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.
- EJAZ QADEBR vs THE STATE AND ANOTHRR1975 P Cr. L J 471 · Labour Court · 1974-06-20Read full judgment →
- EJAZ ALI SHAH AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 195 · Sindh High Court · 1972-08-25Read full judgment →
- EHTRAM ALI AND OTHERS vs CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 431 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the status of land purchased by respondents from Hindu owners, which was subsequently allotted to the petitioners. The respondents successfully sought confirmation of their purchase from the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, who determined the vendors were Pakistani nationals and the transactions were genuine. The petitioners challenged this, alleging the land was evacuee property and that they were denied notice of the confirmation proceedings. The Custodian dismissed the appeal, affirming the land was not evacuee property. The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioners' writ petition, noting a lack of evidence regarding the petitioners' entitlement and the status of the land as evacuee property. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the character of the land was a concluded finding of fact. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioners' grievance regarding the lack of notice was moot, as they had effectively participated in the appellate proceedings where the merits were fully adjudicated. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the mere fact that a vendor is Hindu automatically render the property 'evacuee property'?
- Can a party claim a lack of notice in confirmation proceedings if they have already participated in an appeal on the merits of that same order?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the character of land, once determined by the Custodian, subject to interference in writ jurisdiction?
- DYER TEXTILE & PRINTING MILLS Ltd., KARACHI vs M. ROSHAN1975 PLC 449 · Labour Court · 1972-10-13Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD AHSAN AKHTAR vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 96 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-10-14Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through Collector,1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 126 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-11-28Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD vs Mst. LAL KHATUN ETC.1975 SCMR 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a civil suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents for a declaration and injunction regarding the purchase of an oil engine and accessories. The core legal question involved whether the disputed property was validly sold to the petitioner and whether the respondent possessed a half share in the property, as well as the admissibility of an unregistered sale deed under the Registration Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence, found the sale deed inadmissible due to lack of compulsory registration under the law, and correctly reversed the trial court's decree. The Supreme Court laid down that concurrent findings based on proper appraisal of evidence and statutory registration requirements will not be interfered with under special leave to appeal where no substantial question of law of public importance arises.
Questions settled- Whether an unregistered sale deed requiring compulsory registration is admissible in evidence to prove title?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with factual findings of the High Court based on evidence in the absence of a substantial question of law of public importance?
- DOST MUHAMMAD COTTON MILLS Ltd., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD ALTAF1975 PLC 152 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-06Read full judgment →
- DOST MUHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD. vs MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHANI AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the Labour Court's decision holding the termination of the respondent's services to be an invalid dismissal. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent qualified as a 'workman' under the relevant labor laws, whether the termination of his services amounted to a dismissal under the law, and whether the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to order reinstatement. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concurred with the findings of fact by the Labour Court that the respondent was a workman and that the termination order was in effect a dismissal for unsatisfactory work without proper justification. The Court laid down that under the applicable standing orders, a Labour Court possesses the jurisdiction to order reinstatement, distinguishing it from general principles governing contracts of service under the Specific Relief Act, and declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact.
Questions settled- Whether an employee holding the designation of a Chief Accountant can be considered a workman under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Does an order terminating service for unsatisfactory work amount to an order of dismissal requiring compliance with statutory dismissal procedures?
- Can a Labour Court order the reinstatement of an employee whose services have been unlawfully terminated under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Can a new legal contention, not raised before the High Court, be permitted to be urged for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- DOST MOHAMMAD COTTON MILLS Ltd., KARACHI vs STAFF UNION , .1975 PLC 81 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-02Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT. P. W. R., MULTAN vs ALI MUHAMMAD1975 PLC 9 · Punjab Labour Court · 1973-12-28Read full judgment →
- DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PWR vs KHADI KHAN1975 PLC 730 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-24Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI OMNIBUS SERVICE, KARACHI vs MOHAMMAD1975 PLC 45 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-15Read full judgment →
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 947 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-10Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a property dispute concerning two rooms in a house in Multan, initially transferred to the appellant-claimant by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. A belated appeal by respondent No. 2, a non-claimant, led to a conditional remand order by the Additional Settlement Commissioner to ascertain whether respondent No. 2 had secured residential accommodation elsewhere. On remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner found that the other property transferred to respondent No. 2 comprised shops rather than a residence, and accordingly transferred the disputed rooms to respondent No. 2. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged this decision through settlement appeals, revision, and a writ petition before the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to review the case on remand under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was merely complying with the remand direction to ascertain facts rather than exercising a power of review, that the factual premise regarding the nature of the other property was misconceived, and that the appellant could not belatedly challenge the remand order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has the jurisdiction to review an order on remand when the remand was made for a specific ascertainment of facts?
- Can a party who acquiesced in a remand order subsequently challenge the same in a second round of litigation?
- Whether the transfer of a shop on an N.C.S. Form precludes the transfer of residential rooms in a divisible house to a non-claimant under settlement laws?
- DILAWAR HUSSAIN vs Messrs QUETTA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., KOTRI1975 PLC 488 · Labour Court · 1972-12-18Read full judgment →
- DIL MUHAMMAD AND 2 Dthmss vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-09Read full judgment →
- DIAMOND ICE FACTORY, KARACHI vs Mst. SHER BANO1975 PLC 727 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-25Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs LABOUR UNION1975 PLC 483 · Labour Court · 1972-11-30Read full judgment →
- DAWOOD COTTON MILLLS LABOUR UNION vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, KARACHI1975 PLC 123 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-10-28Read full judgment →
- DADA SOAP FACTORY Ltd. KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 191 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-02Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS, Ltd., LYALLPUR vs MUZAFFAR KHAN1975 PLC l2 · Labour Court · 1974-02-28Read full judgment →
- CORPORATION, KARACHI vs Syed MOBARAK ALI JAFRI1975 PLC 852 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-09-01Read full judgment →
- CORPORATION, KARACHI vs RASHID AHMAD1975 PLC 194 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-10-02Read full judgment →
- CORPORATION . vs CHAIRMAN, LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB1975 PLC 808 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-29Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI vs MESSRS1975 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves thirty-seven petitions concerning the interpretation of Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended by the Finance Act, 1965. The core legal question is whether the 1965 amendment, which permits registration of a partnership firm based on an instrument of partnership executed before the end of the previous year, renders the previous Supreme Court ruling in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Noor Hussain obsolete. The Department argued that the requirement for a partnership to be constituted by an instrument of partnership at its inception remains, and that the amendment is not retrospective. Conversely, the High Court held that the amendment allows for registration even if the firm originated from a prior verbal agreement, provided a written deed exists, and that the amendment applies to pending cases. The Supreme Court, noting the general importance of the issue and that it is a matter of first impression, granted leave to appeal to resolve whether the amendment effectively nullifies the requirement that the firm's creation and the written instrument be contemporaneous.
Questions settled- Does the amendment to Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Finance Act, 1965, permit the registration of a partnership firm that originated from a verbal agreement?
- Is the amendment to Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Finance Act, 1965, applicable to pending assessment cases?
- Does the requirement that a firm be 'constituted by' an instrument of partnership necessitate that the firm's creation and the execution of the written instrument be contemporaneous?
- COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD. BHAKKAR vs ATA MUHAMMAD1975 PLC 527 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-12-30Read full judgment →
- Co-Operation Department vs MUSHTAQ AHMAD (MUSHTAQ ALI)1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 90 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-11-29Read full judgment →
- CIRCULATION MANAGER, DAILY JANG, RAWALPINDI vs MUHAMMAD MANSHA1975 PLC 18 · Labour Court · 1973-12-20Read full judgment →
- CHIRAGH vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1118 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-23Read full judgment →
- CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE vs Makhdoom Syed NAZAR1975 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment that set aside an order of the Chief Land Commissioner passed in the exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The Chief Land Commissioner had invalidated a gift of land made by the respondent in 1951 in favor of his wife and minor son, holding that it was not protected under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 of 1959. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, set aside the Commissioner's order on the grounds of misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, and a patent error of law regarding the delivery of possession in gifts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan condoned a short delay of four days caused by administrative negligence and dismissed the petition on the merits. The Court held that the High Court did not exceed its constitutional jurisdiction, as it is empowered to interfere with administrative or quasi-judicial orders that suffer from patent errors of law or are based on misreading or non-consideration of material evidence.
Questions settled- Whether administrative negligence by dealing officials in a government department constitutes a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Whether the delivery of possession of a part of a gifted property is sufficient under the law to complete and validate the gift of the entirety of that property?
- Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962, has the authority to interfere with an order of the Chief Land Commissioner that is based on a misreading of evidence or a patent error of law?
- Chaudhry MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM HALEEM vs The PAKISTAN COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND1975 PLC 76 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-15Read full judgment →
- CHAN PIR SHAH vs Messrs CONGOTHENE CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES Ltd.1975 PLC 339 · Labour Court · 1974-04-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. ZAHOOR ILLAHI vs THE STATE AND 4 OTHERS1975 P Cr. L J 1413 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-05Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a second appeal as time-barred. The petitioner had mortgaged a portion of a bungalow, and upon his failure to pay the mortgage money despite multiple extensions, a final decree for foreclosure was passed. The petitioner initially filed an appeal before the District Judge, who lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. Subsequently, the memorandum of appeal was withdrawn and filed in the High Court along with an application for condonation of delay under section 14 of the Limitation Act. The High Court refused to condone the delay, holding that the mistake committed by the counsel in filing the appeal before the wrong forum was not bona fide and resulted from gross negligence. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the counsel's failure to acquaint himself with the relevant provisions relating to court jurisdiction amounted to negligence rather than a bona fide mistake, and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether wrong choice of forum due to counsel's misconception constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 14 of the Limitation Act?
- Does an advocate's failure to acquaint himself with the relevant provisions of law regarding court jurisdiction amount to gross negligence?
- Can delay in filing an appeal be condoned when the mistake committed by the counsel is not bona fide?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs Ch. MUHAMMAD ANWAR SAMMA AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case registered under sections 148, 302, and 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the High Court erred by accepting a plea of alibi supported by affidavits from twenty-four members of the Provincial Assembly, contending that the court should not assess the veracity of such a plea at the bail stage, especially when the accused was named in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion. The Court affirmed that while a plea of alibi must be tested at trial, it cannot be summarily dismissed at the bail stage if supported by substantial evidence. The Court determined that the case fell within the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as a matter requiring further inquiry. The principle established is that a plea of alibi, if supported by credible material, may constitute grounds for further inquiry under bail provisions, justifying the grant of relief pending trial.
Questions settled- Can a plea of alibi be considered by the High Court for the purposes of bail before arrest?
- Does the existence of a plea of alibi supported by affidavits constitute a case requiring further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the High Court barred from considering the effect of an alibi at the bail stage if the accused is named in the First Information Report?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD SAEED vs ABDUL MAJID ETC.1975 SCMR 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent, a transferee of a shop under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, against the petitioner, who was in possession. The petitioner contested the respondent's title, alleging the respondent was a benamidar for the petitioner's deceased father. The Rent Controller ordered the petitioner to deposit rent arrears, which the petitioner failed to do, leading the District Judge to strike off the defense. The Chief Justice, on appeal, held that the District Judge lacked the authority to strike off the defense, remitting the matter to the Rent Controller. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, challenging the rent deposit order and the finding regarding the benamidar status. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Rent Controller's order for rent deposit was lawful and consistent with established precedents. The Court further held that the petitioner's plea of benamidar status was inconsistent with his previous unsuccessful suit for specific performance against the respondent, thereby rejecting the challenge to the respondent's title as the statutory landlord.
Questions settled- Does the District Judge have the authority to strike off a tenant's defense for failure to deposit rent arrears, or is that power exclusive to the Rent Controller?
- Can a tenant in an ejectment proceeding successfully challenge the landlord's title by claiming the landlord is a benamidar when the tenant previously filed a suit for specific performance against the same landlord?
- Is a Rent Controller empowered to order the deposit of rent arrears for a period exceeding three years prior to the date of the order?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD KHURSHID vs CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANK1975 PLC 9 · Punjab Labour Court · 1972-12-22Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASRRAF vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 632 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-26Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 632 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-26Read full judgment →
- Ch. MASOOD AHMED vs MEMBER (EXCISE AND TAXATION), BOARD OF REVENUE,1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 125 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-09-25Read full judgment →
- Ch. KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS vs ADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT1975 SCMR 169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioners. The petitioners, who had entered into a joint lease with the District Council, Sheikhupura, for holding cattle fairs, sought to restrain the District Council from interfering with their operations after one of the lessees had unilaterally repudiated the lease agreement citing exorbitant costs. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable to enforce a contractual lease agreement that has already been repudiated by the lessees. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petition. The Court held that the repudiation of the lease by one of the joint lessees effectively bound all co-lessees, rendering the agreement unenforceable at their instance. The key principle laid down is that a writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce a contractual agreement that the petitioners themselves have repudiated, and that such contractual disputes are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under the circumstances presented.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition be maintained to enforce a contractual lease agreement?
- Does the repudiation of a lease by one joint lessee bind the other co-lessees?
- Is a writ petition the appropriate remedy for enforcing a contract that the petitioners have themselves repudiated?
- Ch. FAZAL DIN & SONS LABOUR UNION vs Thb REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE1975 PLC 303 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-11-12Read full judgment →
- Ch. ALI AHMAD vs COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION And II Others1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 147 · Civil Services Tribunal · 1972-12-12Read full judgment →
- CENTRAL CARD BOARD INDUSTRIES, KARACHI vs WORKERS UNION1975 PLC 209 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-05-21Read full judgment →
- CAPTAIN MUHAMMAD AZHAR vs The PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN, THROUGH THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEPARTMENT AND AGROVILLES DEPARTMENT, QUETTA AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 176 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding his prolonged suspension and allocation issues following the dissolution of the Province of West Pakistan. The core legal questions involved whether the Lahore High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under the Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970, whether the departmental authorities acted with mala fide intent, and whether a civil servant could be kept under indefinite suspension contrary to government instructions. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having himself invoked the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, could not later challenge its competency, and that allegations of mala fide were not proven. While declining to grant leave to appeal, the Court endorsed the High Court's observations and directed the administration to finalize the pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner without further delay. The key principle laid down is that a party who voluntarily invokes the jurisdiction of a court is estopped from subsequently challenging its competency, and that prolonged, indefinite suspension of civil servants without finalization of proceedings is strongly deprecated by the courts.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner who voluntarily invokes the jurisdiction of a High Court subsequently challenge its competency to hear the matter?
- Whether allegations of mala fide against public authorities require strict proof by the person alleging them?
- Is it permissible for the administration to keep a civil servant under indefinite suspension without concluding the pending proceedings?
- BUDHO AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1315 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-25Read full judgment →
- BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN) Ltd. And Another vs MAHABAT KHAN And 2 Others1975 PLC 156 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-11Read full judgment →
- Brig. MALIK MUHAMMAD MUNIR TIWANA vs MUHAMMAD AKHTAR AND 61975 SCMR 522 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which remanded a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property to the Settlement Authorities for a fresh decision. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, was justified in remanding the case for a de novo enquiry when the factual findings of the Settlement Authorities were contradictory and based on nebulous evidence. The dispute involved two claimants: the petitioner, who claimed transfer under Scheme No. VI based on possession and construction, and the respondent, who claimed prior possession and the filing of a C.S. Form that was allegedly lost. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted correctly in remanding the matter, as the presence of two entirely contradictory reports from Settlement Inspectors rendered the factual position unclear, necessitating a fresh enquiry. The principle laid down is that where the factual basis for an administrative decision is nebulous and contradictory, a High Court is justified in remanding the case for a proper factual determination rather than interfering with the findings in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is the High Court justified in remanding a case to Settlement Authorities when the factual findings are contradictory and nebulous?
- Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction interfere with findings of fact by Settlement Authorities when the record is unclear?
- BHAGTO AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 559 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-28Read full judgment →
- BEER DIN AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 116 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-07Read full judgment →
- BATI AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-30Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AND 3 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 681 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-08Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED vs MUHAMMAD HASAN BHATTI AND 6 OTHERS1975 P Cr. L J 1444 · Sindh High Court · 1975-06-18Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMADConvict vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 203 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 203 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan dismissing a revision application and upholding the re-examination of a prosecution witness. The core legal question concerned the competency of the trial court to recall and re-examine a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after allegations of judicial record tampering were substantiated through an inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by time with an unsatisfactory explanation for delay and, on merits, found no legal flaw in the impugned orders. The Court affirmed that under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a court possesses full competency to re-summon and re-examine a witness, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Is a court fully competent to re-summon and re-examine a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the High Court's refusal to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding record tampering warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does an explanation of illness without satisfactory proof constitute sufficient ground for condoning delay in filing a petition?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs Sh. UMAR DRAZ1975 SCMR 214 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two miscellaneous applications filed in connection with an order granting leave to appeal, where cross-complaints of contempt of court and non-compliance with an interim visitation order regarding a minor girl were brought by the petitioner Bashir Ahmad and the respondent Sh. Umar Draz. The core legal question concerned whether an interim visitation order passed pending the appeal should continue and in what form, particularly in light of mutual allegations of non-compliance and misinterpretation. The court decided to continue the interim visitation order with specific modifications agreed upon by consensus of the parties, detailing precise schedules for weekend visits, school vacations, and Eid festivals. Consequently, the respective miscellaneous applications for contempt and enforcement were dismissed as not pressed. The key principle laid down is that interim visitation arrangements in custody matters pending appeal can be regulated and modified by consent of the parties to ensure the welfare of the minor while resolving procedural grievances.
Questions settled- Whether an interim visitation order passed pending the hearing of an appeal regarding the custody of a minor can be modified by consensus of the parties?
- How should visitation rights for a minor be structured during weekends, school vacations, and religious festivals pending an appeal?
- Whether miscellaneous applications for contempt and enforcement of interim orders should be dismissed when parties reach a consensus on the continuation of such orders?
- BASHIR AHMAD vs DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 98 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-11-20Read full judgment →
- BASHEER vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1338 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
- BARADI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 396 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-03Read full judgment →
- BANNEY KHAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 453 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Banney Khan, who was tried and convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under sections 366 and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code for allegedly kidnapping and committing rape upon Mst. Akhtarunnisa. The core legal question concerns the reliability and sufficiency of the prosecutrix's testimony in a charge of rape and whether it requires corroboration. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that the evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case must be received with caution and generally requires corroboration. The court found that in the absence of corroboration and in light of circumstances suggesting the prosecutrix was a consenting party, the conviction for rape could not be sustained. The key principle laid down is that the solitary testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case is treated with suspicion and ordinarily requires independent corroboration, failing which a conviction cannot be sustained if consent is indicated.
Questions settled- Whether the solitary testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case requires corroboration before a conviction can be sustained?
- Can a conviction for rape be sustained when the circumstances suggest that the prosecutrix was a consenting party?
- How should the evidence of a prosecutrix be received by the court in sexual assault cases?
- BANK OF BAHAWALPUR Ltd. KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1975 PLC 380 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1972-12-18Read full judgment →
- BANARAS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 954 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-06Read full judgment →
- BAKSHAN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 766 · Sindh High Court · 1975-03-03Read full judgment →
- BAKHTIAR KHAN vs Syed ZIA ABBAS AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 1427 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-20Read full judgment →
- BAHAWAL Ands vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 923 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-24Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR KHAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 141 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-15Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR KHAN vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 141 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-15Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR AND 9 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 162 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-01Read full judgment →
- BAHADAR ALI vs COLLECTOR, GUJRAT And Others1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 112 · Administrative Tribunal · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
- BAGGU AND 5 OTHERS vs THE STATEs1975 P Cr. L J 829 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-17Read full judgment →
- BADDAR DIN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 513 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-15Read full judgment →
- BADDAR DIN vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 513 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-15Read full judgment →
- BADAR US SALAM vs MUHAMMAD JAVED AND 2 OTHERS1975 P Cr. L J 1442 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents who were accused of offences under sections 148 and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the respondents, who were alleged to have inflicted serious knife injuries during an attack, were entitled to bail in view of the prohibition under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the nature of the injuries caused. The court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused were guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or death, and that the discretionary proviso regarding minors did not mandate the grant of bail given the desperate nature of the acts. Consequently, the bail granted to all respondents was cancelled. The key principle laid down is that in determining the applicability of section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the test is what the offence would have been had the victim died, and that the discretionary concession of bail to minors under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be withheld in cases involving grave and dangerous acts of violence.
Questions settled- Whether bail once granted to accused charged under section 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 should be cancelled when there are reasonable grounds of guilt?
- Does the proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make it mandatory to release a minor accused on bail?
- How is the nature of an offence under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 determined with reference to potential death of the victim?
- BACHINOO vs ABDUL HAKIM1975 P Cr. L J 732 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, filed by a mother seeking the custody of her minor daughter, Mst. Zarina, who had allegedly been abducted by the respondent, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The core legal questions involved the determination of the girl's age, the validity of her alleged conversion to Islam, and the legality of her subsequent marriage to the respondent. The Court declined to conduct a detailed inquiry into disputed facts, noting that criminal proceedings were already pending. Tentatively holding that the girl was a minor, the Court determined that it was not in her welfare to remain in the respondent's custody pending the outcome of the criminal trial. The Court ordered the girl to be placed in the Darulaman for six months, directing the authorities to expedite the criminal case. The key principle laid down is that in summary proceedings under Section 491, Cr. P. C., where serious allegations of abduction and disputed conversion exist, the Court should avoid conclusive findings on facts better suited for trial, prioritizing the welfare of the alleged minor.
Questions settled- Can a High Court determine the validity of a conversion and marriage in summary proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a marriage between a Muslim male and a minor Christian female valid under the Christian Marriage Act 1872?
- Does the Court have the discretion to place a minor in a protective facility like Darulaman pending the outcome of a criminal trial for abduction?
- B. T. INDUSTRIES, SIALKOT vs REHMAT ULLAH1975 PLC 7 · Labour Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
- AZMATULLAH AND ANOTHER vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 10 · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1972-11-14Read full judgment →
- AZIZUR RAHMAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 58 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-19Read full judgment →
- AZIZ TANNERIES Ltd., SAHIWAL vs ALI MOHAMMAD And Another1975 PLC 594 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-09-27Read full judgment →
- AZHAR LATIF AND 3 OTHERS vs ESOOF HASHIM AND Another1975 P Cr. L J 545 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-19Read full judgment →
- Azad J & Kl KABIR HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 8 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1974-04-03Read full judgment →
- AVARI & Co. LTD., KARACHI vs ALL-KARACHI LIQUOR AND WINE WORKERS'1975 PLC 371 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- AURANGZEB vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 755 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-14Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN1975 P Cr. L J 634 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-27Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN-1975 P Cr. L J 634 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-27Read full judgment →
- ATA MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 462 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-19Read full judgment →
- ATA MU HAM LMAD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-20Read full judgment →
- ASMAT HUSSAIN vs Messrs DYER TEXTILE PRINTING MILLS Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 757 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-21Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-18Read full judgment →
- ASHIQ HUSSAIN Convict vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-18Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ AHMED vs Thb Administrator, Landhi Korangi Municipal1975 PLC 224 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-14Read full judgment →
- ASHFAQ AHMAD SHEIKH vs Ch. ABDUL MAJID, MAGISTRATE Ist CLASS1975 P Cr. L J 1356 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-22Read full judgment →
- ASANDAS vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which cancelled the petitioner's bail in a criminal case. The petitioner was accused of inciting others to commit murder, with a specific allegation that a fatal hatchet blow was delivered by a co-accused at his instigation. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling bail where the petitioner was implicated in a murder case involving vicarious liability. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was justified, as there was sufficient material indicating the petitioner's role in instigating the attack. The Court affirmed that the petitioner was prima facie vicariously liable under the relevant penal provisions, rendering the cancellation of bail appropriate. The key principle laid down is that where there is sufficient material to establish a prima facie case of vicarious liability for a capital offense, the cancellation of bail by the High Court is legally sound and warrants no interference by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Is a person who instigates a murder liable for bail cancellation under the principle of vicarious liability?
- Does the existence of sufficient material linking an accused to the instigation of a crime justify the cancellation of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order cancelling bail if a prima facie case of vicarious liability is established?
- ASADULLAH vs Messrs RONEO VICKERS Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 544 · Labour Court · 1975-02-26Read full judgment →
- ASADULLAH alias SADULLAH AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 521 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-02Read full judgment →
- ASADULLAH Alias SADULLAH AND 4 OTHERS vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 521 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-02Read full judgment →
- ANZAR GUL vs Messrs CAFE MILLAT, KARACHI1975 PLC 42 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-07-06Read full judgment →
- ANWAR vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 750 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant discrepancies between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed and unreliable. The medical evidence, indicating a single injury and a bullet trajectory suggesting self-infliction, directly contradicted the ocular account of multiple shots fired by the appellant. Furthermore, the presence of urine in the deceased's bladder refuted the prosecution's claim that the deceased had just urinated before the incident. The Court established the principle that where ocular testimony is provided by interested witnesses and is inconsistent with established medical facts, it cannot form the basis for a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, as the prosecution failed to prove the charge.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the ocular testimony is directly contradicted by medical evidence regarding the number of injuries and the physical state of the deceased?
- Does the presence of a significant quantity of urine in the bladder of the deceased discredit the prosecution's claim that the deceased had just urinated prior to the shooting?
- Is a conviction safe when the trajectory of the fatal wound suggests the possibility of self-infliction rather than a shot fired by another person?
- ANWAR AHMAD KHAN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 661 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-20Read full judgment →