Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Asit Kumar Swarnaker vs The Government of East Pakistan through Secretary, Home Department and Others-Opposite-Party1970 P Cr. L J 350 · Dacca · 1969-07-07Read full judgment →
- Ashutosh Basak and Others vs S. M. Rahmatullah and Other1970 SCMR 386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a suit for declaration of title and eviction of respondents from a parcel of land. The plaintiffs alleged the respondents were trespassers, while the respondents contended they were tenants under an agreement. The trial and High Court concurrently found that while a concluded agreement for a permanent lease existed, the absence of a registered instrument meant no permanent tenancy was created. Instead, the relationship constituted a monthly tenancy. The core legal question was whether the landlord could unilaterally terminate this tenancy by refusing rent and whether the respondents were trespassers. The Supreme Court held that once a landlord-tenant relationship is established, it can only be terminated in accordance with law, either by the efflux of the stipulated period or by service of a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court affirmed that a landlord cannot terminate a tenancy merely by refusing to accept rent. Consequently, without a valid notice to quit, the tenancy subsisted, and the respondents were not trespassers.
Questions settled- Can a landlord unilaterally terminate a tenancy by merely refusing to accept rent?
- Does an oral agreement to lease, coupled with the acceptance of rent, create a monthly tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act?
- Is a notice to quit required to terminate a monthly tenancy in the absence of a specific contract?
- Can a permanent lease be created without a registered instrument?
- Ashraf Ahmad vs Deputy Managing Director, National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore1970 PLC 497 · Industrial Court · 1970-04-03Read full judgment →
- Ashiq vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 373 · Lahore High Court · 1969-02-24Read full judgment →
- Ashiq and Another Ramzan vs The State Abdul Haq and ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two connected criminal petitions for special leave to appeal against a High Court order regarding bail pending appeal. The petitioners and respondents were convicted by the trial court for their roles in an occurrence involving two murders and grievous injuries. The High Court had granted bail to two respondents (Abdul Haq and Ashraf) while refusing it to the petitioners (Ashiq and Anwar). The Supreme Court examined the High Court's discretion in granting bail, noting that while the High Court failed to provide explicit reasons for its order, it appeared to distinguish between the parties based on their alleged responsibility for the murders. The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere with the High Court's discretion in bail matters absent extraordinary circumstances. However, the Court emphasized that it is proper and desirable for High Courts to provide reasons when granting bail to convicts sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. The petitions were dismissed, with the Court observing that the petitioner Anwar could renew his bail application if his appeal remained undecided after six months.
Questions settled- Is it necessary for the High Court to provide reasons when granting bail to a convict sentenced to a long term of imprisonment?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail pending appeal absent extraordinary circumstances?
- Can a convict renew a bail application if the appeal remains pending for an extended period?
- Ashiq and Another Ramzan vs The State Abdul Haq and Another1970 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises connected criminal petitions for special leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court of Lahore, which allowed bail to certain respondents while refusing it to the petitioners in a pending criminal appeal arising from convictions and sentences for murder and causing grievous injuries. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail to convicts sentenced to long terms of imprisonment without recording supporting reasons, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's discretionary exercise of bail powers. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court ought to have recorded reasons for granting bail to respondents convicted under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code, no extraordinary circumstance warranted interference with the High Court's discretion, and consequently dismissed the petitions while observing that a renewal of a bail application could be made if the appeal is not decided within six months. The key principle laid down is that the High Court should provide reasons when granting bail in serious cases, but the apex court will not ordinarily interfere with bail discretion absent compelling grounds.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's discretion in granting bail without extraordinary circumstances?
- Is it proper and desirable for the High Court to provide reasons when granting bail to convicts sentenced to long terms of imprisonment?
- Can a bail application be renewed if the criminal appeal is not decided within a specified period?
- Ashiq Ali and Others vs The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, West1970 SCMR I26 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought a second review of the Supreme Court's order dated 17th June 1966, which had previously dismissed their petition for leave to appeal against a High Court decision regarding a Settlement matter. The petitioners requested the Court to admit a copy of a pedigree-table as fresh evidence to substantiate their claim to land in Pakistan under the Settlement Scheme, asserting this document proved their connection to the estate in question. The Court noted that the original petition for special leave was rejected because the final order in the Settlement proceedings was not vitiated by any substantial defect, and the initial review had already affirmed the power of cancellation, noting the allotment was vitiated by fraud. The Court held that it could not receive fresh evidence concerning the truth or falsity of the original claim during a second review proceeding. Consequently, the Court dismissed the request, clarifying that the petitioners were at liberty to present the newly procured evidence before the appropriate Settlement authorities for consideration rather than seeking its admission before the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court receive fresh evidence regarding the merits of a claim during a second review proceeding?
- Is the Supreme Court the appropriate forum to introduce new evidence concerning a claim rejected by Settlement authorities?
- Does the Supreme Court have the power to review its own order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal based on the introduction of new evidence?
- Ashfaq Ahmad vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 306 · Lahore High Court · 1969-01-27Read full judgment →
- Asghar vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 878 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the double murder of two individuals and the attempted murder of a third. The appellant pleaded self-defense, alleging he was attacked and fired in retaliation. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the self-defense plea given the medical evidence and whether the conviction for attempted murder was sustainable. The Court held that the plea of self-defense was untenable, as the medical evidence showed the victims were shot in the back while fleeing, indicating they were unarmed and retreating. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions for murder and confirmed the death sentences. However, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, finding that the complainant’s injury was likely caused by a stray pellet rather than a direct shot. The key principle laid down is that a plea of self-defense is negated when medical evidence demonstrates the victims were shot while retreating, and specific intent for attempted murder cannot be inferred from injuries consistent with stray projectiles.
Questions settled- Does a plea of self-defense hold when medical evidence indicates the victims were shot in the back while fleeing?
- Is a conviction for attempted murder sustainable when the injury is consistent with a stray pellet rather than a direct shot?
- Can a court confirm a death sentence where the prosecution's recovery evidence is disbelieved but the ocular evidence is otherwise reliable?
- Asghar and 12 Other vs The State and 4 Other1970 PLD Lahore 439 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought to quash a Magistrate's order attaching disputed land and appointing a Station House Officer as Receiver in proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate could appoint a Receiver under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before completing the inquiry mandated by Section 145 and without fulfilling the conditions of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court held that while a Magistrate has jurisdiction to attach property in an emergency under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending inquiry, the appointment of a Receiver is only permissible after the inquiry under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been completed and the conditions laid down in Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are met. Consequently, the petition was partly allowed, and the Magistrate's order appointing the Station House Officer as Receiver was set aside, though the attachment order itself was not challenged.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate appoint a Receiver under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before completing the inquiry under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- What are the conditions for a Magistrate to appoint a Receiver in a dispute concerning immovable property?
- Does the power to attach property under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure include the power to appoint a Receiver?
- When can a Magistrate attach disputed property under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Asghar Ali vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1019 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
- Arab Khan vs The State1970 SCMR 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1959-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave against the conviction of the appellant Arab Khan for murder by gunfire and attempted murder, alongside the conviction of another for theft. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the joint trial of the appellant on murder charges with another accused on theft charges was legal, specifically whether the theft and murder formed part of the same transaction. The Court held that the joint trial was entirely lawful, reasoning that the incidents were linked together by a community of purpose and continuity of action commencing from the capture of the co-accused for theft up to the subsequent shooting by the appellant. The key principle laid down is that the legality of a joint trial under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure depends on what appears on the face of the accusation, where multiple incidents are connected by continuity of action and community of purpose.
Questions settled- Whether the trial of persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is legal under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- At what point in the proceedings must the condition prescribed by clause (d) of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be fulfilled?
- What are the necessary features of a single transaction involving more than one incident?
- Aqil Ahmad vs A. Rauf1970 P Cr. L J 535 · Dacca · 1969-07-09Read full judgment →
- Anwarul Haq Alias Ibrat Anwar vs E. W. Randle and 2 Other1970 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of bungalow No. 36, Jail Road, Lahore, under settlement laws. The petitioner initially obtained a transfer order for the entire bungalow, but through subsequent rounds of litigation initiated by respondent No. 1, the Settlement Commissioner remanded the matter, ultimately resulting in an order dividing the bungalow and transferring one half to respondent No. 1 as a school and the other half to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this division through a writ petition and a subsequent Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court, both of which were dismissed. The petitioner then sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerned the divisibility of the property and the entitlement of respondent No. 1 to the transfer of a portion as a school. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the property is divisible, that findings of fact regarding the status of the respondent as a non-claimant displaced person cannot be re-agitated, and noting the undertaking that the property will continue to be used as a school without personal claims.
Questions settled- Whether a settlement property found to be divisible can be split and transferred partly to different claimants?
- Can a finding of fact regarding the status of a party as a non-claimant displaced person be agitated before the Supreme Court?
- Does a petitioner have locus standi to challenge the transfer of a portion of a property to another claimant when the property is held to be divisible?
- Anwar Hossain Khan vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 279 · Dacca · 1969-10-16Read full judgment →
- Anwar Ali vs The District Manager, Government Transport Service, Hyderabad1970 PLC 476 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-04-30Read full judgment →
- Andison Co Operative Industries Ltd. Sialkot vs Ch. Nazir Ahmad1970 SCMR 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition upholding the dismissal of its objection in execution proceedings. The core legal question was whether an executing court or authority can go behind a decree or award on the ground of limitation and refuse execution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in the execution of a decree or award, the executing court cannot go behind it unless the decree is a nullity, and an erroneous appreciation of limitation does not render the decree or award a nullity. The key principle laid down is that the question of limitation does not constitute a nullity so as to permit an executing court to look behind a binding award or decree.
Questions settled- Can an executing court go behind a decree or award on the ground of limitation?
- Does an incorrect determination of limitation render an award or decree a nullity?
- Whether an executing court has jurisdiction to examine the correctness of a decree during execution proceedings?
- Amjad Miah vs A, K. M. Yunus1970 PLC 843 · Labour Court · 1970-06-04Read full judgment →
- Amirzada and Another vs Mst. Sardar Begum and Another1970 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1963-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan at Peshawar, which dismissed the appellants' writ petition seeking to quash the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The core legal question was whether a writ of certiorari could be issued to correct an alleged error of law regarding the status of the appellants as displaced persons when the error was not self-evident and required investigation of facts and arguments. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a writ of certiorari is only available to quash a decision for an error of law if the error appears manifestly on the very face of the record and does not require a detailed examination or investigation of disputed questions of fact. The key principle laid down is that certiorari cannot be used as an appeal in disguise to re-examine findings of fact or to correct errors of law that are not self-evident on the face of the record.
Questions settled- Can a writ of certiorari be issued to correct an error of law that is not self-evident on the face of the record?
- Whether an error requiring investigation of facts and arguments can be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record?
- Is certiorari available as an appeal in disguise to rehear issues raised in settlement proceedings?
- Amiruddin vs District Manager, Government Transport Service, Lyallpuiir1970 PLC 430 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Amir Khan vs The State1970 SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges a High Court order recalling an interim bail previously granted to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given conflicting police investigation reports and the petitioner's suppression of a prior failed anticipatory bail application. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had willfully suppressed the fact that his earlier application for anticipatory bail had been dismissed on merits, thereby obtaining interim bail through misrepresentation. The Court emphasized the principle that a party seeking judicial assistance must approach the court with clean hands. Furthermore, the Court found that the material available, indicating the petitioner was present at the scene armed with a firearm and raised a lalkara, did not warrant bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regardless of the conflicting opinions among investigating officers regarding the necessity of a challan.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of a previously dismissed bail application by an accused justify the cancellation of interim bail subsequently granted?
- Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely because one of several investigating officers opined against challaning them?
- Can an accused who was present at the scene of a crime armed with a firearm and raised a lalkara claim entitlement to bail?
- Amin Shah- vs Abdul Rauf and Another1970 PLD Quetta 82 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, resulting in a preliminary decree followed by a final decree by the trial court, which was upheld in first appeal. Instead of filing a second appeal, the petitioner filed a civil revision petition in the High Court, and subsequently sought to convert the revision into a second appeal while requesting discretionary powers to make up a deficiency in court-fee under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a revision petition filed intentionally to avoid ad valorem court-fee on the decretal amount in a suit for rendition of accounts could be permitted to be converted into a second appeal with an extension of time for paying the court-fee. The court held that no bona fide mistake or legal misconception existed, as a second appeal was clearly competent and the revision had been filed intentionally to evade proper court fees. Consequently, the court refused to allow the conversion or grant indulgence for making up the deficiency in court-fee, and dismissed the revision petition as incompetent.
Questions settled- Can a civil revision petition be converted into a second appeal where a second appeal was clearly competent under the law?
- Whether the court can exercise its discretionary powers under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to allow a deficiency in court-fee to be made up when a revision is filed under a deliberate attempt to evade proper court fees?
- What court-fee is required to be paid when a defendant challenges a decree in a suit for rendition of accounts?
- Amanullah Khan and Others vs Khan Attaullah Khan and Other1970 SCMR 651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order passed by the High Court of West Pakistan in its revisional jurisdiction regarding the valuation of land in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly assessed the 'probable value' of the land for the purpose of ordering a deposit by the pre-emptor under the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the assessment of the probable value of land at the interlocutory stage is not a function of the Supreme Court. The Court determined that no serious question of law was involved in the petition. The key principle laid down is that where a party disputes the valuation fixed for the purpose of a pre-emption deposit, the appropriate remedy is to raise the valuation as a specific issue within the trial of the pre-emption suit itself, rather than seeking appellate intervention at an interlocutory stage to determine factual assessments of land value.
Questions settled- Is the assessment of the probable value of land for a pre-emption deposit a matter to be determined by the Supreme Court at the leave to appeal stage?
- What is the appropriate forum for a party to challenge the valuation fixed for a pre-emption deposit?
- Altaf Mahmood vs Mst. Fazal UN Nisa Alias Bilqis Insari1970 PLD Lahore 654 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-04Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 323 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-16Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain vs Messrs Bengal Steel Works Ltd., Dacca1970 PLC 870 · Labour Court · 1970-05-25Read full judgment →
- Alok Kumar Mitra and Other vs The State1970 PLD Dacca 289 · Dacca · 1969-07-29Read full judgment →
- Alok Kumar Mitra and Ohers vs The State Opposite Party1970 PLD Dacca 279 · DaccaRead full judgment →
- Allah Yar Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Joint1970 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Civil Supplies Inspector, challenged the termination of his employment by the Government of Pakistan, which was effected upon 15 days' notice. Having failed in the High Court, he sought Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the termination of the petitioner's services, based on an undertaking regarding notice periods, violated constitutional protections afforded to civil servants. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the petitioner held a temporary post within a temporary department and had explicitly provided an undertaking allowing for termination upon 15 days' notice. The Court rejected the argument that the undertaking was invalid because it was signed after the initial appointment, holding that it effectively became a term of the employment contract. Consequently, the Court ruled that the termination did not attract constitutional protections, as the petitioner was bound by the agreed-upon terms. The petition for Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed, affirming that contractual terms regarding notice periods in temporary government service are binding.
Questions settled- Can an undertaking regarding the termination of service, signed after the initial appointment, be considered a valid term of employment?
- Does the termination of a temporary government employee, pursuant to an agreed-upon notice period, attract constitutional protections?
- Is a finding by the High Court regarding the existence of a signed undertaking binding in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal?
- Allah Ditta vs Fateh Khan and Other1970 PLD Lahore 168 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-25Read full judgment →
- Khan vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 450 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta and Others vs The State1970 SCMR 734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of four appellants for offences including murder, unlawful assembly, and causing grievous hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, motivated by a land dispute, launched a coordinated attack on the deceased and his father, inflicting fatal head injuries and multiple wounds. The trial court convicted six accused, but the High Court subsequently acquitted two of them out of abundant caution, maintaining the convictions of the four appellants. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the complainant party was the aggressor, that there was a delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), and that the site of the occurrence was disputed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the presence of human blood at the scene established the place of occurrence, the delay in lodging the FIR was reasonably explained by the urgent need to seek medical aid for the critically injured victims, and the minor injuries on the accused party indicated they were the aggressors. The Court affirmed that active participation in an unlawful assembly with a common object justifies joint liability.
Questions settled- Whether a delay in lodging a First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case if it is explained by the necessity of securing immediate medical attention for critically injured victims?
- Can the place of occurrence of a crime be established by the recovery of blood-stained earth confirmed to be human blood by chemical analysis?
- Whether minor injuries on the accused party, contrasted with fatal and grievous injuries on the complainant party, negate the plea that the complainant party was the aggressor?
- Allah Ditta and 6 Others vs Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation1970 SCMR 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by mortgagees challenging the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court. The petitioners, who held a usufructuary mortgage over evacuee land, were dispossessed and the land was allotted to respondents by the Collector. The core legal question is whether settlement authorities can dispossess a mortgagee of evacuee land without prior payment of the mortgage amount, and whether the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court held that settlement authorities under the Land Settlement Act can dispossess mortgagees to put allottees in possession without immediate payment of the mortgage money, while the mortgage amount remains a charge on the property, and the satisfaction of such charges is governed by the Satisfaction of Charges (Land Settlement) Rules, 1962. Furthermore, any grievance regarding the assessment of the mortgage amount must be pursued through appeal or revision before higher settlement authorities rather than constitutional writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can settlement authorities dispossess a mortgagee of evacuee land before the payment of the mortgage amount?
- Does the mortgage amount remain a charge on the mortgaged property after dispossession by settlement authorities?
- Are petitioners entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the assessment of a mortgage amount by the Collector?
- Allah Ditta and 10 Others vs THF State, Respondent1970 P Cr. L J 666 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for bail filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising from a cross-version criminal incident involving land possession disputes, rioting, and subsequent death resulting in a murder charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of multiple accused persons to pre-trial bail where cross-cases have been registered, both parties sustained injuries, and the question of who was the aggressor remains debatable at the pre-trial stage. The Lahore High Court held that where two conflicting versions exist and injuries are sustained by both sides, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail to those petitioners not specifically and fatally implicated by the deceased, while dismissing the application of the specific assailant. The key principle laid down is that the existence of a counter-case, mutual injuries, and uncertainty regarding the aggressor at the investigatory stage warrant the concession of bail under Section 497(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, barring specific fatal attributions.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted under Section 497(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when cross-cases are registered and both parties have sustained injuries in the same occurrence?
- Does the existence of two conflicting versions regarding physical possession and aggression warrant further inquiry for the purpose of pre-trial bail?
- Should bail be refused to an accused specifically named by the deceased as an assailant notwithstanding counter-allegations and mutual injuries?
- Allah Dad vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 826 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-14Read full judgment →
- Allah Bux vs Tim District Manager, Government1970 PLC 334 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-03-26Read full judgment →
- Allah Baksh vs The Road Transport Corporation, Lahore1970 PLC 63 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-05-02Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 809 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-14Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 1969-03-21Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad vs The Director-General, T & T, Karachi and 3 Others1970 PLC 18 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-03-10Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad and Another vs Nazeer Ahmad1970 PLD Lahore 893 · Lahore High Court · 1966-03-02Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad and 3 Others vs The Crown1970 SCMR 270 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1956-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Chief Court of Sind which convicted the appellants under sections 147, 148, 323, 325, and 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code in connection with a land dispute resulting in murder and rioting. The core legal questions involved whether the failure of the prosecution to detail defence injuries caused prejudice, whether corroboration was necessary for identifying accused persons, and the applicability of constructive liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code where an unlawful assembly was heavily armed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the lower courts concurrently found the appellants to be the aggressors, the plea of private defence failed, and that members of a heavily armed unlawful assembly knew that death was likely to be caused in the prosecution of their common object, thereby attracting constructive liability regardless of individual weapon use. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to adduce detailed evidence regarding injuries sustained by the accused prejudices the plea of private defence when the accused are found to be the aggressors?
- Does the requirement for corroboration of interested witnesses apply equally to an accused specifically named in the first information report with a definite overt act?
- Is every member of a heavily armed unlawful assembly liable with the knowledge that death was likely to be caused in the prosecution of the common object?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a death sentence that is neither illegal nor grossly improper?
- Ali Khan and 2 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1028 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-18Read full judgment →
- Ali Jan and 5 Other vs Commissioner, F. C. R., Quetta Division and 71970 PLD Quetta 93 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal challenges a judgment of the High Court arising from a civil dispute over land, water, and trees located in Tehsil Chaman, decided under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901. The core legal question was whether there is any period of limitation for claims concerning the possession of land in the area of Tehsil Chaman, specifically examining whether executive instructions issued in 1882 (Serial No. 52 of the Green Book) had the statutory force of a rule under Section 62 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901, and whether the Limitation Act 1908 applied to proceedings before Council-of-Elders. The Court held that the 1882 instructions were merely departmental guidance, lacked the characteristics and statutory validity of a rule, and had fallen obsolete or inoperative, and further that the Limitation Act did not apply to authorities functioning under the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether departmental instructions issued in 1882 regarding land claims have the force of a statutory rule under Section 62 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901?
- Does the Limitation Act 1908 apply of its own force or via Section 29 to proceedings and authorities functioning under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901?
- Whether the right to property is extinguished under Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 in the absence of a prescribed period of limitation or ordinary courts for instituting a suit?
- Whether authorities acting under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901 constitute courts for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Ali Imam vs Sr. Ghulam Hussain1970 P Cr. L J 980 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-13Read full judgment →
- Ali Hyder and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 495 · Sindh High Court · 1969-06-21Read full judgment →
- Ali Ahmed vs Shahajahan Matabbar, Proprietor, Messrs1970 PLC 788 · Labour Court · 1970-05-18Read full judgment →
- Ali Ahmad vs The State1970 SCMR 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his criminal revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld his conviction under Section 430 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing mischief by raising a wall around a well, thereby depriving local residents of water for irrigation. The core legal questions involved whether the lower courts' concurrent factual findings regarding the public's prescriptive right to the water and the petitioner's lack of a bona fide claim could be interfered with, and whether a prescriptive right under Section 26 of the Limitation Act 1908 was established. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact supported by abundant evidence could not be interfered with in revision, and that the long-term uninterrupted use of water established the villagers' prescriptive right. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction.
Questions settled- Can concurrent factual findings of lower courts be interfered with in criminal revision when supported by abundant evidence?
- Whether long-term uninterrupted use of well water for irrigation establishes a prescriptive right under the Limitation Act?
- Does raising a wall around a well used by the public for agricultural irrigation constitute mischief under the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Alhaj Afazuddin Ahmed vs The Secretary, B. D. and L. G. Department, Government of East Pakistan and 4 Other1970 PLD Dacca 428 · Dacca · 1967-04-24Read full judgment →
- Alamgir vs Messrs F. M. Sikdar Sons, Dacca1970 PLC 889 · Labour Court · 1974-05-25Read full judgment →
- Alam Din vs Muhammad Nawaz and Other1970 PLD Azad J & K 54 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1970-04-14Read full judgment →
- Alaf Din vs Mst. Parveen Akhtar1970 PLD Supreme Court 75 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The provided judgment text is empty. Consequently, it is impossible to provide a summary of the nature of the matter, the core legal questions, the court's decision, or the key principles laid down. The record contains no information regarding the facts of the case, the arguments presented by the parties, or the reasoning of the court. As the source material is absent, this summary cannot be generated in accordance with the instructions to rely solely on the provided text.
- Akhtar Hussain vs The Road Transport Corporation, Lahore1970 PLC 124 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1969-07-07Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Ahmad vs The Road Transport Corporation, Lahore and 21970 PLC 12 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1968-11-15Read full judgment →
- Akbar Din and 2 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 559 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-18Read full judgment →
- Akaddas Ali vs The Province of East Pakistan and Other1970 SCMR 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Sub-Treasurer, challenged his dismissal from service following a shortage of funds in the currency chest. Although initially acquitted in criminal proceedings and subsequently reinstated by the Additional Commissioner after an initial dismissal, the Government later directed the Deputy Commissioner to dismiss the petitioner again. The High Court upheld this second dismissal, relying on Rule 22 of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936, which grants the Government revisional powers over orders passed by subordinate authorities. The petitioner sought leave to appeal, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted under the East Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, rather than the 1936 Rules, thereby rendering the Government's invocation of Rule 22 inapplicable. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the question of whether the Government’s revisional power under the 1936 Rules extends to proceedings initiated under the 1960 Rules is a matter of public importance requiring judicial determination. The Court also observed that the petitioner had been granted leave preparatory to retirement, which should be honored if the Government maintains he is in service.
Questions settled- Does the Government possess the power of revision under Rule 22 of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936, regarding disciplinary proceedings conducted under the East Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960?
- Can the Government lawfully direct the dismissal of a civil servant after an appellate authority has already ordered their reinstatement?
- Ainul Huq vs The State1970 SCMR 867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against his conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonestly retaining stolen property, specifically a German Patromax Light and a quantity of rice. The conviction, initially upheld by the Sessions Judge and the High Court of East Pakistan, was challenged on three grounds: the inadmissibility of a confession made to a Union Council Chairman, the failure of the prosecution to prove exclusive possession, and the omission of the alleged confession during the petitioner's examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that, irrespective of the confession's admissibility, the evidence of the petitioner leading witnesses to the location of the stolen goods in a sugar-cane field sufficiently established his possession. The Court further ruled that in the absence of the record of the Section 342 examination, it must presume the procedure was correctly followed, and any irregularity would not vitiate the trial without proof of prejudice. The petition was dismissed, affirming that Section 411 covers both receiving and retaining stolen property.
Questions settled- Does Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cover both receiving and retaining stolen property?
- Can a conviction be vitiated by an irregularity in the examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of prejudice?
- Is a conviction sustainable based on evidence of possession even if a prior confession is excluded?
- Ainul Huq vs The State-Opposite-Party1970 P Cr. L J 293 · Dacca · 1969-10-30Read full judgment →
- Ain and Another vs State of Rajasthan1970 PLC 710 · Rajasthan High Court · 1968-03-23Read full judgment →
- Ahsan Hafeez Kamal vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 301 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-20Read full judgment →
- Ahmadullah Khan and Others vs Fazal Bibi and Other1970 SCMR 604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute over land ownership involving 110 kanals and 11 marlas. The petitioners, claiming ownership through a 1926 sale deed, sought a declaration of title and possession, asserting that the name of a co-sharer, Mst. Mehr Tabana, was wrongly included in revenue records. The petitioners argued they acquired title through purchase and, alternatively, through adverse possession. The trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court all concurrently held that the petitioners failed to prove ownership regarding Mst. Mehr Tabana's share, as she was not a party to the sale deed. The Supreme Court affirmed these findings, holding that a sale deed cannot bind a third party who was not a signatory. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the possession of one co-sharer is deemed the possession of all co-sharers. Absent evidence of a definite act of ouster or denial of title, a co-sharer cannot claim adverse possession against another. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Can a sale deed bind a third party who was not a signatory to the document?
- Does the possession of one co-sharer constitute possession of all co-sharers in the absence of evidence of ouster?
- Can a co-sharer claim adverse possession against another co-sharer without proving a definite act of ouster?
- Ahmad Nawaz vs The State1970 SCMR 597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant, Ahmad Nawaz, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Nusrat, despite the court accepting the defence's version that the complainant party were the initial aggressors who lay in ambush. The High Court upheld the conviction, reasoning that because the deceased was shot in the back, he was retreating and thus the appellant exceeded his right of private defence. The Supreme Court reviewed the matter, focusing on whether the right of private defence was correctly applied. The Court held that once the prosecution's version of the incident was discredited and the defence's version—that the complainant party were the aggressors—was accepted, the firing by the accused occurred during a sudden, concerted assault. The Court ruled that the location of the bullet wound on the deceased's back did not invalidate the plea of self-defence, as the accused was entitled to defend his companion during the heat of the attack. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Does a gunshot wound on the back of a deceased necessarily negate a plea of self-defence by the accused?
- Can the right of private defence be invoked when the accused party is subjected to a sudden, concerted attack by the complainant party?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution's version of the incident's origin is rejected by the courts?
- Agha Ali vs Iqbal and 2 Others1970 P Cr. L J 917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged the acquittal of two respondents by the High Court in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the respondents murdered the deceased due to a suspicion of illicit relations with the sister of one respondent. The conviction by the trial court was based on the testimony of two eye-witnesses and the recovery of a weapon. The High Court acquitted the respondents, 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 expected physical evidence like scorching or blackening on the body. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's reasoning and found that the delay in reporting the crime was not satisfactorily explained, as witnesses were present at the scene and could have easily reported the matter. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's conclusion that the crime was unwitnessed was justified based on the evidence, and consequently dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Is a delay in lodging the First Information Report sufficient grounds to doubt the prosecution's version of events in a murder case?
- Does the presence of witnesses at the crime scene invalidate an excuse for failing to report the crime promptly?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an acquittal based on the High Court's appreciation of evidence when the delay in reporting remains unexplained?
- Afzal Ali vs The Managing Director, Progressive Papers Ltd., Lahore1970 PLC 53 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1968-11-29Read full judgment →
- Aftab Hossain vs The Province of East Pakistan and 2 Other1970 PLD Dacca 798 · Dacca · 1969-11-18Read full judgment →
- Afseruddin Chowkidar Alias Afser Ali Chowkidar vs The State -1970 P Cr. L J 326 · Dacca · 1969-07-16Read full judgment →
- Advocate General, Government Op East Pakistan vs Majid Alias Abdul1970 P Cr. LJ 198 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan, which set aside the respondent domestic servant's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentence of transportation for life for the murders of a cook and an ayah. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, the treatment of minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, and the evaluation of self-inflicted injuries in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in discarding the prosecution's evidence on speculative grounds and misreading the record, and that an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence conclusively established the respondent's guilt. The key legal principles laid down are that minor discrepancies arising from witnesses observing events at different times do not vitiate credible testimony, and that perfunctory police investigation does not automatically demolish a strong chain of circumstantial evidence otherwise proved by reliable eye-witnesses and corroborative facts.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to discard an otherwise reliable chain of circumstantial evidence?
- Can perfunctory investigation by police officers alone form the basis for acquitting an accused when material circumstances establish guilt?
- Whether self-inflicted injuries sustained during the commission of a crime can serve as an incriminating circumstance against the accused?
- Advocate General, Government of East Pakistan vs Majid Alias Abdul1970 SCMR 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1969-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan, which had set aside the respondent's conviction and sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murders of a cook and an ayah. The core legal question involved whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including eyewitness accounts of the respondent near the crime scene with a weapon, incriminating statements, motive, and subsequent self-inflicted injuries—was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding certain lacunae and deficiencies in the police investigation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court had erred in discarding the prosecution's evidence based on speculative reasoning and minor discrepancies. The apex court restored the trial court's conviction, ruling that the unbroken chain of circumstances pointed unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies and investigative lapses by the police do not destroy an otherwise credible and robust chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to the accused's guilt.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies and investigative lapses by police are sufficient to discard a chain of circumstantial evidence?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order when the trial court's findings are based on a proper reading of the evidence?
- Whether self-inflicted injuries can form a relevant circumstance pointing towards the guilt of an accused in a murder case?
- Adul Karim vs Messrs the Sind Industrial Trading Estates Ltd., Karachi1970 PLC 351 · Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-01-15Read full judgment →
- Abul Lais and Another vs The State1970 PLD Dacca 790 · Dacca · 1969-10-30Read full judgment →
- Abul Kashem vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 460 · Dacca · 1970-10-30Read full judgment →
- Abu Saleh Choudhury vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 612 · Dacca · 1969-12-18Read full judgment →
- Abdus Sobhan vs Proprietor, Orient Press, Dacca1970 PLC 800 · Labour Court · 1970-05-14Read full judgment →
- Abdus Sattar vs Muhammad Yaqub and Another1970 SCMR 786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court confirming pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 in a murder case where he was alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while another inflicted a fatal blow. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail was properly confirmed by the High Court given the petitioner's presence in the F.I.R. The Supreme Court held that since the accused has been challaned and the matter is pending before the Committing Magistrate, the appropriate remedy is for the petitioner to move the lower court for reconsideration or cancellation of bail based on the record. The Court clarified that the High Court's bail order does not bar such an application. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that trial or committing courts can independently consider bail cancellation or modification once the case reaches them, notwithstanding a prior High Court order.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner move the Committing Court for reconsideration of bail after the High Court has confirmed pre-arrest bail?
- Does the confirmation of pre-arrest bail by the High Court act as a bar to a subsequent application for bail cancellation before the Committing Magistrate or Sessions Court?
- Abdur Rehman vs Gadai Khan and 5 Others1970 P Cr. L J 1282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, which acquitted three respondents (Gadai Khan, Ashraf Khan, and Ajab Khan) of murder and other charges, despite finding that a fight had occurred between the parties resulting in two deaths. The High Court had concluded that because both parties sustained injuries, including firearm injuries, it was impossible to determine who initiated the firing, thereby granting the accused the benefit of the doubt. The petitioner, representing the complainant party, challenged this acquittal, arguing that the High Court's reasoning was legally flawed and that the accused had no justification for the killings. The Supreme Court found substance in the petitioner's contentions regarding the High Court's application of the benefit of doubt principle in the context of the established facts. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against the three respondents while dismissing the petition regarding the other two respondents, whose acquittal by the trial court was upheld as reasonable. The matter is set for re-examination of the evidence.
Questions settled- Does the mere fact that both parties in a fight sustained injuries automatically entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt regarding the initiation of the conflict?
- Can a High Court's acquittal be set aside if the reasoning for granting the benefit of the doubt is found to be legally flawed?
- Is the refusal of a High Court to interfere with a trial court's acquittal of specific co-accused justified when the trial court's decision is based on valid reasons?
- Abdur Rehman vs Gadai Khan and 5 Other1970 SCMR 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Abdur Rehman against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, which set aside the convictions and sentences of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for murder and other offences, and dismissed the petitioner's revision against the acquittal of respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's approach in extending the benefit of doubt and acquitting the convicted accused on the ground that it was impossible to determine which party started firing first during a mutual fight over land possession, despite injuries sustained by both sides. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the incorrect approach of the High Court in acquitting the convicted respondents warranted a re-examination of the evidence. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 with non-bailable warrants issued, while the petition regarding the acquittal of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 was dismissed as their acquittal was based on valid reasons.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused on the ground that it was impossible to determine which party started firing first in a mutual fight?
- Does an acquittal based on a trial court' warranting evaluation of participation and lack of injuries warrant interference by the High Court?
- Is leave to appeal properly granted when the appellate court's approach in setting aside convictions for murder in a sudden fight appears contrary to judicial principles?
- Abdur Rauf Khan and Another vs Firm Babu Munir Ghulam Siddique, Peshawar and Other1970 SCMR 594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a land dispute involving a sale deed executed in November 1942, subsequent mutations, pre-emption suits, and revenue proceedings under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act. The core legal questions involve the validity of the transfer of land to non-agriculturalists, subsequent amendments to the law, and the claim of adverse possession by co-sharers. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal in two related petitions involving the core questions of title and agricultural tribe status, while refusing leave and dismissing the third petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish adverse possession, particularly as they were co-sharers in the property and the revenue authorities had recognized a usufructuary mortgage. The key principle laid down is that possession by a co-sharer does not readily mature into adverse possession against other co-sharers without clear, hostile, and open ouster, and that revenue determinations regarding mortgage status affect limitation and adverse possession claims.
Questions settled- Can a co-sharer acquire title to property by adverse possession against another co-sharer?
- Whether an amendment to the Punjab Alienation of Land Act has retrospective effect on previously cancelled mutations?
- Does possession of land subject to a usufructuary mortgage ripen into adverse possession?
- Abdur Rashid vs The State Bank of Pakistan and Another1970 PLD Karachi 344 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff claiming Rs. 2,00,000 as damages for malicious prosecution against the State Bank of Pakistan and its Deputy Assistant Controller following the plaintiff's acquittal in appeal under Sections 12(1) and 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act 1947. The core legal questions pertained to whether an initial conviction by a trial court bars an action for malicious prosecution if reversed on appeal, whether the prosecution was initiated maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, and whether acting on police investigation reports constitutes reasonable and probable cause. The Sindh High Court dismissed the suit, holding that acquittal on appeal satisfies the requirement of favorable termination and does not preclude a suit, but reasonable and probable cause must be assessed independently. The Court found that shifting explanations by the exporter, who was also a partner in the consignee firm, gave the authorities reasonable and probable cause to prosecute. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to affirmatively prove malice, want of probable cause, or actionable damages.
Questions settled- Does an acquittal in appeal, following an initial conviction by a trial court, satisfy the requirement of termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favor in an action for malicious prosecution?
- Can the presence of malice compensate for or supply the defect of a want of reasonable and probable cause in a malicious prosecution suit?
- Does acting upon expert advice or police investigation reports automatically establish the conclusive existence of reasonable and probable cause for a criminal prosecution?
- Can a claim for damages for malicious prosecution succeed where the prosecutor possessed an honest and reasonable belief in the guilt of the accused based upon prima facie evidence?
- Abdur Rashid vs Taj Din and ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 282 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-06Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid Bhhiya and Otmrs vs Province of East Pakistan and Other1970 PLD Dacca 633 · Dacca · 1968-08-16Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 722 · Dacca · 1969-12-04Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rahman vs The Chairman, Pakistan Western Railway; Lahore1970 PLC 369 · Industrial Court · 1968-05-25Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rahman Khan vs Motilal Ghosh and Other Opposite Parties1970 PLD Dacca 394 · Dacca · 1968-03-21Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rahman Bepary and Other vs Gulapuddin Bepary Alias1970 PLD Dacca 786 · Dacca · 1969-05-09Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rahim vs Taj Muhammad1970 PLD Lahore 294 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-21Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rahim and Another vs Abdul Aziz1970 SCMR 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and the rendition of accounts regarding a firm known as 'London Picture House'. The appellant, a defendant in the original suit, contended that the respondent (plaintiff) had established a rival business, 'Paris Picture House', and was therefore liable to account for its profits under Section 16(b) of the Partnership Act, 1932. The trial court and the High Court concurrently found as a matter of fact that the 'Paris Picture House' was owned by the respondent’s sons, not the respondent himself. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the respondent was obligated to account for the profits of this rival business. The Court held that while Section 16(b) of the Partnership Act, 1932, does not require proof that a rival business was funded by partnership assets to trigger liability, the provision is only applicable if the partner actually carries on the competing business. Since the lower courts established the business belonged to third parties, the provision was inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does Section 16(b) of the Partnership Act 1932 require proof that a rival business was funded by partnership assets to trigger liability?
- Is a partner liable to account for the profits of a business owned by third parties under Section 16(b) of the Partnership Act 1932?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the ownership of a business in a second appeal?
- Abdur Rab vs The State and Another1970 SCMR 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under sections 416 and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code for alleged fraud and forgery. After the prosecution failed to produce incriminating evidence and the complainant remained absent, the trial court discharged the accused under section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, the District Magistrate set aside the discharge order in revision and ordered a further enquiry, a decision upheld by the High Court. The core legal questions involved the limitation period for filing criminal revisions in East Pakistan, the competency of the District Magistrate to hear the revision, and allegations of prosecution harassment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that although the District Magistrate mistakenly applied a Sind Chief Court rule, courts possess inherent discretion to condone delay, and technical objections regarding endorsement and delay do not warrant interference where a trial can establish guilt or innocence. The Court directed the trial magistrate to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
Questions settled- Whether a revision application in criminal matters in East Pakistan is subject to a strict statutory period of limitation?
- Does a revisional court have the power to condone delay in filing a revision application beyond the period prescribed for criminal appeals?
- Whether the discharge of an accused under section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be set aside in revision for further enquiry?
- Does prolonged prosecution without immediate evidence constitute sufficient ground to quash criminal proceedings amounting to harassment?
- Abdullah and 2 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 14 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul, Bashir vs Road Transport Corporation, Lahore1970 PLC 359 · Industrial Court · 1968-09-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahab vs Pakistan Paper Products Ltd., Chittagong1970 PLC 838 · Labour Court · 1970-05-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Shakoor vs The Settlement and Rehabilitation1970 SCMR 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition and a subsequent Letters Patent Appeal regarding the transfer of composite property situated in Rawalpindi by the Settlement Authorities. The core legal questions involve whether the Settlement Authorities were bound to divide the property into separate units and whether the transferee was restricted exclusively to the specific portion mentioned in his compensation form. The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether a property constitutes a single indivisible unit lies within the discretion of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the relevant statutory provisions, and a competent declaration treating it as an indivisible unit cannot be interfered with, particularly when the transferee holds a superior claim as a claimant against a non-claimant. The court laid down the principle that the discretion to treat a property as a single unit or divide it vests in the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and courts will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion or procedural refusals to admit new evidence at the appellate stage without strong justification.
Questions settled- Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner is bound to divide a property capable of division?
- Does a transferee get restricted only to the portion demanded in his C.S. Form when the property is treated as a single unit?
- Whether the High Court is bound to allow new proof to be adduced at the Letters Patent Bench stage regarding the extent of a party's claim?
- Abdul Wahid vs The State1970 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner, a former Sanitary Inspector for the Municipality of Thatta, under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had been entrusted with a sum of Rs. 1,500 for purchasing furniture, but failed to pay the full purchase price to the vendor and retained the remaining balance of Rs. 159 for several years before refunding it. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's retention of the municipal funds and failure to pay the vendor constituted criminal breach of trust. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had pocketed the funds meant for the furniture purchase and delayed the refund of the balance without any supporting evidence of timely deposit. The Court affirmed that such unauthorized retention and misappropriation of public funds entrusted to a public servant constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Whether the retention of public funds by a public servant and delayed refund thereof constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a public servant be convicted of criminal breach of trust if they pocket funds entrusted to them for purchasing official goods and fail to pay the vendor?
- Abdul Shakoor vs Kay Khusru Barman Ardeshediar and 6 Other1970 PLD Karachi 599 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising from a judgment of a learned Single Judge who dismissed the appellant's Second Appeal concerning rent restriction proceedings. The core legal question was whether the failure of a tenant to furnish security within the time prescribed by the first appellate court attracts the penalty of striking off defence under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, read with section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court held that the appellate authority has no power to strike off a tenant's defence for failure to furnish security, as section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is excluded by necessary intendment in rent appeals, and penal provisions must be strictly construed. The key principle laid down is that since the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is a special law, its provisions override the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in the absence of an express provision empowering the appellate authority to strike off a defence for non-furnishing of security, such a penalty cannot be imposed, thereby preserving the tenant's right of appeal.
Questions settled- Whether failure to furnish security within the time prescribed by the first appellate court attracts the penalty prescribed by section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to rent appeals to empower an appellate authority to strike off a tenant's defence?
- Can an appellate authority strike off the defence of a tenant for failure to furnish security ordered during stay proceedings?
- Abdul Shakoor and 8 Others vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1970 SCMR 67 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an unsuccessful writ petition before the High Court of West Pakistan, challenging the orders of the Settlement authorities who decided to transfer a disputed property in favor of the respondent, Ghulam Rasool. The core legal question centered on whether the petitioners or the respondent had reconstructed the premises after it was burnt, and whether the High Court could interfere with findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities. The Supreme Court held that the question of who reconstructed the building was purely one of fact within the competent jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities, and the High Court rightly declined to interfere. Furthermore, the contention regarding an initial joint application was untenable given that both parties subsequently made statements claiming exclusive transfer. The Court affirmed that concurrent factual determinations based on evidence after remands will not be disturbed, and accordingly dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, laying down the principle that factual controversies resolved by administrative authorities fall outside the scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the question of who was responsible for the reconstruction of a building is a question of fact within the jurisdiction of Settlement authorities?
- Can the High Court interfere in its writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities?
- Does an initial joint application for the transfer of property preclude parties from subsequently claiming exclusive transfer?
- Abdul Salam Mehta vs Chairman, Water and Power Development, Authorityand Another1970 SCMR 40 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition filed by a former employee challenging the termination of his services. The petitioner, originally a temporary Diamond Driller under the Central Government, was transferred to WAPDA for the Mangla Dam Project before serving on deputation in Saudi Arabia. Upon return, the Chairman, WAPDA, terminated his services with one month's salary in lieu of notice. The petitioner contended that he remained a Central Government servant entitled to show-cause notice protections under Article 177 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, holding that under Section 9-A of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958, staff recruited exclusively for the project became WAPDA employees upon transfer. Consequently, the petitioner ceased to be a Central Government servant and was not entitled to constitutional protections guaranteed to civil servants.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary Central Government employee transferred to WAPDA for a specific project ceases to be a Central Government servant under Section 9-A of the West Pakistan WAPDA Act 1958?
- Is an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority entitled to the safeguards and protection under Article 177 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
- Abdul Razzaq vs District Manager, Lahore Omnibus1970 PLC 456 · Industrial Court · 1970-04-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1172 · Sindh High Court · 1966-08-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf vs Road Transport Corporation, Lahore1970 PLC 469 · Industrial Court · 1968-10-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid and 3 Others vs Muhammad Nazir1970 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging an order of the High Court remitting a property dispute to the Settlement Commissioner to determine the divisibility of a house occupied by the rival parties since 20th December 1947. Initially, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had drawn lots won by the respondent, but the Additional Settlement Commissioner awarded the entire house to the petitioners on the ground that their verified claim was slightly higher and they occupied the ground floor, concluding the house was indivisible without assigning reasons or referring to the house layout. Higher settlement authorities upheld this view. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court had already determined the house to be divisible. The Supreme Court held that the High Court made no such determination and that the core issue of divisibility remains to be decided by the Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the remand for proper determination of divisibility.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court determined the house to be divisible in the impugned proceedings?
- Does the issue of the divisibility of a house require determination by the Settlement Commissioner?
- Can settlement authorities award an indivisible property without assigning reasons or consulting the house layout?
- Abdul Rahman and Another vs The State1970 SCMR 429 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, which confirmed the convictions and death sentences imposed on the two appellants for the murder of the mother of one of the appellants. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular evidence of two close relatives who witnessed the incident, the prompt lodging of the First Information Report, and the recovery of a hatchet stained with human blood from one of the appellants. The defence contended that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by enmity and attempted to introduce a new story regarding the murder in the leave petition.
The Supreme Court held that the new version presented in the petition was an afterthought and lacked credibility. The Court determined that the ocular evidence was reliable, the FIR was lodged promptly without motivation for false implication, and the recovery of the blood-stained hatchet was untainted. Finding no valid basis to interfere with the appraisement of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Whether an entirely new defence version raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal can be accepted when it was not raised during trial?
- Whether the testimony of a primary eyewitness can be discredited merely because a secondary witness observed her leaving and returning to the spot after the incident?
- Whether the recovery of a weapon can be relied upon when one of the recovery witnesses is connected to the complainant party, provided there is no evidence of fabrication?