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.
- ANOTHER vs Thb GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF SIND Through1975 PLC 858 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-01Read full judgment →
- ANAR KHAN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1018 · Sindh High Court · 1975-02-18Read full judgment →
- AMIR vs KHIZAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had confirmed the interim bail of the respondent accused of abduction and double murder. The petitioner, the complainant, challenged the order on two primary grounds: that the High Court judge denied him a right of audience and failed to provide reasons for the bail confirmation. The Supreme Court found that the High Court judge improperly stifled the petitioner's arguments due to a dispute over the accuracy of the F.I.R. copy and failed to provide cogent reasons for the bail order. Furthermore, the Court noted that the abductee's initial statement exonerating the accused appeared to be made under duress, while her subsequent statement after recovery implicated the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the denial of the right of audience and the lack of reasoned judicial orders are improper. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, refused the prayer for interim bail, and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh, expeditious decision on the merits after hearing both parties.
Questions settled- Is a judge justified in refusing to hear counsel's arguments solely because the counsel relies on an allegedly incorrect copy of the F.I.R.?
- Does a bail order require the provision of cogent reasons by the court?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a bail order if the High Court failed to provide a proper hearing and reasoned decision?
- AMIR BAKHSH vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-01Read full judgment →
- AMIR BAKHSH Convict vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 548 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-11Read full judgment →
- AMIR BACHA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for murder and attempted murder. The petitioners, Amir Bacha and Moham Bacha, were convicted by the trial court for offences stemming from a violent altercation that resulted in the death of one individual and injury to another. Following a disagreement between the judges of a High Court Division Bench, the matter was referred to a third judge, who upheld the conviction of Amir Bacha and reduced the sentence of Moham Bacha. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence, supported by medical testimony, was sufficient to sustain the convictions despite the acquittal of co-accused and alleged investigative irregularities. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the majority view of the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence. The Court affirmed that the acquittal of some co-accused does not automatically invalidate the entire prosecution case under the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, and that hearsay information received by police does not constitute a First Information Report.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of some co-accused automatically invalidate the entire prosecution case against the remaining accused?
- Does hearsay information received by a police officer regarding an ongoing fight constitute a First Information Report?
- Is the Supreme Court required to re-appraise evidence when the lower courts have correctly appreciated the facts and applied relevant legal principles?
- AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT1975 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the transfer of a house under Settlement Scheme No. VII as revised, involving conflicting revisional orders passed by different Settlement Commissioners. The core legal question addresses how to resolve competing claims and conflicting revisional orders regarding the transfer of property when a necessary party was not impleaded in subsequent proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since no previous valid order effectively remains in the field and the matter requires a fresh determination, the ends of justice would be best met by examining the claims of both the petitioner and the respondent together in accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that all competing claimants must have their eligibility considered concurrently under the applicable settlement scheme to ensure a fair adjudication.
Questions settled- How should conflicting revisional orders passed by different Settlement Commissioners regarding property transfer be addressed?
- Must the claims of all competing applicants be examined concurrently when determining eligibility under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- What is the legal effect of a revisional order passed without impleading a contesting party?
- AMANULLAH vs ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE1975 PLC 663 · Industrial Court · 1969-11-06Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH QURESHI AND 5 OTHERS vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1975 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, claimants of urban agricultural lands abandoned in India and temporarily allotted urban lands in Pakistan, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their writ petition by the Lahore High Court. The High Court had upheld a notification issued on 16th May 1973 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 2(3)(b) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, declaring all urban lands within municipal areas throughout Punjab as building sites. The core legal questions involved whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner could issue a general, comprehensive notification for multiple lands rather than individual assessments, whether such notification could be issued after the acquisition of evacuee properties, and whether principles of natural justice required a prior hearing. The Supreme Court held that the singular statutory term includes the plural, permitting a comprehensive notification, that acquisition does not alter the character of evacuee property, and that prior notice or hearing is not required to declare a land as a building site. The petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner can declare multiple urban lands as building sites through a single comprehensive notification under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Does the acquisition of evacuee properties prevent the issuance of a notification declaring such lands as building sites?
- Whether the issuance of a notification declaring land as a building site under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, violates the principles of natural justice if issued without a prior hearing to persons in possession?
- ALTAF HUSSAIN vs ABDUL MUTTAL AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court extending post-arrest bail to the respondent, a university student accused of murder, to enable him to continue his studies. The core legal question is whether the prosecution of studies and the inordinate delay in the conclusion of the inquiry constitute valid grounds for maintaining bail in a heinous offense like murder where the accused is directly implicated. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion in granting and extending bail did not warrant interference, noting that the respondent had previously complied with surrender conditions and that the inordinate delay in the inquiry equally favored the respondent alongside his co-accused who were already enlarged on bail. The key principle laid down is that appellate interference with bail orders requires a showing of improper exercise of discretion, and prolonged delay in the conclusion of proceedings constitutes a relevant consideration for sustaining bail even in murder cases.
Questions settled- Does the prosecution of studies constitute a sufficient ground for the grant or extension of bail in a murder case?
- Whether inordinate delay in the conclusion of an inquiry justifies the continuation of bail for an accused charged with murder?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail?
- ALLAH WASAYO vs SALEH AND 2 OTHERS1975 SCMR 184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order passed by the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Sessions Judge, Dadu. The respondents were challaned for multiple murders in August 1972 and were granted bail on the basis of a plea of alibi supported by hospital discharge slips indicating they were indoor patients at the relevant time. The petitioner contended that conflicting medical reports regarding the alibi rendered the bail grant improper. The core legal question was whether the plea of alibi and conflicting medical evidence should be evaluated at the bail stage or reserved for trial. The Supreme Court held that the truth or falsity of a plea of alibi can only be examined during the trial of the case and is not a matter to be decided at the bail stage. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Can the truth or falsity of a plea of alibi be decided at the bail stage?
- Whether conflicting medical reports regarding an alibi warrant the cancellation of bail by an appellate court?
- ALLAH DIWAYA vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-03Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DIN AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1288 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-09Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BUX AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1973-07-17Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1081 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-19Read full judgment →
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs NIZAM DIN AND 2 OTHERS1975 SCMR 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a writ petition challenging an order of the Settlement Commissioner (exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner), which divided an evacuee house into three separate portions and transferred each portion to one of three claimants in long-standing possession. The legal questions before the court concerned whether the High Court properly declined to interfere with the division of the property under writ jurisdiction and whether a delayed application for transfer could be accepted. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that upon division by the competent settlement authority, each portion constituted an independent house, making the petitioner ineligible to claim more than one portion. The Court further affirmed that the Settlement Commissioner possessed jurisdiction to consider belated transfer forms pursuant to Settlement Scheme No. 1 and established judicial precedent. Consequently, the High Court rightly declined to disturb a just and proper division in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Questions settled- Can the propriety of the division of an evacuee property by the Settlement Commissioner be interfered with under writ jurisdiction?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have jurisdiction to accept or consider a belated form for the transfer of evacuee property after the expiry of the prescribed time?
- Can a new plea or ground of fact be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the High Court?
- ALI NAWAZ vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 127 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-28Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 56 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-26Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs Makhdoom SIRAJUL HAQ QURESHI1975 SCMR 33 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the transfer and ownership of a house originally allotted as evacuee property. The core legal questions involved whether a concluded and finalized transfer of property could be reopened in subsequent collateral proceedings based on a subsequent judicial view, and whether a procedural amendment empowering a single judge to hear first appeals applied retrospectively. The Supreme Court held that matters concluded by final decisions cannot be reopened simply because a subsequent judgment takes a different view, applying the principle that litigation must reach finality. Furthermore, the Court held that procedural law amendments apply retroactively as no party has a vested right in procedure. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a matter concluded by a final decision of the Supreme Court be reopened merely because the Court takes a different view in a subsequent decision?
- Does a procedural amendment empowering a single judge to hear regular first appeals apply retroactively to pending proceedings?
- Does a person who acquired a precarious right under an agreement to transfer possess the locus standi to challenge the validity of a property transfer finalized through earlier litigation?
- ALI IMAM vs Messrs PAKISTAN PROGRESSIVE CEMENT INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI And 5 Others ,1975 PLC 211 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-10Read full judgment →
- ALI DOST AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1094 · Sindh High Court · 1975-03-31Read full judgment →
- ALI ASHRAF vs G. R. M. INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 128 · Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-18Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBER vs THE STATE-Opponent1975 P Cr. L J 921 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-22Read full judgment →
- ALAM SHER AND 5 Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-19Read full judgment →
- AKRAM KHAN And Another vs Messrs G. M. S. INDUSTRIES, KARACHI1975 PLC 28 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-27Read full judgment →
- AKHLAQ AHMED vs INVESTMENT AND MARKETING, MONTHLY PERIODICAL1975 PLC 245 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-07Read full judgment →
- AISHA BAWANY ACADEMY (GIRLS SCHOOL), KARACHI vs MADAR BAKSH1975 PLC 354 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-02-20Read full judgment →
- AHMAD vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-07Read full judgment →
- AHMAD SHAH AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1975 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the High Court at Karachi dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioners regarding agricultural land originally belonging to the government, later treated as evacuee property and allotted to respondent No. 5 against his verified claim. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, claiming to be sitting tenants, had a right of first or second option to purchase the excess land allegedly surrendered by respondent No. 5 under Martial Law Regulation No. 89. The Supreme Court held that the land in dispute reverted to the compensation pool not under the said Martial Law Regulation, but because respondent No. 5 had obtained double entitlement certificates on the basis of a single verified claim, leading to the cancellation of the excess allotment. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that surplus land arising from the cancellation of double allotment certificates reverts to the compensation pool rather than being subject to tenant purchase options under Martial Law Regulation No. 89.
Questions settled- Does excess land surrendered due to the cancellation of double entitlement certificates revert to the compensation pool?
- Do sitting tenants have a right of option to purchase land surrendered under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 when the surrender results from double allotment cancellation rather than the regulation's provisions?
- AHMAD NAWAZ vs DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, PUNJAB And Another Of 19721975 PLC [C.S.T.] 17 · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1972-12-04Read full judgment →
- AHMAD KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition in limine. The petitioner, an allottee of an evacuee flour mill, had executed a power of attorney in favor of respondent No. 2, authorizing him to enter into agreements of sale or partnership. Acting on this authority, respondent No. 2 executed a deed of relinquishment in favor of respondent No. 3. Ten days after the execution of this deed, the petitioner cancelled the power of attorney. The settlement authorities subsequently approved the deed of relinquishment and association. The petitioner challenged the validity of the transfer, arguing that the approval was granted ex parte and after the power of attorney had been cancelled. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the power of attorney was fully valid and subsisting on the date the deed of relinquishment was executed. Consequently, any act performed by the attorney within the scope of his authority prior to the revocation of the power of attorney remains legally valid and unquestionable.
Questions settled- Whether an act performed by an attorney-in-fact remains legally valid if it was executed prior to the formal cancellation of the power of attorney?
- Can a principal invalidate a transaction entered into by their authorized agent on the sole ground that the principal subsequently revoked the agent's authority?
- AHMAD KHAN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two civil petitions concerning the disputed transfer of a house in Model Town, Lahore, which had previously been allotted to Ahmad Khan. The core legal question was whether the transfer of the property to the petitioner, Muhammad Hanif, based on information provided by him, was lawful under the prevailing settlement laws. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which had declared the transfer in favour of the petitioner to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court held that the petitioner's claim, based on certain Press Notes, was invalid because the property was not 'hidden evacuee property' and the original transfer did not involve misrepresentation. The Court affirmed the principle that settlement authorities lack the legal power to transfer property to an informant where the property is not hidden evacuee property and where the original transfer was not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. Consequently, the petition challenging the High Court's order was dismissed, and the related petition filed by Ahmad Khan was not pressed.
Questions settled- Can settlement authorities transfer property to an informant if the property is not classified as hidden evacuee property?
- Does a Press Note issued by settlement authorities have legal sanction if it contradicts the statutory framework?
- Is a transfer of property valid if the original transfer order did not suffer from misrepresentation?
- AHMAD JAMAL vs NAZIR AHMAD KHAN AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal concerning the transfer of an evacuee property in Peshawar originally treated as a single house. The core legal question involves whether the evacuee property constituted an indivisible residential unit and whether the High Court or settlement authorities erred in determining its divisibility and transferability to local claimants. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether an evacuee property is divisible falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the settlement authorities, and where such authorities find the property to be an indivisible unit valued over ten thousand rupees, courts cannot reopen or interfere with this finding in writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court established that a house cannot be subdivided merely for the purpose of accommodating a local claimant unless an independent division existed prior to partition pursuant to departmental instructions and established precedent.
Questions settled- Whether the question of whether an evacuee property is divisible falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the settlement authorities?
- Can a high court in writ jurisdiction re-open the factual determination made by settlement authorities regarding the divisibility of a house?
- Is a house permitted to be divided merely for the purpose of accommodating a local claimant under settlement laws?
- Does a settlement officer deciding the question of divisibility of a house have a mandatory legal requirement to locally inspect the premises in every case?
- AHMAD FAQIR JULAY vs Messrs NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION, KARACHI ,1975 PLC 177 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-07Read full judgment →
- AHMAD EBRAHIM AGENCY Ltd, CARETAKERS WELFARE UNION, KARACHI vs MUSLIM AND 2 OTHERS1975 PLC 588 · Labour Court · 1975-05-29Read full judgment →
- AHMAD AND 4 Others vs NASIMUL HASSAN SHAH AND 3 Others1975 P Cr. L J 41 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-14Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 672 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-28Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI AND Another vs Haji SULEMAN ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANUTHER1975 P Cr. L J 315 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-02Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI AND ANOTHER vs Haji SULEMAN ALI MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 315 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-02Read full judgment →
- AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI vs STAFF UNION1975 PLC 855 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL & EX OFFICIO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARACHI vs Major MALIK MUHAMMAD HANIF AND 4 Others1975 P Cr. L J 834 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-28Read full judgment →
- ADAM'S TEA FIELD WORKERS UNION vs BRANCH MANAGER, ADAM TEA Ltd.,1975 PLC 878 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-10-24Read full judgment →
- ACHCHEY KHAN vs Messrs SHAHID TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI And Another , .1975 PLC 75 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-18Read full judgment →
- ABUL HASSAN vs Mst. MARIAM BIBI AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave concerns a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee house between a non-claimant in possession and a claimant out of possession. The core legal question was whether a claimant could seek the transfer of a house based on the 'notional possession' of her daughter, who resided with her husband—a non-claimant allottee—in the property, in preference to the appellant. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the occupation of a house by a wife living with her husband, pursuant to the Central Government's Memorandum of 7th March 1960, constitutes 'possession' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Court established that this 'notional possession' allows a claimant relative to assert a preferential right to transfer under the Schedule to the Act. The principle laid down is that where a legal fiction treats a state of affairs as real, the inevitable consequences and incidents flowing from that state must also be treated as real, thereby enabling the claimant to rely on the daughter's deemed possession.
Questions settled- Can a claimant out of possession seek transfer of an evacuee house based on the notional possession of a daughter residing with her husband?
- Does the definition of 'possession' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 include the notional possession of a wife living with her husband?
- Does a claimant relative have a preferential right to transfer of an evacuee house over a non-claimant in possession?
- ABDUS SATTAR vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1280 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAUF MINHAS vs PAKISTAN Through Secretary, Government Of Pakistan, Ministry Of Defence1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 63 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1975-05-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 565 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID vs THE STATE--1975 P Cr. L J 565 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-14Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-28Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH vs KHAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 680 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-01Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH alias DULLA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, along with six other persons, faced an inquiry before a Magistrate for offences under sections 302, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a registered case on 12th March 1974 involving multiple murders committed after raising a lalkara. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground that fatal injuries were attributed only to specific co-accused, thereby purportedly lacking common intention. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the circumstances disclosed that all accused persons acted together, and the attribution of fatal injuries solely to certain co-accused was irrelevant at the inquiry stage for releasing the petitioners on bail, particularly when inquiry proceedings were still ongoing. The petition for bail was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that participation and common intention under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude bail at the pre-trial inquiry stage when the accused acted collectively in the commission of the offence.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person can be granted bail merely because fatal injuries are attributed to co-accused during ongoing inquiry proceedings?
- Does acting in concert with others in the commission of multiple murders negate the grant of bail at the inquiry stage?
- Is the absence of direct attribution of fatal injuries sufficient to establish a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- ABDUL WAHID vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1156 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 28 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 28 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED vs QAMAR TEXTILE & GENERAL MILLS Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 749 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHEED vs Messrs HUSSAIN TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., KARACHI1975 PL C 91 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L 1 163 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SHAKOOR vs THE STATE Respondent1975 P Cr. L J 163 · Sindh High Court · 1975-02-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR vs THE STATE-Opponent1975 P Cr. L J 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs SHAMSHAD ALI JAFRI AND 4 OTHERS1975 P Cr. L J 158 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs SHAMSHAD ALI JAFRI AND 4 OTHERS--1975 P Cr. L J 158 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZZAQ vs Ch. SULTAN MUHAMMAD KHAN AND 3 OTHER1975 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for review of an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which had previously dismissed a petition for special leave to appeal regarding the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner, a local tenant, sought to challenge the transfer of property to a claimant-displaced person. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could seek a review of settlement orders despite having previously filed appeals or revisions, and whether such review was competent under the governing statute. The Supreme Court held that the review petition was misconceived and incompetent. The Court affirmed that under Section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the power of review is expressly excluded where an appeal or revision has already been preferred against the order. Furthermore, the Court held that a party who invokes a specific jurisdiction cannot subsequently argue that such jurisdiction was unavailable to the authority. The petition was dismissed, upholding the finality of the previous settlement orders.
Questions settled- Is a review petition competent under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 if an appeal or revision has already been preferred against the order?
- Can a party who invokes a specific jurisdiction later argue that such jurisdiction was not available to the authority?
- Does the existence of administrative memoranda allowing for review override the statutory prohibition on review contained in the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- ABDUL RAZZAQ AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION1975 SCMR 455 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, refugees claiming surplus land units, challenged an allotment made to respondent No. 2, alleging it was fraudulently obtained from reserved areas. The Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner cancelled the respondent's allotment and confirmed it in favour of the petitioners. After unsuccessful challenges before higher settlement authorities, respondent No. 2 filed a writ petition in the High Court, where a learned Single Judge set aside a prior administrative order and remanded the case to the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner for a fresh decision. The petitioners sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned the propriety of interfering with factual disputes in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court rightly avoided investigating factual controversies and remanded the matter. The key principle laid down is that the High Court, in its constitutional writ jurisdiction, ought not to undertake detailed factual investigations which are properly within the domain of administrative rehabilitation authorities.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction should investigate disputed questions of fact in property settlement matters?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the High Court remanding a case for fresh decision by rehabilitation authorities when factual inquiries are required?
- ABDUL RAHIM vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1227 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM vs NASURULLAH KHAN DRAISHAK AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the Lahore High Court. The petitioner, a food depot holder, challenged orders suspending his depot quota and the subsequent dismissal of his departmental appeal by the Deputy Director Food. The core legal questions involved whether the Provincial Minister could interfere with pending quasi-judicial appellate proceedings, and whether subordinate authorities acted under the Minister's dictation. The Supreme Court held that while the Minister's initial directive was without lawful authority, the final order dismissing the appeal was passed independently with jurisdiction by the Deputy Director Food, and the petitioner himself was at fault for failing to stay or properly contest the departmental appeal. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a provincial minister has the jurisdiction to interfere in pending departmental appeals concerning food depot quotas?
- Can an appellate authority proceed with an appeal when a related constitutional petition is pending in the High Court without a formal stay order?
- Whether an order passed by a departmental authority can be set aside on the ground that it was influenced by ministerial dictation?
- ABDUL QAYUM vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1377 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR vs Sh. MUHAMMAD IDRIS1975 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant regarding a shop room. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant's ejectment based on the landlord's bona fide personal requirement and the need for reconstruction, rejecting the allegation of rent default. This order was upheld by the District Judge and subsequently by the Lahore High Court in second appeal. The core legal question was whether the landlord's application was mal fide because it included grounds not raised in a previously dismissed ejectment petition. The Supreme Court held that the mere omission of grounds in an earlier petition does not establish mala fides, as personal requirements may arise subsequently. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting the landlord's evidence remained unrefuted. The key principle laid down is that the failure to include specific grounds for ejectment in a prior application does not preclude a landlord from relying on those grounds in a subsequent application, provided the requirement is supported by evidence at the trial stage.
Questions settled- Does the failure to include specific grounds for ejectment in an earlier petition automatically render a subsequent petition mal fide?
- Can a landlord seek ejectment on grounds of personal requirement even if those grounds were not asserted in a prior, unsuccessful ejectment application?
- Is a finding of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises subject to interference in second appeal when based on unrefuted evidence?
- ABDUL QADIR AND OTHERS vs CHAIRMAN, ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE, PAKPATTAN AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a dispute over land allotments originally held in temporary allotment by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest since 1947, which were later confirmed in favour of the respondents in 1951. The core legal question revolves around whether the rehabilitation authorities and the High Court erred in refusing to extend the benefit of a prior Supreme Court judgment—which had restored a general cancellation of allotments by the Rehabilitation Commissioner—to the petitioners, who were not parties to the specific writ petition filed by the respondents, and whether the petitioners were prejudiced by orders passed without their participation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions and directed that status quo regarding possession be maintained in the interim. The key principle laid down is that the effect of a comprehensive appellate judgment restoring an administrative cancellation must be duly evaluated regarding similarly situated claimants, and matters involving unexamined documentary evidence of prior temporary allotments warrant a thorough examination by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed in a writ petition can operate to the prejudice of parties who were not impleaded in the proceedings?
- Do rehabilitation authorities err in refusing to apply a binding Supreme Court judgment that restored a general cancellation of allotments?
- Whether the failure of a High Court to examine specific contentions regarding documentary evidence of temporary allotments warrants the grant of leave to appeal?
- ABDUL QADIR AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD RAZA AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MANAN KHAN vs DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 129 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-08-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID vs THE SET FLEMEN T COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment affirming the classification of specific properties as evacuee trust properties. The core legal questions were whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner had the jurisdiction to determine the status of the property under amended law, and whether the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.) removed the property from the compensation pool, thereby preventing such a declaration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Chief Settlement Commissioner possessed the statutory authority to determine the status of the property, as the issue had not been previously decided by a competent authority. The Court established that the issuance of a P.T.O. does not validate a transfer if the property is actually evacuee trust property, as such property is not part of the compensation pool. Furthermore, concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the property, based on documentary evidence, are not subject to interference by the Supreme Court. The unauthorized use of trust property by previous managers does not alter its legal status.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Order remove a property from the compensation pool if it is subsequently determined to be evacuee trust property?
- Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner determine the status of a property as evacuee trust property under amended law if no competent authority had previously decided the issue?
- Does the unauthorized use of trust property by previous managers alter the legal status of the property as a religious or charitable trust?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of property made by lower courts?
- ABDUL MAJID ETC. vs REHMAT BIBI ETC.1975 SCMR 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellants for a declaration that they had acquired title to disputed agricultural land and a residential ahata by adverse possession for over 12 years. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision and decreed it. The High Court, in second appeal, set aside the decree and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court considered whether the appellants' possession was hostile and continuous for the statutory period to establish adverse possession against the true heirs. The Court held that the appellants entered into possession as heirs and co-sharers, some of them being minors at the inception, and that revenue records consistently showed joint possession rather than exclusive or hostile possession. The Court further held that the failure of the first appellate court to consider material evidence vitiated its findings, making interference in second appeal justified. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether the possession of a co-sharer can be deemed adverse against other co-sharers without clear proof of a hostile and overt act?
- Can a guardian establish adverse possession on behalf of minor heirs against other lawful heirs?
- Whether the first appellate court's findings of fact reached without considering material documentary evidence are binding in second appeal?
- ABDUL LATIF vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 897 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-23Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR KHAN vs Messrs GAMMON (PAK) Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 112 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR AND OTHERS vs Mst. UMERUNNISA1975 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the High Court and lower courts ordering the ejectment of the petitioners from a residential tenement. The respondent, the owner of the property, sought ejectment on the grounds of bona fide personal need and the unauthorized conversion of the premises from residential to non-residential use (factory). The petitioners contended that the suit was barred by res judicata due to a previous unsuccessful ejectment suit filed by the respondent against their predecessor-in-interest, and raised a plea of estoppel. The Supreme Court addressed whether the conversion of the premises constituted a perversion of user and whether the previous litigation barred the current proceedings. The Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the bona fide requirement and the unauthorized conversion were conclusive. Furthermore, it affirmed that the present petition was not barred by res judicata, as the previous suit was based on the status of the occupant as a trespasser, whereas the current proceedings were based on a landlord-tenant relationship.
Questions settled- Does a previous suit for ejectment against a trespasser bar a subsequent suit for ejectment against a tenant on grounds of bona fide need and conversion of use?
- Does the conversion of premises from residential to non-residential use without the landlord's written permission constitute a valid ground for ejectment?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding bona fide personal requirement subject to interference in appeal?
- ABDUL HAMID vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAW1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 1 · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1972-11-22Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE1975 PLC 671 · Labour Court · 1971-05-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application filed by the respondent, the transferee of the property in dispute, seeking the vacation of a stay order previously granted by the Supreme Court in favor of the petitioner. The stay order, issued on November 16, 1972, was conditional upon the petitioner depositing up-to-date rent with the Rent Controller. The respondent alleged that the petitioner failed to comply with this specific condition. Despite receiving notice of the application in June 1974, the petitioner failed to challenge the respondent's assertion or provide evidence of compliance. The Court observed that the petitioner had sufficient time to obtain instructions or respond to the allegations. Consequently, finding the respondent's claim of non-compliance unchallenged, the Court held that the condition upon which the stay was granted had not been met. The Court decided to allow the respondent's application and vacated the stay order previously granted. The principle established is that a conditional stay order granted by the Court may be vacated if the beneficiary fails to adhere to the stipulated conditions.
Questions settled- Can a stay order granted by the Supreme Court be vacated if the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions imposed?
- What is the consequence of a petitioner failing to challenge an allegation of non-compliance with a court order?
- ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND 2 OTHERS1975 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1966-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition seeking modification of a previous judgment dated 15th April 1966 passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, specifically regarding the transfer of excess area in the compound of an evacuee house. The core legal question concerns the locus standi of a petitioner, whose claim for the transfer of the property had been finally rejected, to challenge the transfer of the excess area or demand its public auction based on instructions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The court held that a mere desire to bid at an auction does not confer a vested right or locus standi to challenge the administrative discretion exercised by the Settlement Authorities in transferring the excess area. The Supreme Court established the principle that a person occupying only an outhouse whose substantive claim for property transfer has been rejected lacks the requisite locus standi to question the disposal of excess property or demand an auction thereof.
Questions settled- Does a person whose claim for the transfer of an evacuee property has been rejected have the locus standi to challenge the transfer of excess area in the compound of that property?
- Does a mere desire to bid for a property at an auction carry a vested right to bring such property to auction?
- ABDUL HAMID KHAN And 19 Other vs Messrs AL-HASSAN SILK MILLS Ltd., KARACHI1975 PL C 514 · Labour Court · 1975-02-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 515 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI vs ISMAIL HAJI MUHAMMAD And 9 Others1975 PLC 476 · Labour Court · 1972-11-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAN1 AND 3 OTHERS vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND ANOTHER1975 P Cr. L J 558 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-16Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR AND ANOTHER vs THB STATE1975 SCMR 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioners who are facing charges under sections 302 and 459/460 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether bail should be granted in the face of conflicting police investigation reports, an alleged alibi, and discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, when eye-witnesses are named promptly in the first information report. The Supreme Court held that in the presence of eye-witness testimony and a final police report implicating the accused endorsed by superior police officers, reasonable grounds exist to believe the petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, rendering bail unjustified at this stage. The key principle laid down is that questions of alibi and contradictions between ocular and medical evidence during bail stages should be evaluated by the trial court, and divergent findings by successive police officers do not displace a final challan supported by eye-witness accounts.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be refused when eye-witnesses named in the first information report implicate the accused despite conflicting findings by successive investigating officers?
- Are questions of alibi and contradictions between ocular and medical evidence to be decided at the bail stage or by the trial court?
- Does the submission of a final police report endorsed by superior officers outweigh earlier police opinions favoring the accused for the purpose of bail?
- ABDUL AZIZ vs ROSHAN KHAN1975 PLC 634 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-04-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND 3 OTHERS1975 SCMR 400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the transfer of a double-storied house under settlement laws. The petitioner, a non-claimant displaced person, challenged the horizontal division of the premises, which had been ordered by the Settlement Commissioner after initially being transferred to the petitioner in its entirety. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner acted within their authority in declaring the premises divisible and apportioning it between the petitioner and the respondent, a local. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition, finding the decision of the Settlement Authorities to be of unchallengeable validity. The Court held that the law grants the Settlement Commissioner or their delegatee full power to declare premises as divisible. Since the property comprised two self-contained portions with independent access, the horizontal division was deemed equitable and legally sound. The Court emphasized that no legal grounds existed to interfere with the lower authorities' findings, affirming that the apportionment between the occupants was just and proper.
Questions settled- Does the Settlement Commissioner have the legal authority to declare a premises as divisible for the purpose of transfer?
- Can a court interfere with the equitable apportionment of a property between occupants when the premises is found to be divisible?
- ABDUL AZIZ BHATTI vs PROVINCB OF THE PUNJAB Through Secretary, Labour1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 123 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-11-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL Alias ABDUL KARIM AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1077 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- ABBAS vs Trot STATE1975 P Cr. L J 596 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-28Read full judgment →
- ABBAS vs THE STATE-1975 P Cr. L J 596 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-28Read full judgment →
- ABAD ALI KHAN vs Messers M. A. TRANSPORT, KARACHI1975 PLC 475 · Labour Court · 1972-11-30Read full judgment →
- A.R. FAROOQI vs DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE PUNJAB And 11 Others Of 19741975 PLC [C.S.T.] 85 · Administrative Tribunal Punjab · 1974-12-09Read full judgment →
- A. W. KHOKHAR vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Through Secretary, Education1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 7 · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1972-11-30Read full judgment →
- A. S. KAZI vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 6 OIHERS1975 SCMR 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The dispute in this matter relates to Bungalow No. 62, The Mall, Peshawar Cantt., an evacuee property originally allotted to the petitioner in 1947, which was later transferred to respondent No. 7 in 1960. The petitioner, after returning from abroad, slept over his rights for years and subsequently made several administrative applications to reopen the concluded transfer through the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner repeatedly refused to reopen the case, and the Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent writ petition. The core legal question concerns whether the Settlement Commissioner was bound under section 9(3) and section 20(3) of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Act 1958 to comply with directions of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to re-examine a long-settled transfer. The Supreme Court held that general superintendence and control do not obligate a functionary to comply with an illegal directive to reopen a final matter contrary to law after a decade. The Court laid down that revisional powers are subject to reasonable limitations and cannot be exercised to bypass statutory finality and legal remedies through back-door administrative methods.
Questions settled- Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner can force a Settlement Commissioner to comply with an illegal direction to reopen a case under the Settlement and Rehabilitation Act 1958?
- Can general superintendence and control over subordinate functionaries be extended to mandate the execution of time-barred and unlawful orders?
- Whether a local resident can challenge a transfer order after a prolonged delay without availing proper statutory appellate remedies?
- A H MA D DIN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 672 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-28Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI vs REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS1974 PLC 19 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-19Read full judgment →
- ZULFIKAR KHAN AWAN vs THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND MINERAL1974 SCMR 530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an order of the Civil Service Appellate Tribunal regarding the fixation of his seniority. The petitioner, a former Central Government employee transferred to the Provincial Government, contested the seniority list prepared by the authorities. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere with the Tribunal's decision under its writ jurisdiction when the decision was alleged to be erroneous but not without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly refused to interfere, affirming that a tribunal possessing jurisdiction to decide a matter is competent to decide it rightly or wrongly. The mere fact that a decision is incorrect does not render it without lawful authority or subject to correction via writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction is limited to cases where a tribunal acts without jurisdiction, rather than merely making an erroneous decision within its lawful authority.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere with a decision of a tribunal under its writ jurisdiction solely on the ground that the decision is incorrect?
- Does a tribunal's power to decide a matter include the competence to decide it rightly or wrongly?
- Is a decision by a competent tribunal rendered without lawful authority merely because it is erroneous?
- ZIJLFIQAR ALI vs LAL DIN AND Another1974 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against an order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine an intra-court appeal brought under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 against a Single Judge's order refusing to restore a second appeal dismissed for default. The restoration application contained false assertions regarding enquiries made with the Court Reader, which were subsequently disproved and contradicted by the counsel's own statement. The petitioner contended that the default was solely attributable to counsel's negligence and that restoration ought to have been granted. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that engaging counsel does not absolve a litigant of all responsibility to ensure that an appeal is properly and diligently prosecuted. Where a litigant selects counsel who lacks a sense of responsibility to the Court, the litigant must bear the consequences rather than the opposing party.
Questions settled- Does engaging counsel absolve a litigant of the responsibility to ensure their appeal is diligently prosecuted?
- Can an appeal dismissed for default be restored where false grounds regarding enquiry from Court staff are presented in the restoration application?
- Who must bear the consequences when an appeal is dismissed for default due to the negligence or lack of responsibility of chosen counsel?
- ZARIN SHAH AND 2 Others vs The STATE1974 SCMR 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal as of right before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had reversed the trial court's acquittal and convicted Zarin Shah and Zahir Shah under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Multan Shah under Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal issue was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against all appellants in light of an unelaborated defence plea asserting an attack inside the appellants' shop and unexplained minor injuries on two appellants and their mother. The Supreme Court affirmed that minor injuries on the accused likely arose from the deceased's struggle during the incident and rejected the defence version due to lack of physical evidence at the shop. The Court held the ocular account reliable against Zarin Shah for fatal stabbing and against Multan Shah for causing simple hurt, but found the specific role of catching hold attributed to Zahir Shah doubtful. Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted Zahir Shah by granting benefit of doubt while maintaining the convictions of Zarin Shah and Multan Shah.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of minor injuries on the accused, explainable by resistance offered by the deceased during a scuffle, invalidate the prosecution case?
- Can an accused person be granted the benefit of doubt where the specific role of catching hold of the deceased is doubtful and not conclusively established by ocular evidence?
- Is a defence counter-version alleging an attack inside the accused's premises acceptable when contradicted by physical scene evidence and ocular testimony?
- ZAKAULLAH KHAN AND 3 Other vs THE STATE1974 PLD Lahore 181 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-17Read full judgment →