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.

• Ch. MUHAMMAD JALAL KHAN vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 3 Other1970 SCMR 670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-07
  necessary partyproper partyLetters Patent Appealtransfer of propertysettlement schemespecial leave to appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The appellant, an allottee in occupation of a bungalow, sought leave to appeal against the refusal of the High Court to implead him as a party in a pending Letters Patent Appeal concerning the transfer of the said bungalow between rival claimants. The core legal question was whether the appellant was a necessary or proper party to be impleaded in those appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the Letters Patent Appeal, as the original writ petition and subsequent appeal were confined to the rival claims of other parties to which he was a stranger, and any orders therein would not affect his independent rights or pending proceedings. The court affirmed that the appellant must pursue his own independent remedies, such as his pending appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner and his separate petition for special leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an occupant claiming transfer of a property under a settlement scheme is a necessary or proper party in a Letters Patent Appeal between rival claimants to which he was not originally a party?
  • Can a person whose independent claim for property transfer is pending before settlement authorities be impleaded in appellate proceedings concerning a dispute between other parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. MUHAMMAD FAROOK vs THE STATE AND ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-31
  superdariinterim custodyseized propertycriminal investigationCode of Criminal ProcedureMagistrate jurisdiction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns a challenge to a Magistrate's order regarding the interim custody (superdari) of a vehicle seized during a criminal investigation. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant custody of the vehicle to the complainant while the case was still under investigation. The Court held that Section 516-A, Cr. P. C. is inapplicable during the investigation stage, as it requires property to be produced during an inquiry or trial. Similarly, Section 517, Cr. P. C. is inapplicable before the conclusion of proceedings. The Court determined that Section 523, Cr. P. C. is the appropriate provision for interim custody during investigation. The Court set aside the Magistrate's order, establishing the principle that, absent compelling reasons to the contrary, seized property should generally be returned to the person from whom it was recovered. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner, having paid a significant sum for the vehicle, was the greater sufferer, though the order remained subject to existing civil court injunctions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate grant interim custody of seized property under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while a case is still under investigation?
  • Which provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 governs the interim custody of property seized by police during an investigation?
  • Is a High Court empowered to treat a petition filed under Section 561-A as a revision petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • To whom should seized property generally be entrusted for interim custody when a case is under investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. MUHAMMAD ASIF RANJHA, ADVOCATE vs Ch. SULTAN ALI CHEEMA AND 71970 P Cr. L J 837 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-29Read full judgment →
• Ch. MEHRAJ DIN vs WEST PAKISTAN PROVINCE AND 8 Other1970 SCMR 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-05
  ex parte orderland acquisition referenceprocedural irregularitycourt errorinherent powersetting aside ex parte ordersubstantial justice
  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 High Court, which upheld a Civil Judge's decision to set aside an ex parte order passed in a land acquisition reference. The core legal question was whether a court possesses the authority to recall an ex parte order when the default leading to that order was caused by the court's own administrative error or confusion in record-keeping. The Supreme Court found that the proceedings had become separated due to a failure to consolidate connected references as previously ordered, resulting in an inadvertent ex parte order against the Land Acquisition Collector. The Court held that the trial court correctly exercised its jurisdiction to rectify its own mistake, as parties should not suffer due to the negligence or errors of court officials. The principle established is that courts have the inherent power to correct procedural irregularities and set aside ex parte orders when such orders are the direct result of confusion or mistakes committed by the court's own staff, thereby ensuring that substantial justice is served.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court set aside an ex parte order if the default was caused by the court's own administrative error?
  • Does a court have the authority to rectify its own procedural mistakes to ensure substantial justice?
  • Is an ex parte order passed due to confusion in court record-keeping considered legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. GHULAM RASUL TARRAR vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL 1, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE1970 PLD Lahore 425 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-16Read full judgment →
• Ch. GHULAM FARID vs Ch. MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Another1970 SCMR 347 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-12-04
  election petitionballot paper identificationelection disputepleadingselection tribunalunprescribed marks
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal arises from an election dispute concerning the office of the Chairman of Union Committee No. 16, Kumharpura, Lahore, where the appellant and respondent polled equal votes, leading to the respondent's victory via drawing lots. The appellant challenged this result before an Election Tribunal, alleging improper ballot marking and counting irregularities. While the Tribunal rejected these specific grounds, it nonetheless invalidated the election because two ballot papers contained unprescribed marks, suggesting potential voter identification. The High Court subsequently set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on grounds not pleaded in the election petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that an Election Tribunal cannot adjudicate upon issues outside the scope of the pleadings. The Court held that election petitions must contain full particulars of allegations, and evidence cannot be entertained for claims not explicitly raised. Furthermore, the Court clarified that invalidating a vote requires more than a mere surmise or possibility of identification, emphasizing the necessity of strict adherence to pleadings in election disputes to ensure expeditious resolution.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Election Tribunal invalidate an election on grounds not raised in the election petition?
  • Is a mere possibility of voter identification sufficient to invalidate a ballot paper?
  • Must an election petition contain full and complete particulars of the allegations made?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. FEROZE DIN vs DR. K. M. MUNIR AND ANOTHER1970 P Cr. L J 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-07-07
  forgerycriminal proceedingspublic interestevacuee propertysettlement proceedingsleave to appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arises from criminal petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, which dismissed the petitioner's application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for lodging a complaint against the respondents for allegedly using forged allotment orders during proceedings. The core legal question concerns the propriety of initiating collateral criminal proceedings for alleged forgery while the main dispute regarding the transfer of an evacuee building is pending remand before the Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to initiate criminal proceedings, as prosecution under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not a matter of course and should not be used as an instrument for private vengeance or to hamper the main issue. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings in respect of offences committed in judicial proceedings must be strictly in the public interest and should not be permitted to be weaponized for private grudges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prosecution under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be launched as a matter of course for every offence alleged to have been committed in judicial proceedings?
  • Can an application for lodging a complaint for forgery be used by a party to wreak private vengeance or satisfy a private grudge?
  • Is it appropriate to start collateral criminal proceedings that would hamper the main issue pending before a Settlement Commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. AMEER MUHAMMAD KHAN vs The STATE1970 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-11-07
  pre-arrest bailbail refusalFirst Information Reportcriminal liabilityarrest warrantsalibi
  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 High Court's refusal to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was charged alongside others under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 448, and 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, alleged to have fired a shot at a prosecution witness, sought bail on the grounds of false implication to hinder his role in defending co-accused family members and an alibi supported by an affidavit. The High Court declined the relief, deeming it premature to assess defense pleas when the petitioner was specifically named in the First Information Report with an attributed role in the assault. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the petitioner's specific involvement in the assault precluded bail. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that an application for pre-arrest bail is legally misconceived once warrants for the arrest of the accused have already been issued. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to surrender to the court.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application for pre-arrest bail maintainable once warrants for the arrest of the accused have already been issued?
  • Should a court assess defense pleas regarding false implication at the pre-arrest bail stage when the accused is specifically named in the First Information Report?
  Read full judgment →
• CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SARGODHA vs AHMAD BAKHSH1970 PLD Supreme Court 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-22
  disposal of propertycriminal procedureSection 517 CrPCadmissibility of evidencecollateral proceedingsdisputed titlerecovery of stolen property
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal arises from a High Court order directing the return of Rs. 16,000 to the respondent, Ahmad Bakhsh, which had been seized by police during a fraud investigation involving the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The core legal question concerned the proper exercise of judicial discretion under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the disposal of property where title is contested. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding that the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and the applicability of procedural bars. The Court established that proceedings under Section 517 are collateral, meaning strict evidentiary bars like Section 25 of the Evidence Act 1872 and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 do not apply, rendering prior admissions admissible. Furthermore, the Court ruled that where a bona fide dispute of title exists, a criminal court should not adjudicate ownership but should maintain the status quo, directing parties to seek resolution through a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Are the restrictions on the admissibility of statements made to police under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to collateral proceedings under Section 517?
  • Does Section 25 of the Evidence Act 1872 apply to proceedings conducted under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a criminal court adjudicate disputed questions of title to property in proceedings under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the discretion granted to a court under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the disposal of property absolute?
  Read full judgment →
• C. C. MALKIK vs MESSRS PREMIER INSURANCE Co. (PAK.) LTD.,1970 PLC 447 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-04-18Read full judgment →
• C. & B. ROAD & BUILDING SRAMIK UNION, CHITTAGONG vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN,(1) 1970 PLC 163 · Labour Court · 1970-10-13Read full judgment →
• BOSTAN AND 8 Others vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-10Read full judgment →
• BOOTA AND Another vs The STATE1970 SCMR 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-20
  bailmurderproviso to section 497discretionary powerexpeditious trialcriminal procedure
  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 denial of bail to two petitioners, Boota and Mst. Sardaran, who were charged with the murder of the latter's husband. The petitioners challenged the prosecution's evidence and sought bail, which had been refused by both the Sessions Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court correctly identified that the evidentiary weaknesses raised were matters for the trial court to determine. Regarding the female petitioner, Mst. Sardaran, the Court addressed the argument that she should be granted bail under the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while the proviso confers discretion, this specific ground had not been raised in the lower courts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the observation that the female petitioner remained at liberty to move the committing court or the Sessions Court for bail based on her sex. The Court also emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confer an absolute right to bail for a female accused?
  • Can a ground for bail be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not urged in the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• BIRENDRA MOHAN DAS vs AMINUDDIN MALIK REPRESENTED BY 3 Other1970 SCMR 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-07-01
  revenue salearrears of rentarrears of revenuespecial statuteauction purchasemoney suit
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal by special leave arises out of a money suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for the recovery of money as the price of barga produce or, alternatively, for compensation for the use and occupation of disputed land purchased under the Revenue Sale Law. The land was originally held in tenancy rights, and its rent-receiving interest was acquired by the Government under the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950. Arrears of rent accrued, and the holding was put to auction and purchased by the appellant. The trial and appellate courts upheld the appellant's title, but the High Court accepted the respondents' revision petition, holding that the land could not be put to auction under the Revenue Sale Law for arrears of rent. The core legal question was whether the provisions of the Revenue Sale Law applied to a sale for arrears of rent due to the Government. The Supreme Court held that rent and revenue are not synonymous and that the sale under the Revenue Sale Law for arrears of rent was unwarranted and without jurisdiction. The Court established that when action is taken under a special statute, it must strictly fulfil the conditions of that statute to gain validity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Revenue Sale Law apply to a case of sale for arrears of rent due to the Government?
  • Are rent and revenue synonymous terms when recoverable by the Government?
  • What are the consequences when action is taken under a special statute without fulfilling its conditions?
  Read full judgment →
• BAZLUR RAHMAN KHAN vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 40 · Dacca · 1969-06-23Read full judgment →
• BASHIRUDDIN vs OSMAN GHANI AND 7 Others1970 P Cr. L J 1244 · Dacca · 1970-02-05Read full judgment →
• BASHIRUDDIN HOSSAIN vs The STATE1970 SCMR 807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-22
  special leave to appealdacoitysole eye-witnesscriminal convictiondismissal in limine
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against his conviction under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which was affirmed by the High Court through a summary dismissal of his appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction based on the testimony of a sole injured eye-witness, promptly named and corroborated by neighbours, was sustainable, and whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without proper appraisement of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution case was free from embellishments and that no infirmity existed in the evidence to warrant interference. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a conviction based on the testimony of a sole injured eye-witness, when corroborated by prompt naming and surrounding circumstances, is reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for dacoity be sustained on the testimony of a sole injured eye-witness?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a criminal appeal in limine when the prosecution case is free from embellishments?
  • Does the prompt naming of an accused to witnesses provide sufficient corroboration for identification?
  Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE1970 PLD Lahore 857 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-09Read full judgment →
• BARKAT vs Haji GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER1970 PLD Quetta 10 · Balochistan High Court · 1969-10-11Read full judgment →
• BARKAT ALI vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 87 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-24Read full judgment →
• BARKAT ALI Alias NIKKA AND Others vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 136 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-05Read full judgment →
• BAJOR Alias BAZIAR RAHMAN AND Others vs The STATE1970 SCMR 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-12-09
  criminal appealreduction of sentenceleave to appealappellate dutymerits of the case
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a special leave petition filed against the judgment of the High Court regarding the conviction and sentencing of the petitioners under sections 325 and 147 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether the High Court is relieved of its statutory duty to consider a criminal appeal on merits when the counsel for the appellant does not press the appeal on merits and prays only for a reduction of sentence. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the case requires consideration as to whether the High Court remains obligated to examine the criminal appeal on merits despite counsel's restriction of arguments to the question of sentence. The key principle relates to the mandatory duty of appellate courts in criminal matters to evaluate cases on their merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is the High Court relieved of its duty to consider a criminal appeal on merits if the counsel presses the appeal only on the ground of sentence?
  • Whether an appellate court must examine a criminal conviction on merits notwithstanding the waiver of merits arguments by defense counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• BAJOR Alias BAZIAR RAHMAN AND 0THTRS vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-12-09
  criminal appealleave to appealreduction of sentenceduty of appellate courtappeal on meritsconcession of counsel
  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 criminal appeal before the High Court, where the petitioners' counsel did not press the appeal on its merits but merely requested a reduction in sentences. Consequently, the High Court reduced the sentences without examining the merits of the convictions under Sections 325 and 147 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners contended that they had instructed their counsel to argue the appeal on merits. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court is relieved of its statutory duty to consider and decide a criminal appeal on its merits when the appellant's counsel only presses the appeal on the question of sentence. Pending the final disposal of the appeal, the bail granted to petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 was ordered to continue.

  Questions settled

  • Is the High Court relieved of its duty to consider a criminal appeal on its merits if the appellant's counsel only presses the appeal on the ground of sentence?
  • Can a criminal appeal be disposed of solely on the question of sentence without an examination of the merits of the conviction by the appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• BAHADUR AND Another vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 1104 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-29Read full judgment →
• BAGH HUSSAIN AND Others vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 899 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• BAGH ALI vs IQBAL AND 2 Other1970 SCMR 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-27
  special leave to appealacquittalFirst Information Report delayeye-witness testimonyappreciation of evidencemurder
  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 the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court in a murder case. The respondents were initially convicted by the trial court for the murder of Muhammad Khan under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but were acquitted on appeal by the High Court. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two eye-witnesses and the recovery of a weapon. The High Court rejected the prosecution's case, citing significant delays in lodging the First Information Report, inconsistencies in the timeline of the witnesses' arrival at the scene, medical evidence regarding the state of the deceased's stomach contents, and the absence of blackening or scorching on the body despite the alleged close-range firing. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's findings and affirmed that the delay in reporting the crime was not satisfactorily explained, particularly given that relatives had arrived at the scene, allowing for the report to be filed promptly. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court's conclusion that the crime was un-witnessed was justified, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report justify the rejection of prosecution testimony in a murder case?
  • Is the High Court's assessment of eye-witness credibility based on physical evidence and timeline inconsistencies a valid ground for acquittal?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal where the High Court has properly appreciated the evidence regarding the circumstances of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• BAGH ALI AND 3 Others vs The STATE1970 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-10-27
  interim bailcriminal revisionconvictionpendency of appealdelay in trial
  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 filed against the refusal of interim bail by the High Court during the pendency of a revision petition challenging the petitioners' conviction and sentences under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether interim bail can be granted to convicted persons whose revision petitions against conviction are pending before the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that as long as the convictions stand, the detention of the petitioners is lawful, and the grant of bail at that stage is inappropriate. The Court laid down the principle that while bail during a pending revision is generally inappropriate while convictions stand, petitioners may repeat their prayer for bail before the High Court if inordinate delay occurs in the hearing of the revision petition due to heavy arrears.

  Questions settled

  • Can interim bail be granted to petitioners whose convictions and sentences are currently standing?
  • What remedy is available to a convicted person if there is inordinate delay in the hearing of their revision petition due to heavy arrears in the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• BADIUR RAHMAN vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, E. P. R. T. C., DACCA1970 PLC 847 · Labour Court · 1970-06-27Read full judgment →
• BACHCHU Alias BOCHA Alias BADRUL ALAM vs The STATE1970 SCMR 828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-19
  dacoity with murdercriminal transactionidentification of accusedretreating dacoitsSection 396 PPCspecial leave to appeal
  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 a High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code for dacoity with murder. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was correctly identified as a participant in the dacoity and whether a murder committed by dacoits while retreating with stolen booty constitutes an offence under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses sufficiently established the petitioner's identity and participation. Regarding the legal classification, the Court held that a murder committed by dacoits while in the process of retreating with stolen property occurs during the course of the same transaction as the dacoity. Consequently, such an act falls within the ambit of Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court distinguished this from cases where the dacoity attempt was frustrated and abandoned prior to the killing, affirming that the continuity of the criminal transaction is maintained while the dacoits are in possession of the booty.

  Questions settled

  • Does a murder committed by dacoits while retreating with stolen booty constitute an offence under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a murder committed during the retreat of dacoits considered part of the same transaction as the dacoity?
  • Does the offence of dacoity with murder under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply if the murder occurs at a location away from the site of the robbery?
  Read full judgment →
• BABU KHAN vs THE CROWN1970 SCMR 107 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1954-02-23
  criminal breach of trustprevention of corruptionprior sanctionpublic servantcriminal misconductstatutory interpretationGeneral Clauses Act
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal challenged a High Court judgment that reversed an acquittal for criminal breach of trust. The appellant, a railway employee, argued that his prosecution under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code was void for lack of prior sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, asserting the conduct constituted 'criminal misconduct' under the Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that prior sanction is not required for prosecution under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court reasoned that Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, explicitly mandates sanction only for specific offences, namely those under Sections 161 and 165 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Act. It does not extend to other Penal Code offences, even if the facts overlap with 'criminal misconduct.' Furthermore, under Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, an offender may be prosecuted under any applicable enactment, provided they are not punished twice for the same offence, confirming the validity of the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution of a public servant for criminal breach of trust under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code require prior sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?
  • Can an offence be prosecuted under the Pakistan Penal Code if it also falls within the definition of 'criminal misconduct' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?
  • Does the omission of Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code from the list of offences requiring sanction in Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, imply that sanction is unnecessary for such prosecutions?
  Read full judgment →
• AZMAT ALI vs Ch. GHULAM RASUL AND Another1970 SCMR 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-06
  election disputesecrecy of ballotmaterially affectedelection tribunalspecial leave to appealelectoral college rules
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter originated from an election dispute where an Election Tribunal declared an election void due to the violation of ballot secrecy by the Presiding Officer, who recorded voter numbers on both ballot papers and their counterparts. The respondent successfully challenged this decision in the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal's order on the basis that the violation did not materially affect the election result, as required by the governing rules. The petitioner, Azmat Ali, sought special leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying a significant legal question regarding the interpretation of the Electoral College Rules, 1964. Specifically, the Court must determine whether the High Court erred in its application of the statutory requirement that an election can only be declared void if the result was materially affected by the contravention of election rules, even where the secrecy of the ballot has been demonstrably violated. The Supreme Court suspended the High Court's order pending the final hearing of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the violation of the secrecy of the ballot by a Presiding Officer automatically invalidate an election?
  • Must it be proven that an election result was materially affected by a procedural contravention before an Election Tribunal can declare an election void?
  • What is the correct interpretation of Rule 36(1-A) of the Electoral College Rules 1964 regarding the invalidation of elections?
  Read full judgment →
• AZIZULLAH vs THE CHAIRMAN, EAST PAKISTAN CO-OPERATIVE1970 PLC 853 · Labour Court · 1970-06-20Read full judgment →
• AZIZ AHMAD vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 222 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-27Read full judgment →
• AZIM KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1970 P Cr.L J 77 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-08Read full judgment →
• AZIM AND Another vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L. J 1039 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-28Read full judgment →
• AZAD KASHMIR GOVERNMENT vs Mian Mirza MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN AND Other1970 PLD Azad J & K 15 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• AWAL KHAN vs The STATE1970 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-26Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD vs KHADIJA BEGUM AND 5 Other1970 SCMR 24 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-11
  settlement disputeprovisional transfer orderearmarking listtransfer of propertywrit jurisdiction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of a house in District Sheikhupura under the settlement laws. The core legal question concerned the validity of the cancellation of a provisional transfer order issued in favour of the petitioner after the property had already been validly transferred to the respondent on her C. H. Form due to an erroneous earmarking and subsequent draw of lots. The Supreme Court held that since the property was already lawfully transferred to the respondent, it should not have been included in the earmarking list, and therefore the settlement authorities and the High Court rightly corrected the mistake by cancelling the subsequent allotment in favour of the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that inadvertent inclusion and subsequent lot-drawing of a previously transferred property creates no indefeasible right, and the settlement authorities retain the power to correct such administrative errors.

  Questions settled

  • Can a property already transferred to a claimant on a C. H. Form be validly included in an earmarking list and allotted to another person?
  • Do settlement authorities have the power to cancel a lot drawn by mistake in respect of a property already transferred?
  • Will the High Court interfere in its writ jurisdiction with an order of the settlement authorities correcting a bona fide mistake in property allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD AND Another vs THE STATE1970 PLD Lahore 86 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-11Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD And 5 Others vs The STATE1970 SCMR 165 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-11-12
  murder convictiondeath sentenceeye-witness testimonyrecovery of weaponssentencing proportionalitychild witnesscriminal appeal
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentences of six appellants for the murder of the deceased, Allah Dia, under Section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the appellants' guilt, based on eye-witness testimony and the recovery of blood-stained weapons, were sustainable. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding that the direct evidence of the deceased's family members, corroborated by the recovery of weapons stained with human blood, sufficiently established the appellants' guilt. However, the Court held that the death penalty was not appropriate for all appellants. While the death sentences for the two appellants who lured the deceased and carried deadly weapons were upheld, the Court modified the sentences of the remaining four appellants—who carried less lethal weapons—to transportation for life. The judgment affirms the principle that while direct evidence corroborated by forensic recovery is sufficient for conviction, the nature of the weapons used and the specific role of each participant are critical factors in determining the proportionality of sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of semi-digested food in the stomach of a deceased necessarily invalidate the prosecution's timeline when direct eye-witness evidence is available?
  • Can the recovery of blood-stained weapons from the accused serve as sufficient corroboration for eye-witness testimony in a murder trial?
  • Is the testimony of a child witness admissible and reliable if the trial court has satisfied itself regarding the child's intelligence?
  • Should the death penalty be commuted to transportation for life for co-accused who carried less lethal weapons compared to the principal offenders?
  Read full judgment →
• ATLASINDUSTRIAL AND TRADING CORPORATION, KARACHI AND Another vs DR.1970 PLD Karachi 241 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-03
  public policyvoid contractinfluence peddlingcontract enforcementillegal considerationappellate review
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter involves two Letters Patent Appeals arising from a dispute over a contract for "material assistance" in procuring a government rice export order. The core legal question was whether a contract for services described as "material assistance," which in reality involved leveraging personal influence with high-ranking government officials to secure a commercial contract, is enforceable. The Court held that the contract was void and unenforceable. It determined that the plaintiff’s services consisted solely of utilizing his personal connections with the Foreign Secretary to influence official decision-making. The Court laid down the principle that any contract for monetary consideration involving the use of personal influence or position to procure benefits from the government is contrary to public policy and illegal. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an appellate court may entertain a plea of illegality based on public policy for the first time if the illegality is deducible from the evidence already on the record, even if not pleaded at the trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is a contract for 'material assistance' involving the use of personal influence with public officials enforceable?
  • Can a party raise the plea of illegality of a contract based on public policy for the first time in an appeal?
  • Does an agreement to use one's position and influence to procure a benefit from the government violate public policy?
  Read full judgment →
• ATIQUR RAHMAN vs THE STATE-Opposite-Party1970 P Cr. L J 270 · Dacca · 1969-07-16Read full judgment →
• ATA ULLAH KHAN AND Another vs Mst. GHULAM ZOHRAN AND Another1970 SCMR 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-22
  special leave to appealtemporary injunctionprima facie casejoint possessiondeclaratory suitinterlocutory order
  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 an order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision and upheld the grant of a temporary injunction to the respondents by the District Judge. The underlying dispute involves a declaratory suit filed by the respondents challenging a registered sale deed executed in favor of the petitioners concerning landed property inherited from their late father, alleging the deed to be fictitious, forged, and without consideration. The core legal question concerns whether observations made by appellate courts regarding joint possession while granting a temporary injunction constitute a final determination of the suit's merits. The Supreme Court held that findings rendered at the interlocutory stage regarding a prima facie case do not constitute a final adjudication of the issues, which must be determined by the trial court after recording full evidence. The key principle laid down is that observations made for assessing a prima facie case in temporary injunction matters do not prejudice or finally determine the substantive rights of the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does an observation regarding joint possession made while deciding a temporary injunction application constitute a final determination of the suit?
  • Can findings given at the interlocutory stage prejudice the trial court's evaluation of evidence on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• ATA MUHAMMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND Another1970 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-03
  officiating appointmentreversionreduction in rankPublic Service Commissionadvisory capacitywrit petitionspecial leave to appealcivil service
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arose from a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding his reversion from an officiating post of Senior Auditor. The petitioner contended that the Government's reversion order was passed under the compulsive force and dictation of the Public Service Commission rather than independently. The Supreme Court of Pakistan rejected this argument, holding that the Public Service Commission provides advisory opinions only and cannot dictate orders to the Government. The Court reaffirmed its established precedent that reversion from an officiating appointment does not amount to a reduction in rank so as to attract constitutional protections against adverse service actions. Consequently, the impugned order was validly passed by the Government itself, making the writ petition misconceived. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does reversion from an officiating appointment amount to a reduction in rank under service law?
  • Whether advice tendered by the Public Service Commission has binding or compulsive force on the Government?
  • Can a writ petition lie against an order of reversion from an officiating post?
  Read full judgment →
• ATA MUHAMMAD AND Another vs The STATE1970 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-07
  review petitioncriminal appealerror apparent on the face of the recorddeath sentencere-appraisal of evidence
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns a petition for review filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 12th November 1969, which had previously dismissed the petitioners' criminal appeal against their convictions and death sentences for the murder of one Allah Dita. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had established grounds for a review of the earlier judgment, specifically whether there was any error apparent on the face of the record. The Court held that the petition was merely an attempt to re-canvass evidence that had already been duly considered and determined in the original appeal. Finding no error apparent on the face of the record as required by the applicable rules, the Court dismissed the review petition. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be utilized as a mechanism to re-argue or re-examine evidence already adjudicated upon, and must strictly demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record to succeed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be used to re-canvass evidence already considered and determined in an appeal?
  • What is the threshold requirement for maintaining a review petition under the Supreme Court Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• ATA MLJHAMMAD AND Another vs THE STATE-1970 P Cr. L J 1018 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-07
  review petitioncriminal appealconvictiondeath sentenceerror apparent on the face of the recordre-appraisal of evidence
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 12th November 1969, which had previously dismissed the petitioners' criminal appeal and affirmed their convictions and death sentences for the murder of one Allah Dia. The core legal question presented was whether the petitioners had established sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the earlier appellate judgment. The Court held that the petition was essentially an attempt to re-canvass factual evidence that had already been duly considered and determined during the original appeal proceedings. Finding no error apparent on the face of the record, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be utilized as a mechanism to re-argue or re-examine evidence already adjudicated upon, and such relief is strictly confined to instances where an error is apparent on the face of the record, as mandated by the procedural rules governing the Court's review jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be used to re-canvass evidence that was already considered and determined in an appeal?
  • What is the threshold for granting a review of a judgment under the Supreme Court Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• ASLAM Alias KHAN AND 4 Others vs THE STATE1970 SCMR 794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-22
  post-arrest bailcommitment proceedingsSessions Courthierarchy of courtscriminal procedure
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against an order regarding post-arrest bail. The core legal question concerns the appropriate forum and stage for seeking bail after commitment proceedings have concluded and the accused have been committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The Court held that once commitment proceedings are finished, the proper course for the petitioners is to first move the Sessions Judge concerned to decide the question of bail based on the prosecution evidence, before approaching the High Court or the Supreme Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed as premature, establishing the principle of exhausting remedies before the trial court at the relevant stage.

  Questions settled

  • What is the proper course for seeking bail after commitment proceedings have finished?
  • Can an accused approach the High Court or Supreme Court for bail before moving the Sessions Judge after commitment?
  Read full judgment →
• ASIT KUMAR SWARNAKER vs THE GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS-Opposite-Party1970 P Cr. L J 350 · Dacca · 1969-07-07Read full judgment →
• ASHUTOSH BASAK AND Others vs S. M. RAHMATULLAH AND Other1970 SCMR 386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-10-16
  landlord and tenantmonthly tenancynotice to quittransfer of propertyejectment suittrespasserpermanent lease
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for declaration of title and eviction of respondents from a parcel of land. The plaintiffs alleged the respondents were trespassers, while the respondents contended they were tenants under an agreement. The trial and High Court concurrently found that while a concluded agreement for a permanent lease existed, the absence of a registered instrument meant no permanent tenancy was created. Instead, the relationship constituted a monthly tenancy. The core legal question was whether the landlord could unilaterally terminate this tenancy by refusing rent and whether the respondents were trespassers. The Supreme Court held that once a landlord-tenant relationship is established, it can only be terminated in accordance with law, either by the efflux of the stipulated period or by service of a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court affirmed that a landlord cannot terminate a tenancy merely by refusing to accept rent. Consequently, without a valid notice to quit, the tenancy subsisted, and the respondents were not trespassers.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord unilaterally terminate a tenancy by merely refusing to accept rent?
  • Does an oral agreement to lease, coupled with the acceptance of rent, create a monthly tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act?
  • Is a notice to quit required to terminate a monthly tenancy in the absence of a specific contract?
  • Can a permanent lease be created without a registered instrument?
  Read full judgment →
• ASHRAF AHMAD vs DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE1970 PLC 497 · Industrial Court · 1970-04-03Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 373 · Lahore High Court · 1969-02-24Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ AND Another RAMZAN vs THE STATE ABDUL HAQ AND ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-08
  bail pending appealjudicial discretionreasons for bailcriminal appealgrievous hurtconvict bail
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter concerns two connected criminal petitions for special leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding bail pending appeal. The petitioners and respondents were convicted by the trial court for their roles in an occurrence involving two murders and grievous injuries. The High Court had granted bail to two respondents (Abdul Haq and Ashraf) while refusing it to the petitioners (Ashiq and Anwar). The Supreme Court examined the High Court's discretion in granting bail, noting that while the High Court failed to provide explicit reasons for its order, it appeared to distinguish between the parties based on their alleged responsibility for the murders. The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere with the High Court's discretion in bail matters absent extraordinary circumstances. However, the Court emphasized that it is proper and desirable for High Courts to provide reasons when granting bail to convicts sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. The petitions were dismissed, with the Court observing that the petitioner Anwar could renew his bail application if his appeal remained undecided after six months.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary for the High Court to provide reasons when granting bail to a convict sentenced to a long term of imprisonment?
  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail pending appeal absent extraordinary circumstances?
  • Can a convict renew a bail application if the appeal remains pending for an extended period?
  Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ AND Another RAMZAN vs THE STATE ABDUL HAQ AND Another1970 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-08
  criminal appealbaildiscretiongrievous injuriessupreme court interference
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter comprises connected criminal petitions for special leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court of Lahore, which allowed bail to certain respondents while refusing it to the petitioners in a pending criminal appeal arising from convictions and sentences for murder and causing grievous injuries. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail to convicts sentenced to long terms of imprisonment without recording supporting reasons, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's discretionary exercise of bail powers. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court ought to have recorded reasons for granting bail to respondents convicted under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code, no extraordinary circumstance warranted interference with the High Court's discretion, and consequently dismissed the petitions while observing that a renewal of a bail application could be made if the appeal is not decided within six months. The key principle laid down is that the High Court should provide reasons when granting bail in serious cases, but the apex court will not ordinarily interfere with bail discretion absent compelling grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail without extraordinary circumstances?
  • Is it proper and desirable for the High Court to provide reasons when granting bail to convicts sentenced to long terms of imprisonment?
  • Can a bail application be renewed if the criminal appeal is not decided within a specified period?
  Read full judgment →
• ASHIQ ALI AND Others vs THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, WEST1970 SCMR I26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-23
  second reviewfresh evidencesettlement schemewrit jurisdictionallotment cancellationfraud
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioners sought a second review of the Supreme Court's order dated 17th June 1966, which had previously dismissed their petition for leave to appeal against a High Court decision regarding a Settlement matter. The petitioners requested the Court to admit a copy of a pedigree-table as fresh evidence to substantiate their claim to land in Pakistan under the Settlement Scheme, asserting this document proved their connection to the estate in question. The Court noted that the original petition for special leave was rejected because the final order in the Settlement proceedings was not vitiated by any substantial defect, and the initial review had already affirmed the power of cancellation, noting the allotment was vitiated by fraud. The Court held that it could not receive fresh evidence concerning the truth or falsity of the original claim during a second review proceeding. Consequently, the Court dismissed the request, clarifying that the petitioners were at liberty to present the newly procured evidence before the appropriate Settlement authorities for consideration rather than seeking its admission before the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court receive fresh evidence regarding the merits of a claim during a second review proceeding?
  • Is the Supreme Court the appropriate forum to introduce new evidence concerning a claim rejected by Settlement authorities?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the power to review its own order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal based on the introduction of new evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• ASHFAQ AHMAD vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 306 · Lahore High Court · 1969-01-27Read full judgment →
• ASGHAR vs THE STATE1970 PLD Lahore 878 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-01
  self-defensedouble murderattempted murdermedical evidencedeath sentence confirmationcriminal appealocular evidence
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the double murder of two individuals and the attempted murder of a third. The appellant pleaded self-defense, alleging he was attacked and fired in retaliation. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the self-defense plea given the medical evidence and whether the conviction for attempted murder was sustainable. The Court held that the plea of self-defense was untenable, as the medical evidence showed the victims were shot in the back while fleeing, indicating they were unarmed and retreating. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions for murder and confirmed the death sentences. However, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, finding that the complainant’s injury was likely caused by a stray pellet rather than a direct shot. The key principle laid down is that a plea of self-defense is negated when medical evidence demonstrates the victims were shot while retreating, and specific intent for attempted murder cannot be inferred from injuries consistent with stray projectiles.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plea of self-defense hold when medical evidence indicates the victims were shot in the back while fleeing?
  • Is a conviction for attempted murder sustainable when the injury is consistent with a stray pellet rather than a direct shot?
  • Can a court confirm a death sentence where the prosecution's recovery evidence is disbelieved but the ocular evidence is otherwise reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• ASGHAR AND 12 Other vs THE STATE AND 4 Other1970 PLD Lahore 439 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-27
  Section 145 Cr.P.C.attachment of propertyappointment of receiverbreach of peacequashment of orderemergency powersinquiry into possessiondisputed land
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought to quash a Magistrate's order attaching disputed land and appointing a Station House Officer as Receiver in proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate could appoint a Receiver under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before completing the inquiry mandated by Section 145 and without fulfilling the conditions of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court held that while a Magistrate has jurisdiction to attach property in an emergency under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending inquiry, the appointment of a Receiver is only permissible after the inquiry under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been completed and the conditions laid down in Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are met. Consequently, the petition was partly allowed, and the Magistrate's order appointing the Station House Officer as Receiver was set aside, though the attachment order itself was not challenged.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate appoint a Receiver under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before completing the inquiry under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • What are the conditions for a Magistrate to appoint a Receiver in a dispute concerning immovable property?
  • Does the power to attach property under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure include the power to appoint a Receiver?
  • When can a Magistrate attach disputed property under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 1019 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
• ARAB KHAN vs The STATE1970 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1959-10-06
  joint trialsame transactionmurdertheftcriminal procedurespecial leave appeal
  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 conviction of the appellant Arab Khan for murder by gunfire and attempted murder, alongside the conviction of another for theft. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the joint trial of the appellant on murder charges with another accused on theft charges was legal, specifically whether the theft and murder formed part of the same transaction. The Court held that the joint trial was entirely lawful, reasoning that the incidents were linked together by a community of purpose and continuity of action commencing from the capture of the co-accused for theft up to the subsequent shooting by the appellant. The key principle laid down is that the legality of a joint trial under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure depends on what appears on the face of the accusation, where multiple incidents are connected by continuity of action and community of purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial of persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is legal under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • At what point in the proceedings must the condition prescribed by clause (d) of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be fulfilled?
  • What are the necessary features of a single transaction involving more than one incident?
  Read full judgment →
• AQIL AHMAD vs A. RAUF1970 P Cr. L J 535 · Dacca · 1969-07-09Read full judgment →
• ANWARUL HAQ Alias IBRAT ANWAR vs E. W. RANDLE AND 2 Other1970 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-02
  settlement disputetransfer of propertydivisible propertyschool transferspecial leave to appealdisplaced person
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of bungalow No. 36, Jail Road, Lahore, under settlement laws. The petitioner initially obtained a transfer order for the entire bungalow, but through subsequent rounds of litigation initiated by respondent No. 1, the Settlement Commissioner remanded the matter, ultimately resulting in an order dividing the bungalow and transferring one half to respondent No. 1 as a school and the other half to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this division through a writ petition and a subsequent Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court, both of which were dismissed. The petitioner then sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned the divisibility of the property and the entitlement of respondent No. 1 to the transfer of a portion as a school. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the property is divisible, that findings of fact regarding the status of the respondent as a non-claimant displaced person cannot be re-agitated, and noting the undertaking that the property will continue to be used as a school without personal claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a settlement property found to be divisible can be split and transferred partly to different claimants?
  • Can a finding of fact regarding the status of a party as a non-claimant displaced person be agitated before the Supreme Court?
  • Does a petitioner have locus standi to challenge the transfer of a portion of a property to another claimant when the property is held to be divisible?
  Read full judgment →
• ANWAR HOSSAIN KHAN vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 279 · Dacca · 1969-10-16Read full judgment →
• ANWAR ALI vs THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD1970 PLC 476 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-04-30Read full judgment →
• ANDISON CO OPERATIVE INDUSTRIES LTD. SIALKOT vs Ch. NAZIR AHMAD1970 SCMR 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-09
  execution of decreeexecuting courtnullity of decreelimitationco-operative societiesarbitration award
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition upholding the dismissal of its objection in execution proceedings. The core legal question was whether an executing court or authority can go behind a decree or award on the ground of limitation and refuse execution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in the execution of a decree or award, the executing court cannot go behind it unless the decree is a nullity, and an erroneous appreciation of limitation does not render the decree or award a nullity. The key principle laid down is that the question of limitation does not constitute a nullity so as to permit an executing court to look behind a binding award or decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executing court go behind a decree or award on the ground of limitation?
  • Does an incorrect determination of limitation render an award or decree a nullity?
  • Whether an executing court has jurisdiction to examine the correctness of a decree during execution proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• AMJAD MIAH vs A, K. M. YUNUS1970 PLC 843 · Labour Court · 1970-06-04Read full judgment →
• AMIRZADA AND Another vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM AND Another1970 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1963-10-25
  writ of certiorarierror of law on the face of the recorddisplaced personssettlement authoritiesconstitutional jurisdiction
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan at Peshawar, which dismissed the appellants' writ petition seeking to quash the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The core legal question was whether a writ of certiorari could be issued to correct an alleged error of law regarding the status of the appellants as displaced persons when the error was not self-evident and required investigation of facts and arguments. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a writ of certiorari is only available to quash a decision for an error of law if the error appears manifestly on the very face of the record and does not require a detailed examination or investigation of disputed questions of fact. The key principle laid down is that certiorari cannot be used as an appeal in disguise to re-examine findings of fact or to correct errors of law that are not self-evident on the face of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ of certiorari be issued to correct an error of law that is not self-evident on the face of the record?
  • Whether an error requiring investigation of facts and arguments can be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record?
  • Is certiorari available as an appeal in disguise to rehear issues raised in settlement proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• AMIRUDDIN vs DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LYALLPUIIR1970 PLC 430 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
• AMIR KHAN vs The STATE1970 SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-13
  anticipatory bailsuppression of factsclean hands doctrineinterim bailbail cancellationcriminal procedure
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a High Court order recalling an interim bail previously granted to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given conflicting police investigation reports and the petitioner's suppression of a prior failed anticipatory bail application. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had willfully suppressed the fact that his earlier application for anticipatory bail had been dismissed on merits, thereby obtaining interim bail through misrepresentation. The Court emphasized the principle that a party seeking judicial assistance must approach the court with clean hands. Furthermore, the Court found that the material available, indicating the petitioner was present at the scene armed with a firearm and raised a lalkara, did not warrant bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regardless of the conflicting opinions among investigating officers regarding the necessity of a challan.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of a previously dismissed bail application by an accused justify the cancellation of interim bail subsequently granted?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely because one of several investigating officers opined against challaning them?
  • Can an accused who was present at the scene of a crime armed with a firearm and raised a lalkara claim entitlement to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• AMIN SHAH- vs ABDUL RAUF AND ANOTHER1970 PLD Quetta 82 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-06-09
  dissolution of partnershiprendition of accountscivil revisionsecond appealcourt-feeconversion of petitionad valorem court-fee
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, resulting in a preliminary decree followed by a final decree by the trial court, which was upheld in first appeal. Instead of filing a second appeal, the petitioner filed a civil revision petition in the High Court, and subsequently sought to convert the revision into a second appeal while requesting discretionary powers to make up a deficiency in court-fee under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a revision petition filed intentionally to avoid ad valorem court-fee on the decretal amount in a suit for rendition of accounts could be permitted to be converted into a second appeal with an extension of time for paying the court-fee. The court held that no bona fide mistake or legal misconception existed, as a second appeal was clearly competent and the revision had been filed intentionally to evade proper court fees. Consequently, the court refused to allow the conversion or grant indulgence for making up the deficiency in court-fee, and dismissed the revision petition as incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil revision petition be converted into a second appeal where a second appeal was clearly competent under the law?
  • Whether the court can exercise its discretionary powers under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to allow a deficiency in court-fee to be made up when a revision is filed under a deliberate attempt to evade proper court fees?
  • What court-fee is required to be paid when a defendant challenges a decree in a suit for rendition of accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• AMANULLAH KHAN AND Others vs KHAN ATTAULLAH KHAN AND Other1970 SCMR 651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-28
  pre-emption suitprobable valueland valuationinterlocutory orderrevisional jurisdictionspecial leave to appeal
  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 an order passed by the High Court of West Pakistan in its revisional jurisdiction regarding the valuation of land in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly assessed the 'probable value' of the land for the purpose of ordering a deposit by the pre-emptor under the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the assessment of the probable value of land at the interlocutory stage is not a function of the Supreme Court. The Court determined that no serious question of law was involved in the petition. The key principle laid down is that where a party disputes the valuation fixed for the purpose of a pre-emption deposit, the appropriate remedy is to raise the valuation as a specific issue within the trial of the pre-emption suit itself, rather than seeking appellate intervention at an interlocutory stage to determine factual assessments of land value.

  Questions settled

  • Is the assessment of the probable value of land for a pre-emption deposit a matter to be determined by the Supreme Court at the leave to appeal stage?
  • What is the appropriate forum for a party to challenge the valuation fixed for a pre-emption deposit?
  Read full judgment →
• ALTAF MAHMOOD vs Mst. FAZAL UN NISA Alias BILQIS INSARI1970 PLD Lahore 654 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-04Read full judgment →
• ALTAF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 323 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-16Read full judgment →
• ALTAF HUSSAIN vs MESSRS BENGAL STEEL WORKS LTD., DACCA1970 PLC 870 · Labour Court · 1970-05-25Read full judgment →
• ALOK KUMAR MITRA AND Other vs THE STATE1970 PLD Dacca 289 · Dacca · 1969-07-29Read full judgment →
• ALOK KUMAR MITRA AND OHERS vs THE STATE Opposite Party1970 PLD Dacca 279 · DaccaRead full judgment →
• ALLAH YAR KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH JOINT1970 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  civil servicetermination of servicetemporary government employeespecial leave to appealcontractual undertakingnotice period
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioner, a Civil Supplies Inspector, challenged the termination of his employment by the Government of Pakistan, which was effected upon 15 days' notice. Having failed in the High Court, he sought Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the termination of the petitioner's services, based on an undertaking regarding notice periods, violated constitutional protections afforded to civil servants. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the petitioner held a temporary post within a temporary department and had explicitly provided an undertaking allowing for termination upon 15 days' notice. The Court rejected the argument that the undertaking was invalid because it was signed after the initial appointment, holding that it effectively became a term of the employment contract. Consequently, the Court ruled that the termination did not attract constitutional protections, as the petitioner was bound by the agreed-upon terms. The petition for Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed, affirming that contractual terms regarding notice periods in temporary government service are binding.

  Questions settled

  • Can an undertaking regarding the termination of service, signed after the initial appointment, be considered a valid term of employment?
  • Does the termination of a temporary government employee, pursuant to an agreed-upon notice period, attract constitutional protections?
  • Is a finding by the High Court regarding the existence of a signed undertaking binding in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA vs FATEH KHAN AND Other1970 PLD Lahore 168 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-25Read full judgment →
• KHAN vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 450 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA AND Others vs The STATE1970 SCMR 734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-22
  murderunlawful assemblycommon objectdelay in FIRmedical evidenceinterested witnessesplea of self-defence
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of four appellants for offences including murder, unlawful assembly, and causing grievous hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, motivated by a land dispute, launched a coordinated attack on the deceased and his father, inflicting fatal head injuries and multiple wounds. The trial court convicted six accused, but the High Court subsequently acquitted two of them out of abundant caution, maintaining the convictions of the four appellants. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the complainant party was the aggressor, that there was a delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), and that the site of the occurrence was disputed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the presence of human blood at the scene established the place of occurrence, the delay in lodging the FIR was reasonably explained by the urgent need to seek medical aid for the critically injured victims, and the minor injuries on the accused party indicated they were the aggressors. The Court affirmed that active participation in an unlawful assembly with a common object justifies joint liability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delay in lodging a First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case if it is explained by the necessity of securing immediate medical attention for critically injured victims?
  • Can the place of occurrence of a crime be established by the recovery of blood-stained earth confirmed to be human blood by chemical analysis?
  • Whether minor injuries on the accused party, contrasted with fatal and grievous injuries on the complainant party, negate the plea that the complainant party was the aggressor?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA AND 6 Others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION1970 SCMR 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-10-24
  evacuee propertyusufructuary mortgagedispossessionland settlementcharge on propertywrit petition
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by mortgagees challenging the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court. The petitioners, who held a usufructuary mortgage over evacuee land, were dispossessed and the land was allotted to respondents by the Collector. The core legal question is whether settlement authorities can dispossess a mortgagee of evacuee land without prior payment of the mortgage amount, and whether the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court held that settlement authorities under the Land Settlement Act can dispossess mortgagees to put allottees in possession without immediate payment of the mortgage money, while the mortgage amount remains a charge on the property, and the satisfaction of such charges is governed by the Satisfaction of Charges (Land Settlement) Rules, 1962. Furthermore, any grievance regarding the assessment of the mortgage amount must be pursued through appeal or revision before higher settlement authorities rather than constitutional writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can settlement authorities dispossess a mortgagee of evacuee land before the payment of the mortgage amount?
  • Does the mortgage amount remain a charge on the mortgaged property after dispossession by settlement authorities?
  • Are petitioners entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the assessment of a mortgage amount by the Collector?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA AND 10 Others vs THF STATE, Respondent1970 P Cr. L J 666 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-19
  bailcross-casescriminal trespassmurderfurther inquiryaggressor
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This is a petition for bail filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising from a cross-version criminal incident involving land possession disputes, rioting, and subsequent death resulting in a murder charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of multiple accused persons to pre-trial bail where cross-cases have been registered, both parties sustained injuries, and the question of who was the aggressor remains debatable at the pre-trial stage. The Lahore High Court held that where two conflicting versions exist and injuries are sustained by both sides, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail to those petitioners not specifically and fatally implicated by the deceased, while dismissing the application of the specific assailant. The key principle laid down is that the existence of a counter-case, mutual injuries, and uncertainty regarding the aggressor at the investigatory stage warrant the concession of bail under Section 497(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, barring specific fatal attributions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted under Section 497(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when cross-cases are registered and both parties have sustained injuries in the same occurrence?
  • Does the existence of two conflicting versions regarding physical possession and aggression warrant further inquiry for the purpose of pre-trial bail?
  • Should bail be refused to an accused specifically named by the deceased as an assailant notwithstanding counter-allegations and mutual injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DAD vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 826 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-14Read full judgment →
• ALLAH BUX vs Tim DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT1970 PLC 334 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-03-26Read full judgment →
• ALLAH BAKSH vs THE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE1970 PLC 63 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-05-02Read full judgment →
• ALI NAWAZ AND Another vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 809 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-14Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE1970 PLD Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 1969-03-21Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD vs THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, T & T, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS1970 PLC 18 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-03-10Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD AND Another vs NAZEER AHMAD1970 PLD Lahore 893 · Lahore High Court · 1966-03-02Read full judgment →
• ALI MUHAMMAD AND 3 Others vs THE CROWN1970 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1956-02-06
  criminal appealmurderunlawful assemblyconstructive liabilityprivate defencecorroborationaggressordeath sentence
  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 a judgment of the Chief Court of Sind which convicted the appellants under sections 147, 148, 323, 325, and 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code in connection with a land dispute resulting in murder and rioting. The core legal questions involved whether the failure of the prosecution to detail defence injuries caused prejudice, whether corroboration was necessary for identifying accused persons, and the applicability of constructive liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code where an unlawful assembly was heavily armed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the lower courts concurrently found the appellants to be the aggressors, the plea of private defence failed, and that members of a heavily armed unlawful assembly knew that death was likely to be caused in the prosecution of their common object, thereby attracting constructive liability regardless of individual weapon use. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to adduce detailed evidence regarding injuries sustained by the accused prejudices the plea of private defence when the accused are found to be the aggressors?
  • Does the requirement for corroboration of interested witnesses apply equally to an accused specifically named in the first information report with a definite overt act?
  • Is every member of a heavily armed unlawful assembly liable with the knowledge that death was likely to be caused in the prosecution of the common object?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with a death sentence that is neither illegal nor grossly improper?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI KHAN AND 2 Others vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 1028 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-18Read full judgment →
• ALI JAN AND 5 Other vs COMMISSIONER, F. C. R., QUETTA DIVISION AND 71970 PLD Quetta 93 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-06-05
  Frontier Crimes Regulationlimitation of suitscustomary lawstatutory rulecivil referenceCouncil-of-Elderspossession of land
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  This Letters Patent Appeal challenges a judgment of the High Court arising from a civil dispute over land, water, and trees located in Tehsil Chaman, decided under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901. The core legal question was whether there is any period of limitation for claims concerning the possession of land in the area of Tehsil Chaman, specifically examining whether executive instructions issued in 1882 (Serial No. 52 of the Green Book) had the statutory force of a rule under Section 62 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901, and whether the Limitation Act 1908 applied to proceedings before Council-of-Elders. The Court held that the 1882 instructions were merely departmental guidance, lacked the characteristics and statutory validity of a rule, and had fallen obsolete or inoperative, and further that the Limitation Act did not apply to authorities functioning under the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental instructions issued in 1882 regarding land claims have the force of a statutory rule under Section 62 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901?
  • Does the Limitation Act 1908 apply of its own force or via Section 29 to proceedings and authorities functioning under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901?
  • Whether the right to property is extinguished under Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 in the absence of a prescribed period of limitation or ordinary courts for instituting a suit?
  • Whether authorities acting under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901 constitute courts for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI IMAM vs Sr. GHULAM HUSSAIN1970 P Cr. L J 980 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-13Read full judgment →
• ALI HYDER AND Another vs THE STATE1970 P Cr. L J 495 · Sindh High Court · 1969-06-21Read full judgment →
• ALI AHMED vs SHAHAJAHAN MATABBAR, PROPRIETOR, MESSRS1970 PLC 788 · Labour Court · 1970-05-18Read full judgment →
• ALI AHMAD vs The STATE1970 SCMR 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-26
  special leave to appealcriminal mischiefprescriptive rightlimitation actevacuee propertyrevision
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his criminal revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld his conviction under Section 430 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing mischief by raising a wall around a well, thereby depriving local residents of water for irrigation. The core legal questions involved whether the lower courts' concurrent factual findings regarding the public's prescriptive right to the water and the petitioner's lack of a bona fide claim could be interfered with, and whether a prescriptive right under Section 26 of the Limitation Act 1908 was established. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact supported by abundant evidence could not be interfered with in revision, and that the long-term uninterrupted use of water established the villagers' prescriptive right. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent factual findings of lower courts be interfered with in criminal revision when supported by abundant evidence?
  • Whether long-term uninterrupted use of well water for irrigation establishes a prescriptive right under the Limitation Act?
  • Does raising a wall around a well used by the public for agricultural irrigation constitute mischief under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Alhaj AFAZUDDIN AHMED vs THE SECRETARY, B. D. AND L. G. DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN AND 4 Other1970 PLD Dacca 428 · Dacca · 1967-04-24Read full judgment →
• ALAMGIR vs MESSRS F. M. SIKDAR SONS, DACCA1970 PLC 889 · Labour Court · 1974-05-25Read full judgment →
• ALAM DIN vs MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND Other1970 PLD Azad J & K 54 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1970-04-14Read full judgment →
• ALAF DIN vs Mst. PARVEEN AKHTAR1970 PLD Supreme Court 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-11-14
  AI summary & questions settled

  AI-generated from this judgment — read the full text before relying on it.

  The provided judgment text is empty. Consequently, it is impossible to provide a summary of the nature of the matter, the core legal questions, the court's decision, or the key principles laid down. The record contains no information regarding the facts of the case, the arguments presented by the parties, or the reasoning of the court. As the source material is absent, this summary cannot be generated in accordance with the instructions to rely solely on the provided text.

  Read full judgment →
• AKHTAR HUSSAIN vs THE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE1970 PLC 124 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-07-07Read full judgment →