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.
- DHANI BAKHSH AND 3 OTHERS vs USMAN AND 2 OTHER1977 P Cr. L J 116 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-23Read full judgment →
- CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY, ISLAMABAD vs HOSHANG M. DASTUR AND 61977 PLD Karachi 377 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal arises from a judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge decreeing a suit for specific performance of a contract for lease with an option to purchase, along with damages. The property in question originally belonged to an owner who became an enemy alien during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war, vesting the property in the Custodian of Enemy Property. The plaintiffs (Dasturs) had acquired a cinema business and leasehold rights, which led to a tripartite arrangement embodied in a letter dated 30th August 1956, granting a 25-year lease and an option to purchase. The appellant challenged the decree on grounds of limitation, lack of a concluded contract, res judicata, alleged breaches by the plaintiffs, statutory bar under the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965, and the award of damages. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was within time, a binding and concluded contract existed, the prior litigation did not operate as res judicata on the core contract, the option to purchase was an independent covenant unaffected by alleged lease defaults, execution was legally permissible through court officers despite custody, and the damages awarded were reasonable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for specific performance of a lease contract is barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the defendant has not made a clear, unequivocal, and unconditional refusal to perform?
- Whether an option to purchase contained in the same document as a lease agreement constitutes an independent and separate contract whose enforcement is unaffected by alleged breaches of the lease covenants?
- Whether a decree for specific performance against enemy property vested in the Custodian is incapable of execution in view of clause 5 of the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965?
- Whether an implied finding based on an admission or agreement in a former suit operates as constructive res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties?
- CRESCENT PAK INDUSTRIES LID., KARACHI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1977 PLD Karachi 1035 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-08Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARADWALA vs MUNIR AHMAD1977 PLC 107 · Labour Court · 1975-06-04Read full judgment →
- CORNING GLASS (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI vs KARACHI GAS Co. LTD., KARACHI1977 PLD Karachi 1068 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-17Read full judgment →
- CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY1977 PLD Lahore 1029 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit filed by a student against the Controller of Examinations and the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, challenging the refusal to allow him to appear in practical examinations due to illness. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The petitioner contended that section 27 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore) Ordinance XVIII of 1961 barred civil suits against the Board, and that the deletion of a specific rule removed the authority to grant relief. The High Court held that the impugned orders were passed by the Controller of Examinations, not the Board itself, and that section 27 did not bar suits against actions taken outside the Board's jurisdiction or by subordinate functionaries. Furthermore, the Court held that the hardship rules in the Board's Calendar conferred ample power to grant relief in cases of real hardship. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether section 27 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore) Ordinance XVIII of 1961 creates an absolute bar to instituting a civil suit against the Board?
- Do orders passed by the Controller of Examinations constitute orders of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education for the purposes of statutory immunity from suit?
- Whether the hardship rules in the Board's Calendar empower the authorities to grant relief to a candidate who missed practical examinations due to illness?
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI vs MESSRS1977 PLD Lahore 1161 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE vs Mian MUHAMMAD1977 PLD Lahore 170 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-05Read full judgment →
- COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS, ISMAILPUR, BHAKKAR, DISTRICT MIAN WALI vs PAKISTAN CENTRAL COTTON COMMITTEE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 1249 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) KARACHI AND OTHERS vs MESSRS1977 SCMR 371 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of appeals and petitions arising from the confiscation of imported 'steel tubes' by the Customs authorities. The core legal question was whether 'tubes' and 'pipes' are synonymous terms under Serial No. 128(h) of the Free List of the Import Policy Order, 1974, such that the exclusion of 'pipes' from private import also prohibited the import of 'tubes'. The Supreme Court held that 'tubes' and 'pipes' are distinct, separate commodities in trade, industry, and engineering parlance, and that the Import Policy Order maintained this distinction. The Court found that the omission of 'tubes' from the exclusion clause in the relevant entry was deliberate, not accidental. Consequently, the confiscation orders were declared to be without lawful authority. The key principles laid down are that statutory terms in trade and commerce must be construed in their popular, commercial sense rather than technical definitions; that exclusion clauses in import policies must be construed strictly; and that in cases of ambiguity in penal or taxing statutes, the interpretation favorable to the subject must prevail.
Questions settled- Are 'tubes' and 'pipes' synonymous terms for the purposes of import trade control regulations?
- Should an exclusion clause in an import policy be construed strictly against the state?
- Does the principle of interpretation require that words used in a statute or policy be treated as having distinct meaning rather than being redundant?
- In cases of ambiguity in a penal or taxing statute, which party receives the benefit of the doubt?
- CLAUSE PETER SAISAL vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 504 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-04Read full judgment →
- CHUGHATTA vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 782 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-07Read full judgment →
- CHISTIA WEAVING WORKS vs HAZRAT GHAFFAR1977 PLC 701 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-28Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs KHALID MAHMOOD AND 7 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1110 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-10Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry ATAULLAH MHANIA vs Chaudhry ABDUL GHANI GHUMAN AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Lahore 1079 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- CHASLUM CONTRACTORS, MIANWALI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 501 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-07Read full judgment →
- Ch. TALIB HUSSAIN AND Another vs The STATE1977 SCMR 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners, two police officers accused of serious offences during a raid. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling bail when the initial grant of bail by a Magistrate was based on the premise that the offences were bailable, despite subsequent investigations revealing prima facie evidence of non-bailable, serious offences. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the High Court properly exercised its discretion by considering the material available, which indicated the commission of serious, non-bailable offences, irrespective of the Magistrate's initial assessment. The Court established the principle that in bail cancellation proceedings, the court must assess the material on record to determine the nature of the offences prima facie, and that the trial court remains the appropriate forum to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and conflicting evidence at the trial stage, rather than at the bail stage.
Questions settled- Can a High Court cancel bail granted by a Magistrate if the offences are found to be non-bailable upon review of the material?
- Does the classification of an offence as bailable by a Magistrate preclude a High Court from cancelling bail based on evidence of more serious, non-bailable offences?
- Is the credibility of witnesses a matter for the bail stage or the trial stage?
- Ch. SHAH MUHAMMAD vs S. H. O., RAHIMYER KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 2 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Ch. Shah Muhammad against the Station House Officer of Rahimyer Khan and others, challenging the police's refusal to register a First Information Report or conduct an investigation into an alleged incident, having instead recorded the information in the daily diary. The core legal question concerns the legality of a police officer's refusal to register a cognizable offence under the relevant legal provisions and police rules. The Lahore High Court held that under Rule 24.4 of the Punjab Police Rules and sections 154 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if an officer-in-charge suspects that an alleged cognizable offence has not been committed, recording the substance in the station diary with reasons and refusing investigation is not without lawful authority. Furthermore, the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing a private complaint before a court of competent jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether the police can refuse to register a First Information Report upon receiving information of a cognizable offence?
- Does an officer-in-charge of a police station have the authority to record reasons in the station diary for suspecting an alleged offence has not been committed?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against the refusal of police to investigate when an alternate remedy of filing a private complaint is available?
- Ch. SADIQ ALI MUHAMMAD KHALIL AND 8 Others vs SETTLEMENT1977 SCMR 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-07-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the transfer of evacuee property, specifically whether servant quarters attached to a bungalow should be transferred with the main building or as independent units under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The core legal questions were whether the quarters were legally part of the main house and whether the Settlement Authorities erred in rejecting the appellants' transfer forms. The Supreme Court held that the quarters in question were self-sufficient, independent residential units, distinct from the main bungalow, and thus were correctly treated as separate for transfer purposes. However, the Court ruled that the Settlement Authorities acted illegally by rejecting the appellants' transfer forms on the erroneous ground that they were not filed, when they were in fact submitted. The Court established that while servant quarters are generally appurtenant to a main house, they may be treated as independent units if they are self-sufficient. Furthermore, Settlement Authorities must consider all properly submitted forms and cannot dismiss claims based on a misreading of the record regarding the filing of such forms.
Questions settled- Can servant quarters attached to an evacuee bungalow be treated as independent residential units for the purpose of transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Are Settlement Authorities empowered to provide independent access to a transferred unit if it lacks such access?
- Can Settlement Authorities reject transfer forms on the ground that they were not filed when the record shows they were submitted?
- Does the definition of 'house' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 mandate that all outhouses must be transferred with the main building?
- Ch. RAFIQ AHMAD SHAD AND ANOTHER vs CRAIRMAN, PUNJAB ROAD1977 PLC [C.S.T.] 110 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1976-07-20Read full judgment →
- Ch. NOOR MUHAMMAD vs GOVERNMENT OP PUNJAB AND OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-12Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUMTAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 391 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-04Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUKHTAR AHMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 590 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-28Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs STATE HEAVY ENGINEERING CORPORATION, KARACHI1977 PLC 702 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-07Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, ANTI-SMUGGLING1977 PLD Lahore 300 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the seizure of a car he had purchased at a public court auction, arguing that as a bona fide purchaser, the seizure by customs authorities was unlawful. The core legal questions involved whether a vehicle imported without paying customs duty can be seized as smuggled goods despite being purchased through a court auction, and whether court sales carry an implied warranty of title. The Lahore High Court held that the car was a smuggled item liable to confiscation and seizure under the Customs Act, 1969, because no customs duty had been paid and it was imported evading duties. Furthermore, the court held that court sales carry no warranty of title, applying the principle of caveat emptor, meaning the auction-purchaser only acquires the right, title, and interest of the judgment-debtor with all existing defects. The court established that a court-sale purchaser takes the risk regarding title and encumbrances, and that smuggled goods remain subject to confiscation regardless of intermediate court auctions. The constitutional petition was dismissed, noting the availability of statutory appellate remedies.
Questions settled- Whether a vehicle purchased through a court auction is immune from seizure by customs authorities if customs duty remains unpaid?
- Does a court-sale carry an implied warranty of title protecting an auction-purchaser from latent defects or lack of ownership by the judgment-debtor?
- When does the limitation period for issuing a show-cause notice under section 32(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, apply to un-levied duties?
- Are alternate statutory remedies under the Customs Act a bar to maintaining a constitutional petition against a seizure order?
- Ch. INAYATULLAH vs LYALLPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LYALLPUR AND ANOTHER1977 SCMR 488 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the eviction of a lessee from a plot of land owned by the Lyallpur Improvement Trust. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having constructed a building on the leased land, could resist eviction under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, on the grounds that the building remained his personal property rather than the Trust's. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the specific terms of the lease deed, which stipulated that all structures would vest in the Trust upon the termination of the lease without compensation, were binding. The Court affirmed that express contractual covenants in a lease deed override implied statutory provisions, such as those found in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding the ownership of improvements made by a tenant. Consequently, the building became the property of the Trust upon the lease's expiration, validating the eviction notice issued under the relevant municipal and town improvement statutes.
Questions settled- Does a building constructed by a lessee on leased land automatically become the property of the lessor upon the termination of the lease if the contract so stipulates?
- Do express covenants in a lease deed regarding the ownership of improvements override the general provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
- Can a tenant resist eviction under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, by claiming ownership of the superstructure built on the leased land?
- Ch. INAYAT MASIH vs SHAFI AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 714 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-13Read full judgment →
- Ch. HAYAT ALI vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RAWALPINDI1977 PLD Lahore 843 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-29Read full judgment →
- Ch. FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 722 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-23Read full judgment →
- Ch. BAHAR MUHAMMAD vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1977 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the demarcation of property transferred under settlement laws, specifically whether a previously ordered transfer of the 'first floor' of a house included an open space on that level. The core legal question was whether the successor Settlement Commissioner, Mr. M. H. Soofi, acted in excess of his authority by interpreting the order of his predecessor, Mr. Ahsanuddin, and whether such interpretation constituted an impermissible review under the relevant settlement legislation. The Supreme Court held that the successor Commissioner's order was not an exercise of review power under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, but rather a necessary clarification of demarcation requested by the parties. The Court affirmed that the 'first floor' transfer naturally included the open space, as the appellant had exclusive access to it and the original order intended to maintain the parties' existing possession. The principle laid down is that a Settlement Authority has the inherent competence to clarify and demarcate the boundaries of property transferred in previous orders, provided such action does not constitute a substantive review of the original decision.
Questions settled- Does a Settlement Commissioner have the authority to clarify and demarcate the boundaries of property transferred by a predecessor's order?
- Does the clarification of a previous order regarding property demarcation constitute an act of review under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Is a successor Settlement Commissioner empowered to interpret the scope of 'first floor' in a previous transfer order to include open spaces?
- CAPT. RAZA ALI, S. Q. A. vs MUKHTAR HUSSAIN AND Another1977 SCMR 202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, who, in a habeas corpus petition, directed the appellant—a District Magistrate—to pay costs of Rs. 500 personally for an order of detention passed under section 552 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether the appellant was protected under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, against the imposition of such costs. The Supreme Court held that the protection afforded by the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, is explicitly limited to immunity from being sued in a civil court for acts done in good faith in the discharge of judicial duties. It does not extend to costs imposed by a High Court in discretionary proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court affirmed that the High Court possesses the discretion to award costs under its rules, and since the appellant was duly represented in the habeas corpus proceedings, the imposition of costs was within the High Court's jurisdiction and unexceptionable.
Questions settled- Does the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, protect a judicial officer from the imposition of costs in habeas corpus proceedings?
- Is the protection under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, limited to suits in civil courts?
- Does a High Court have the discretion to award costs in proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- CAPT. MUHAMMAD YUNUS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 970 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-16Read full judgment →
- CAPT. (Miro.) SARDAR JAN GUL KHAN vs Mst. SAHIB SULTAN AND 4 OTHERS1977 PLD Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-04-28Read full judgment →
- CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT, KARACHI vs SIND LABOUR COURT No. V And 21977 PLC 421 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-15Read full judgment →
- CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT, KARACHI vs SIND LABOUR COURT No, V AND 21977 PLD Karachi 314 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-15Read full judgment →
- BUTT ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES vs SIND LABOUR COURT NO. 1, KARACHI AND ANOTHER1977 PLD Karachi 166 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-05Read full judgment →
- BUNYAD HUSSAIN vs SETTLEMENT ORGANIZATION THROUGH THE SETTLEMENT1977 PLD Lahore 929 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- BRIG (Rum) SAHIB DAD. KHAN vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 676 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for confirmation of interim bail filed by a former Provincial Minister accused of various offences, including embezzlement of public funds, illegal gratification, and other malpractices related to the Punjab Peoples Festival and his official duties. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could entertain a bail application directly without the petitioner first approaching the Special Judge, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the status of the investigation. The Court held that there is no statutory bar preventing a direct petition to the High Court for bail. Regarding the merits, the Court observed that the investigation involved complex rendition of accounts and scrutiny of official records, which would be a lengthy process, and that the petitioner's custodial interrogation was not strictly necessary at this stage. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail in both cases, directing the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation. The key principle established is that a High Court may exercise its concurrent jurisdiction to grant bail directly, bypassing the lower court, particularly when the investigation is documentary in nature.
Questions settled- Is there a statutory bar preventing a petitioner from applying directly to the High Court for bail without first approaching the Special Judge?
- Does the need for lengthy scrutiny of official records and accounts justify the denial of bail to an accused?
- Can interim bail be confirmed when the investigation is primarily documentary and the accused's physical custody is not required?
- BOOTA vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, P. W. RAILWAY, LAHORE1977 PLC 661 · Labour Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
- BEGUM SHAHEBN RAMAY vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-05Read full judgment →
- BEGUM SAEEDA AFZAL vs The GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH THE CENF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALUCmISTAN, QUETTA AND ANOTNER1977 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
- Begum PARVEEN MALIK vs Tea STATE AN 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Lahore 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-31Read full judgment →
- BEGUM GULZAR KHURSHID AHMAD vs CDR. SAJJAD AKBAR1977 P Cr. L J 800 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, concerns a custody dispute over a minor girl between her maternal grandmother and her father. The core legal questions were whether the High Court retains jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition for child custody despite the enactment of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, and whether the maternal grandmother is entitled to Hizanat (custody) of the minor girl. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, remains intact and is not ousted by the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, as the legislature did not explicitly transfer such powers to Family Courts. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Islamic law, the maternal grandmother possesses the right of Hizanat for a female child after the mother. Finding that the father had removed the child from the grandmother's long-standing custody through deceit, the Court declared the detention illegal and ordered the immediate restoration of the minor to the grandmother, while noting the father could pursue legal guardianship through a competent court.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the custody of a minor?
- Is a maternal grandmother entitled to the custody (Hizanat) of a female minor child under Islamic law after the death of the mother?
- Can a father forcibly or deceitfully remove a minor child from the custody of the person entitled to Hizanat without a court order?
- BECO INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs SIND LABOUR COURT No, 5 AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 799 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-14Read full judgment →
- BASHIR UD DIN AND Another vs THE STATE1977 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the bail application of the appellants in limine. The appellants, serving as Assistant Manager and Clerk respectively in an insurance company, were charged along with another person for the embezzlement of nearly Rs. 5,00,000 belonging to the company. Their bail applications were earlier dismissed by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. Upon granting leave to appeal to consider the question of entitlement to bail, the Supreme Court noted that bail had been granted to the appellants previously and no complaints had been made against them since, and the State counsel conceded to the confirmation of bail. The Supreme Court held that in the circumstances of the case, the bail granted to the appellants should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where bail has been granted during the pendency of proceedings and no misuse of concession or further complaints are reported, and the State concedes, the bail may be confirmed.
Questions settled- Whether the appellants are entitled to confirmation of bail when no complaints have been made against them since the grant of bail?
- Can bail granted during the pendency of criminal proceedings be confirmed upon concession by the State?
- BASHIR HUSSAIN/ vs SADIQ HUSSAIN SHAH AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 527 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-10Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs SATLUJ COTTON MILLS LTD.1977 PLC 81 · Labour Court · 1976-07-28Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 893 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-16Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs AKHTAR AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 337 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-13Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD AND 2 Others vs MOHYUDDIN AND 9 Others1977 PLD Rev. 14 · Board of Revenue · 1977-02-18Read full judgment →
- BASbIR AND ANOTHER vs TPE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1038 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-11Read full judgment →
- BARKHURDAR vs KAFAYAT ALI AND 2 Other1977 SCMR 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court granting and subsequently refusing to cancel bail to the respondents, who are facing prosecution for murder under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in declining to cancel the bail granted to the respondents under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly in the presence of incriminating circumstances and uncontradicted allegations of witness intimidation by the accused. The Supreme Court held that sufficient material existed to connect the respondents with the crime and that the uncontradicted affidavits supported by a police report regarding threats to prosecution witnesses warranted the cancellation of bail. The appeal was accordingly accepted, the High Court orders were set aside, and the bail previously allowed to the respondents was cancelled, with an observation that they may approach the appropriate court for bail if there is inordinate delay in the trial.
Questions settled- Whether bail once granted can be cancelled under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is material connecting the accused to the crime?
- Does the uncontradicted allegation of witness intimidation by an accused released on bail constitute a valid ground for the cancellation of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court set aside an order of the High Court refusing to cancel bail when affidavits supporting allegations of threats are left un-rebutted by the respondents?
- Barkat Ahmad, Members \ CHAIRMAN, WAPDA vs ABDUS SATTAR1977 PLC [C. S. T.] 140 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
- BARADI vs KHAIROO AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 17 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-17Read full judgment →
- BAQAI HOSPITAL, KARACHI vs SHAHNAZ1977 PLC 720 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-11-29Read full judgment →
- BAKKA vs The STATE1977 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Bakka, for the murder of Shana under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant challenged his conviction, arguing that because the High Court acquitted his four co-accused and noted confusion in the prosecution's evidence, his own conviction based on the same evidence was unsustainable. The Supreme Court examined whether the conviction could be maintained despite the acquittal of co-accused and alleged contradictions in witness testimony. The Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the perceived confusion in the evidence was superficial and reconcilable with the site plan. Crucially, the Court affirmed that the legal principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applied in Pakistan; instead, courts must endeavor to separate the grain from the chaff. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the recovery of the blood-stained murder weapon from the co-accused's premises provided valid corroboration against the appellant, as he alone possessed the peculiar knowledge of its concealment. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus apply to criminal trials in Pakistan?
- Can a conviction be sustained against an accused when eye-witnesses are found unreliable regarding co-accused?
- Does the recovery of a weapon from the premises of a co-accused constitute valid corroboration against an accused if the accused had peculiar knowledge of the concealment?
- BAKHSHISH ELAHI vs The STATE1977 SCMR 389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal concerns the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on the appellant, who was convicted under the First Part of Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The prosecution's evidence was entirely rejected by the trial court, and the conviction was based solely on the appellant's statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, admitting to the act but claiming self-defence. The core legal question was whether the imposition of the maximum sentence of transportation for life was a proper exercise of judicial discretion, given the deteriorating law and order situation cited by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that while courts may consider the general law and order situation for deterrence, sentencing must also account for specific mitigating factors, such as the lack of brutality, the fortuitous nature of the weapon used, and the fact that the appellant did not initiate the provocation. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, emphasizing that judicial discretion in sentencing must be exercised proportionately to the specific circumstances of the offence.
Questions settled- Can a court take judicial notice of the general law and order situation when determining an appropriate criminal sentence?
- Is the maximum sentence under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, justified where the accused acted without brutality and did not initiate the conflict?
- Should a court rely on rejected prosecution evidence when determining the severity of a sentence for an accused convicted solely on their own statement?
- Bakhsh Khan. Member MUHAMMAD SAADULLAH KHAN vs GHANIUR REHMAN1977 PLC [C. S. T.] 159 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1976-07-28Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR KHAN vs Mst. BLIAG BHARI1977 PLD Lahore 90 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-26Read full judgment →
- BAGH-E-SHAH vs Sh. MUHAMMAD AKHTAR HUSSAIN1977 PLD Karachi 460 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a second appeal arising from rent restriction proceedings where the appellant-tenant challenged an order of ejectment passed against him by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The core legal questions involved whether an owner of a property can maintain an ejectment application as a 'landlord' when the tenancy agreement was executed by an agent without disclosing the principal, and whether the non-framing of a preliminary issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant vitiated the proceedings. The court held that an undisclosed principal or real owner can enforce the tenancy contract and act as a landlord to seek ejectment, as the statutory definition of landlord encompasses persons entitled to receive rent on behalf of another, and principles of agency and ratification apply. Furthermore, the failure to frame a preliminary issue does not vitiate proceedings if necessary facts are already on record and no prejudice is caused. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Can the real owner of a property maintain an ejectment application as a landlord when the tenancy agreement was executed by an agent without disclosing the principal?
- Does the failure of a Rent Controller to frame a preliminary issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant automatically vitiate the eviction proceedings?
- Can there be multiple landlords in respect of the same premises under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Whether subsequent ratification by the principal validates a tenancy agreement initially entered into by an agent without express permission?
- BAGH ALI And 2 Others vs The STATE1977 SCMR 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction of the three appellants under section 304/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was upheld with reduced sentences by the High Court. The core legal question concerned the safety of relying on the identification of the assailants by injured eyewitnesses given the time of the incident, reduced winter visibility, hilly terrain, and firing distance. The Supreme Court held that due to the onset of darkness by the time of the incident, the long distance from which the gunshots were fired—evidenced by embedded pellets and lack of charring—and the considerable delay in lodging the First Information Report, the possibility of mistaken identity could not be excluded. Consequently, the Court granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt, set aside their convictions and sentences, and acquitted them. The key principle laid down is that where poor visibility at dusk, long-distance firing, and delayed reporting create a reasonable doubt regarding the identification of accused persons, the benefit of such doubt must be extended to them resulting in acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the possibility of mistaken identity is sufficient to warrant an acquittal when an incident occurs at dusk in a hilly terrain?
- Does a long delay in lodging the First Information Report combined with poor visibility weaken the reliability of eyewitness identification?
- Can the nature of gunshot injuries, such as embedded pellets and lack of charring, establish that shots were fired from a considerable distance?
- BADARUDDIN vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 89 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-17Read full judgment →
- BADAR & BROTHERS (ARMS & AMMUNITIONS DEALERS), PESHAWAR vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 2 OTHERS1977 PLD Peshawar 80 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was brought by a firm dealing in arms and ammunition against orders of the Rent Controller and the District Judge, Peshawar, which rejected its application for the ejectment of a tenant from a shop. The petitioner sought eviction on the grounds of default in rent, personal requirement, subletting, and the need to demolish and reconstruct the premises to suit its specialized business. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority dismissed the application, holding that the petitioner owned other property, that personal requirement and reconstruction pleas were mutually destructive, and that the petitioner failed to attach an approved building plan. The Peshawar High Court held that the tribunals misread the evidence regarding the petitioner owning other property and erred in law by holding that personal requirement and reconstruction pleas cannot be taken simultaneously under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The High Court further held that attaching an approved building plan is not a statutory prerequisite under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act. Consequently, the petition was accepted, the impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller to frame an issue on reconstruction and decide the matter afresh.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord can simultaneously seek the ejectment of a tenant on the grounds of personal requirement and reconstruction of the premises?
- Is it mandatory under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, to attach an approved building plan along with an ejectment application seeking demolition and reconstruction?
- Does the requirement that a landlord should not be in occupation of another building suitable for his needs extend to cover rented premises?
- To what extent can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by rent tribunals in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- BABOO KHAN vs SARDARA AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 77 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-12Read full judgment →
- BABAR FAROOQUE AND ANOTHER vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE1977 PLD Lahore 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-29Read full judgment →
- AZIZUR REHMAN AND Other vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY,COMMUNICATION1977PLC[C.S.T.] 94 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-10-28Read full judgment →
- AZIZULLAH (MINOR) vs HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHFRS1977 PLD Rev. 17 · Board of Revenue · 1976-11-30Read full judgment →
- AZIMULLAH SHAH AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 333 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-22Read full judgment →
- AZIM AND OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 699 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-01Read full judgment →
- AZHAR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 325 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-11Read full judgment →
- AZAD PAKISTAN GOODS TRANSPORT Co. KARACHI vs KARACHI MUNICIPAL1977 PLD Karachi 1076 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
- AZAD JAMMU & KASHMIR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER vs Kh. AHMAD DIN1977 PLC [C.S.T.J 60 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1977-01-29Read full judgment →
- AYUB KHAN vs MESSRS MUSLIM CONSTRUCTORS LTD., KARACHI1977 PLC 387 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-19Read full judgment →
- AWALIN SILK MILLS WORKERS UNION, KARACHI vs THEIR MANAGEMENT1977 PLC 427 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
- AURANGZEB SARWAR vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION1977 P LC 130 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1976-08-10Read full judgment →
- ATHAR JAMIL vs THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, WEST PAKISTAN SOCIETY OF REHABILITATION OF DISABLED PERSONS, LAHORE1977 PLC 633 · Labour CourtRead full judgment →
- ASOHAR ALI vs ABDUL HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 280 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order arises out of an application for the appointment of a receiver in a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts among five brothers sharing profits and losses equally. The defendants contested the application, alleging that one partner had not signed the partnership deed, that the partnership was not at 'will' due to a clause requiring three months' notice for termination, and that the plaintiff was guilty of embezzlement. The Sindh High Court held that a partnership can exist even without a written agreement and that the partnership was carried on by conduct. Regarding the termination clause, the Court observed that even if it regulated the mode of withdrawal, it did not disentitle the plaintiff from seeking dissolution, accounts, and protective interim relief. Finding the allegations of embezzlement unproven on a prima facie basis and relying on a similar order passed in a previous suit between the same parties, the Court held it 'just and convenient' to appoint a receiver to protect the partnership assets.
Questions settled- Can a valid partnership exist and be enforced in law without a written partnership agreement?
- Does a clause in a partnership deed requiring prior notice of withdrawal prevent a partner from seeking the appointment of a receiver in a suit for dissolution and accounts?
- Whether the court can appoint a receiver in a dissolution suit to protect the joint assets of partners when allegations of misconduct are not prima facie established?
- ASLOOB ELAHI vs Mst. MAIMOONA BIBI1977 PLD Karachi 277 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the respondent landlady against the appellant tenant for default in payment of rent, bona fide personal use, nuisance, and demolition. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment solely on the ground of bona fide personal use, which decision was upheld by the first appellate court. In the second appeal, the appellant contested the respondent's ownership and landlady status based on discrepancies in the K.D.A. allotment order, and challenged the concurrent findings regarding personal use. The High Court held that minor discrepancies in administrative allotment documents do not negate ownership when the tenant admits occupying the premises and the landlord's title is established, and further held that concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide personal requirement cannot be disturbed in second appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, granting the appellant four months to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies in an allotment document regarding the extent of property negate the established relationship of landlady and tenant?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding bona fide personal requirement be disturbed in a second appeal?
- Is a notice under section 13(A) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 required when ejectment is also sought on the ground of non-payment of rent?
- ASHIQUE HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 668 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-23Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 630 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-06Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ ALI vs ADMINISTRATOR, PEOPLES TOWN COMMITTEE, MORO AND 21977 PLD Karachi 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-29Read full judgment →
- ASGLIAR ALI vs ABDUL HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS1977 PLD Karachi 217 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-01Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR MAJID vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 205 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-28Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 P C r. L J 440 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-08Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI AND OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ JAVED AND OTHERSs1977 PLD Lahore 586 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-03Read full judgment →
- ASGHAR ALI AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 156 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-15Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD MAHMOOD vs CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA1977 PLC 568 · Labour Court · 1976-08-22Read full judgment →
- ARSA LA KHAN vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (SOUTH) & TRIBUNAL, KARACHI1977 P Cr. L J 746 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the District Magistrate under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether the police report, which formed the basis of the Tribunal's proceedings, satisfied the mandatory procedural requirements of the Act. The petitioner argued that the report lacked essential particulars regarding the time, place, and nature of the alleged acts, and failed to provide necessary documentation like FIRs or specific complaints. The Court held that the proceedings were initiated without lawful authority because the police report failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. Specifically, the report lacked the requisite particulars of the alleged acts and was not accompanied by supporting evidence. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings. The judgment establishes the principle that proceedings under the Act are invalid if the initiating report fails to provide specific, documented particulars of the allegations, thereby denying the accused the ability to understand the case against them.
Questions settled- Does a police report under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, require specific particulars of time and place for alleged acts to be valid?
- Can proceedings be initiated under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, without the production of FIRs or supporting complaints?
- Does a conviction under Section 294, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, automatically fall within the ambit of Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- ARIF SHAH vs The STATE1977 SCMR 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment where the appellant was initially charged under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but convicted by the trial court under section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. On appeal, the High Court altered the conviction to section 326, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and enhanced the sentence. The core legal question concerned the proper classification of the offence when an assault accelerates the death of a victim suffering from an advanced disease like tuberculosis. The Supreme Court held that the High Court and trial court erred in taking a lenient view, as the appellant's act of inflicting a severe stab wound to a delicate part of the body with a dangerous weapon accelerated death and fell within the ambit of culpable homicide or alternatively attempted murder under section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, considering the passage of time since bail was granted, the Supreme Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, alongside a fine.
Questions settled- Does causing bodily injury that accelerates the death of a person suffering from a pre-existing disease constitute culpable homicide?
- Whether an accused who inflicts a fatal stab injury with requisite intention or knowledge can be convicted of attempted murder under section 307 if death is not proven to be directly caused by the act?
- Can a sentence be reduced to the period already undergone after a long lapse of time since the grant of leave to appeal and bail?
- ARAG INDUSTRIES LTD. vs HASHMAT ALI1977 PLC 691 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-05Read full judgment →
- AQLEEM AKHTAR RANI vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 390 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-26Read full judgment →
- ANWER HUSSAIN vs MESSRS CORNING GLASS (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI1977 PLC 509 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-08Read full judgment →
- ANWAR JAVED AND OTHERS vs IKRAMUL HAQ AND 3 OTHBRS1977 PLD Lahore 100 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-10Read full judgment →
- ANWAR HUSSAIN vs MESSRS CORNING GLASS (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI1977 PLC 693(2) · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1976-12-08Read full judgment →
- ANSAR BROTHERS, MULTAN vs THE PUNJAB EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY1977 PLD Lahore 651 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-27Read full judgment →
- ANJUMAN LASHKAREHUSSAINI, KARACHI vs TIIE STATE AND 7 OTHERS1977 P Cr. L J 211 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-12Read full judgment →
- ANIS AHMAD vs THE STATE1977 P Cr. L J 650 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-15Read full judgment →
- AMIR KHAN vs MOHD. IQBAL AND ANOTHER1977 P Cr. L J 476(2) · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-24Read full judgment →
- AMIR HUSSAIN SHAH AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE1977 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1976-10-31Read full judgment →
- AMIR HUSSAIN GILANI vs The STATE1977 P Cr. L J 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-11Read full judgment →