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.
- MUHAMMAD AHMAD Versus WAZIR DIN1989 SCMR 400 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had declared the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 15-5-1980 to be without lawful authority. The core legal question concerned whether the identity and non-evacuee status of the disputed property could be re-litigated after the matter had attained finality up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the question of identity and the status of the property as non-evacuee had already been finally determined through previous rounds of litigation culminating in the dismissal of a prior petition by the Supreme Court, and therefore the Settlement authorities could not re-open the issue. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that final judicial determinations regarding property status and identity cannot be re-agitated in subsequent collateral proceedings before administrative authorities.
Questions settled- Can the identity and status of a non-evacuee property be re-agitated before settlement authorities after the matter has been finally decided by the superior courts?
- Whether administrative authorities like the Deputy Settlement Commissioner can re-open an issue already settled by a final judgment of the Supreme Court?
- ZAHOOR AHMAD Versus SHAHBAZ KHAN1989 SCMR 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
- EHSAN SABRI Versus STATE1989 SCMR 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
- NOOR HASSAN Versus STATE1989 SCMR 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail by the High Court in a murder case. The petitioner, Noor Hassan, was charged alongside co-accused for the murder of Fazal Rahu. The prosecution alleged that while the petitioner was unarmed, he instigated the primary assailant, who was armed with a hatchet, to complete the act and further participated by snatching the weapon from the complainant. The petitioner sought bail on the ground of parity, arguing that his case was identical to that of two other co-accused who had been granted bail. The Supreme Court examined the specific role attributed to the petitioner and distinguished his circumstances from those of the co-accused, noting that the latter had received bail based on medical evidence. Finding no justification to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing bail, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the denial of bail to the petitioner.
Questions settled- Does the principle of parity apply when the role attributed to the petitioner differs from that of co-accused who have been granted bail?
- Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with the High Court's discretion in refusing bail where the petitioner's specific role in the crime is distinct from co-accused?
- ZAFAR QURESHI Versus MAQSOODUL HASSAN1989 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- PAK TRADE AFFILIATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ZONE1989 SCMR 391 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ Versus BEGUM AZFAR SAEED1989 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ Versus STATE1989 SCMR 384 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- HABIB Versus SARDAR ALI1989 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a challenge to the recruitment process for the post of Senior Translation Officer. The petitioner, who held an M.A. degree in English and Urdu, protested against the selection test, which consisted solely of translation passages between Urdu and Arabic, arguing that it unfairly excluded candidates lacking an M.A. in Arabic despite the advertisement allowing applicants with M.A. degrees in English, Arabic, or Urdu. The Service Tribunal had previously dismissed the petitioner's claim on the grounds that, by refusing to take the test, the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the selection. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the test was neither legal nor fair. The Supreme Court held that while the petitioner's grievance was understandable, the determination of the nature and content of test questions falls within the discretion of the relevant authorities. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the authorities' action and declined to interfere with the recruitment process under its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a candidate who refuses to participate in a selection test have locus standi to challenge the recruitment process?
- Is the determination of the nature and content of a selection test a matter within the discretion of the recruiting authorities?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the content of a recruitment test under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- PAKISTAN ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION1989 SCMR 379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Sind High Court in an Intra-Court Appeal concerning a contract for a project modernization between Pakistan Engineering Consultants and Pakistan International Airlines. The project faced delays, and the Airlines annulled the contract, seeking to encash a bank guarantee provided for a mobilization advance and a performance bond. The firm filed a suit for damages and a permanent injunction against the encashment. The High Court partly granted relief, restraining the encashment of the performance bond and permitting partial encashment of the bank guarantee. The Supreme Court evaluated whether the High Court exercised its discretion properly regarding interim relief. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's discretion in balancing claims and counter-claims at the interim stage was neither arbitrary nor insupportable, declining to interfere with interlocutory orders where questions of fact require a full trial. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting or refusing interim relief during the pendency of a suit?
- Can a bank guarantee given against a mobilization advance be restrained from encashment by way of temporary injunction?
- Whether a dissolved firm can carry on a contract entered into before its dissolution under section 47 of the Partnership Act?
- JAFFAR EBRAHIM & CO. LTD. Versus DEPUTY CONTROLLER, EXCHANGE CONTROL, STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI1989 SCMR 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four appeals challenging the legality of two circulars issued by the State Bank of Pakistan. These circulars required importers of Steel Plate Sheets, who were permitted to pay freight charges in local currency, to surrender bonus vouchers equivalent to 30% of the freight charges. The appellants argued that the State Bank lacked the legal authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to issue such directions. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the circulars were within the State Bank's competence under Section 20(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, as the Act's preamble empowers the Bank to regulate dealings in foreign exchange to secure the economic and financial interests of Pakistan. The Court further held that the State Bank could validly transfer the liability for bonus vouchers to the importers who benefited from the facility of paying freight in local currency. Additionally, the Court noted that the appellants, having availed themselves of the facility, were estopped from challenging the circulars' legality.
Questions settled- Does the State Bank of Pakistan have the authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to issue circulars requiring importers to surrender bonus vouchers?
- Can an importer who has availed of a facility granted by the State Bank later challenge the legality of the conditions attached to that facility?
- Are circulars issued by the State Bank of Pakistan to conserve foreign exchange consistent with the objectives of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act?
- ISHAQUC MASIH Versus STATE1989 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN Versus SAID MUHAMMAD1989 SCMR 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD1989 SCMR 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises out of a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of waiver, but the first appellate court decreed it, and the High Court maintained the decree in second appeal. The core legal questions relate to whether the appellant became an owner in the estate through a prior transaction involving a tube-well and Kotha, and whether the suit was barred as one for partial pre-emption. The Supreme Court held that the prior transaction pertained only to movable property (the superstructure and machinery) rather than immovable property or the underlying sites, and therefore did not make the appellant an owner in the estate nor render the subsequent suit one for partial pre-emption. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the respondent's superior right of pre-emption as an owner in the estate was validly established and that the separate, earlier transaction was not pre-emptible.
Questions settled- Does the purchase of a tube-well superstructure and Kotha without the underlying site confer the status of an owner in the estate for pre-emption purposes?
- Whether the failure to pre-empt a separate transaction involving movable property renders a subsequent pre-emption suit regarding land liable to dismissal for partial pre-emption?
- Can a transaction regarding machinery and a superstructure with no registered deed for the land site be regarded as affecting rights in immovable property?
- SHAHID MAHMOOD Versus CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION1989 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
- REFERENCE BY PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN Versus REFERENCE BY PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN1989 SCMR 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-08Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD Versus ZUBAIDA BEGUM1989 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the context of a civil petition for leave to appeal. The nature of the proceedings involved a challenge related to constitutional petitions pending before the Baluchistan High Court. The core legal question concerned the appropriate procedural handling and consolidation of related constitutional petitions, specifically Constitutional Petition No. 290 of 1988 and Constitutional Petition No. 291 of 1988. Upon consideration of a prior order passed in Civil Petition No. 107-Q of 1988, which had already remanded the case to the High Court with directions to dispose of the aforementioned constitutional petitions on their merits and to accelerate the hearing process, the petitioner chose not to pursue the current petition. Consequently, the Supreme Court, acknowledging the petitioner's stance and the existing remand order, disposed of the petition accordingly. The judgment serves as a procedural order reflecting the principle that where a higher court has already issued comprehensive directions for the disposal and consolidation of pending matters in a lower court, redundant petitions may be withdrawn and disposed of in accordance with those established directions.
Questions settled- Can a petition be disposed of as not pressed when a prior order has already remanded the underlying matter to the High Court for decision on merits?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to dispose of a petition when the relief sought is covered by a previous remand order in a related case?
- MAHMOOD Versus STATE1989 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 302/34, P.P.C. but reducing his sentence from death to life imprisonment, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in attributing the murder to the appellant while giving the benefit of doubt to his acquitted brother, and whether the substitution of the death sentence to life imprisonment was proper. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's appraisal of evidence was sound, noting that the appellant had a direct motive arising from the deceased's detention of the appellant's wife, and that the fatal shot was fired following a sudden altercation without preplanning. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in attributing the responsibility of the murder to the appellant while acquitting his co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt?
- Is a sentence of death properly substituted with life imprisonment when the homicide occurs during a sudden altercation arising from family disputes over detained spouses?
- Does a delay in holding a post-mortem examination necessarily vitiate the prosecution's ocular and medical evidence?
- QAMAR DIN Versus UMAR DIN1989 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER. REVENUE, MULTAN Fazal Miran Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court & Zaki ud Din Pal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme instructed by S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate on Record & Iqbal Ahmad Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Aslam Chaudhry Advocate on Record & Malik A.R. Arshad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate on Record , MA. Qadri, Advocate on Record1989 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUSSARRAT BASHIRUL HASSAN Versus MUHAMMAD SALIM1989 SCMR 335 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
- AMIR ABDULLAH Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE1989 SCMR 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ ABMAD Versus GENERAL MANAGER (DISTRIBUTION), WAPDA1989 SCMR 332 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus ABDUL JALIL KHAN1989 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA1989 SCMR 329 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
- NAWAB DIN Versus SULTAN AHMAD AWAN1989 SCMR 328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
- NAMDAR Versus ALI ZULQARNAIN, ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1989 SCMR 327 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1989 SCMR 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COLLECTOR1989 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-31Read full judgment →
- CHIRAGH DIN Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1989 SCMR 296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Versus MUHAMMAD NASIR1989 SCMR 295 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHALIL Versus MUHAMMAD LUQMAN1989 SCMR 293 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
- UMAR DIN Versus KHAN1989 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- SAID RAHMAN Versus STATE1989 SCMR 291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD RAEES Versus THE STATE1989 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the conviction of three appellants for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question concerned whether the appraisement of evidence by the lower courts conformed to established principles of criminal justice, specifically regarding material discrepancies between the First Information Report (FIR) and a subsequent private complaint. The Supreme Court observed that the FIR was promptly lodged and consistent with medical evidence regarding the principal accused, Muhammad Raees and Saghir Ahmad. However, the court found that the role attributed to the third appellant, Muhammad Khan, in the private complaint—alleging he was armed with a stick—was an afterthought designed to align with post-mortem findings of blunt weapon injuries. Consequently, the Court held that while the ocular testimony against the principal accused remained reliable, the third appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The convictions of Muhammad Raees and Saghir Ahmad were upheld, while the conviction of Muhammad Khan was set aside, establishing that material improvements in a private complaint intended to reconcile medical evidence undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case against specific accused persons.
Questions settled- Does a material discrepancy between the FIR and a subsequent private complaint regarding the role of an accused warrant the benefit of the doubt?
- Can ocular testimony be partially relied upon when other parts of the prosecution's case are found to be an afterthought?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the role attributed to an accused in a private complaint appears to be fabricated to match post-mortem findings?
- UBAIDULLAH Versus SHER MOHAMMAD1989 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE1989 SCMR 278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
- NIAZ ALI Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND)1989 SCMR 277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED KHAN Versus AZIZUDDIN1989 SCMR 271 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- GULZAR ALIAS GULZARI Versus STATE1989 SCMR 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
- SULEMAN Versus STATE1989 SCMR 253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court as a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Sind High Court declining pre-trial bail to the petitioners facing trial under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 114, and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the specific roles and injuries attributed to them. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that petitioner Sadoro, who was armed with a lathi and allegedly caused simple injuries not on vital parts, made out a case for bail, especially considering the background of the quarrel arising from crop damage by cattle and the State not opposing his bail. However, the bail request for petitioner Khamo, who allegedly used a firearm, was dismissed. The Court laid down the principle that where an accused's role is limited to causing simple injuries arising from a sudden quarrel over cattle trespassing, and the offence arguably falls under a lesser penal provision, bail may be granted pending trial.
Questions settled- Whether an accused assigned a lathi blow resulting in simple injuries is entitled to post-arrest bail when the incident arose from a sudden quarrel over cattle damage?
- Does the use of a firearm in an alleged criminal transaction disentitle an accused from receiving post-arrest bail?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus ABDUL HAMEED1989 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL MIR Versus FAKHAR JEHAN BEGUM1989 SCMR 235 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- FAZLE HAQ Versus STATE1989 SCMR 2071 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the Peshawar High Court's order dismissing the pre-trial bail application of the petitioner, a retired Lieutenant General and former Caretaker Chief Minister, who was accused along with others under sections 302 and 120-B/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for involvement in the murder of a religious leader. The core legal question concerned whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner was guilty, particularly given that the sole prosecution evidence linking him to the conspiracy rested on the statement of an approver concerning a meeting on a specific date when a co-accused was allegedly abroad. The Supreme Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the investigating agency failed to properly examine the defence plea and travel documents challenging the approver's veracity. The Court laid down the principle that investigating agencies have a duty to find the truth rather than prematurely commit to a view, and where tangible evidence creates a plausible doubt regarding the prosecution's material assertions at the bail stage, the accused is entitled to bail for further inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when tangible evidence calls into question the veracity of the sole implicating statement of an approver?
- What is the legal duty of an investigating agency when examining defence pleas and documentary evidence during the course of an ongoing investigation?
- Can bail be granted pending trial in a capital case when the prosecution's material connecting evidence requires further inquiry?
- FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Versus M. D. TAHIR, ADVOCATE1989 SCMR 2069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federal Government against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of High Court Judges by the President during a caretaker government. The petition was filed with a delay of 257 days. The core legal question involved whether the President could appoint High Court Judges without the advice of a Prime Minister, and whether the High Court correctly interpreted the constitutional provisions regarding the President's powers. The Supreme Court condoned the delay, noting that the mandatory notice to the Attorney-General under the Code of Civil Procedure had not been served, and recognized the public importance of the constitutional questions regarding the distribution of functions between the President and the Prime Minister. Leave to appeal was granted to provide an authoritative pronouncement on these constitutional matters, while clarifying that the appointments of the specific judges involved were past and closed. The Court emphasized the necessity of interpreting constitutional provisions concerning parliamentary democracy and the functioning of the executive.
Questions settled- Can the President appoint High Court Judges without the advice of a Prime Minister under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the specific provision of Article 193 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 override the general provision of Article 48(1) regarding the requirement of the Prime Minister's advice?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained if the petitioner agrees with the ultimate conclusion of the lower court but disagrees with the legal interpretation provided therein?
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD1989 SCMR 2067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus MEMBER (CONS.), BOARD REVENUE, PUNJAB1989 SCMR 2066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
- MAULA BAKHSH Versus AZRA BIN1989 SCMR 2065 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
- MASOOD Versus STATE1989 SCMR 2063 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court order dismissing an application for the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge based on a plea of alibi and discrepancies between the First Information Report and the deceased's statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which did not attribute a specific fatal shot to the respondent. The High Court affirmed this bail, noting the respondent's status as a government servant and the evidence supporting his alibi. Upon review, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the bail order, primarily because the trial had already commenced and several witnesses had been examined. The petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial by a specified date.
Questions settled- Does the commencement of a trial and the examination of witnesses influence the Supreme Court's decision to interfere with a bail order?
- Can a plea of alibi supported by documents constitute grounds for further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to cancel bail when the trial court has already begun proceedings and examined witnesses?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus MUNIR AHMAD1989 SCMR 2061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus ABDUL HAKIM1989 SCMR 2060 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- STATE Versus MUHAMMAD NASEER1989 SCMR 2058 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, who was initially convicted under Section 8(3)(b) of the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for allegedly exhuming the dead body of a female and committing Zina-bil-Jabr upon it. The trial court had sentenced him to death and stripes, but the Federal Shariat Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the respondent, holding that a confession for Hadd must be made four times in four different meetings before a competent court, that the retracted confession and circumstantial evidence were insufficient, and that the recoveries were doubtful. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider important questions of law, including whether zina can be committed against a dead body, the requirements for a valid confession under Islamic law, and the evidentiary value of a retracted confession.
Questions settled- Whether zina can be committed against the dead body of a female?
- Which is the competent court before whom a valid confession can be made under Islamic law?
- What is the evidentiary value of a retracted confession in cases involving Hudood punishments?
- Can a sentence of Hadd in a zina case be imposed on the basis of circumstantial evidence without four eye-witnesses?
- STATE Versus MUHAMMAD ALI1989 SCMR 2057 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD Versus REVENUE OFFICER1989 SCMR 2056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- SAID AMEEN Versus KHAN MIRA1989 SCMR 2054 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
- SARTAJ INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1989 SCMR 2053 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
- SALEEM RAZA Versus TARIQ RASHID1989 SCMR 2052 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Saleem Raza, seeking the enhancement of sentences imposed on respondents Tariq Rashid and Liaqat Ali from life imprisonment to death for the murder of Saifur Rahman. The respondents were convicted by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after being found guilty of inflicting fatal dagger blows on the deceased following a sudden confrontation on a public road. The trial court's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were affirmed by the Lahore High Court in a revision application, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The central question before the Court was whether the High Court erred in maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment instead of awarding capital punishment. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, holding that since the murder was not premeditated but stemmed from a sudden flare-up triggered by the deceased's unexpected intervention, sufficient extenuating circumstances existed to justify the lesser sentence. Consequently, the leave to appeal was refused and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a sudden flare-up without premeditation constitutes a valid extenuating circumstance for mitigating a sentence from death to life imprisonment?
- Can a court maintain a sentence of life imprisonment instead of capital punishment where the murder arises out of an unprovoked or unexpected altercation?
- SHER AFZAL KHAN Versus ADRIAN AFZAL1989 SCMR 2050 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
- SALEH MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1989 SCMR 2049 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
- MAJEED Versus ALLAH DAD1989 SCMR 2048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
- CABAL BEGUM Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1989 SCMR 2047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
- BAKHSHI Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD1989 SCMR 2005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-04Read full judgment →
- NASIM AHMAD KHAN Versus IRSHAD ALI1989 SCMR 2000 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court order that set aside a decision by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding an agreement of association between the parties. The dispute concerns a double-storey house in Sant Nagar, Lahore, originally transferred to respondent Irshad Ali. Irshad Ali subsequently entered into an agreement of association with the petitioners' predecessor, Niaz Ahmad Khan, to transfer half the house via vertical partition in exchange for payment of the transfer price. Following litigation involving a third party, Abdur Rauf, the ground floor was transferred to the latter, leaving only the upper floor for the original parties. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner later accepted the association agreement, directing that both parties share the upper floor. The High Court, however, declared this order without lawful authority, reasoning that the transfer of the ground floor to a third party had destroyed the material basis of the agreement, rendering it unenforceable. The Supreme Court, upon review, found the High Court's reasoning required further examination and granted leave to appeal to determine the validity of the Commissioner's order.
Questions settled- Can an agreement of association for the transfer of property be enforced when the underlying subject matter has been partially alienated to a third party?
- Does the transfer of a portion of a property to a third party render an existing agreement of association regarding that property legally impossible to perform?
- ALI AHSAN Versus FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1989 SCMR 1976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court regarding agricultural land gifted by petitioner No. 2 to her minor son, petitioner No. 1, which was subjected to scrutiny under Martial Law Regulation 115. The core legal question was whether the Land Commission authorities acted within their jurisdiction in determining the validity of the oral gift, specifically regarding delivery of possession and acceptance by the natural guardian, while a review concerning the illegal cancellation of the mutation entry was pending before the District Collector. The Supreme Court held that the Land Commission authorities acted beyond their jurisdiction in adjudicating upon the validity of the gift's delivery of possession and acceptance, as these were matters for a civil court, and that their orders were premature while the question of the mutation's cancellation remained undecided by the Collector. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the orders of the lower forums and remanding the case to the Collector to determine the legality of the mutation entry.
Questions settled- Whether the Land Commission authorities have the jurisdiction to determine the validity of an oral gift regarding delivery of possession and acceptance by a natural guardian while a review regarding the cancellation of the mutation is pending before the Collector?
- Can the validity of a gift for the purposes of Martial Law Regulation 115 be adjudicated upon before the final determination of the legality of the mutation entry's cancellation?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus MAQBOOLAN BEGUM1989 SCMR 1946 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL LTD. Versus NASREEN IRSHAD1989 SCMR 1892 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an eviction petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The petitioner challenged the Rent Controller's jurisdiction, arguing the leased premises, being a vacant plot, did not constitute a "building" under the Act. The Rent Controller ruled against the petitioner, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's Constitutional Petition, holding that it was inappropriate to interfere at an intermediate stage of rent proceedings when a statutory right of appeal against the final order existed. The Supreme Court, in refusing leave to appeal, affirmed that while jurisdictional questions can theoretically be raised via Constitutional Petition, the legislative intent of the Rent Act is to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases. Consequently, permitting Constitutional Petitions to challenge interim jurisdictional determinations would defeat the statutory scheme and the specific appellate mechanism provided by the Act. The Court emphasized that objections to jurisdiction should be resolved through the prescribed appellate process rather than through piecemeal litigation, thereby upholding the finality and efficiency of the Rent Controller's proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a Constitutional Petition be maintained to challenge an interim jurisdictional finding of a Rent Controller?
- Is it appropriate for the High Court to interfere in rent proceedings at an intermediate stage via a Constitutional Petition?
- Does the statutory scheme of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 preclude the use of Constitutional Petitions to challenge interlocutory orders?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1989 SCMR 1867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Muhammad Aslam, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction under sections 170 and 171 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner, a Foot Constable, had raided a house dressed in a police uniform as an A.S.I., falsely claimed an abduction case was registered, and demanded money. He was apprehended at the spot by the residents, while his co-accused abducted another resident and were later tried. The Special Court convicted the petitioner under sections 161, 170, and 171, P.P.C., which the High Court modified by acquitting him under section 161 while maintaining the convictions under sections 170 and 171 with concurrent sentences. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction was legally maintainable despite the acquittal of co-accused and whether the conviction under section 170 was warranted. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was caught red-handed in a grave offense wearing a false uniform with no evidence of police animosity, and refused leave to appeal, laying down that clear ocular apprehension at the spot with concrete physical evidence sustains a conviction for impersonation and wearing a public servant's garb.
Questions settled- Whether the conviction of an accused for impersonating a public servant is maintainable when apprehended on the spot in uniform?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused persons necessitate the acquittal of another accused caught red-handed at the crime scene?
- Is a conviction under section 170 of the Pakistan Penal Code warranted when a person wears the uniform of a police officer without being one?
- SALEH MUHAMMAD Versus FATIMA1989 SCMR 1822 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MALIK MUHAMMAD Versus ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P., HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT1989 SCMR 1772 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus GENERAL PUBLIC1989 SCMR 1692 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Article 203-F of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which held Sections 61, 62, and 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam due to their emphasis on formal presentment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the contentions that the Federal Shariat Court lacked jurisdiction because the provisions relate to banking practice and procedure, and that the impugned judgment failed to provide sufficient specific references to Islamic injunctions as mandated by established precedent. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Shariat Court's judgment lacked the requisite detailed examination of specific Qurnic and Sunnah injunctions regarding contracts. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment setting aside Sections 61, 62, and 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 was set aside, leaving it open for the Federal Shariat Court to re-examine the matter in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Shariat Court has jurisdiction under the Constitution to examine provisions relating to banking practice and procedure under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
- Do Sections 61, 62, and 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 violate the Injunctions of Islam by enforcing strict formal presentment?
- What are the requirements for a valid judgment by the Federal Shariat Court regarding the repugnancy of laws to the Injunctions of Islam?
- IRSHAD AHMAD Versus SABIRAN BIBI1989 SCMR 1672 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY WAPDA Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM1989 SCMR 1628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
- ILAM DIN Versus ASHIQ HUSSAIN JAVAID1989 SCMR 1571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
- MAMOON Versus STATE1989 SCMR 155 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the court arises from the judgment of the Sind High Court which dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal and upheld his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the testimony of eye-witnesses with questionable antecedents could be relied upon, whether the absence of preparation and premeditation affected the prosecution's case, and whether the appellant successfully established the plea of private defense. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a proper appreciation of evidence, noting that the ocular testimony was corroborated by unimpeachable witnesses, medical evidence, recovery of the weapon, and the appellant's judicial confession, while the plea of self-defense was rightly rejected as an afterthought unsupported by any physical evidence or injuries on the accused. The court laid down that the testimony of witnesses with bad character must satisfy the test of quality and can be safely relied upon when consistently corroborated by independent evidence and material circumstances.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of eye-witnesses with bad antecedents be relied upon if it is corroborated by independent evidence, medical reports, and a judicial confession?
- Whether the plea of self-defense can be sustained when the accused bears no injuries and no corroborative physical evidence, such as a recovered weapon or bullet, supports the version of events?
- How should an accused person's plea of self-defense be evaluated in juxtaposition with the overall circumstances and evidence presented by the prosecution?
- BASRI Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1989 SCMR 1548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
- IJAZ AHMAD Versus STATE1989 SCMR 151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment confirming the appellant's conviction and death sentence under Sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of the conviction and the appropriateness of the death penalty in light of the circumstances surrounding the incident. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant caused the death of the deceased. However, the Court determined that the incident was not a pre-planned murder but rather a chance meeting at a wagon stand, lacking the elements of premeditation. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction, the Court held that the death sentence was disproportionate to the circumstances. The Court laid down the principle that where an offense occurs during a sudden fight or chance encounter rather than through a pre-planned design, and the motive is insufficient, the imposition of the death penalty is not warranted, justifying the commutation of the sentence to life imprisonment with an enhanced fine.
Questions settled- Does a chance meeting at a public place negate the element of premeditation in a murder case?
- Can the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the prosecution fails to prove a pre-planned motive?
- Is a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the incident arises from a sudden fight?
- PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LTD. Versus BABAR ZAMAN1989 SCMR 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against an eviction order issued under the Rent Restriction Law, which was upheld by the High Court in a constitutional petition. The core legal question concerned the validity of the eviction order based on the finding of a landlord-tenant relationship and default in rent payment. Upon review, the Supreme Court did not adjudicate the merits of the eviction order, as the parties reached a mutual settlement during the proceedings. The Court converted the petition into an appeal and disposed of the matter by a consent order. The holding established that where parties voluntarily agree to terms—specifically, the payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000 by the respondent to the petitioner in exchange for the petitioner vacating the premises within a stipulated timeframe—the Court may dispose of the litigation based on such consensus. This principle underscores the Court's authority to facilitate and enforce amicable settlements between parties to resolve pending disputes efficiently.
Questions settled- Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal to facilitate a consent order between parties?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to dispose of a rent eviction matter based on a mutual settlement between the landlord and tenant?
- SHEHRUDDIN Versus ALLAH RAKHIO1989 SCMR 1461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID Versus STATE1989 SCMR 144 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court confirming the death sentence of Abdul Rashid for murder and altering the conviction of his co-accused Riaz Ahmad under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code to one under section 323. The core legal questions examined by the Supreme Court were whether the appellant Abdul Rashid was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code, whether his plea of alibi was sustainable, whether the co-accused shared a common intention for murder, and the adequacy of the sentence. The Supreme Court held that Exception 4 to section 300 was inapplicable as the accused had taken undue advantage and acted in an unusual manner against unarmed victims, and the plea of alibi was rightly rejected by the lower courts based on physical proximity and transport availability. However, considering the absence of premeditation, the Supreme Court commuted Abdul Rashid's death sentence to imprisonment for life while upholding the acquittal of Riaz Ahmad of the murder charge. The key legal principle laid down is that suddenness and heat of passion alone do not attract Exception 4 to section 300 if the offender takes undue advantage or acts in an unusual or cruel manner.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of premeditation alone is sufficient to bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can a plea of alibi succeed where the accused had sufficient time and available transport to reach the scene of the crime from his workplace?
- Whether a co-accused can be convicted under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code in the absence of a preconcerted attack or shared knowledge of a lethal weapon?
- ABDUL MAJID Versus HUMAIRA BIBI1989 SCMR 1416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- ZABITA KHAN Versus SALEH MUHAMMAD1989 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL Versus RIGHTS: IN RE1989 SCMR 139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-18Read full judgment →
- AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFT CHAK1989 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the applicable exchange rate for letters of credit opened by the respondent with the appellant-Bank for importing chemicals. The core legal question was whether the Bank was entitled to demand payment at the post-devaluation rate of Pakistani currency, or if it was restricted to the pre-devaluation rate at which the foreign exchange was originally purchased. The trial court and district court initially ruled in favor of the Bank, allowing the post-devaluation rate. However, the High Court reversed this, holding that the Bank could not pass on the devaluation loss to the client when the foreign exchange had already been acquired at the pre-devaluation rate. The Supreme Court dismissed the Bank's appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court held that the Bank, having acted as an agent for the respondent in purchasing the foreign exchange at the pre-devaluation rate, was not entitled to charge the higher post-devaluation rate. The principle established is that a bank cannot claim the benefit of currency devaluation from a client if the underlying foreign exchange transaction was already completed at the pre-devaluation rate.
Questions settled- Is a bank entitled to charge a client at a post-devaluation exchange rate for a letter of credit if the foreign exchange was purchased at the pre-devaluation rate?
- Can a bank pass the loss resulting from currency devaluation to a client who opened a letter of credit before the devaluation occurred?
- What is the liability of a client regarding exchange rate fluctuations in letters of credit transactions?
- MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus STATE1989 SCMR 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, originally sentenced to death, sought review of his conviction. During the pendency of the proceedings, the President of Pakistan issued a general order commuting death sentences to life imprisonment. Consequently, the petitioner was transferred from the death cell to the general jail population to serve a life sentence. In light of this development, the petitioner's counsel did not press the review petition but requested liberty to revive the matter should the President's commutation order be modified or withdrawn, potentially adversely affecting the petitioner's concession. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed, while expressly granting the petitioner leave to reactivate the proceedings if future circumstances regarding the validity or modification of the presidential order necessitate a decision on the merits. The Court held that such a request for future revival is reasonable given the ongoing constitutional challenges to the presidential order in the High Courts.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be dismissed with leave to reactivate if the underlying basis for the relief granted changes?
- Is a request to revive a dismissed petition reasonable when the petitioner's sentence commutation is subject to ongoing constitutional challenges?
- KANEEZ FATIMA Versus ABDUL RASHID1989 SCMR 1118 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
- YAQOOB ALI Versus MUHAMMAD SULTAN1988 SCMR 999 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning land in Chak No.3, Mauza Paigah. The petitioner sought to exercise a right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, claiming status as an owner in the same sub-division (Chak). The trial court initially decreed the suit, but the District Court reversed this decision, and the Lahore High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner's second appeal, affirming that the Chak did not constitute a 'sub-division' for pre-emption purposes. The core legal question was whether a Chak, created for fiscal purposes, qualifies as a 'Patti or other sub-division' under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the established judicial view requires a Patti to possess homogeneity of descent, area, and land ownership, excluding strangers and ensuring shared caste identity. The Court affirmed that fiscal sub-divisions do not satisfy the statutory requirement for pre-emption, upholding the consistent trend of authority which mandates strict criteria for defining a sub-division in pre-emption matters.
Questions settled- Does a Chak created for fiscal purposes qualify as a 'Patti or other sub-division' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- What are the essential requirements for a land area to be considered a 'Patti' for the purposes of pre-emption?
- Can a fiscal sub-division of land satisfy the statutory criteria for pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- SHAHIDUN NABI KHAN Versus HASHMATULLAH1988 SCMR 997 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing a constitutional petition that challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner restoring the allotment of four survey numbers in favour of the respondent. The core legal question before the court was whether documents produced at the stage of arguments without formal proof could be taken into consideration by the Settlement Commissioner when no objection to their admissibility was raised at the relevant time before the lower forum and both parties adopted the same practice. The Supreme Court held that where no objection was taken to the admissibility or production of documents before the lower authority, and both parties relied on documents submitted in that manner, a party cannot subsequently challenge the consideration of such material at a belated stage. The court affirmed the findings of the High Court and dismissed the petition, establishing that the failure to raise a timely objection to the mode of proof precludes a party from raising such a grievance in constitutional or appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a party object to the admissibility of documents at the appellate or constitutional stage when no objection was raised when those documents were produced before the lower tribunal?
- Whether failure to object to the mode of proof of documents before a Settlement Commissioner precludes a party from challenging their consideration later?
- Does the practice of both parties producing documents during arguments without formal proof bar a subsequent grievance regarding their consideration?
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD QURESHI Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 995 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former government employee compulsorily retired in 1959, challenged his retirement through a civil suit. Upon the promulgation of the Service Tribunals Ordinance 1973, the suit abated and the petitioner filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. Subsequently, the Ordinance was amended in 1974 to exclude appeals against orders made before July 1, 1969, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner then unsuccessfully sought to revive his suit in civil courts and subsequently filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court held, following its prior precedent in Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Siddiq, that an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal prior to the amendment could not be nullified by the subsequent retrospective amendment. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the appeal was withdrawn under a misconception of law and whether the dismissal order should be set aside.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal upon the abatement of a suit can be nullified by a subsequent retrospective amendment excluding jurisdiction over orders made before a certain date?
- Whether delay can be condoned under section 14 of the Limitation Act where proceedings were pursued in wrong forums due to a misconception of law?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be converted and treated as one under Article 212(3) of the Constitution in extraordinary circumstances?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus RIAZ HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-24Read full judgment →
- KHAIRUDDIN Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that set aside an order of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the classification and valuation of land for allotment purposes. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could properly determine disputed questions of fact—specifically the classification of land as 'Barani' (unirrigated) versus 'nehr Rangoli' (irrigated)—which required investigation into records. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in resolving these disputed factual issues. The Court reaffirmed the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is summary in character and is not the appropriate forum for determining disputed questions of fact where a party lacks a clear legal right free from reasonable doubt or controversy. Relying on the precedent set in Mst. Fatima v. Shah Muhammad (PLD 1975 SC 318), which established that land in the relevant assessment circle was classified as unirrigated and valued at 22 Produce Index Units per acre, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Can the High Court determine disputed questions of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is constitutional jurisdiction an appropriate forum for resolving factual controversies that are not free from doubt?
- Must a party seeking relief in constitutional jurisdiction demonstrate a clear legal right?
- REHANA JABEEN Versus FARRUKH HAFEEZ1988 SCMR 986 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which had acquitted the respondents of a charge under Section 11 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner had alleged that the respondents imputed unchastity to her in a written reply to a legal notice sent by an advocate on their behalf. The trial court convicted the respondents based primarily on this reply. However, the High Court reversed the conviction, noting that the advocate who sent the reply was not examined, nor was any evidence led to prove that the reply was issued at the respondents' instance or signed by them. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the acquittal, affirming that a document containing an imputation of unchastity must be legally connected to the accused before its contents can be attributed to them. The Court held that unsigned documents or those not part of a judicial record cannot be received in evidence without proof of signatures or handwriting, and that the prosecution failed to establish that the respondents authorized the notice.
Questions settled- Can a legal notice issued by an advocate on behalf of an accused be used as evidence of Qazf without examining the advocate or proving that it was sent under the instructions of the accused?
- Is it necessary to prove the signatures and handwriting of persons alleged to have signed or written a non-judicial document before it can be received in evidence?
- Whether a conviction under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 can be sustained solely on a document whose authorship has not been legally connected to the accused?
- MUHAMMAD ABDUL BARI Versus SULTAN SHEIKH1988 SCMR 984 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a landlord-tenant dispute where the landlord sought the eviction of the respondent on the grounds of personal bona fide need, specifically citing his wife's medical condition requiring ground-floor accommodation. The Rent Controller initially granted the eviction order, finding the landlord's need genuine. However, the Sind High Court reversed this decision, concluding that the landlord had failed to occupy a similar ground-floor property that became vacant during the proceedings, instead re-renting it at a higher rate, thereby undermining the claim of bona fide need. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the record and determined that the High Court had committed a significant error of fact. The Supreme Court found that there was no evidence or admission on record supporting the High Court's finding that the landlord had re-rented a vacant ground-floor property during the pendency of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the eviction order, and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that judicial findings must be strictly based on the evidence presented before the court.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court base its decision on a factual premise that was not supported by the evidence or pleadings on record?
- Does the misreading of evidence by a High Court justify the Supreme Court's interference in an ejectment matter?
- Is a landlord's failure to occupy a vacant property a valid ground for rejecting a claim of bona fide personal need if that fact was not established in the evidence?
- RIAZ MAHMOOD Versus BISMILLAH JAN1988 SCMR 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMAD Versus ZAFAR IQBAL1988 SCMR 978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether a pre-emptor's claim could succeed if it allegedly violated paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959. The minor plaintiff sought to pre-empt a land sale, which the trial court dismissed holding that the pre-emptor owned no land, the vendors owned less than a subsistence holding, and the transaction violated the Land Reforms Regulation. The appellate court and the High Court both ruled in favour of the pre-emptor, decreeing the suit. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the restrictions in paragraph 25(4) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, apply to voluntary alienations by sale, mortgage, gift, or otherwise, and do not extend to a right of pre-emption. The Court established that a pre-emption claim is a right of substitution, not an independent purchase, meaning the pre-emptor merely steps into the shoes of the original vendee without introducing extraneous disqualifications, leaving the pre-emption right unaffected by the Land Reforms Regulation.
Questions settled- Does the bar contained in paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, apply to a pre-emption claim?
- Is a right of pre-emption considered a voluntary alienation or a right of substitution?
- Does a pre-emptor bring forth their own incapacities or disqualifications when substituting the original vendee?
- AWAL KHAN Versus HAZRAT ALI1988 SCMR 976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which had set aside the decrees of the courts below and dismissed the pre-emption suit. The core legal question concerned whether a pre-emption suit could be dismissed as a whole or decreed partially when multiple pre-emptors joined together, and the application of the principle of sinker under pre-emption law. The Supreme Court held that where one pre-emptor lacked a superior right of pre-emption regarding a specific Khasra number, joining with a co-sharer who possessed such a right resulted in the loss of the right of pre-emption for that property under section 18 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act. However, regarding the other Khasra number where both pre-emptors successfully proved their superior right, the High Court was not justified in reversing the first appellate court's decree. The Court laid down the principle that joint pre-emption suits involving plaintiffs with unequal rights are subject to the statutory sinker doctrine regarding properties where rights are not jointly shared, while valid claims on other properties remain enforceable if properly established.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emption suit can be dismissed as a whole or decreed partially when co-plaintiffs have unequal pre-emptive rights?
- Does the principle of sinker apply when a plaintiff lacking a superior right joins a co-sharer in a pre-emption suit?
- Can an appellate court reverse a finding of the first appellate court regarding a Khasra number when the pre-emptors have proved their superior right of pre-emption?
- ABDUL RASHID KHAN Versus SWAT TEXTILE MILLS LTD1988 SCMR 972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing a constitutional petition concerning the acquisition of agricultural land in 1953 for the construction of Swat Textile Mills. The core legal question involves whether excess land, no longer required by the company due to liquidation, could be sold to private parties for commercial profit or if the original owners had a right to restoration or purchase under the Land Acquisition Act, related rules, and the original acquisition agreement. The Supreme Court held that prima facie the reading of Section 43-A of the Land Acquisition Act, rules, and the agreement indicated that the Government could not grant permission for the sale of excess land to outsiders for private benefit while ignoring the rights of the original owners and the original public purpose. The Court laid down that land acquired for a public purpose cannot be freely alienated for private commercial exploitation in disregard of statutory provisions protecting original landowners, granting leave to appeal and staying further transfers and development.
Questions settled- Whether excess land acquired for a company under the Land Acquisition Act can be sold to private individuals for commercial profit upon the company's liquidation?
- Are the successors of original landowners entitled to the restoration or purchase of excess land acquired for a public purpose that is no longer required?
- Does the alienation of excess acquired land for private housing schemes contravene the statutory provisions and agreements governing land acquisition?
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT Versus JAN MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH GHANGHRO Versus TAHIRA BEGUM1988 SCMR 970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Sind High Court which dismissed the petitioners' appeals and upheld their eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller for alleged non-compliance with an order to deposit rent. The core legal question is whether depositing rent in connected miscellaneous proceedings between the same parties instead of the specific case numbers constitutes a penal non-compliance or a mere technical irregularity warranting eviction. The Supreme Court held that since the rent was actually deposited in Court with the intention that the landlord could withdraw it and no prejudice was caused, the mistake amounted to a mere irregularity rather than a penal failure to comply with the rent deposit order. The Court laid down the principle that a bona fide deposit of rent in Court, albeit under a wrong case number or miscellaneous proceeding between the same parties, constitutes substantial compliance and cannot penalize the tenant with eviction.
Questions settled- Does depositing rent in connected miscellaneous proceedings instead of a specific case number constitute a penal non-compliance of a rent controller's order?
- Can a tenant be evicted for a technical irregularity in depositing rent when the rent is actually deposited in court and accessible by the landlord?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus ATTAULLAH1988 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court which accepted the respondent's Letters Patent Appeal, declaring him still in government service. The respondent, originally appointed as a junior clerk in the Bahawalpur State in 1949, was absorbed into the West Pakistan administration upon the State's merger. In 1959, while working as an officiating Head Assistant, he tendered his resignation to the Commissioner of Bahawalpur, which was accepted. His subsequent civil suit and appeals failed, but a Division Bench accepted his Letters Patent Appeal, holding that the Commissioner lacked competence to accept his resignation. The core legal questions involved the abatement of pending appeals under the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Ordinance and whether the Commissioner of Bahawalpur Division was competent to accept the resignation of a civil servant whose initial state-level appointment was under the former Chief Secretary. The Supreme Court held that the pending appeal did not abate because no Tribunal had been constituted while the Ordinance was in force, and further held that under Section 3(4) of the West Pakistan (Adaptation and Repeal of Laws) Act, 1957 read with the Integration letter of 1955, the Commissioner was competent to accept the resignation as the respondent fell under his administrative control. The appeal was accepted and the trial court's judgment restored.
Questions settled- Does a pending appeal abate under Section 8 of the Punjab Administrative Tribunals Ordinance 1974 if no Administrative Tribunal has actually been constituted during the operational life of the Ordinance?
- Whether the Commissioner of a Division is competent to accept the resignation of a civil servant absorbed into his establishment following the merger of the Bahawalpur State?
- Can a party take up a plea in court that is directly opposed to its own admissions made in the written statement pleadings?