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. 233,147 judgments in total.

• Faizur Rahman Sarkar vs The State And 2 Other1970 SCMR 175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-07-04
  bailsuspension of sentencepayment of finecriminal breach of trustrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave addresses whether bail granted under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be made conditional upon the payment of a fine imposed by the trial court. The appellant was convicted of criminal breach of trust by a public servant under section 407 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. The High Court suspended his sentence and granted him bail, but stipulated that the bail would stand cancelled if he failed to pay the fine within a specified period. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contains no provision authorizing the imposition of conditions, such as the payment of a fine, to an order suspending a sentence or granting bail. The court reaffirmed that bail is fundamentally intended to secure the appearance of the accused and cannot be used as a coercive mechanism to enforce the recovery of a fine. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the bail was confirmed without the condition.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail granted under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be made conditional on the payment of a fine?
  • Does section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower the High Court to attach terms to an order suspending the execution of a sentence?
  • Can bail be used as a means of enforcing the recovery of a fine imposed upon conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad and Another vs The District Manager, Government1970 PLC 113 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-06-10Read full judgment →
• Eruch Maneckji and 2 Others vs Income Tax Officer, Central Circle III, Karachi1970 SCMR 285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-11-11
  leave to appealpenal interestadvance taxinterim orderdiscretionary jurisdictionstay of recoveryincome tax
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an interlocutory order of the High Court, which refused to suspend the recovery of penal interest amounting to Rs. 4,86,186 imposed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 18-A (3) and (6) of the Income Tax Act 1922 for failure to deposit advance tax. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether interference was warranted with the discretionary interim order of the High Court. The Court held that no exception could be taken to the interim order refusing to stay the recovery of money, noting that courts generally do not stay the execution of a money decree pending appeal as no irreparable loss is caused thereby, and observed that the petitioners should have first moved the income tax authorities for redress. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the discretionary interim order of the High Court refusing to stay the recovery of penal interest?
  • Should a taxpayer approach the income tax authorities for redress before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against the imposition of penal interest?
  • Does the refusal to stay the execution of a money claim pending final adjudication cause irreparable loss?
  Read full judgment →
• Employees Union vs Natural Gas Fertilizer Factory Ltd., Sylhet1970 PLC 828 · Labour Court · 1970-05-30Read full judgment →
• Employees Union vs Ahmed Abdul Gani Textile Mills, Karachi1970 PLC 675 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-05-30Read full judgment →
• Emdad Uddin vs Messrs Raj Brothers, Dacca1970 PLC 884 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Hussain and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 361 · Lahore High Court · 1969-08-13Read full judgment →
• East Pakistan Industries, Dacca and Another vs Collector of Customs, Chittagong and 3 Other1970 PLD Dacca 622 · Dacca · 1967-06-07Read full judgment →
• East Pakistan Government Settlement Press Employees' Union vs Government of East Pakistan1970 PLC 841 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
• Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Rahmania Trading Company, Chittagong1970 PLD Dacca 445 · Dacca · 1968-07-24Read full judgment →
• DR: M. A. A. Aziz vs Mst. Aisha Rahim and Another1970 P Cr. L J 721 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-23Read full judgment →
• DR. Hashmat Ali vs G. Akbar, Special Magistrate (Food)1970 SCMR 824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-18
  special leave to appealfood offencespecial magistrateno evidenceconstitutional jurisdictionessential commodities
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the High Court, which had declined to interfere with his conviction and sentence of 20 months' rigorous imprisonment for possessing excess Joshi rice in violation of a notified order, under section 6 of the East Pakistan Food (Special Courts) Act, 1956. The core legal questions involved whether the violation of the notified order was punishable under the said Act, and whether the conviction was based on "no evidence" warranting interference under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962. The Supreme Court held that the trial was competently held as the relevant orders and notifications were duly saved through successive legislative enactments, and that the finding of the key to the godown in the petitioner's possession constituted sufficient evidence to support the conviction, meaning the case was not one of "no evidence". The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the violation of a notified order issued under the East Bengal Foodstuffs Price Control Order, 1953, is punishable under section 6 of the East Pakistan Food (Special Courts) Act, 1956?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere with a conviction under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 on the ground that a case is one of no evidence?
  • Does the possession of the key to a godown from which a prohibited commodity is recovered constitute prima facie evidence of possession of the commodity?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Habibur Rahman vs MD. Mansur and Another1970 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-12
  small cause courtejectmentlandlord and tenantquestion of titlespecial leave to appealjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan, which dismissed a revision petition against a decree for ejectment passed by a Court of Small Causes. The respondent sought to evict the petitioner from the disputed property, claiming ownership under a registered deed of lease executed by the Shebait of a Debuttor Estate, while the petitioner contested the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for ejectment of a tenant is triable by a Court of Small Causes and whether such a court has the discretion to adjudicate questions of title under section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The Supreme Court held that the suit was maintainable in the Court of Small Causes, and that the said court possesses the discretion under section 23 of the Act to return or not to return a plaint when a question of title to immovable property is raised. The petition was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for the ejectment of a tenant triable by a Court of Small Causes?
  • Does a Court of Small Causes have the discretion to adjudicate upon questions of title to immovable property under section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887?
  • Can a new question regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, not raised in the trial Court or the High Court, be allowed to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Faiz Ali Shah vs (1) Province of West Pakistan, through Chief1970 PLD Lahore 137 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-11Read full judgment →
• DR. Burjour Anklesaria Nursing Home, Karachi vs Employees' Union1970 PLC 653 · Industrial Court · 1970-06-15Read full judgment →
• DR. Akhtar Ali vs The State and Another1970 PLD Lahore 450 · Lahore High Court · 1969-08-13Read full judgment →
• DR. Abdus Salam and 2 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1306 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-20Read full judgment →
• DR. Abdul Ahad vs The Political Agent, Kurram Agency and 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 888 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-04Read full judgment →
• DR. A. N. M. Mahmood vs The Syndicate of the University of Dacca and Other1970 PLD Dacca 85 · Dacca · 1966-03-24Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad and 3 Other vs Messrs Fatehally Chemical Ltd., Karachi1970 PLC 162 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-09-17Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent (Workshop), P. W. R., Lahore vs Muhammad1970 PLC 742 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-06Read full judgment →
• Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee, Karachi vs Abdullah and 2 Other1970 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-08
  Evacuee Trust PropertyCharitable TrustSettlement TransferPanchayatReligious InstitutionLeave to Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the status of House No. O. T. 3/138, Mithadar, Karachi, which was transferred to the respondents by the Settlement authorities. The petitioner, the Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee, claimed that the property was attached to a charitable trust and that the evacuee owner, the Nasarpuri Community Panchayat, was a charitable or religious institution. The core legal question was whether the property constituted trust property under the relevant evacuee laws. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish that the Panchayat was a religious or charitable institution, or that the property was trust property. The Court noted that no constitutional documents of the Panchayat were produced, and a sale deed of another property acquired for maintaining Hindu widows did not suffice to prove the trust status of the disputed property. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decisions of the Settlement authorities and the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquisition of a separate property for a charitable purpose by a Panchayat automatically prove that the Panchayat itself is a religious or charitable institution?
  • Can a property be classified as evacuee trust property under Section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 in the absence of cogent evidence or constitutional documents of the owning institution?
  Read full judgment →
• District Manager, Lahore Omnibus Service, Lahore vs Abdul Razaque1970 PLC 466 · Industrial Court · 1970-04-18Read full judgment →
• District Manager, Government Transport Service, Rawalpindi vs Mohammad Ishaque1970 PLC 462 · Industrial Court · 1970-04-25Read full judgment →
• District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad vs Zarin1970 PLC 347 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-03-26Read full judgment →
• District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad vs Majid Akhtar and Another1970 PLC 75 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-02-15Read full judgment →
• District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad vs Amanullah Qureshi and Another1970 PLC 58 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1968-11-07Read full judgment →
• Director-General, Ordnance Factories Employees' Association vs Union of India and Another1970 PLC 676 · Calcutta High Court · 1968-02-01Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad vs The State1970 SCMR 857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1956-10-10
  appeal against acquittalconfessional statementmurdermedical evidenceappraisal of evidenceculpable homicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal on special leave by the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan which set aside the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of his brother's wife, sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of an initial police report made by the accused as a confessional statement, and whether the High Court properly reappraised the ocular and medical evidence in an appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court held that a statement containing self-exculpatory matter or failing to admit all facts constituting the offence does not amount to a confession, thereby upholding the High Court's view on admissibility, but found that the High Court misread the medical evidence and disregarded well-established principles regarding appeals against acquittal by interfering with the trial court's assessment of unreliable eye-witnesses. The Court laid down the principle that a statement cannot be considered a confession under section 25 of the Evidence Act if it contains self-exculpatory facts that negative the alleged offence, and reiterated the principles governing appellate interference with findings of acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statement containing self-exculpatory matter amount to a confession?
  • Can an admission of a gravely incriminating fact by itself be treated as a confession?
  • What are the principles governing the High Court's interference with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Whether minor injuries inflicted by an accused can establish causation of death when medical evidence points to a different cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad and 3 Other vs Faqir Muhammad and 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-18
  Fatal Accidents ActMotor Vehicles Actlimitation periodimpleading insurerres ipsa loquiturrash and negligent drivingquantum of compensationdependants
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal in forma pauperis arose from the dismissal of a suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, brought by the legal heirs of a tractor driver killed in a collision with a speeding bus. The trial court had dismissed the suit, holding that negligence was not established against the bus driver. Before the High Court, the insurer raised a preliminary objection that impleading it after the period prescribed by Article 21 of the Limitation Act 1908 rendered the suit time-barred, while the appellants contested the trial court's finding on negligence. The High Court rejected the limitation objection, holding that notice was duly sought under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 with the original plaint, making the insurer's formal addition within time under the doctrine of nunc pro tunc. Applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and crediting eye-witness evidence, the Court reversed the finding on negligence and held the driver liable. The Court assessed the deceased's monthly earning capacity and awarded Rs. 25,920 as damages, apportioned among his dependants according to their respective life expectancies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether impleading an insurer company after the period of limitation renders a suit under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 time-barred when notice was sought under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 along with the original plaint?
  • Whether an insurer company impleaded under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 can raise defenses beyond those explicitly provided under that subsection?
  • Whether the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies to establish negligence when the undisputed physical facts and evidence clearly point to rash driving by the defendant?
  • How should pecuniary loss and compensation be calculated and apportioned among surviving dependants under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilmir Khan vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1011 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-18Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan and Another vs Pordil Khan1970 SCMR 636 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-27
  petition for leave to appealpossessionjoint propertyco-sharersmutationJamabanditenant-at-willattornmentfinding of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a suit filed by the petitioners seeking possession of a two-thirds share in joint lands, claiming that only one co-owner brother had sold his individual one-third share to the respondent. The respondent asserted that all three brothers sold the entire property, or alternatively, that he acquired title by adverse possession. While the appellate court decreed the suit, the High Court in second appeal reversed that decision, upholding the trial court's dismissal of the suit based on a factual finding that the entire property was sold. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, refusing leave to appeal. The Court held that the High Court's conclusion was a finding of fact supported by oral and documentary evidence, including revenue records. Furthermore, entries in the Jamabandi showed that one petitioner was himself recorded as a tenant-at-will under the respondent, confirming attornment to the transferee and precluding the petitioners from denying the sale of the entire property.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-owner dispute a sale of the entire joint property after having attorned as a tenant under the transferee in revenue records?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere in a petition for leave to appeal with a finding of fact by the High Court based on adequate oral and documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Des Dewan vs Major Nazir Beg and Other1970 PLD Lahore 790 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-10Read full judgment →
• Delwar Hossain vs Maulvi Abdul Jalil Chowdhury and Other1970 SCMR 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-23
  amendment of plaintcivil procedurerevisional jurisdictionlimitationvested rightssuit valuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of East Pakistan, which upheld a trial court's decision to allow an amendment to a plaint. The original suit was filed for a declaration of title and confirmation of possession regarding a single plot of land. During the hearing, after the plaintiff's examination, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to include an additional plot and increase the suit's valuation. The petitioner opposed this, arguing that the amendment introduced a new case and prejudiced their rights regarding the limitation period. The Supreme Court examined whether the amendment fundamentally altered the suit's character or unfairly deprived the petitioner of vested rights. The Court held that the amendment did not alter the nature of the suit and that the petitioner suffered no prejudice, as they were granted leave to file an additional written statement to raise any limitation defenses. The petition was dismissed, affirming that procedural amendments allowing for the inclusion of property are permissible provided the defendant is not deprived of the opportunity to contest the new claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does an amendment to a plaint that adds a new plot of land and increases the suit valuation fundamentally alter the character of the suit?
  • Can a defendant raise the issue of limitation in an additional written statement following an amendment to the plaint?
  • Is an amendment to a plaint permissible if it does not cause prejudice to the defendant's ability to raise available defenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Dalmir and Another Mohammad Munir vs The State the State (a) Penal Code (XLV Of 1860),1970 SCMR 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-09
  murdercommon intentionocular testimonycorroborationrecovery of weaponbenefit of doubtculpable homicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ibrahim. The prosecution alleged that two of the appellants held the deceased while the third appellant, Dalmir, inflicted multiple hatchet blows on his leg, resulting in his death from hemorrhage and shock. The core legal questions involved whether the evidence was appreciated correctly and what offence, if any, was proved against the appellants. The Supreme Court held that Dalmir's conviction was well-founded, being supported by credible ocular testimony corroborated by the recovery of a blood-stained hatchet at his instance, and that his act fell under clause thirdly of Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as the intended injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. However, regarding the other two appellants, the Court held that in the absence of corroborative evidence and given their relationship and enmity with the complainants, the possibility of false implication could not be excluded. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal of Dalmir while accepting the appeals of the other co-accused by giving them the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that while interested ocular testimony may be relied upon if it inspires confidence, safe administration of justice requires independent corroboration, particularly in cases involving multiple accused where false implication of collateral relatives cannot be ruled out.

  Questions settled

  • Whether multiple blows inflicted exclusively on the non-vital parts of the body with a sharp-nosed weapon can constitute murder under clause thirdly of Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the uncorroborated testimony of interested and inimical eye-witnesses warrant the conviction of co-accused in a murder trial?
  • Is the recovery of a blood-stained weapon at the instance of an accused sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Whether the possibility of false implication of collateral family members requires independent corroborative evidence for safe dispensation of criminal justice?
  Read full judgment →
• D M. Karim, Members MD. Rashid Qudratullah vs Messrs Star Alkaid1970 PLC 814 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
• Cricket Club of India Ltd. vs Bombay Labour Union and Another1970 PLC 630 · Supreme Court of India · 1968-08-07Read full judgment →
• Crescent Pak Soap and Oil Mills Labour Union vs Messrs Crescent Pak1970 PLC 271 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-11-05Read full judgment →
• Cooper & Company Employees Union vs Messrs Cooper '& Company1970 PLC 206 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-05-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) Karachi vs Messrs United1970 PLD Karachi 148 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-19Read full judgment →
• Colony Textile Mills Limited, Lahore vs Zuhair Siddiqui and 4 Others1970 PLC 489 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-05-12Read full judgment →
• Collector, Quetta-Pishin, Quetta vs Habibullah and 14 Other1970 PLD Quetta 35 · Balochistan High Court · 1969-11-07
  land acquisitionmarket valuepotential building sitecompulsory acquisition allowancenotice under section 9reference to courtcourt fee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the Government under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 against an award of compensation made by the District Judge, Quetta. The Collector had initially valued the acquired land purely as agricultural, whereas the District Judge determined its market value based on its potential as a building site, while also awarding compensation for a tube-well and a brick kiln to a lessee. The core legal questions involved whether the land ought to be assessed based on its potentiality as a building site rather than its present agricultural use, whether an interested person who was not served notice under Section 9 of the Act could seek compensation before the District Judge under Section 18 without being barred by Section 25(2), and the correct computation of court-fees on appeal under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act 1870. The High Court modified the District Judge's award, holding that market value under Section 23 must account for reasonable future potential use. It further held that failure to serve notice under Section 9 prevents the operation of the statutory penalty under Section 25(2).

  Questions settled

  • Whether the market value of acquired land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 should be assessed based on its potential future use as a building site or strictly according to its present use?
  • Can the penal provisions of Section 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be invoked to bar a claimant's enhanced compensation claim if the Collector failed to serve him mandatory notice under Section 9?
  • Does an additional ad valorem fee under statutory amendments applicable to the institution of suits apply to a memorandum of appeal under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act 1870?
  Read full judgment →
• Col. Bashir Hussain and 10 Other vs Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore1970 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-12
  land acquisitionawardnoticelimitation periodreference to courtmandatory provisionscompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged land acquisition proceedings and the validity of an award made under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal questions centered on whether the requirement of giving immediate notice of an award under section 12(2) of the Act is mandatory or directory, and whether failure by the Collector to issue timely notice vitiates the award by depriving the landowners of their statutory right to seek a reference to the court under section 18. The Lahore High Court held that the provision requiring notice is imperative and obligatory, and that failure to notify landowners within a reasonable time—such that they are barred by the absolute six-month limitation period—amounts to a fraud on the statute. The court ruled that non-compliance vitiates the award. The key principle laid down is that where a statute prescribes a mode and time for performing a public duty intended to protect citizen's rights, failure to perform that duty which results in a complete deprivation of a statutory remedy renders the action a nullity, requiring fresh proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement of giving immediate notice of an award under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure of the Collector to serve notice of an award within the statutory period vitiate the award?
  • Can an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be entertained after the expiry of six months from the date of the award?
  • What are the legal consequences when a public functionary's omission deprives an aggrieved party of their right to seek a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Chowdhry Muhammad Iqbal vs Mst. Ahmed Jahan Begum1970 PLD Karachi 548 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-07Read full judgment →
• Chiragh vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-06Read full judgment →
• Chiragh Din and Another vs Chairman, Thal Development Authority1970 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-10
  mandatory injunctioninterim injunctionrestoration of possessiondeclaration of ownershipcivil procedurependente lite dispossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revisional application by the High Court, which had upheld the District Judge's order setting aside a mandatory injunction issued by the trial court. The trial court had directed the respondent authority to restore possession of agricultural land to the petitioners, which land the authority had resumed during the pendency of the petitioners' suit for a declaration of ownership. The core legal question is whether a court can issue a mandatory injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restore possession of land resumed by an authority during the pendency of a declaration suit. The Supreme Court held that where a plaintiff is dispossessed during a suit for declaration of ownership, such dispossession does not affect the maintainability of the suit, and restitution can be granted as a consequential relief if the suit succeeds, rendering a mandatory injunction for interim restoration inapplicable. The Court affirmed that interim injunction rules do not empower the court to direct restoration of possession in such circumstances, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can issue a mandatory injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restore possession of land resumed during the pendency of a declaration suit?
  • Does the dispossession of a plaintiff during the pendency of a suit for a declaration of ownership affect the maintainability of the suit?
  • Are foreign decisions regarding easement rights and mandatory injunctions applicable to suits for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Chanan Din vs Gulzar Muhammad Khan and Another1970 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Chairman, District Council, Jehlum vs Ali Akbar and 2 Other1970 SCMR 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-02
  taxationBasic Democracies Orderstatutory interpretationlegislative intentDistrict Counciltax on employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from petitions filed by the Chairman, District Council, Jhelum, seeking leave to appeal against a High Court order. The underlying dispute involved writ petitions filed by employees of the Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited and railway employees challenging the legality of a tax on "professions, trades and callings" levied by District Councils. The core legal question was whether the District Council had the authority to levy this tax on "employment" under the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, given that the term "employment" was explicitly omitted from the Fifth Schedule of that Order, unlike the previous legislative framework under the Government of India Act, 1935. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the conscious legislative omission of the word "employment" from the Fifth Schedule of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, demonstrated a clear intent to exclude "employment" from the scope of taxable activities. The Court affirmed that when a legislature repeals and re-enacts law, it is presumed to be aware of the previous state of the law, and any deliberate change indicates an intention to alter the legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of the word 'employment' from the Fifth Schedule of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, preclude a District Council from levying a tax on employment?
  • Is a legislature presumed to intend a change in law when it omits specific terms during the re-enactment of legislation?
  • Can a tax on 'professions, trades and callings' be interpreted to include 'employment' in the absence of an explicit statutory explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Chain Rochiram Manghiramalani vs Government of West Pakistan1970 SCMR 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-14
  disciplinary proceedingsgovernment servantnatural justicedismissal from serviceinquiry committeeshow-cause noticeunauthorized foreign travel
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a government servant, challenged his dismissal from service, which was based on allegations of holding anti-Pakistan views, writing objectionable letters to state dignitaries, and making an unauthorized visit to Iran. The petitioner contended that the Inquiry Committee failed to conduct the proceedings in his presence, denied him access to documents, and failed to provide a copy of the inquiry findings, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the High Court, which had determined that the petitioner was confronted with the evidence, admitted to authoring the letters, and was granted adequate opportunity to defend himself. The Court held that the inquiry was conducted properly and that the petitioner was not condemned unheard. Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim that the petitioner was denied access to the inquiry record, noting that it was available for inspection. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that procedural fairness was maintained throughout the disciplinary process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide a copy of an inquiry report to a government servant automatically invalidate a dismissal order if the servant was otherwise given an opportunity to defend?
  • Is a disciplinary inquiry against a government servant vitiated if the servant admits to the underlying facts, such as authorship of letters, during the proceedings?
  • Can a government servant challenge a dismissal order on the grounds of procedural irregularity if the record demonstrates that they were confronted with the evidence and allowed to respond?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Sardar Ali vs Ch. Ali Muhammad and Another1970 PLD Lahore 647 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-11
  Settlement Scheme No. 1Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958void ab initiolimitationrent arrearstransfer of propertypossessionauction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the auction of residential units in a property by Settlement authorities, where the petitioners' transfer applications were ignored. The core legal questions were whether the auction order was void for lack of notice, whether limitation barred the challenge, and whether rent clearance by a specific date was a mandatory condition for eligibility. The Court held that the initial order directing the auction was void ab initio for failing to provide the petitioners an opportunity to be heard as required by Settlement Scheme No. 1. Consequently, the bar of limitation did not apply to the challenge. The Court established the principle that while rent clearance is a condition for 'possession' under the relevant notification, the Chief Settlement Commissioner lacks the power to set a final date for such clearance that negates statutory entitlement. Once arrears are cleared, the occupant becomes eligible for transfer, provided the property has not been validly transferred elsewhere. The Court set aside the auction orders and directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to consider the applications on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner to provide a hearing to an applicant under Settlement Scheme No. 1 render an auction order void ab initio?
  • Does the law of limitation apply to an order that is void ab initio?
  • Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the legal authority to set a final date for the clearance of rent arrears that negates an applicant's statutory eligibility for transfer?
  • Is the clearance of rent arrears a condition precedent for an occupant to be deemed in possession under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Riasat Ali and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 445 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-13
  quashment of proceedingscheatingpost-dated chequedishonour of chequebreach of promisecriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by the accused, Riasat Ali and Muhammad Anwar, under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings of cheating initiated against them. The prosecution's case was based on an agreement where the accused allegedly promised to sell imported chemicals to the complainants, received money, and subsequently failed to deliver the consignment. Following a compromise mediated by respectables, the accused issued a receipt acknowledging a loan and provided a post-dated cheque, which was subsequently dishonoured by the bank upon presentation. The Lahore High Court held that the facts did not disclose any criminal offence. The Court ruled that a post-dated cheque serves as an acknowledgement of a debt and a promise to pay on a future date. Consequently, a broken promise or the dishonour of such a cheque does not constitute a criminal offence, even if it represents discreditable business behavior. The petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dishonour of a post-dated cheque issued as a promise to pay a debt on a future date constitute a criminal offence?
  • Can criminal proceedings for cheating be quashed if the underlying transaction and subsequent compromise represent a civil breach of promise rather than a penal offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Nazir Ahmad Bhatti vs Ch. Noor Muhammad and 3 Other1970 SC M. R 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  evacuee propertysettlement authoritieswrit jurisdictionfindings of factrevisionary powersconsent of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee residential property in Lahore. The petitioner, claiming to be an allottee in possession, sought the transfer of the property, which had instead been transferred to the respondent. After multiple rounds of litigation before settlement authorities, the Settlement and Claims Commissioner, with the consent of both parties, decided the case on merits, finding that the petitioner's possession and claim were not substantiated. The petitioner challenged this in the High Court via a writ petition, which was dismissed on the grounds that the findings were factual and not perverse. A Letters Patent Appeal was subsequently dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction to decide the case on merits and whether the High Court correctly declined to interfere with findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to decide the case on merits in revision, and that findings of fact based on evidence are not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to decide a case on merits while exercising revisionary powers under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Can a party who consents to a tribunal deciding a matter on merits subsequently challenge that jurisdiction on appeal?
  • Is a finding of fact arrived at upon consideration of evidence subject to interference by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 109 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-22Read full judgment →
• 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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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
  Summary & questions settled

  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 →