzed the five primary aims of sentencing—retribution, individual deterrence, general deterrence, public protection, and rehabilitation—and emphasized that the legislature's increase of the maximum penalty for smuggling under the Act reflected a need for deterrent sentences. However, the Court held that a genuine plea of guilty must be treated as a mitigating factor reflecting remorse. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence of imprisonment from six months to three months' simple imprisonment while maintaining the fine.
Questions settled- Whether a plea of guilty by an accused person operates as a mitigating factor that warrants leniency in sentencing?
- What are the primary principles and theories that govern the judicial exercise of discretion in determining the quantum of criminal sentences?
- Can an appellate court entertain an appeal solely on the question of the extent of a sentence where the conviction is based on a plea of guilty?
- NIAZ AHMED KHAN vs PROVINCE OF SIND AND OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 604 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging the deployment of the Armed Forces in aid of civil power, the imposition of curfew/Martial Law, press censorship, and the trial of civilians by military courts following political unrest after the 1977 general elections. During the proceedings, the Parliament enacted the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act 1977, introducing Clauses (3) and (4) to Article 245, which ousted the High Court's Article 199 jurisdiction in areas where the Armed Forces act in aid of civil power and mandated the suspension of pending proceedings.
The Sindh High Court unanimously held that the petition must remain suspended for the duration of the military's deployment in aid of civil power. The Court held that general elections cannot be collaterally challenged via Article 199 due to the bar in Article 225, that Parliament possesses unfettered constitutional amendment powers under Articles 238 and 239, and that the territorial suspension under Article 245 is a temporary, constitutional measure. However, judges noted that military actions must remain strictly subject to law and within the scope of aiding civil power.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can be validly suspended by a constitutional amendment when the Armed Forces are deployed in aid of civil power?
- Can the general election of Members of the National Assembly be challenged through a writ petition under Article 199 in light of Article 225 of the Constitution?
- Whether the deployment of Armed Forces under Article 245 of the Constitution supplants the civil authority or operates strictly subject to law?
- Can the validity of a Proclamation of Emergency issued under the Constitution be subjected to judicial review?
- NIAZ AHMAD vs NAIM AKHTAR AND Another1977 SCMR 159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of the respondent under sections 302, 307, and 456 of the P.P.C., but reducing the sentence for murder from death to transportation for life due to surrounding circumstances and lack of premeditation. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether these circumstances constituted a valid mitigating factor for awarding the lesser penalty under section 302. However, due to prolonged delays in bringing the appeal to a hearing—largely caused by the appellant's own procrastination—and the fact that more than five years had elapsed since the High Court reduced the sentence, the respondent had acquired an expectation of life. Following its consistent practice not to inflict the maximum penalty after such extensive lapse of time, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the lesser sentence, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the sentence of transportation for life.
Questions settled- Whether prolonged delay in bringing an appeal to a hearing and the resulting expectation of life justify declining to impose the death sentence?
- Do sudden excitement and lack of premeditation constitute valid mitigating factors for awarding a lesser penalty under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- What is the consistent practice of the Supreme Court regarding the imposition of the maximum penalty after a long lapse of time following a sentence reduction or acquittal by the High Court?
- NEW NATIONAL MINING CORPORATION vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1977 PLD Quetta 15 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-29Read full judgment →
- NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI vs MESSRS AMERICAN ORIENT1977 PLD Karachi 569 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved a suit for reimbursement brought by an insurance company against ship owners and local agents after the insurer was compelled to satisfy a joint and several decree obtained by the consignee for short delivery of goods under a marine insurance policy. The core legal question was whether an insurer, having paid a decretal amount for which it was jointly liable with the carriers, could claim reimbursement under Section 69 of the Contract Act, and whether such a claim was barred by limitation, res judicata, or the failure to initiate third-party proceedings under procedural rules. The Sindh High Court held that the carriers were primarily liable for the loss of goods, and the insurer, being interested in the payment and legally bound, was entitled to reimbursement. The court established that Section 69 of the Contract Act covers persons legally bound who also possess an interest in the payment, that the suit governed by Article 61 of the Limitation Act is within time when filed from the date of payment, and that procedural rules regarding third-party notices do not extinguish independent substantive rights to indemnity.
Questions settled- Can a person who is legally bound to pay a debt claim reimbursement under Section 69 of the Contract Act if they are also interested in the payment?
- Whether an insurer's suit for reimbursement against a primary wrongdoer is governed by Article 61 or Article 31 of the Limitation Act?
- Does the dismissal of an execution application seeking substitution in a previous decree operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent regular suit for reimbursement?
- Is a defendant barred from filing a separate suit for indemnity if they failed to initiate third-party proceedings under the Sind Chief Court Rules?
- NEW ERA BUILDERS, KARACHI vs PAKISTAN INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 822 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- NAZRA AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 480 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
- NAZO Alias ALI NAWAZ vs The STATE1977 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which maintained the appellant's conviction and sentence of transportation for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and a retracted judicial confession, alleging that the appellant and his co-accused lured the deceased away, leading to his murder and subsequent burial, along with certain recoveries. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the retracted confession was inconsistent with the medical evidence showing exclusively incised wounds, whereas the confession mentioned blunt weapon blows. Furthermore, the court found serious doubts regarding the alleged discovery of the dead body and the recovery of a hatchet from water, noting contradictions in witness testimonies and a lack of credible proof connecting the recovered items to the crime. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed the appellant's immediate release.
Questions settled- Whether a retracted judicial confession inconsistent with medical evidence can be relied upon to sustain a conviction?
- Can a conviction based on circumstantial evidence stand when the testimonies regarding last-seen and recoveries suffer from material contradictions?
- Does the recovery of a weapon from water without proof of bloodstains at the time of seizure connect the accused to the crime?
- NAZIR AHMAD vs The STATE1977 SCMR 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his father's first cousin, Taj Din. The trial court had acquitted the co-accused, finding that the alleged eye-witnesses were not present at the scene and had been influenced by local political animosity. The conviction of the appellant was based solely on two alleged oral dying declarations and the recovery of a blood-stained weapon. The Supreme Court considered whether such evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction after the ocular testimony had been entirely rejected. The Court held that once the eye-witnesses were disbelieved, the prosecution's case was severely undermined, requiring strong independent evidence for conviction. The Court found the oral dying declarations unreliable, as they were not mentioned in the First Information Report, and noted significant discrepancies in the recovery evidence. Consequently, the Court concluded that the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, set aside the judgment of the lower courts, and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on oral dying declarations when the ocular evidence has been rejected by the court?
- Does the rejection of eye-witness testimony in a murder case create a general doubt requiring strong independent evidence for conviction?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the recovery evidence of the weapon is discrepant and unreliable?
- NAZIR AHMAD TAJ DIN vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR OP CUSTOMS, LAHORE AND 21977 PLD Lahore 1392 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the orders of customs authorities confiscating imported hacksaw blades and imposing a redemption fine on the petitioner firm. The core legal question revolves around whether hacksaw blades should be classified under sub-heading 82.02-I (as a hacksaw/banned item) or sub-heading 82.02-III ("of a kind used in machinery") of the Import Trade Control Schedule, and whether the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has the authority to declare items banned via a public notice without statutory backing. The Lahore High Court held that hacksaw blades fall under sub-heading 82.02-III as items used in machinery, and that the Chief Controller cannot arbitrarily classify or ban items outside the mechanism provided by law. The court laid down the principle that administrative agencies must interpret trade schedules objectively using established interpretation rules, cannot change settled classification practices without lawful justification, and that administrative bodies lack the inherent power to declare goods banned without express statutory notification.
Questions settled- Whether hacksaw blades are correctly classified under sub-heading 82.02-I or sub-heading 82.02-III of the Import Trade Control Schedule?
- Does the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports have the authority to declare an item banned through a public notice without a notification by the Central Government?
- Are customs authorities bound by their own past precedents in classifying identical imported articles?
- Does a delay of six months in filing a writ petition constitute fatal laches when the aggrieved party was pursuing alternative remedies diligently?
- NAZIR AHMAD AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by two petitioners accused of murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners killed the deceased due to a scandal involving an illicit connection between one petitioner and the sister of the other. The defense argued that the case was a blind murder, that the petitioners would not have acted in concert given the alleged illicit relationship, and that the presence of contradictory affidavits from a prosecution witness cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The Court held that affidavits not falling under Sections 74, 526, or 539-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 do not constitute legal evidence and that the trial court must resolve the issue of contradictory affidavits during the trial. Regarding bail, the Court confirmed bail for the petitioner who allegedly raised a lalkara, finding that his participation required further inquiry. However, the Court refused bail to the petitioner accused of delivering the fatal blow, as his involvement was supported by eyewitness statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Are affidavits not covered by Sections 74, 526, or 539-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered legal evidence?
- Does the existence of contradictory affidavits from a prosecution witness necessitate the cancellation or refusal of bail at the pre-trial stage?
- Is the role of an accused who allegedly raised a lalkara during a murder sufficient grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- NAZEER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 751 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-14Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 277 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges an order by the Additional Sessions Judge cancelling the petitioner's bail in a case under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The bail was initially granted due to cross-versions of the incident. The subsequent cancellation was based on allegations that the petitioner threatened witnesses, evidenced by police reports filed by the complainant. The High Court examined whether these reports constituted sufficient grounds for bail cancellation. The Court held that the cancellation of bail is a drastic measure that requires tangible evidence of the misuse of liberty, such as tampering with witnesses or obstructing justice. Mere allegations in police reports, unsupported by affidavits or independent evidence, are insufficient to warrant the revocation of bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that the State did not support the cancellation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that bail cannot be cancelled based on unverified private grievances. The principle established is that the prosecution must produce reliable evidence of witness tampering to justify the cancellation of bail once granted.
Questions settled- Is a police report alleging witness intimidation sufficient grounds to cancel bail without supporting affidavits?
- Can bail be cancelled based on the accused's non-appearance at a hearing if they were represented by counsel?
- What is the standard of evidence required to justify the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SEND LABOUR1977 PLD Karachi 247 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-03Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD AND 14 OTHERS vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SIND LABOUR.1977 PLD Karachi 214 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-03Read full judgment →
- NAZAR INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1977 PLC 343 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-07-24Read full judgment →
- NAZAR HUSSAIN vs The STATE1977 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant Nazar Hussain for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant along with co-accused attacked the deceased with knives following an altercation over carrying paddy crops, resulting in the fatal injury of the victim. Although the High Court disbelieved the eye-witnesses and police recoveries, it convicted the appellant based on a dying declaration corroborated by the injuries found on the appellant and his own partial admission of presence and participation at the crime scene under a plea of private defense. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction for murder could be sustained upon a dying declaration when medical evidence suggested the deceased's trachea was cut, allegedly impairing speech. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the medical report indicated the wound was trachea deep rather than completely severed, that speech in a whisper remains possible, and that the dying declaration was duly corroborated by the appellant's admission and physical injuries. The court laid down the principle that a dying declaration, if proved to be made while the declarant is conscious, can safely form the basis of a conviction even in the presence of minor medical contradictions, especially when corroborated by the accused's own version of events and self-inflicted or retaliatory injuries.
Questions settled- Whether a dying declaration can be relied upon to sustain a murder conviction when medical evidence suggests the trachea of the deceased was injured?
- Can an accused be convicted on the basis of a dying declaration and self-admitted participation, even if the primary ocular testimony and police recoveries are disbelieved?
- Does a wound that is trachea deep completely preclude a person from making a brief statement or speaking in a whisper?
- NAZAR HUSSAIN vs ASLAM SHAH1977 PLD Lahore 210 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge ordering the ejectment of the appellant-tenant for default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the non-service of a statutory notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is fatal to an ejectment application where the tenant has already acknowledged the successor landlord and paid rent. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the statutory notice requirement under Section 13-A raises a rebuttable presumption meant to inform the tenant of devolution or transfer. Where a tenant expressly acknowledges the new landlord and pays rent, a fresh tenancy is created, rendering formal notice unnecessary. The court laid down the principle that the protection of Section 13-A does not apply once a tenant voluntarily acknowledges the transferee or heir by paying rent, and the principle of estoppel prevents the tenant from subsequently claiming default protection based on lack of notice.
Questions settled- Whether the non-service of notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is fatal to an ejectment application when the tenant has already acknowledged the successor landlord?
- Does the payment of rent to a successor landlord create a fresh tenancy waiving the requirement of a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a tenant invoke the principle of lack of statutory notice under Section 13-A after having conducted themselves by paying rent and acknowledging the landlord?
- NAWAB DIN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND). NAWAB- SHAH AND 61977 PLD Karachi 929 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- NAWAB DIN vs ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 220 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the sanctioning of a new watercourse by a Divisional Canal Officer without adhering to statutory procedural requirements. The appellant challenged an order that sanctioned a new watercourse for the respondent based on an oral request made during proceedings initiated by the appellant for a warabandi. The core legal question was whether a Canal Officer could sanction a new watercourse based on an oral request without providing notice to interested parties, in violation of the Canal and Drainage Act. The Court held that the order was unsustainable because the statutory procedure was not followed. It emphasized that the requirement for a written application and the issuance of notice to interested parties under the relevant provisions of the Act are mandatory, not directory. The failure to provide notice and the absence of a written application rendered the Canal Officer's order invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree, affirming that procedural compliance is essential for the validity of administrative orders affecting water rights.
Questions settled- Is the requirement to issue notice to interested parties under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 mandatory or directory?
- Can a Divisional Canal Officer sanction a new watercourse based solely on an oral request?
- Does the failure to follow the statutory procedure for sanctioning a watercourse render the Canal Officer's order invalid?
- NAWAB DIN AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. MAQBOOLAN BIBI1977 P Cr. L J 339 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-13Read full judgment →
- NAWAB BROTHERS vs COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 947 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the imposition of regulatory duty on imported iron and steel scrap by the Collector of Customs. The petitioner raised two primary contentions: first, that the Federal Government lacked the legislative competence to impose "regulatory duty" as it was not explicitly listed in the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution; and second, that the notification imposing the duty was not effectively published in the official Gazette before the goods were imported. The Court held that "regulatory duty" falls within the scope of "duties of customs" under the Federal Legislative List, confirming the government's authority. Regarding publication, the Court ruled that a notification is effective once the official Gazette is made available for sale or distribution to the public, rather than upon its arrival at a specific destination. Since the Gazette was available in Rawalpindi and distributed to subscribers before the import date, the notification was deemed validly published. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Government have the power to impose regulatory duty under the Customs Act 1969?
- Is 'regulatory duty' included within the expression 'duties of customs' under the Federal Legislative List of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- When is a notification in the official Gazette considered effectively published for the purpose of imposing a tax or duty?
- Does the effective date of a notification depend on the availability of the official Gazette at a specific geographic location?
- NAWAB AND Others vs ALLAH RAKHA AND Other1977 SCMR 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave arising from a judgment and decree of the High Court of West Pakistan, which dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for possession of land gifted by the deceased Mohammad Din to the respondents. The plaintiffs challenged the two registered gift deeds executed in January 1951 on the grounds of lack of sound disposing mind, Marzul Maut (death-bed illness), and undue influence. The trial court held the gifts to be void due to Marzul Maut. The District Judge partially upheld the gifts, setting aside the one in favor of Allah Rakha due to undue influence. The High Court dismissed the suit entirely, finding no undue influence and noting the abatement of appeals regarding certain deceased parties. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the findings of the High Court were supported by evidence, that the donor possessed sound mental and physical capacity at the time of execution, and that the gifts were the spontaneous acts of the donor, who was displeased with the litigious plaintiffs. The key principle laid down is that the mere existence of a fiduciary or dependent relationship and a position to dominate the will is insufficient to void a transaction; it must be proven that unfair advantage was actually taken and that the gift was not a free and spontaneous act of the donor.
Questions settled- Whether the rule of Marzul Maut under Shariat Law applies retrospectively to gifts executed before the amendment of Shariat Law in March 1951 when the parties were governed by customary law?
- Does the mere fact that a donor is old and living with a donee conclusively establish that a gift was procured by undue influence?
- What is the burden of proof under Section 16 of the Contract Act 1872 when a transaction appears unconscionable and one party is in a position to dominate the will of another?
- NAUSHAD vs JEHANZEB AND ANOTHER1977 SCMR 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court declining to enhance the sentence of the respondent who was convicted under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code for committing carnal intercourse with a five-year-old child and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment by a Magistrate. The core legal question is whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to enhance a sentence under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the original sentence awarded by the trial court has already been served out by the convict. The Supreme Court held that the High Court is fully competent to enhance a manifestly inadequate sentence even if the convict has already undergone the sentence served upon them. The key principle laid down is that the completion of a lenient or inadequate sentence does not oust or bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to enhance the punishment under revision or appeal powers when the initial sentence is manifestly inadequate.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to enhance a sentence under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the convict has already undergone the sentence awarded by the trial court?
- Can a manifestly inadequate sentence for an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code be enhanced after the original term of imprisonment has been served out?
- NAUKAFConvict vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 898 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-28Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL TYRE AND RUBBER Co., KARACHI vs Subedar FAZAL RAHMAN AND 21977 PLD Karachi 33 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed against the orders of the Junior Labour Court and the Labour Court, Karachi, which had directed the reinstatement of respondent No. 3, a Security Inspector. The respondent's services were terminated by the petitioner-employer as a measure of economy and reorganization, resulting in the abolition of his post. The lower courts ordered reinstatement on the ground that the respondent was a general worker and, as other general workers appointed after him were retained, his retrenchment violated the principle of 'first come last go'. The High Court, however, observed that the lower courts misread the evidence and ignored Standing Order 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which mandates that retrenchment must be conducted category-wise. The Court held that the respondent belonged to a specialized category of watch and ward staff, and since he was the junior-most in that category, his retrenchment was lawful. The petition was accepted, and the lower courts' orders were declared to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether retrenchment under Standing Order 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 must be carried out category-wise or across the entire establishment generally?
- Can a finding of fact by a labour court be disturbed by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction if it is based on a clear misreading of evidence?
- Does the Civil Procedure Code 1908 apply to proceedings before the Junior Labour Court regarding the framing of issues?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI vs FAKIR MUHAMMAD MALIK AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 256 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-17Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH KHAN BADAR DIN vs THE STATE1977 PLD Quetta 7 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-13Read full judgment →
- NASRULLAH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 132 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application arose out of proceedings under Section 43(3) of the Abkari Act, following a raid by excise and police officers who recovered over four maunds of charas from a residential house where both applicants were present. The applicants' counsel contended that all offences under the Abkari Act are bailable by virtue of Section 41-B thereof, and further argued that the search violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 38 of the Abkari Act as the mashirs were not from the locality. The High Court declined to decide the general bailability question, holding that the applicants were entitled to bail on the merits. Regarding applicant Sher Mohammad, the Court noted that the house did not belong to him and he was merely lying on a cot. Regarding applicant Nasrullah, the search witnesses not being from the locality necessitated scrutiny at trial and made the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the High Court admitted both applicants to bail.
Questions settled- Does the non-association of search witnesses from the immediate locality per se vitiate a search or merely require cautious scrutiny of their evidence?
- Is a person found merely present on a cot in another individual's house entitled to bail when contraband is recovered from the premises?
- Can the requirement of thorough scrutiny of recovery witnesses not belonging to the locality constitute a ground for further inquiry at the bail stage?
- NASIR KHANAccused vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 886 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-03-30Read full judgment →
- NASIR KHAN vs AGENT, T. J. V. TARBELA DAM1977 PLC 68 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-06-20Read full judgment →
- NASIR AHMAD vs NAFEES COTTON MILLS LTD., MUZAFFARGARH1977 PLC 390 · Labour Court · 1975-04-16Read full judgment →
- NASIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs Tun STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-13Read full judgment →
- NASIM SILK. INDUSTRIES vs FIFTH SIND LABOUR COURT ETC.1977 PLD Karachi 793 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-31Read full judgment →
- NASIM SILK INDUSTRIES vs FIFTH SIND LABOUR COURT ETC.1977 PLC 489 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner firm challenged an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal which had reversed a Junior Labour Court's decision dismissing the second respondent's application for reinstatement. The second respondent, a weaver, had been dismissed after being charge-sheeted for wilful absence and subsequently filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 without serving the mandatory prior notice of grievance on the employer. The core legal question was whether an incompetent application filed without statutory notice could be automatically resurrected or saved by a subsequent retrospective amendment to the statute, and whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that the initial application, filed without complying with the mandatory pre-condition of statutory notice, was a nullity and void ab initio, and could not be automatically revived by the subsequent enactment of section 25-A(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 without filing a fresh application. The petition was allowed, setting aside the Appellate Tribunal's order and restoring the Junior Labour Court's dismissal of the application.
Questions settled- Whether an application filed before a Labour Court without serving the mandatory statutory notice of grievance is a nullity?
- Can an incompetent application that was a nullity when filed be automatically revived by a subsequent change in the law?
- Does the definition of an industrial establishment under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 apply prospectively to establishments employing twenty or more workmen?
- Is the service of a grievance notice a mandatory pre-condition for the exercise of jurisdiction by a Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- NASIBURREHMAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 109 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
- NASEER A. SHEIKH vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1977 PLD Lahore 753 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-17Read full judgment →
- NASEEM AKHTAR NAIK vs PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 73 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1977-06-01Read full judgment →
- NASAR JAVED vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
- Nairnuddin, MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 645 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR QADIR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 239 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-11Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR KHAN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 937 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-30Read full judgment →
- MUZAFFAR AHMAD KHAWAJA vs PAKISTAN GENERAL INSURANCE Co. LTD., LAHORE1977 PLD Lahore 902 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUSLIM SHAH vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 838 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-20Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 874 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-28Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 906 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-17Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs BASHIR AHMAD AND 5 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 767 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-04Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD AND ANOTHER vs The STATE1977 SCMR 129 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants were convicted of abduction, rape, and murder, with the trial court and High Court relying primarily on the victim's dying declaration after prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing the dying declaration was unreliable because the doctor did not explicitly testify to its recording in his presence, and that alternative officials were available to record it. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the doctor's signature on the dying declaration and his prior confirmation of the victim's fitness to make a statement sufficiently established its authenticity. The Court further held that the absence of relatives during the recording of the statement negated claims of tutoring. Additionally, the Court ruled that the lower courts erred in excluding evidence of recoveries, noting that the failure to record the receipt of sealed parcels in the daily diary was immaterial, as such entries belong in the Register Malkhana, not the daily diary. The dying declaration, corroborated by physical evidence and resistance injuries on the appellants, was deemed sufficient to sustain the convictions.
Questions settled- Does the omission of a specific entry regarding the receipt of sealed parcels in a police daily diary invalidate the evidence of recovery?
- Is a dying declaration reliable when the medical officer confirms the victim's fitness to testify and signs the statement, even if the officer does not explicitly testify to witnessing the recording?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on a dying declaration when material prosecution witnesses have turned hostile?
- MUSH FAQ HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SANGHAR1977 P Cr. L J 711 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-16Read full judgment →
- MUSARRAT ALI KHAN vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, RAHIMYARKHAN AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 1140 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MURID KHAN AND. 6 Oth vs OFFICER INCHARGE, QADDAFI STADIUM, LAHORE1977 PLC 613 · Labour Court · 1976-03-31Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD AND Another vs The STATE1977 SCMR 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioners for a murderous assault, initially under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was subsequently altered by the Sessions Judge to Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with a reduced sentence of one and a half years rigorous imprisonment. The matter had been pending in the High Court for approximately ten years before being dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a compromise reached between the parties after a significant lapse of time—twelve years post-incident—could be accepted to set aside the conviction. The Supreme Court, noting that the complainant and victim had confirmed the compromise with the petitioners, who were his neighbors, exercised its discretion to accept the composition. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed the appeal based on the compromise, and acquitted the petitioners, ordering their immediate release. The judgment affirms the principle that in appropriate circumstances, particularly where the victim consents, a compromise can be recognized to resolve criminal proceedings even at the appellate stage.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court accept a compromise between parties to set aside a criminal conviction at the leave to appeal stage?
- Does the confirmation of a compromise by the complainant justify the acquittal of the accused in a case of murderous assault?
- Is a long delay in the disposal of a revision petition a relevant factor when considering a compromise between parties?
- MUNIR AHMAD AND 8 OTHERS vs KISHOMAL1977 PLD Karachi 466 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
- MUNIE BUX vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN1977 PLC 191 · Labour Court · 1976-10-19Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs DA STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1030 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 603 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-04Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs ATTOCK OIL Co. LTD.1977 PLC 365 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-09-16Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ HUSSAIN alias BUTTA vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 749 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUM'S IQBAL & Co., JHANG vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs Tiis STATE1977 P Cr. L J 330 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-23Read full judgment →
- MUJTABA AHMAD KHAN ANO 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 565 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-06Read full judgment →
- MUIJAM VIAD IBRAHIM vs MESSRS SIMPLEX RUBBER MANUFACTURERS LTD., KARACHI1977 PLC 272 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-10-25Read full judgment →
- MUHIB AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 PLD Karachi 726 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMADOO vs TEE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMURRAD AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 PLD Lahore 136 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 8 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAKIR vs TAJ MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 443 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs Tim STATE1977 P Cr. L J 403 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND OTHERS1977 PLC [C S.T.] 89 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1977-03-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs THE STATE1977 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-11-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OP1977 PLD Karachi 1064 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs CHAIRMAN, UNION COMMITTEE, WARD No, 7/8, KOT1977 P Cr. L J 107 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN ORDNANCE FACTORY, WAH1977 PLC [C. S. T.] 96 · Federal Service Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND ANOTH vs KOH-I-NOOR SPINNING MILLS LTD,1977 PLC 214(1) · Labour Court · 1976-11-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS vs MAHBOOB HUSSAIN JANJUHA1977 P Cr. L J 506 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AND 3 Others vs Sardar BAQIR ALI AND Another1977 SCMR 4 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings could be maintained against all appellants when the underlying transaction, specifically the receipt of money, was executed solely by one appellant, Muhammad Younus, and the evidence failed to establish that the firm involved was a joint enterprise. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of evidence linking the other appellants to the transaction or establishing a joint firm, the criminal proceedings against them were unsustainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in part, quashing the proceedings against the three appellants who were not parties to the receipt, while directing that the case proceed against Muhammad Younus alone. The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal liability in cases of breach of trust and cheating must be grounded in specific individual involvement or clear evidence of joint liability.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be quashed against co-accused if the evidence only implicates one individual in the transaction?
- Is it permissible to continue criminal proceedings against one accused while quashing them against others in the same case?
- Does the absence of evidence regarding a joint firm preclude the prosecution of all partners for an alleged criminal act committed by only one partner?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs CHAIRMAN, ELECTION TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS1977 PLD Peshawar 50 · Peshawar High Court · 1973-05-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB BEG vs The STATE1977 P Cr. L J 641 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs DHANJI BAI AND OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 284 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs DHANJ1BAI B. KATHERANI AND 2 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 190 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAMIN AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 387 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 878 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD vs IKRAM SADIQ KHAN & Co.1977 PLC 354 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME1977 PLD Karachi 523 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD USMAN vs 5TH SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1977 PLC 445 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMER AND ANOTHER vs DR. AM1NA ASHRAF1977 PLD Karachi 305 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. During the pendency of the eviction application, the original landlord sold the tenement to the respondent landlady, who sought substitution of her name. The Rent Controller rejected her substitution application, but the First Appellate Court set aside the order and granted the application. The tenant appealed, contending that the order refusing substitution was an unappealable interlocutory order under Section 15 and that the first appeal was time-barred. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, held that the Rent Controller's order was not merely interlocutory or collateral, as its effect was the rejection of the eviction application for the landlady, thus making it an appealable order under Section 15. However, as the First Appellate Court failed to decide the tenant's plea regarding limitation, the High Court remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court for determination on that limited question.
Questions settled- Is an order of the Rent Controller refusing substitution of a transferee landlord an appealable order under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does an order that disposes of a party's eviction application constitute an interlocutory order exempt from appeal under the Rent Ordinance?
- MUHAMMAD UMAR vs TRIBAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD., DERA ISMAIL KHAN1977 PLC 653 · Labour Court · 1977-01-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMAR vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 909 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMAR vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL Hams)1977 PLD Lahore 676 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SULEMAN AND ANOTEElt vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 1111 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 488 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 284 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND Another vs GHULAM JILLANI AND ANOTHER1977 SCMR 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The appellants sought the transfer of a shop-cum-residential property as a single, indivisible unit. Settlement authorities, however, divided the property into distinct units, transferring the shop and residential portions to the respective parties while reserving three disputed back rooms for auction, finding them to be an independent residential unit. The appellants challenged this division, arguing the property should have been treated as one. The High Court dismissed their writ petition and subsequent Letters Patent Appeal, affirming the Settlement authorities' jurisdiction to divide the property. The Supreme Court upheld the decision, holding that the Settlement authorities acted within their lawful discretion under the Act to divide the property. The Court rejected the argument that the authorities were unaware of their powers to treat the property as a single unit. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the disputed rooms constituted a separate unit, though the Court noted the appellant could still pursue a claim for the rooms as a house through appropriate channels.
Questions settled- Do Settlement authorities have the jurisdiction to divide a property into separate units under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can a property be claimed as an indivisible unit if it contains distinct shop and residential portions?
- Is the High Court's interference in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction warranted when Settlement authorities have lawfully exercised their discretion in property division?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 587 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs The STATE1977 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction for accepting illegal gratification while working as a patwari. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of the defence plea regarding tainted money recovery, the effect of a witness's relationship with the complainant, and whether the prosecution established the link between the bribe acceptance and the official act of entering a mutation. The Supreme Court held that once tainted money was recovered from the petitioner, the onus shifted to him to explain its receipt, and the minor misreading regarding an independent witness did not vitiate a conviction supported by sufficient evidence. Furthermore, the initial act of entering a mutation by a patwari forms the necessary foundation for further official action. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts on the establishment of the prosecution case.
Questions settled- Does the recovery of tainted money shift the onus to the accused to explain its receipt?
- Does the misreading of a witness's relationship with the complainant vitiate a conviction where other sufficient evidence exists?
- Is the initial act of entering a mutation by a patwari considered a necessary link in corruption cases involving mutation entries?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1977 PLC 122 · Labour Court · 1976-02-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ ETC. vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD1977 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed the appellants' suit for a permanent injunction against the respondent's operation of an open-air cinema. The appellants, residents of Kundian Town, alleged that the respondent obtained a 'No-Objection Certificate' (NOC) through misrepresentation regarding the proximity of a mosque and their residences. The core legal question was whether the NOC was invalid due to fraud and whether the cinema's operation constituted an actionable nuisance. The Supreme Court held that while the respondent obtained the NOC by suppressing material facts, this was a matter between the respondent and the licensing authority. The Court ruled that the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the NOC's validity on these grounds, as no statutory rules were violated at the time of issuance. Furthermore, the Court upheld the High Court's finding that the appellants failed to establish that the cinema's operation constituted an actionable nuisance interfering with their property rights or religious practices. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the cinema could continue subject to conditions.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of material facts in an application for a 'No-Objection Certificate' for a cinema automatically invalidate the certificate?
- Can private individuals maintain a suit to challenge the grant of a 'No-Objection Certificate' based solely on the applicant's misrepresentation to the licensing authority?
- What constitutes an actionable nuisance regarding the operation of a cinema in proximity to residential areas and a mosque?