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.
- Syed MUHAMMAD KAZIM HUSSAIN vs Mst. AZIZ FATIMA AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Karachi 759 · Sindh High Court · 1970-09-21Read full judgment →
- Syed MOHAMMAD KAZIM HUSSAIN vs Mst. AZIZ FATIMA AND ANOTHER1971 P Cr. L J 720 · Sindh High Court · 1970-09-21Read full judgment →
- Syed MODARIS ALI--Defendant vs Syed MD. ILIAS ALI AND OTHERS1971 PLD Dacca 309 · Dacca · 1970-05-06Read full judgment →
- Syed MAZHARUDDIN AHMED vs PAKISTAN PAINTS LTD., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC 531 · Labour Court · 1970-08-15Read full judgment →
- Syed MAZHAR ALI SHAH--Plaintiff vs AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF1971 PLD Lahore 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-19Read full judgment →
- Syed ISHTIAQ HUSSAIN vs Syed NIAZ ALI AND ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 1103 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-01Read full judgment →
- Syed HASSAN HYDER vs The STATE1971 SCMR 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-08-19Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner, formerly the Secretary of the United Provinces Mohajirin Association, was convicted under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for fraud and forgery related to the sale of land plots. The prosecution alleged the petitioner induced the complainant to pay for a plot using a forged agreement of sale purportedly executed by an allottee, Saeed Hassan, whose signature was denied. The High Court affirmed the conviction, relying on its own comparison of the disputed signatures with admitted signatures under section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872. The petitioner challenged this, arguing the High Court misread the documents and improperly assumed the role of a handwriting expert. The Supreme Court noted that while courts are empowered under section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872 to compare signatures to form an opinion, the reliability of such a comparison depends on accuracy. Given the contention that the High Court misread the documents, the Supreme Court ordered the original records to be produced for its own examination before deciding the petition.
Questions settled- Is a court empowered to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures to form an opinion under section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Should a court rely solely on its own comparison of handwriting without expert assistance?
- Can a conviction based on a court's own comparison of signatures be challenged if the court allegedly misread the documents?
- Syed HASANHAIDER vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 433 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-13Read full judgment →
- Syed HAIDER SHAH vs MUKHTAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND 6 Other1971 SCMR 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1964-11-26Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan affirming an order passed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The petitioner challenged orders of the settlement authorities whereby it was held that he was not a displaced person entitled to the transfer of a house, but a local. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere under writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact regarding the migration status of a petitioner, and whether a misreading of evidence warranted interference. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether the petitioner was a displaced person required factual investigation not permissible under writ jurisdiction, and that inferences drawn from the petitioner's statement remained legitimate despite minor inaccuracies in summary by lower authorities. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that factual findings by settlement authorities regarding refugee status ordinarily preclude interference under constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the question of whether a person is a displaced person or a local requires an investigation into questions of fact not permissible under writ jurisdiction?
- Does a minor misreading or inaccurate summary of a statement by a settlement authority constitute sufficient ground for interference by the High Court?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Syed GHULAM SHAH (REPRESENTED BY 7 HEIRS) vs Syed JAHANDAR SHAH1971 PLD Karachi 708 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Syed BASHIR HUSSAIN vs THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB1971 PLC 192 [C.S.T.] · Civil Services Tribunal · 1971-06-15Read full judgment →
- Syed AZIZUDDIN vs ISLAMUDDIN1971 PLD Karachi 701 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-18Read full judgment →
- Syed ALI HUSSAIN SHAH vs SHAMASUDDIN AND ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 703 · Lahore High Court · 1971-01-11Read full judgment →
- Syed ALAUDDIN AHMED vs MD. MUSTAFA--Opposite-Party1971 PLD Dacca 286 · Dacca · 1970-08-03Read full judgment →
- SYED AHMED' vs MESSRS BENGAL AGENCIES, CHITTAGONG1971 PLC 112 · Labour Court · 1970-07-02Read full judgment →
- Syed ABDUS SALAM vs THE WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE (THROUGH COLLECTOR, LYALLPUR) AND 11 Other1971 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-30Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit challenging the cancellation of a land allotment (khata). The petitioner's khata was initially confirmed, but subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lands, based on a report indicating the cancellation of the underlying Fard-e-Haqiat from the Central Record Room, rendering the right-holder ineligible for the allotment. The petitioner challenged this cancellation in the civil court, seeking a declaration of illegality, but the suit, along with subsequent appeals and revisions, was dismissed by the trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the cancellation order was justified as the petitioner lacked entitlement following the removal of the Fard-e-Haqiat. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner pursued an incorrect remedy by approaching the civil court instead of exhausting the appellate and revisional hierarchy established under the Land Settlement Act. The Court affirmed that the jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters is expressly barred by the relevant statutory provisions, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to challenge an order passed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding land allotment?
- Is a petitioner required to exhaust remedies of appeal and revision under the Land Settlement Act before approaching a civil court?
- Can a land allotment be cancelled if the underlying Fard-e-Haqiat is cancelled from the Central Record Room?
- Syed ABDUL QADEER vs Mirza ISHTIAQ HUSSAIN1971 P Cr. L J 537 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-18Read full judgment →
- SUNITY KUMAR ROY vs CHAIRMAN, JESSORE MUNICIPALITY AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Dacca 5 · Dacca · 1969-12-17Read full judgment →
- SUMRA AND Another vs THB STATE1971 P Cr. L J 739 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-27Read full judgment →
- SULTAN vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 850 · Sindh High Court · 1970-08-07Read full judgment →
- SULTAN Alias SULTAN AHMAD vs Mehr NAWAZISH ALI AND ANOTHER1971 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-02-05Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The first respondent instituted a pre-emption suit against the petitioner, during which an application for amendment of the plaint was filed and allowed. Subsequently, the plaint was returned due to exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction and was presented before the Senior Civil Judge, where a similar amendment application was allowed subject to payment of costs. The petitioner challenged this amendment order in revision before the High Court. During the pendency of the revision, the petitioner intentionally accepted the awarded costs from the trial court. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the acceptance of costs amounted to acquiescence in the amendment. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having withdrawn the costs with full knowledge that payment was a condition precedent to the amendment, and considering that the identical amendment had been previously allowed, had acquiesced to the order. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that acceptance of conditional costs bars subsequent challenge to the amendment.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of costs awarded as a condition precedent for amending a plaint amount to acquiescence in the amendment?
- Can a party challenge an order allowing the amendment of a plaint after intentionally receiving the costs granted under that very order?
- SULTAN ALI vs THE STATE1971 PLD Karachi 78 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-13Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a Tapedar, under section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 for allegedly accepting illegal gratification in connection with the recovery of land revenue. The core legal question concerns whether the tainted money recovered from the appellant constituted a bribe or legitimate land revenue collected on behalf of the complainant and other Khatedars, and how statutory presumptions under anti-corruption laws interact with the standard of proof required from an accused. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence and surrounding circumstances—including a letter written by the complainant—rendered the defense explanation reasonably probable. The court laid down the principle that uncorroborated testimony of a bribe-giver/decoy witness must be scrutinized with extreme caution, and that an accused seeking to rebut a statutory presumption under the anti-corruption laws need only establish a reasonable probability of their innocence or raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, discharging a lighter burden of proof than the prosecution.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for accepting illegal gratification can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a decoy or bribe-giver?
- What is the standard and nature of proof required for an accused to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
- Does the mere recovery of marked tainted money from a public servant conclusively establish the offense of bribery without proof of corrupt motive?
- How should an accused's explanation regarding the receipt of money be evaluated when weighed against the testimony of the complainant in anti-corruption cases?
- SULEMAN vs MUHAMMAD KHAN1971 SCMR 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-08Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the West Pakistan High Court, which had summarily dismissed a second appeal in a pre-emption suit. The High Court had declined to interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the value and nature of improvements made on the land. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner attempted to raise a new argument, contending that the pre-emption decree was illegal because the petitioner was a co-sharer in a joint khata, and thus, exclusive possession could not be granted without partition. The petitioner further argued this point was covered by an issue regarding the value of improvements. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the issue regarding improvements could not encompass the question of co-sharership or partition. The Court affirmed that a new point, not raised in the lower courts or the High Court, cannot be introduced for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal. The petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the petitioner might address executability concerns during execution proceedings if applicable.
Questions settled- Can a new legal point, not raised in the lower courts or the High Court, be introduced for the first time in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Does an issue regarding the value of improvements on land encompass a claim regarding the status of a co-sharer in a joint khata?
- Is a decree for exclusive possession of pre-empted land inherently illegal if the defendant is a co-sharer in a joint khata?
- SULEMAN SHAH vs AYUB AND 5 OTHERS1971 PLD Supreme Court 751 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-07-09Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Seat, which had acquitted five respondents of murder and unlawful assembly charges under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case rested on three eye-witnesses, the recovery of blood-stained items, and a report (Exh. PA/1) lodged by one of the accused prior to the formal First Information Report. The High Court had excluded this report and rejected the eye-witness testimony primarily on the ground of relationship to the deceased. The Supreme Court of Pakistan evaluated the admissibility of the accused's report, holding that because it was self-exculpatory and lodged before any formal investigation against him had commenced, it did not constitute a confession under Section 25 of the Evidence Act 1872, nor was it barred by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court further held that mere relationship is insufficient to discredit natural eye-witnesses. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittals, and restored the convictions.
Questions settled- Does a self-exculpatory report lodged by an accused person before a formal investigation begins constitute a confession under Section 25 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Does Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the admissibility of a statement made to the police before a formal case has been registered against the maker?
- Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be rejected solely on the ground of their relationship to the deceased in the absence of proven animus or enmity against the accused?
- Can an admission made by one co-accused in an admissible report be used to corroborate the presence of other co-accused at the crime scene?
- SULEMAN AND Another vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 63 · Sindh High Court · 1969-01-17Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN AND 3 OTHERS vs CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS1971 PLD Lahore 77 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-01Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This constitutional petition under Article 98 was filed to challenge an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property holding that disputed agricultural land mortgaged by a non-Muslim owner in 1888 remained evacuee property subject to the mortgagees' right to receive the mortgage amount. The petitioners contended that under the terms of the mortgage by conditional sale, the land automatically transferred to them after seven years, or alternatively that the right of redemption was extinguished by limitation. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the transaction constituted a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, where the principle 'once a mortgage always a mortgage' applies under Section 60, rendering any clause clogging redemption invalid. Furthermore, because the equity of redemption vested in the Custodian as evacuee property on 1st March 1947, prior to the expiration of the sixty-year limitation period, time ceased to run against the Custodian by virtue of Section 5 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957, preserving the right to redeem indefinitely.
Questions settled- Does a stipulation in a mortgage deed converting a mortgage into an absolute sale upon non-payment operate as an invalid clog on the equity of redemption?
- Does limitation stop running against the Custodian of Evacuee Property once the equity of redemption vests in the Custodian prior to the expiry of the redemption period?
- Can the Custodian exercise suo motu powers of revision without being restricted by the period of limitation prescribed for review petitions?
- SUBEDAR MAJOR AZIZ AHMAD vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND 3 Other1971 SCMR 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-18Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, setting aside the decision of the Settlement authorities which had cancelled an agreement of association between the appellant and respondent No. 1 under Settlement Scheme No. 1. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner had properly exercised jurisdiction under Memorandum No. 4241-P-Reh-60 to allow the cancellation and withdrawal of the agreement of association based on alleged procedural deficiencies and disputes between the parties. The Supreme Court held that minor procedural defects, such as missing original documents, minor stamp duty deficiency, or lack of preliminary scrutiny, do not constitute exceptional or deserving grounds justifying the cancellation of an agreement of association in which vested rights had accrued to a party. Consequently, the Court found that the Settlement authorities acted contrary to law and in excess of their jurisdiction, affirming the High Court's judgment and dismissing the appeal with costs.
Questions settled- Can an agreement of association executed under Settlement Scheme No. 1 be cancelled on minor procedural defects such as deficient stamp duty or lack of preliminary scrutiny?
- Whether Settlement authorities act in excess of jurisdiction when allowing withdrawal from an agreement of association without establishing exceptional and deserving grounds?
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN vs EMMANUEL TOBY EBIEMBER AND Another1971 P Cr. L J 749 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-03Read full judgment →
- Sri SACHINDRA CHANDRA DAS vs TOFAZZAL HOSSAIN KHAN AND- 8 OTHERS-1971 P Cr. L J 396 · Dhaka High Court · 1970-06-16Read full judgment →
- Sree SUDHIR CHANDRA DAS--Plaintiff vs HATEM BEPARI--Defendant1971 PLD Dacca 166 · Dacca · 1968-03-26Read full judgment →
- SPENCER & Co. LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, MADRAS1971 PTD 486 · Madras High Court · 1967-12-13Read full judgment →
- SOUTHERN AGENCIES (PRIVATE) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS1971 PTD 291 · Madras High Court · 1967-12-20Read full judgment →
- SOUTH INDIA FLOUR MILLS (PRIVATE) LTD. vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT1971 PTD 97 · Madras High CourtRead full judgment →
- SONAMUDDIN HOWLADAR AND OTHERS vs ABDUS SOBHAN HOWLADAR AND OTHERS1971 PLD Dacca 29 · Dacca · 1969-10-30Read full judgment →
- SOHAB vs SIRAJ DIN AND 6 Other1971 SCMR 714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-11-01Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which refused to interfere with an acquittal judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, regarding a conspiracy to murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in declining to disturb the acquittal of the respondents, given the prosecution's reliance on ocular evidence from interested and inimical witnesses without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court had rightly rejected the eye-witness testimony due to the witnesses' close relationship with the deceased and their enmity toward the accused. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to provide corroborating evidence, as the recovered weapons did not match the crime empties, and the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's claim regarding the number of shots fired. The Supreme Court held that the High Court acted properly in refusing to interfere with the acquittal, as the prosecution case lacked substance and independent corroboration. The petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that interested witness testimony requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction.
Questions settled- Can an acquittal be set aside when the ocular evidence is provided solely by interested and inimical witnesses without independent corroboration?
- Does a discrepancy between medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired and the prosecution's version of events undermine the credibility of eye-witnesses?
- Is the High Court justified in refusing to interfere with an acquittal order where the prosecution evidence lacks corroboration and fails to inspire confidence?
- SODHO vs THE STATE-Opponent1971 P Cr. L J 898 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-15Read full judgment →
- SOBHAN vs MESSRS BRAHMANBARIA GHEE DEPOT, DACCA1971 PLC 491 · Labour Court · 1970-10-30Read full judgment →
- Smt. KADIJA BAI vs WEALTH TAX OFFICER, A-WARD, MATTANCHERRY1971 PTD 302 · Kerala High Court · 1968-02-23Read full judgment →
- Smt. DEVAYANIAMMA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA1971 PTD 326 · Kerala High Court · 1968-06-17Read full judgment →
- SIRAJULLAH vs Messrs YOUSUF & Co., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC 121 · Labour Court · 1970-06-23Read full judgment →
- SIRAJUL ISLAM vs THE STATE1971 PLD Supreme Court 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-02-02Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave was directed against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, which had reversed the trial court's acquittal of the appellant and convicted him under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The appellant, a public servant, was accused of criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct regarding a cash shortage of Rs. 2,150. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that a cash shortage had existed prior to the appellant taking charge, and that a long-standing practice existed in the department of making temporary advances to officers against chits and cheques. The Court held that the appellant's routine endorsements in the cash-book certifying correctness did not amount to an admission of guilt or misappropriation, especially when the cash was not physically verified. Finding no dishonest intention or criminal intent behind the irregular advances, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's benefit of doubt, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether routine administrative endorsements in a cash-book certifying accounts as correct constitute an admission of criminal misappropriation when physical cash verification was not conducted?
- Can a public servant be held criminally liable for breach of trust for temporary advances made to department officers in accordance with a long-standing departmental practice?
- Does the existence of a cash shortage prior to an accused taking charge of an office negate the presumption of criminal misappropriation against him for subsequent shortages?
- SIRAJUDDIN vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN,1971 PLC 88 [C.S.T.] · Civil Services Tribunal · 1970-09-24Read full judgment →
- SIRAJ AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1971 PLD Lahore 182 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-24Read full judgment →
- SINDHU HOCHTIEF (INDIA) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, BOMBAY1971 PTD 535 · Bombay High Court · 1968-02-09Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 236 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-20Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR SHAH vs THE TRIBUNAL AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KARACHI1971 P Cr. L J 6 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-26Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR HAYAT AND 4 OTHERS vs MASTER FAZAL KARIM1971 PLD Supreme Court 730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-21Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan which reversed the concurrent findings of the courts below and decreed a pre-emption suit brought by the respondent. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in second appeal in reversing the concurrent findings of fact regarding the plea of estoppel and waiver. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in using an omission in a pre-litigation document (Exh. D.1) to reject the oral evidence of the appellants without drawing their attention to it during cross-examination in accordance with settled law. The ratio decidendi is that a previous statement or omission amounting to an admission or inconsistent stance cannot be used to contradict a witness on oath unless the witness is given an opportunity to explain it during cross-examination. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the concurrent decisions of the lower courts dismissing the pre-emption suit.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in second appeal in reversing concurrent findings of fact of the courts below based on an omission in a document?
- Can a previous document or omission be used to contradict a witness on oath without drawing the witness's attention to it during cross-examination?
- Does active participation in negotiations and presence at the registration of a sale deed estop a plaintiff from bringing a suit for pre-emption?
- SIKANDAR AKBAR ALI AND 2 Others vs THE STATE THE STATE1971 SCMR 400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-20Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences imposed on the appellants for the murder of one Allah Ditta. The core legal question was whether the appellants' actions, which resulted in severe injuries, constituted murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on the alleged absence of intent to kill. The appellants argued that the specific locale of the injuries indicated an intent to cause bodily harm rather than death. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the intention to kill was manifest from the use of deadly weapons with brutal force, which caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court affirmed that intention is judged by the nature of the act performed, and the infliction of multiple severe injuries causing rapid death demonstrated a clear intent to kill, regardless of the specific body parts targeted.
Questions settled- Does the use of deadly weapons to inflict injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death establish the intention to kill?
- Can the intention of an accused be inferred from the nature of the act performed and the severity of the injuries inflicted?
- Does the fact that an accused chose not to strike vital areas like the head necessarily negate an intention to cause death?
- SIDDIQUE vs The STATE1971 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-07-01Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan maintaining the appellant's conviction under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code while reducing the death sentence to transportation for life. Leave to appeal was granted specifically to examine the effect of the non-production of the medical officer who conducted the autopsy, whose deposition was brought on record under section 509 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court observed that the defence had neither requested the doctor's attendance for cross-examination in the Sessions Court nor raised any objection during the trial or in the High Court. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found the prosecution case regarding the murder and assault fully established. The Court held that the appellant and his co-accused abetted the murder of the deceased, altering the conviction from section 302/34 to section 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, while maintaining the sentence of transportation for life, and dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- What is the effect of admitting a medical officer's deposition under section 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the defence fails to request the witness's production at trial?
- Can an objection regarding the non-production of a medical witness for cross-examination be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Whether the appellate court can alter a conviction under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to one under section 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on established facts?
- SHERVANI CHARITABLE TRUST vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P.1971 PTD 156 · Allahabad High Court · 1967-07-06Read full judgment →
- SHERA AND Others vs Mst. FATIMA AND Another1971 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-07Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave arose from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing a criminal revision petition. The matter concerned a dispute over agricultural land where a Civil Judge had granted a temporary injunction in favour of respondent No. 1, protecting her possession. While the suit was pending, proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were initiated, resulting in the attachment of the land and appointment of receivers. Upon being apprised of the civil court's interim injunction, the Magistrate vacated the attachment and directed restoration of possession to respondent No. 1, which the appellants challenged. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are subordinate to decrees and orders of a civil court regulating possession. A Magistrate must cease dealing with possession once a civil court is seized of the dispute and has regulated interim possession. Furthermore, upon lifting an attachment, the Magistrate possesses jurisdiction to pass ancillary orders restoring possession to the party entitled to it under the civil court's order.
Questions settled- Are proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subordinate to the orders and decrees of a competent civil court regulating possession?
- Must a Magistrate drop or vacate proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 once a civil court has issued an interim injunction regarding the possession of the disputed property?
- Does a Magistrate have the jurisdiction, upon withdrawing or vacating an attachment order under Section 146(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to pass ancillary orders restoring possession of the property to the party protected by a civil court order?
- SHER ZAMAN vs GUL ZAMAN1971 PLD Azad J & K 101 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1971-06-24Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other1971 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-09Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for leave to appeal arose from the cancellation of an allotment of land by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner, having obtained an allotment of 386 kanals, had 355 kanals cancelled due to an excess allotment resulting from an inflated verification of his claim. The core legal questions were whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner possessed the delegated authority to cancel the allotment, whether a permanent settlement could be cancelled under the relevant Act, and whether the petitioner was entitled to retain excess land obtained through an inadvertent administrative error. The Supreme Court held that the delegation of powers was validly made via notification. It further held that a settlement obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is not a lawful settlement and remains an allotment subject to cancellation under the statute. The Court affirmed that a party cannot benefit from their own fraud or administrative errors, and that the discretion exercised by the Settlement Authorities was lawful. The petition was dismissed, establishing that 'settlement' implies a lawful settlement, and unlawful settlements remain subject to cancellation.
Questions settled- Can a settlement obtained through fraud or misrepresentation be cancelled under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Does the term 'settlement' under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 imply a lawful settlement?
- Are Settlement Authorities empowered to cancel a permanent settlement if it was obtained through fraud?
- SHER MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE-1971 P Cr. L J 381 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-30Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD AND Another vs THE CROWN1971 SCMR 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1954-10-20Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal by special leave arises from the conviction of the appellants, Sher Muhammad and Abdul Sadiq, for murder and their resulting death sentences confirmed by the Court of Judicial Commissioner, N.-W.F.P., in connection with a deadly riot over a disputed strip of land that left six persons dead and others injured. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellants and their co-accused acted in the exercise of the right of private defence or as aggressors in furtherance of a common object during the violent clash arising from trespass onto land lawfully possessed by the deceased party. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions, holding that the appellants and their associates were the aggressors who came armed to take forcible possession of land belonging to the victims, and that no bona fide right of private defence existed. The Court established that where parties assemble with lethal weapons to enforce a civil claim by force and initiate an attack, resulting in multiple homicides, the perpetrators are criminally liable for murder, and courts must harmonize eyewitness and circumstantial evidence to ascertain the true sequence of aggression.
Questions settled- Whether a person asserting a claim to land has the right to bring armed partisans to take forcible possession thereof?
- Can a plea of private defence be sustained where the accused party initiates an armed trespass resulting in multiple homicides?
- How should conflicting testimonies of eyewitnesses regarding the sequence of a sudden violent affray be reconciled by an appellate court?
- SHER ALI vs The STATE1971 SCMR 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-25Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Aslam. The petitioner and his brothers were initially convicted by the trial court, but the High Court acquitted the brothers while maintaining the petitioner's conviction, citing the specific evidence that the petitioner's shot caused the fatal injury. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the eye-witnesses, being closely related to the deceased, required corroboration and that the physical layout of the crime scene made the shooting impossible. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's case was distinct because the medical evidence confirmed his shot was the fatal one, unlike his co-accused whose shots missed. Furthermore, the Court found the eye-witnesses to be natural witnesses and noted that the petitioner's nine-month abscondence provided sufficient corroboration. The Court affirmed the principle that where evidence against one accused is specific and corroborated by circumstances like abscondence, conviction is sustainable despite the acquittal of co-accused. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the conviction of one accused be maintained when co-accused are acquitted based on the specific nature of the evidence against the former?
- Does the close relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased automatically invalidate their testimony without corroboration?
- Can the abscondence of an accused serve as corroborative evidence in a murder trial?
- SHEKHAWATI GENERAL TRADERS LTD. vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANY1971 PTD 307 · Rajasthan High Court · 1968-04-20Read full judgment →
- Sheikh MOHAMMAD IQBAL AND 3 Others vs AMIR BUX AND Another1971 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-08-20Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court, which had refused to interfere with the finding of an arbitrator. The core legal question concerned whether an arbitrator's finding that a disputed sum of Rs. 75,000 standing debited in the names of the respondents was in fact appropriated by the petitioner, and that he was liable to account for the same, was sustainable despite the petitioner's contention that no specific issue was framed on the point. The Supreme Court held that the petition was wholly without substance, noting that the plea had been specifically taken in the written statement and that evidence had been duly brought on the record to support the finding. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that a party cannot complain of a lack of a formal issue where the matter was squarely raised in pleadings and evidence was led thereon.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can interfere with an arbitrator's finding of fact regarding the misappropriation of partnership funds?
- Is the absence of a specific issue fatal to an arbitrator's finding when the plea was specifically raised in the pleadings and evidence was led thereon?
- Sheikh ATTA MUHAMMAD vs Mian MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH AND 10 OTHERS1971 PLD Lahore 210 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-08Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This civil second appeal arises from a dispute regarding the fixation of fair rent for a shop located in Lyallpur, leased to the appellant since 1948. The core legal questions involved the constitutional vires of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the effect of a prior arbitration award and agreement on the Rent Controller's power to fix fair rent, and the competency of interfering with a finding of fact in second appeal under section 15 of the said Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is a valid piece of legislation protected under Article 225 of the 1962 Constitution despite lacking subsequent legislative approval. It further held that the Rent Controller retains the power to fix fair rent under section 4 notwithstanding any prior agreement or arbitration award, and that a finding of fact regarding fair rent by the lower appellate Court, based on a consideration of the entire evidence, cannot be disturbed in second appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is a valid piece of legislation despite lacking subsequent legislative approval under the 1962 Constitution?
- Does a prior arbitration award and subsequent lease agreement oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to fix fair rent under section 4 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Can a finding of fact regarding the fixation of fair rent by the lower appellate Court be interfered with in second appeal under section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- SHAUKAT HAYAT Alias SHAUKA vs The STATE1971 SCMR 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-01-15Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal challenges the confirmation of a death sentence by the High Court for the murder of the deceased, who was a witness in a pending criminal case against the appellant's associates. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of eye-witnesses and medical evidence, and whether the appellant successfully established a plea of private defence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's case was fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, whose presence at the scene was established. The Court rejected the appellant's defence plea, noting that the defence witnesses were interested parties and their version was physically inconsistent with the site plan and medical findings regarding the nature of the injuries. The Court affirmed the conviction and the death sentence, ruling that the plea of private defence was unsubstantiated and that the sentence was legally sound, leaving any consideration for commutation to the executive government.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of injured eye-witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Can a plea of private defence be sustained when the defence evidence is inconsistent with the physical site plan and medical findings?
- Does the failure of a post-mortem report to explicitly mention a shirt on the deceased invalidate prosecution evidence regarding the clothing of the deceased?
- SHAUKAT ALI AND S Others vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 109 · Lahore High Court · 1970-08-03Read full judgment →
- SHARBAT GUL vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 1039 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-11Read full judgment →
- SHAN INDUSTRIES MAZDOOR UNION vs MESSRS SHAN INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI1971 PLC 443 · Labour Court · 1970-12-16Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUL HAQUE AND 3 Other vs MESSRS AMIN MATCH WORKS, DACCA1971 PLC 484 · Labour Court · 1970-10-30Read full judgment →
- SHAMSUDDIN AHMED AND 3 Other vs THE GENFRAL MANAGER, AMERICAN1971 PLC 313 · Labour Court · 1970-09-24Read full judgment →
- SHAMSHAD vs THE STATE-1971 P Cr. L J 1301 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-11Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM AHMAD vs AND OTHERS1971 PLC 151 [C.S.T.] · Civil Services Tribunal · 1971-02-10Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM A. TARIQ AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1971 PCr. L J 609 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-13Read full judgment →
- SHAMEEM AJMAL vs THE STATE1971 P. Cr. L J 23 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-16Read full judgment →
- SHAMAS-UZ-ZAMAN AND OTHERS vs ABDUL GHAFOOR1971 PLD Azad J & K 16 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1971-01-06Read full judgment →
- SHAM AHMED vs Messrs ZENITH LTD., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC 116 · Labour Court · 1971-07-10Read full judgment →
- SHAKI MUHAMMAD vs STANDARD BANK LTD., DACCA.1971 PLC 356 · Labour Court · 1970-10-12Read full judgment →
- Shaikh MUHAMMAD RAMZANI vs PAKISTAN WESTERN RAILWAY AND 6 OTHERS1971 PLD Karachi 654 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-18Read full judgment →
- Shaikh MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND 3 OTHERS vs AMIR BUX AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Karachi 285 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-09Read full judgment →
- Shaikh FAZLUL HAQUE alias MONI vs THE STATE1971 PLD Dacca 154 · Dacca · 1969-11-14Read full judgment →
- SHAIK HASSAN vs ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY1971 PTD 722 · Mysore High Court · 1968-09-12Read full judgment →
- SHAHU AND 7 Others vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 138 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-30Read full judgment →
- SHAHNAZ BEGUM vs THE HON'BLE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF SIND AND BALUCHISTAN AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Supreme Court 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-25Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave challenged suo motu orders of a Single Judge of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, who intervened in a police investigation into a mysterious death, citing newspaper reports of potential tampering. The High Court had called for investigation papers, directed the Advocate-General to scrutinize them, and ordered an inquiry into investigating officers' conduct, leading to the registration of a murder case and the appellant's arrest. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction for such suo motu action under the Constitution of 1962, the Letters Patent, or Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. It held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to supervise or interfere with police investigations, transfer ongoing investigations, or conduct suo motu inquiries into officials' statutory functions. The Court emphasized the complementary, not overlapping, roles of the judiciary and police, and that judicial functions typically begin when a charge is preferred. The impugned orders were set aside, and the Lahore High Court's decision in Chauhar Khan v. The State was overruled.
Questions settled- Does a High Court have suo motu jurisdiction to supervise or interfere with an ongoing police investigation into a cognizable offence?
- Can a High Court, under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962, initiate suo motu action regarding executive actions?
- Does Clause 22 of the Letters Patent of the High Courts of West Pakistan grant the High Court power to transfer an investigation that has already commenced?
- Does Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure empower a High Court to quash or transfer a police investigation?
- What is the scope of "preliminary investigation" as referred to in Clause 22 of the Letters Patent?
- Can a High Court direct the transfer of an investigation from one competent investigating agency to another under its inherent powers?
- SHAHID KHALIL vs PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI1971 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1964-03-31Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner sought a writ of restoration to his position as Secretary to the Managing Director of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation after being refused relief by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as an employee of a statutory corporation, was entitled to the constitutional protection afforded to civil servants under Article 181 of the Constitution of 1956, and whether his position constituted a 'public office' amenable to a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court held that the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, despite being subject to government controls, is a distinct statutory body and not a branch of the Central Government. Consequently, its employees do not hold civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province, nor does the position of Secretary to the Managing Director qualify as a 'public office' for which a writ of mandamus can be issued. The petition was dismissed, affirming that constitutional protections for civil servants do not extend to employees of statutory corporations.
Questions settled- Is an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation entitled to the protection of Article 181 of the Constitution of 1956?
- Does the post of Secretary to the Managing Director of a statutory corporation constitute a public office for the purposes of a writ of mandamus?
- Is a statutory corporation considered a branch of the Central Government for the purpose of determining the status of its employees?
- SHAHID ENAYETULLA vs THE GENERAL MANAGER, DAILY ---PAIGAM',1971 PLC 26 · Labour Court · 1970-06-30Read full judgment →
- SHAHADAT HOSSAIN CHOWDHURY AND Another vs The STATE1971S C M R 23 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioners sought special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court maintaining their convictions under sections 326 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and enhancing their sentences, while setting aside their convictions under section 147. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts and the legality of the enhancement of sentences by the High Court in revision. The Supreme Court held that the evaluation of witness testimony and defence evidence by the courts below was proper and that isolation of stray statements could not discredit the consistent prosecution case. Furthermore, the High Court committed no illegality in enhancing the sentences. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that the appreciation of evidence and the question of believing or disbelieving witnesses generally do not fall within the scope of interference by the apex court in a petition for special leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether isolated statements of prosecution witnesses can discredit a consistent prosecution case when read as a whole?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the belief or disbelief of witnesses in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Whether the High Court is legally competent to enhance sentences in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
- SHAH WALI vs THE CROWN1971 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1956-01-18Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan confirming the conviction and sentence of death under section 302/34 and rigorous imprisonment under section 307/34 of the Penal Code passed against the appellant, Shah Wali, by the Sessions Judge of Mianwali. The core legal question involved the appreciation and evaluation of evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the non-mention of the accused's names in early police reports, and the dying declaration implicating the appellant arising from a fatal shooting motivated by previous blood enmity. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of a reliable and independent eyewitness, corroborated by a dying declaration and strong motive, was sufficient to sustain the conviction notwithstanding discrepancies in early reports and the discounting of other witnesses. The key principle laid down is that criminal convictions can safely rest on the testimony of a single trustworthy and consistent eyewitness corroborated by independent circumstances and a dying declaration, and the Supreme Court will not normally interfere with the concurrent appreciation of facts by the lower courts unless perverse.
Questions settled- Can a criminal conviction be sustained on the testimony of a single eyewitness when other alleged eyewitnesses are discarded?
- Does the omission of an accused person's name from early telephonic messages and the First Information Report necessarily vitiate a subsequent conviction based on a dying declaration?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the evaluation of ocular and medical evidence?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD vs The STATE1971 SCMR 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-08-17Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.The petitioner, a Station Master, was convicted under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for demanding and accepting illegal gratification, which conviction and reduced sentence were upheld by the High Court. The petitioner sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that his defence evidence regarding enmity and the planting of marked currency notes was not properly considered. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence and the plausibility of the defence plea in a corruption and trap case. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact based on corroborative evidence—including the recovery of marked currency notes and a calculation sheet in the petitioner's own handwriting—were unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court does not, as a rule, interfere with concurrent findings of fact that turn purely on the appreciation of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter?
- Does the recovery of marked currency notes from the possession or control of an accused in a corruption trap shift the burden to offer a satisfactory explanation?
- Whether a defence suggestion of planting currency notes due to enmity can be accepted when found improbable and unsupported by credible evidence?
- SHAH MUHAMMAD KHAN vs GHULAM QADIR ETC.1971 PLD Baghdad-ul-Jadid 9 · Baghdad-ul-Jadid · 1969-10-07Read full judgment →
- SHAH MOHAMMAD vs HAQ NAWAZ1971 P Cr. L J 610 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-02Read full judgment →
- SHAH FAZLUR RAHMAN AND ANOTHER vs GENERAL MANAGER, HOTEL INTER-1971 PLC 478 · Labour Court · 1970-11-09Read full judgment →
- SHAFU Alias SHAFI MUHAMMAD vs THE CROWN1971 SCMR 200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1953-05-25Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal arises from a conviction for murder and robbery, where the appellant challenged the confirmation of his death sentence by the Chief Court of Sind. The core legal question was whether the appellant's retracted judicial confession, which served as the primary evidence, was voluntary, credible, and sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the confession was inherently improbable, inconsistent with the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries, and lacked material corroboration. Specifically, the Court noted that the confession failed to mention the alleged sale of camel saddlery to prosecution witnesses, which the lower court had erroneously accepted as corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the Court discarded the evidence regarding footprint identification due to the significant delay and lack of procedural safeguards. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that a retracted confession cannot form the basis of a conviction unless it is consistent with established facts and corroborated in material particulars by reliable, independent evidence.
Questions settled- Can a retracted confession serve as the sole basis for a conviction without material corroboration?
- Does a confession that contradicts medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries retain its evidentiary value?
- Is identification evidence of footprints reliable when the witness relies solely on memory after a significant delay without prior preservation of the prints?
- SHAFI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1971 PLD Karachi 721 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-06Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity with murder, and Section 13(d) of the Arms Act for possession of an unlicensed firearm. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given that the primary eyewitnesses turned hostile and failed to identify the appellant in court, the recovery of the alleged stolen watch was procedurally flawed, and the footprint identification was deemed weak. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The ratio establishes that identification in a test parade is merely corroborative and cannot substitute for identification in court; that recovery evidence is unreliable if the property lacks distinguishing features and is not mixed with similar items during identification; and that footprint evidence is inherently weak without casts or scientific comparison. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that criminal precedents must be applied with particularity to the specific facts of each case rather than as rigid rules.
Questions settled- Is identification of an accused in a test parade sufficient to sustain a conviction if the witness fails to identify the accused in court?
- Can the recovery of stolen property be considered reliable evidence if the property is not mixed with similar items during the identification test?
- Does the identification of naked footprints constitute sufficient evidence to establish the identity of an accused in a criminal case?
- Should criminal precedents be applied as rigid rules or understood with reference to the specific facts of the case?
- Sh. SARFRAZ AHMAD vs THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, IRRIGATION &1971 PLC 220 [C.S.T.] · Civil Services Tribunal · 1971-05-10Read full judgment →
- Sh. NASIRUD DIN vs CHIEF ENGINEER, EASTERN REGION, BAHAWAIPUR1971 PLC 231 [C.S.T.] · Civil Services Tribunal · 1971-05-14Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUNIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND 2 Other1971 SCMR 666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-10-20Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which upheld the appointment of a receiver in a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and rendition of accounts. The petitioner, who managed the partnership business, challenged the appointment of a receiver, arguing that the property was already in the possession of a lessee and that the trial court improperly issued directions amounting to a dissolution order without first passing a preliminary decree. The Supreme Court examined whether the appointment of a receiver was justified given the circumstances of the partnership dispute and the management of the business. The Court held that the lower courts had exercised their discretion on sound judicial principles, noting that the receiver was necessary to protect the partnership business and that the trial court's subsequent directions were appropriate measures for such protection. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition, affirming that the appointment of a receiver is a valid exercise of judicial discretion when necessary to safeguard partnership assets pending litigation.
Questions settled- Is the appointment of a receiver in a partnership dissolution suit justified when the business is allegedly mismanaged?
- Can a trial court issue directions to a receiver to protect partnership business before the passing of a preliminary decree?
- Does the existence of a lessee in possession of the property preclude the appointment of a receiver for the partnership business?
- Sh. MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs THE STATE-Opponent1971 P Cr. L J 786 · Sindh High Court · 1970-08-31Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD NASIR AHMAD PIRACHA vs S. M. ALMAS ALI, ADVOCATE1971 PLD Lahore 131 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-10Read full judgment →
- Sh. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 5 Others vs THE STATE1971 P Cr. L J 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-26Read full judgment →
- Sh. MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs Malik KARAM DAD KHAN, CONTROLLING1971 SCMR 535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-06-25Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal by special leave challenges the legality of the election of respondent No. 3 as Chairman of a Union Committee, on the ground that a person whose election as a member had been declared without lawful authority by the High Court a day prior to the election participated and voted in the proceedings. The core legal question is whether the participation of a disqualified member vitiates the election of the Chairman, and whether Article 39(4) of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, saves such election proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that in the absence of authoritative communication or knowledge of the High Court's order to the Presiding Officer at the relevant time, the Presiding Officer was justified in continuing the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that Article 39(4) of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, is fully applicable to proceedings for holding elections to the office of Chairman, thereby preventing the proceedings from being invalidated due to the participation of a person not entitled to do so. The key principle laid down is that the protective umbrella of Article 39(4) cures procedural defects arising from the participation of disqualified persons in local council election proceedings where no authoritative notice of disqualification was available to the presiding authority.
Questions settled- Whether the participation of a person whose membership was invalidated by a High Court order vitiates the election of a Union Committee Chairman when no authoritative notice reached the Presiding Officer?
- Does Article 39(4) of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959 apply to proceedings for holding elections to the office of Chairman?
- Does the existence of a vacancy or defect in the constitution of a local council invalidate its proceedings under Article 39(4) of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959?
- Sh. KHURSHEED MOHAMMAD vs THE SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1971 PLD Supreme Court 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-05-21Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This appeal arises from a dispute over property transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal questions concerned whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner properly exercised his jurisdiction in disposing of miscellaneous applications and whether the appellant's status as a 'non-allottee' precluded him from claiming property. The Supreme Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner failed to exercise independent judgment by merely countersigning a subordinate's report, rendering the order invalid. Consequently, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The Court established the principle that the distinction between an 'allottee' and a person in undisputed possession is legally irrelevant for transfer eligibility, as both stand on equal footing. Furthermore, a quasi-judicial authority must apply its own independent mind to the facts and cannot abdicate its decision-making duty by merely endorsing a subordinate's recommendation. The appellant, being in possession of a portion of the property, was entitled to have his claim for undisposed portions considered on its merits.
Questions settled- Does the distinction between an allottee and a person in undisputed possession hold legal significance for property transfer eligibility under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Is a quasi-judicial order valid if the deciding authority merely countersigns a subordinate's report without applying an independent mind to the merits?
- Can a person in possession of a portion of a property claim the transfer of other undisposed portions of the same property?
- Sh. HAFIZ ULLAH vs CAPT. MUHAMMAD MANSIB ALI CHAUDHRY AND 2 Other1971 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-11-25Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, and the Rent Controller's decision in an ejectment matter. The petitioner, a tenant occupying a shop in Sialkot and selling books, resisted an ejectment application filed under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 by the respondent auction-purchaser. The core legal question was whether a tenant selling books is entitled to a two-year statutory notice of eviction under the proviso to section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, which protects premises dealing in sales or production of materials of books of educational and cultural values. The Supreme Court held that the protection afforded by the proviso is strictly limited to premises dealing in sales or production of materials of books, and does not extend to premises where only books are sold. The Court laid down the principle that plain statutory language, when unambiguous, must be given literal effect, and courts cannot rewrite provisions by deleting words such as 'materials'. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant selling books is entitled to a two-year notice of eviction under the proviso to section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Does the protection afforded under the proviso to section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 extend to premises where only books are sold?
- Can courts delete words from an unambiguous statutory provision to expand its scope during interpretation?
- Sh. GHULAM MOHAMMAD AND Another vs THE BANK OF BAHAWALPUR LTD.1971 SCMR 148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-01-12Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a High Court judgment that upheld the setting aside of an abatement in a civil suit for the recovery of a bank loan. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in allowing the legal representatives of a deceased defendant to be brought on record after the limitation period had expired, and whether a formal written application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was a mandatory prerequisite for condoning the delay. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was based on sound judicial principles, noting that the plaintiff had been hindered by a deliberate concealment of the defendant's death and the complexity of identifying fourteen legal representatives. The Court affirmed that the High Court properly exercised its discretion in accepting an oral application for condonation of delay, finding no arbitrary or capricious conduct. The principle laid down is that the absence of a formal written application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not preclude a court from considering and granting condonation of delay if the circumstances justify it and the discretion is exercised judicially.
Questions settled- Is a formal written application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 mandatory for the court to condone a delay in bringing legal representatives on record?
- Can a court set aside an abatement of a suit based on an oral application for condonation of delay?
- Does the concealment of a defendant's death by their relatives constitute sufficient ground for the plaintiff to seek the setting aside of an abatement?
- Sh. DIN MOHAMMAD vs JAN MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1971 PLD Quetta 30 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-08-31Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This revision application challenges a civil court judgment that decreed an arbitration award against the applicant. The core legal questions involved whether an application challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement falls under section 30 or section 33 of the Arbitration Act, the applicable period of limitation for such objections, and whether limitation for filing objections to an arbitration award begins to run without the formal statutory notice of the filing of the award being served by the court under section 14. The High Court held that an objection challenging the reference to arbitration amounts to an application to set aside an award governed by section 30 and Article 158 of the Limitation Act, requiring a thirty-day limitation period. However, the court held that the mandatory statutory requirement of notice under section 14 of the Arbitration Act must be strictly fulfilled, and limitation does not commence until such proper notice is served, regardless of the party's informal knowledge of the award. The revision was allowed, and the case was remanded to the trial court to issue formal notices and proceed according to law.
Questions settled- Does an application challenging the existence or validity of a reference to arbitration amount to an application to set aside an award under section 30 of the Arbitration Act?
- Whether the period of limitation prescribed under Article 158 of the Limitation Act applies to objections raised against an arbitration award under section 33 of the Arbitration Act?
- Can limitation for filing objections to an arbitration award commence against a party who has not been served with the formal statutory notice of the filing of the award under section 14 of the Arbitration Act?
- Does knowledge of the filing of an award acquired otherwise than through the formal statutory notice dispense with the requirement of service of notice under section 14 of the Arbitration Act?
- Sh. ANWAR UL HAQ vs Miss SURRAYA PARVEEN AND 2 Other1971 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-10-29Read full judgment →
AI summary & questions settled
AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.This matter arises from a review petition filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, addressing the procedural requirement under Order XXVI Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules regarding who may draw and file a review petition. The core legal question considered was whether an advocate who assisted the lead counsel and was present at the hearing of the original appeal satisfies the requirement of being the advocate who appeared at the hearing, thereby being competent to draw the review petition. The Court held that any advocate who appeared at the hearing on behalf of a party, including an assisting counsel present during the proceedings, is competent to draw and file the review petition. The key principle laid down is that the appearance of an assisting advocate at the original hearing suffices to meet the mandatory representation requirement for filing a review petition under the applicable procedural rules.
Questions settled- Can an advocate who assisted lead counsel and was present at the hearing file a review petition under Order XXVI Rule 5?
- Does the appearance of any advocate who represented a party at the original hearing suffice to fulfil the requirements for drawing a review petition?