Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.

• ABID HUSSAIN Versus HAJRA BEGUM1988 SCMR 690 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-17
  leave to appealstriking off defenceejectment orderdefault in rentrent controllerwilful defaulter
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Sind High Court, which upheld the striking off of the petitioner-tenant's defence and the subsequent ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question involves whether the tenant's failure to deposit monthly rent pursuant to the Rent Controller's order was justified by illness, and whether the courts below erred in rejecting the plea of default. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in depositing the rent, noting contradictory evidence regarding his illness and his ability to move and appear before the court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that unsubstantiated and contradictory pleas regarding illness do not constitute a valid defense against a finding of willful default in rent deposit matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictory evidence regarding a tenant's illness can justify a failure to deposit rent as ordered by the Rent Controller?
  • Can a Rent Controller strike off the defense of a tenant for non-compliance with a rent deposit order?
  • Whether the High Court's upholding of an ejectment order based on a finding of willful default warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• NISAR HUSSAIN Versus STATE NOOR AHMAD1988 SCMR 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
• FATEH MUHAMMAD Versus AHMAD NASIR KHAN1988 SCMR 689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-07Read full judgment →
• ZAKA ULLAH KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM1988 SCMR 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-20Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF SIND Versus NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI1988 SCMR 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-14
  service tribunalmedical reimbursementmedical treatment abroadgovernment servantsrules relaxationdiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged the judgment of the Sind Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent government servant's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred abroad. The core legal question was whether a government servant could claim reimbursement of medical expenses incurred abroad as a matter of right under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1959, and whether rule 14 permitted such a claim through relaxation. The Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of medical expenses for treatment abroad by way of relaxation of the rules under rule 14 is entirely discretionary with the government and cannot be claimed as of right by a government servant, nor was prior sanction obtained in this case. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the Tribunal's judgment set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government servant claim reimbursement of medical expenses incurred abroad as a matter of right under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1959?
  • Is the relaxation of the West Pakistan Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1959 for medical treatment abroad a discretionary power of the government?
  • Must a government servant apply for sanction in relaxation of the rules before proceeding abroad for medical treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• HAJRA BAI Versus AZMATULLAH1988 SCMR 679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION1988 SCMR 678 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-26
  evictiondefault in rentletter of attornmentintimation of transferrented premisesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging an impugned judgment of the High Court which allowed an appeal against an eviction order passed in favor of the petitioner. The core legal questions relate to whether valid intimation of the transfer of rented premises was given to the corporate tenant under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether the tenant committed default in the payment of rent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding the proper perspective of default and the sufficiency of notice to the occupant on behalf of the tenant require detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that the service of a letter of attornment upon an officer occupying the premises requires judicial examination to determine whether it constitutes a valid intimation of transfer under the relevant rent laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service of a letter of attornment on the Chief Medical Officer of a corporate tenant constitutes a valid intimation of transfer of premises under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Did the tenant commit a default in the payment of rent warranting eviction under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• BAKAR Versus KHATOON HAJIN KALA ALIAS KALA BEGUM1988 SCMR 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-31
  ejectmentrent controllerpersonal needconcurrent findings of factlandlord and tenantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the High Court of Sindh, which affirmed an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the petitioner. The respondent, as the widow of the deceased owner, sought the eviction of the petitioner from two shops on the grounds of personal need, asserting that she did not own or possess any other commercial property. Both the Rent Controller and the High Court concurrently found that the respondent was indeed a widow and that she did not own any other shops, thereby justifying the eviction order. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the respondent's status and her personal requirement for the premises were legally sustainable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error of law or misappraisal of evidence. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, which suffer from no legal infirmity, are not subject to interference in leave to appeal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact by a Rent Controller and the High Court be challenged in a petition for leave to appeal without demonstrating an error of law?
  • Is a widow entitled to seek the ejectment of a tenant from commercial premises based on personal need if she owns no other similar property?
  Read full judgment →
• IFTIKHAR AHMA Versus ISHRAT ALI SIDDIQI1988 SCMR 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-08Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN GLASS INDUSTRIES LABOUR WELFARE UNION, HYDERABAD Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO.VI, HYDERABAD1988 SCMR 674 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF SIDDIQI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-27
  service tribunalgovernment servantsefficiency and disciplineinquiry procedureleave to grantnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 16-9-1984. The core legal question raised before the court was whether the proper procedure mandated under rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 was duly followed, specifically regarding the conduct of a proper inquiry and the provision of an adequate opportunity of hearing, as opposed to an inquisitorial procedure involving a questionnaire and cross-examination. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised require detailed examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary proceedings against government servants must strictly adhere to the prescribed inquiry procedures and afford a proper opportunity of hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the procedure laid down in rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 was followed when an Inquiry Officer proceeds by issuing a questionnaire instead of holding a proper inquiry?
  • Does the use of an inquisitorial questionnaire and cross-examination on it satisfy the requirement of a proper opportunity of hearing for a government servant?
  Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD AHSAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND1988 SCMR 671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-26
  aggrieved personlocus standiconstitutional petitionland allotmentGrow More Food Schemeburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner seeking the permanent grant of land allegedly leased to him under the Grow More Food Scheme. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established his status as an 'aggrieved person' entitled to challenge the administrative decisions regarding the land in question. The High Court had found that the petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence linking him to the land, noting that the relevant notices and records referred to a different individual, Haji Mahmoodul Hassan, rather than the petitioner. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the inferences drawn by the lower court regarding the lack of entitlement were sound and based on the documents provided. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of proof of identity or entitlement to the disputed property, the petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the constitutional petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that a petitioner must clearly establish their legal interest in the subject matter to qualify as an aggrieved party.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner maintain a constitutional petition without establishing their identity as the person to whom land was originally allotted?
  • Does a mere oral assertion of identity suffice to establish locus standi when official records name a different individual?
  • Is a finding of fact by the High Court regarding a petitioner's identity subject to interference by the Supreme Court if based on sound inferences?
  Read full judgment →
• SHIRIN BEGUM Versus HABIB BHAI1988 SCMR 670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-07Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR1988 SCMR 67 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03
  leave to appealacquittalmurderocular testimonyrecovery evidencenighttime occurrencemotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting respondents Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Suleman, Muhammad Shafique, and Muhammad Siddique of charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after they had been convicted by the trial court. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of ocular testimony, motive, and recovery evidence in a criminal trial involving a nighttime murder where torches were not mentioned in the First Information Report. The Supreme Court held that the High Court properly evaluated the evidence, noting that the recovery evidence and ocular testimony could not be safely relied upon due to the dark night occurrence and the introduction of torches as an afterthought. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of an appellate court regarding the unreliability of ocular and recovery evidence in nighttime offences will not be interfered with absent substantial legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment of the High Court based on the appreciation of ocular and recovery evidence?
  • Can ocular testimony be relied upon in a nighttime occurrence when the use of a source of light like a torch is omitted from the First Information Report?
  • Does the presence of a motive alone suffice to maintain a conviction when the direct evidence has been disbelieved by the appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ AHMED SILK MILLS LTD. Versus DIRECTOR, SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION1988 SCMR 668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-26
  social security contributionarrears of land revenuecoercive recoverystatutory appealdisputed claimleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of social security contributions. The petitioners, a private limited company, were assessed for contributions under the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965. Following a surprise inspection, the respondent assessed contributions for the period 1982 to 1986 and initiated recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue under the Land Revenue Act 1967. The petitioners challenged the recovery process, arguing that the authorities could not initiate coercive recovery measures for a disputed claim without first allowing the statutory period for complaints or appeals under the Ordinance to expire or obtaining a final order under the Ordinance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the respondents were legally obligated to await the exhaustion of statutory remedies under sections 57 and 67 of the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 before invoking coercive land revenue recovery procedures for disputed contribution claims.

  Questions settled

  • Can coercive recovery proceedings for social security contributions be initiated as arrears of land revenue while a claim is still disputed?
  • Are authorities under the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 required to wait for the exhaustion of statutory appeal periods before initiating coercive recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 666 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-29
  smugglingcustoms Actquashment of proceedingscriminal proceduredefinition of smuggled goodsspecial judge customs
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan examines whether a motor vehicle not specifically notified or specified under sub-clause (a) of clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969, can be considered 'smuggled' and lead to prosecution under section 156(1), clauses (77) and (89) read with section 178 of the same Act. The appellant sought the quashment of proceedings pending before the Special Judge Customs under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with section 185-F of the Customs Act, contending that the car was not covered by any notification. The Supreme Court held that sub-clause (b) of section 2(s) of the Customs Act operates independently to cover goods brought into Pakistan by routes other than those declared under sections 9 or 10 or from places other than a customs-station, and failure to notify under sub-clause (a) does not render sub-clause (b) redundant. The Court affirmed that prosecution evidence regarding the clandestine entry of the vehicle must be tested at trial and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether goods not notified or specified under sub-clause (a) of clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969 can be considered smuggled under sub-clause (b) of the same section?
  • Can criminal proceedings under the Customs Act, 1969 be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when factual questions regarding the illegal importation of goods remain to be determined at trial?
  • Does sub-clause (b) of section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 become redundant if goods are not notified under sub-clause (a)?
  Read full judgment →
• ASAD BROTHERS Versus IBADAT YAR KHAN1988 SCMR 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-03
  evictiondefault in rentwater chargesBetterment Taxstriking off defenceSind Rented Premises Ordinanceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises out of an eviction application filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default in payment of water, conservancy charges, and Betterment Tax. The Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deposit arrears and future monthly payments of water charges and Betterment Tax under section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Upon a minor delay and partial non-compliance, the Rent Controller struck off the petitioner's defence and ordered eviction, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that substantial legal questions were raised regarding the legality and justification of the Rent Controller's order under section 16(1), the propriety of ordering future monthly deposits without prayer, and whether the defence could be struck off without affording an opportunity to show that non-compliance was not wilful or that the underlying order was unsustainable. The appeal was admitted for regular hearing with a stay of eviction conditional upon continued deposits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order made by a Rent Controller under section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance for the deposit of water charges and Betterment Tax, including future monthly deposits, is in accordance with the law when such charges are otherwise payable annually?
  • Whether the Rent Controller was justified in ordering future monthly deposits of water charges and Betterment Tax when no such prayer was made by the landlord in his application?
  • Whether it was open to the Rent Controller to strike off the tenant's defence without giving an opportunity to establish that the deposit order was illegal and unjustified or that the failure to comply was not wilful?
  • Whether the High Court erred in holding that a tenant cannot urge that a deposit order under section 16(1) was on merits unjustified until the final adjudication of the rent application?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-26Read full judgment →
• FARZAND ALI Versus STATE1988 SCMR 66 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
• KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL1988 SCMR 659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-20
  leave to appealmurdersudden fightculpable homicide not amounting to murderattempt to murdermisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant side and the State against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partly allowed the respondents' appeal by setting aside their convictions under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and instead convicting them under sections 304-I and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 with reduced sentences, based on the applicability of Exception 4 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court committed serious errors resulting in a miscarriage of justice by applying Exception 4 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of a "fight," whether there was misreading of evidence, and whether the benefit of Exception 4 could be partially applied. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions, holding that arguable points of law regarding the correct application of Exception 4 and appreciation of evidence warranted a full hearing, while issuing orders regarding the custody and bailable warrants of the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a "fight" precludes the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the High Court committed misreading and non-consideration of evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice?
  • Whether an accused can be granted the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when only some of its conditions are satisfied?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RAZZAQ MANIA Versus STATE1988 SCMR 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-28Read full judgment →
• NASIR AHMED Versus ASGHAR ALI1988 SCMR 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus SAKHI SULTAN1988 SCMR 649 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-05Read full judgment →
• FAZAL RABI Versus STATE1988 SCMR 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-24
  criminal appealmurderattempted murderbenefit of the doubtmedical evidenceocular testimonyidentification in lightre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, whereby the appellant's conviction and sentence under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempted murder were upheld. The core legal questions involved whether the medical evidence conflicted with the ocular account and site plan, and whether the identification of the assailants under the alleged electric bulb light was credible. The Supreme Court of Pakistan accepted the appeal and acquitted the appellant on the ground that the medical evidence regarding skin-deep injuries was inconsistent with firing from a close range as shown in the site plan, and that the evidence concerning the electric bulb used for identification was a fabricated and cooked-up piece of evidence. The key principle laid down is that where material contradictions exist between the ocular version, medical evidence, and site plan, and the source of identification of the accused is doubtful, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused leading to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical evidence showing superficial skin-deep injuries is consistent with close-range firearm firing?
  • Can an accused's conviction be sustained when the sole source of identification is found to be a fabricated and planted piece of evidence?
  • Does a contradiction between the site plan and the medical testimony render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• ALAMGIR Versus STATE1988 SCMR 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-22
  sudden fightculpable homicidepremeditationself-defencecriminal appealsentence reductionproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that upheld the appellants' convictions for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerns whether the incident constituted premeditated murder or a sudden fight, given that both the appellants and the victims sustained injuries during the altercation over a property dispute. The Supreme Court found that the incident arose from a sudden, unpremeditated fight between closely related parties at the spur of the moment, rather than a planned attack. Consequently, the Court held that the conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was inappropriate. The Court modified the conviction of one appellant to Section 304-I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the other to Section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, setting aside the convictions under Section 324/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that where a fatal incident occurs during a sudden, unpremeditated fight in which both parties sustain injuries, the offense is more appropriately classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than premeditated murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden, unpremeditated fight between parties resulting in injuries to both sides negate the charge of premeditated murder?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 304-I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the incident is found to be a sudden fight?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a sentence of imprisonment for a sudden fight?
  Read full judgment →
• ALAM MASOOD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 64 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04
  bail refusalnarcotics smugglingCustoms Actleave to appealcriminal liabilitycarrier of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which refused to grant bail to the petitioner. The petitioner was charged under the Customs Act 1969 for allegedly attempting to smuggle 27.89 kilograms of heroin concealed within water coolers. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner, who contended he was merely a carrier of the contraband, was entitled to the grant of bail in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, held that the case did not warrant interference with the High Court's order refusing bail. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The judgment reinforces the principle that the role of a 'mere carrier' in large-scale narcotics smuggling does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, and appellate courts will not interfere with lower court bail refusals unless a compelling case for such intervention is established.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person charged with smuggling a large quantity of heroin entitled to bail merely on the ground that they acted as a carrier?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order refusing bail in a narcotics smuggling case where the petitioner is a carrier?
  Read full judgment →
• NAEEM SABIR MOGHAL Versus NIZAM ALIAS NIZAMUDDIN1988 SCMR 639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-30
  leave to appealplea of alibire-appraisal of evidenceocular testimonyacquittalmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the acquittal of seven respondents by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind in a murder case. The petitioner, whose brother was killed, alleges that the High Court erroneously accepted the respondents' pleas of alibi despite evidence suggesting that hospital records were interpolated and court proceedings manipulated to fabricate these defenses. The petitioner contends that the High Court failed to properly weigh the ocular testimony of two injured witnesses who consistently supported the prosecution's case. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of evidence required to sustain a plea of alibi and the extent to which appellate courts should re-appraise evidence when trial courts rely on potentially fabricated alibi defenses. The Supreme Court, finding that the petitioner made a prima facie case regarding the validity of the alibi claims and the weight of the ocular evidence, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that a re-appraisal of the evidence and a re-examination of the established case law regarding the plea of alibi are necessary to ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances should an appellate court re-appraise evidence in a criminal acquittal?
  • What is the evidentiary standard required to substantiate a plea of alibi in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to produce the treating doctor in support of a medical alibi render the plea unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• GHAZIDINO Versus STATE1988 SCMR 637 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-13
  illegal gratificationbenefit of doubtcorruptioncriminal appealappreciation of evidencehostile witnesstainted money
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for allegedly demanding illegal gratification. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the demand and acceptance of the bribe, particularly given that the tainted money was recovered from a co-accused and the complainant’s testimony was inconsistent. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the complainant provided contradictory statements during examination-in-chief and cross-examination, and a key prosecution witness was declared hostile. The Court emphasized the cardinal principle of criminal justice that the benefit of every statement favoring the accused must be extended to them. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, ruling that the mere recovery of documents and the filing of an F.I.R. were insufficient to sustain a conviction without reliable, corroborative evidence of the alleged demand and acceptance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a bribe-giver is sufficient to sustain a conviction for illegal gratification?
  • Does the benefit of doubt apply when a complainant provides contradictory statements during trial?
  • Is the recovery of documents from an accused sufficient to establish guilt for demanding a bribe in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL SATTAR SHAH Versus ALI AHMAD1988 SCMR 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-19
  rented premisesex parte evictionstriking off defenceremand orderreasonable excusenatural justiceservice of notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Sind High Court dismissing an appeal against an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was justified in striking off the appellant's defence and passing an ex parte eviction order due to the appellant's failure to appear and file a written statement on a specific date, despite the appellant not receiving the required notice of that date. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller's decision was based on a factual misconception, as the Deputy Registrar had failed to issue the mandatory notice to the parties as directed by the High Court in its remand order. Consequently, the appellant's absence was not willful or contumacious. The Court established the principle that punitive provisions, such as those in Section 19(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, cannot be invoked to strike off a defence where a party has a reasonable excuse for non-appearance, particularly when the failure to appear stems from a lack of notice required by the court's own directions. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defence for non-appearance when the tenant did not receive the mandatory notice of the hearing date?
  • Does the failure to file a written statement on a specific date constitute a willful default if the party was not notified of that date?
  • Are the punitive provisions of Section 19(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 applicable when a party has a reasonable excuse for non-appearance?
  Read full judgment →
• STATE Versus ZAMARRUD BEGUM1988 SCMR 632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-12
  leave to appealconstructive liabilitycommon intentionacquittalappreciation of evidencepre-concert
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by the State against a judgment of the High Court, which had acquitted the respondents of charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents had been initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for their alleged role in holding the deceased while a co-accused inflicted a fatal knife injury. The core legal question was whether the High Court's acquittal, based on an appreciation of evidence regarding the lack of pre-concert or common intention, warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court's decision was based on a sound appreciation of evidence. The Court affirmed that where the prosecution fails to establish common intention or pre-concert, and the incident appears to have occurred suddenly without prior enmity, convictions based on constructive liability cannot be sustained. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's factual findings when no substantial question of law is presented.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment based solely on the appreciation of evidence where no question of law arises?
  • Can a conviction based on constructive liability be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish common intention or pre-concert between the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Versus FURQAN AHMAD QURESHI1988 SCMR 623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-26
  overseas employment promoter's licenceemigrationcancellation of licencefresh applicationrenewal of licenceconstitutional petitionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sind which had declared an order rejecting an Overseas Employment Promoter's licence to be without lawful authority and directed the issuance of the licence. The core legal question concerned whether an application by a formerly licensed entity whose licence was previously cancelled should be treated as a fresh application for a grant of licence under Section 12 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 or as a renewal, and whether the High Court could substitute its own discretion for that of the statutory authority. The Supreme Court held that the respondent had elected to apply for a fresh licence on prescribed forms rather than seeking a renewal, and therefore the authorities were required to evaluate the application as a fresh grant rather than treating it as a restoration of the old licence. However, because the authorities themselves appeared influenced by the historical facts of the cancelled licence and mischaracterized the application as misconceived, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter to the Director-General for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for an Overseas Employment Promoter's licence following the cancellation of a previous licence is to be treated as an application for a fresh grant or as an application for renewal?
  • Can the High Court substitute its own discretion in place of the statutory authority and order the issuance of a licence directly?
  • Whether the statutory authority can refuse a fresh licence application on grounds pertaining to the historical facts of a previously cancelled licence when the applicant has abandoned a claim for renewal?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF SIND Versus SHAFIULLAH QURESHI1988 SCMR 620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-11Read full judgment →
• NIAMAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB1988 SCMR 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04
  grave and sudden provocationculpable homicidecriminal revisionenhancement of sentenceappellate interferenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking the enhancement of sentences awarded to the respondent. The respondent had been tried for murder and attempted murder but was convicted by the trial court under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on a finding of grave and sudden provocation. The core legal question was whether the trial court's decision to convict under Section 304 rather than Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warranted interference or a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had properly juxtaposed the prosecution and defense versions, concluding that the respondent acted under grave and sudden provocation upon discovering his wife in an immoral act. Finding no inconsistency in the lower courts' reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the trial court's assessment of evidence regarding provocation and loss of self-control did not merit appellate interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court's finding of grave and sudden provocation be interfered with if the reasoning is consistent with the circumstances of the case?
  • Is a retrial appropriate when a complainant previously sought only the enhancement of a sentence in a criminal revision petition?
  Read full judgment →
• AMANULLAH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-26
  kidnappingrapeminor victimconsent of minorcorroboration of evidenceappreciation of evidencesentence reductioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for kidnapping and rape. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Sections 363 and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with sentences of three and seven years respectively. The High Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentence for the rape charge to three years, citing the prolonged litigation period, and granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecutrix's testimony was unreliable due to medical evidence suggesting prior sexual experience and that the delay in proceedings warranted further sentence reduction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecutrix's testimony was corroborated by forensic chemical analysis and that the victim's minority rendered her consent immaterial. The Court affirmed that the appreciation of evidence by lower courts was sound and that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims regarding trial delay. The judgment reinforces that the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant in cases of kidnapping and rape, and that appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on reliable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the consent of a minor victim legally relevant in a prosecution for kidnapping and rape?
  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when corroborated by forensic evidence?
  • Does the mere passage of time during litigation automatically entitle a convict to a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone?
  Read full judgment →
• HAFIZ Versus STATE1988 SCMR 617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-17
  acquittalbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceleave to appealinjured witnesscorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner-complainant against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondent of a charge under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after the trial court had initially convicted him while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's appreciation of evidence and the grant of the benefit of the doubt to the respondent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's judgment was well-discussed and based on a proper appreciation of evidence, noting that the testimony of the sole injured witness required strong corroboration given the acquittal of co-accused and failure to examine material eye-witnesses, which corroboration was lacking. The petition raised no substantial question of law and was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a sole injured witness requires strong corroboration when co-accused are acquitted and material eye-witnesses are not examined?
  • Does the High Court's appreciation of evidence warrant interference by the Supreme Court when based on sound reasoning and benefit of the doubt?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when no substantial question of law is raised from the acquittal judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus AZHAR MAHMOOD1988 SCMR 615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-29
  grave and sudden provocationculpable homicidemurderself-controlcriminal appealobjective test
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a High Court decision granting the respondent the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby reducing a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s act of killing the deceased, following a verbal altercation and a physical fight, constituted grave and sudden provocation sufficient to deprive a reasonable person of self-control. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its application of the law. The Court determined that the provocation—being called a 'Chamcha'—was not of such gravity as to deprive an ordinary person of self-control. Furthermore, the Court observed that the incident occurred in two distinct stages: an initial fight and a subsequent, deliberate act of firing after the deceased had retreated. The Court established that the test for grave and sudden provocation is objective, requiring that the provocation would upset a person of ordinary sense and calmness, rather than a hyper-sensitive individual. Consequently, the conviction was altered to Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the sentence was modified to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'Chamcha' constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  • What is the objective test for determining if provocation is grave and sudden enough to deprive an offender of self-control?
  • Can an act of killing be considered a result of grave and sudden provocation if it occurs after the initial altercation has ceased and the victim has retreated?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN Versus CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-20
  Land Reforms Regulationdower deedalienation of landrevenue recordconstitutional jurisdictionremandright to be heard
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from proceedings under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (No.115), where the appellant challenged the rejection of his claims to exclude certain land alienations from his declared land holdings. The Land Commission authorities had refused to recognize these alienations—transfers of land in lieu of dower—solely because the underlying deeds were unregistered and not reflected in the revenue records. The High Court upheld this refusal, declining to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, held that the Land Commission erred by relying exclusively on the absence of registration and revenue entries to invalidate the alienations, without considering other evidence or the rights of the alienees. The Court emphasized that the alienees were necessary parties who should have been heard. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter to the Federal Land Commission. The Commission was directed to re-examine the claims, specifically considering the civil court declaratory decrees and ensuring the alienees are afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the validity of a dower deed be denied by the Land Commission solely due to the absence of registration or entry in revenue records?
  • Are alienees of land whose rights are in jeopardy necessary parties who must be heard in land reform proceedings?
  • Is the Land Commission obligated to consider civil court declaratory decrees when determining the validity of land alienations?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUS SALAM Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANG1988 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07Read full judgment →
• ALI NAWAZ ALIAS ALIYA Versus STATE1988 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-21
  abductioncommon objectcommon intentiongrievous hurtalteration of convictioncriminal appealbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trial, convicting six appellants for rioting, abduction, and causing grievous and simple injuries. The core legal questions involved whether the short distance of movement constituted abduction under section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the co-accused shared a common object or intention for the principal offender's specific brutal act of gouging the victim's eyes. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, holding that the short distance from the initial encounter to the Dera did not constitute abduction, thereby acquitting all appellants of that charge. Furthermore, the Court held that the co-accused did not share the common intention or knowledge regarding the principal accused's independent act of gouging the victim's eyes with a piece of brick found at the scene, setting aside their convictions for those grievous injuries. The principal accused's conviction was altered from section 326 to section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and convictions for simple hurt were maintained where active participation was established. The key principle laid down is that participation in a general scuffle does not automatically impute shared common intent or object for distinct, unforeseen brutal acts independently committed by a co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does moving a victim over a very short distance following a sudden encounter constitute the offence of abduction under section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can co-accused be held vicariously liable under section 149 or section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an unforeseen and independent brutal act committed by the principal offender?
  • Whether the offence of causing grievous injury with a piece of brick already lying at the spot falls under section 326 or section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KARIM Versus STATE1988 SCMR 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
• SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD AMJAD PARVAIZ1988 SCMR 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  settlement of claimsagricultural land allotmentevacuee propertyunauthorized transferadministrative negligenceconstitutional petitioncompromise order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that directed the Settlement Department to implement a compromise agreement regarding the allotment of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the respondents were entitled to the confirmation of land allotments under a previous agreed order of the High Court, which required their claim to be pending in the specific estate at the time of the writ petition's institution. The Settlement Commissioner argued that the claim was not pending in the estate, thereby disqualifying the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were entitled to the land. The Court reasoned that the claim had been verified and was within the district's Settlement Department's jurisdiction, but was subject to an unauthorized transfer to Lahore. The Court established the principle that the Settlement Department cannot rely on the failure or negligence of its own functionaries to defeat a claimant's entitlement when all other conditions for allotment are satisfied. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Settlement Department deny a claimant's entitlement based on the failure of its own functionaries to process a claim?
  • Does an unauthorized transfer of a claim to another district defeat the claimant's entitlement to land in the original estate?
  • Is a claimant entitled to land allotment when their claim was verified and present in the district but mishandled by the department?
  Read full judgment →
• AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF1988 SCMR 597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-21
  service terminationdisciplinary proceedingsmaster and servantstatutory interpretationcompetent authoritymisconductcivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent, an employee of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, had his services terminated under Staff Services Regulation No. 13(1), which allows for termination without assigning reasons upon payment of salary in lieu of notice. The respondent challenged this termination in a civil suit, arguing that because the Bank internally considered him corrupt, it was legally obligated to proceed under Staff Services Regulation No. 95, which governs disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. The lower courts ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that the Bank could not bypass the disciplinary procedure of Regulation 95 when the underlying reason for termination was alleged corruption. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the Bank had the discretion to choose between the two regulations. The Court held that the Bank possesses two distinct powers under its regulations, and in the absence of a specific legal bar, the competent authority may elect to terminate services under Regulation 13 rather than initiating disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 95, provided the action is not mala fide. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court decisions and dismissed the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer choose to terminate an employee's services under a general termination clause instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings for misconduct?
  • Does the existence of an internal allegation of corruption legally compel an employer to proceed under disciplinary regulations rather than a general termination clause?
  • Is an employer's decision to terminate service under a general termination clause invalid if the employer previously considered disciplinary action?
  • Under what circumstances can an employer's choice between two available modes of termination be challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• SAEED AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-21
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceoutraging modestygrievous hurtattempted murderspeedy trial court
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court convicting five appellants for rioting, house trespass, attempted murder, and outraging the modesty of a woman. The core legal question involves the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence to determine the guilt of the appellants and the correct penal provision applicable to the assault. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the guilt of four appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt based on consistent eyewitness and medical testimony, while granting the benefit of doubt to the fifth appellant who was empty-handed. Furthermore, the Court held that the charge of attempted murder was not made out as the intention was to beat and disgrace rather than kill, substituting the conviction under section 307 with section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The key principle laid down is that the specific intent requisite for attempted murder must be clearly established from the facts, and where the evidence points to an intention to cause grievous hurt and humiliation rather than death, the conviction must be altered accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the charge of attempted murder is sustainable when the evidence establishes an intention to beat and disgrace rather than to kill?
  • Can a conviction under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code be altered to section 325 upon re-evaluation of the medical and ocular evidence?
  • Should an accused be granted the benefit of doubt when the First Information Report does not attribute any specific overt act or weapon to her?
  Read full judgment →
• SHER AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 591 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-09
  death penaltymitigation of sentencesudden provocationcriminal appealmurderfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant challenged the imposition of the death penalty. The core legal question was whether the death sentence was appropriate given that the prosecution's motive was based on remote, seven-to-eight-year-old litigation and the occurrence was preceded by an exchange of abuses, potentially suggesting sudden provocation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the death sentence was proper and well-deserved. The Court reasoned that the appellant was armed with a firearm, which he deployed at close range, causing fatal injuries to the deceased's chest, lungs, and liver. The Court emphasized that the presence of a lethal weapon and the deliberate act of firing at close range negated the argument for mitigation based on the exchange of abuses. The principle established is that the mere exchange of verbal abuse does not mitigate a sentence of death when the accused is armed with a lethal weapon and acts with clear intent to cause fatal injury at close range.

  Questions settled

  • Does an exchange of verbal abuses between parties immediately preceding a fatal shooting constitute sufficient grounds to mitigate a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is the death penalty appropriate for a murder conviction where the accused was armed with a firearm and fired at close range, despite a remote motive?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus GHULAM1988 SCMR 590 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NIAZ AHMAD, MANAGER, WOOD WORKING A.A. FACTORY P.O.F. BOARD, WAH CANTT. Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REGULATION WING, ISLAMABAD1988 SCMR 587 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-09
  service tribunalpremature incrementsnational pay scaleengineering graduaterecruitment rulescivil servantsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, arising from a decision of the Service Tribunal dated 23rd October 1983, examined whether the appellant, employed as a Manager in the Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board and holding an AMIE qualification recognized as equivalent to a B.Sc. Engineering degree, was entitled to five premature increments under a Finance Division Office Memorandum granting such benefits to NPS-17 posts of engineers where the prescribed minimum qualification is graduation in engineering. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit because the recruitment rules and conditions applicable to holders of the AMIE qualification required undergoing a two-year training as a trainee before induction, distinguishing them from direct recruits possessing a basic minimum B.Sc. Engineering degree. The court laid down the principle that eligibility for beneficial dispensations regarding pay scales depends strictly on the recruitment rules and the specific category and minimum qualifications prescribed for the post held by the civil servant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee holding an AMIE qualification equivalent to a B.Sc. Engineering degree is entitled to premature increments under the Office Memorandum for NPS-17 engineering posts?
  • Does the requirement of completing a training period as a trainee before final appointment affect eligibility for premature increments under the Office Memorandum?
  • What determines the minimum qualification for a post for the purpose of claiming beneficial pay scale dispensations under service law?
  Read full judgment →
• FAZAL RAHMAN & SONS LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL1988 SCMR 585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-21
  leave to appealtransfer of servicesindustrial disputelabour courttermination of employmentsolvent extraction plant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute where the Federal Government, after taking over the management of a vegetable ghee mill under the Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Industry (Control and Development) Act, 1973, sold its solvent extraction plant to a private entity. The registered sale-deed transferred the services of 140 workers, including the contesting respondents, who were employed at the plant, to the vendee on the same terms and conditions. The respondents challenged this transfer under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, arguing it amounted to termination and placed them at a disadvantage. While the Labour Court dismissed the petitions, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal directed that the workers be given options to choose their employer, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Appellate Tribunal could legally interfere with the transfer of services of workers who were factually employed at the sold plant at the relevant date, and suspended the operation of the Tribunal's order in the interim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the services of workers employed in a specific section of an industrial undertaking can be legally transferred to a vendee upon the sale of that section?
  • Can the Labour Appellate Tribunal direct an employer to offer options of transfer to workers when they are factually on the strength of the sold plant at the time of sale?
  • Does the transfer of services of employees to a vendee on the same terms and conditions of service amount to an illegal termination of employment?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHANI Versus STATE1988 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
• NAWAB KHAN ALIAS NABI Versus STATE1988 SCMR 579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-28Read full judgment →
• SHER MUHAMMAD Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-28
  settlement schemedemand noticeautomatic resumptioncancellation of allotmentestoppel against statuteauction of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, by leave, arose from the judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed the appellant's writ petition in limine. The appellant had been transferred an open plot under Settlement Scheme No. VI, but failed to pay the full transfer price within the one-month period specified in an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the property was auctioned to the respondents. The appellant subsequently deposited the remaining price and sought restoration. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the High Court held that no demand notice was necessary and that resumption was automatic. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, penal consequences such as resumption and cancellation cannot ensue without the mandatory service of a demand notice. The Court ruled that there is no automatic resumption of property for non-payment of dues, and there can be no estoppel against a statute, thereby rendering the subsequent auction invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Can a transferred property be legally resumed and auctioned for non-payment of dues without the prior service of a mandatory demand notice?
  • Is the resumption and cancellation of an allotment automatic upon a transferee's default in paying the transfer price?
  • Can the principle of estoppel be applied against a statutory requirement to issue a demand notice before taking penal action?
  Read full judgment →
• STATE CEMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1988 SCMR 575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-23Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ MAI Versus QASIM1988 SCMR 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-20
  criminal appealacquittalappraisal of evidenceleave to appealabductionrape
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions filed by Mst. Mumtaz Mai challenge the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which acquitted the respondents Qasim, Talib Hussain, and Rashid Ahmad of charges under sections 363, 366, and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly applied the well-established principles of appraisal of evidence in criminal cases while acquitting the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the case warranted a thorough examination of the appraisal of evidence by the High Court and consequently granted leave to appeal in all three petitions, directing the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the respondents and scheduling an early hearing for the appeals. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will grant leave to examine an acquittal where questions arise regarding the proper application of principles governing the appraisal of evidence by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the well-established principles of appraisal of evidence in criminal cases were correctly applied by the High Court in acquitting the respondents?
  • Is leave to appeal properly granted against an acquittal when the appreciation of evidence by the High Court requires examination?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus ZAHID JAVID BUTT1988 SCMR 571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22
  leave to appealappraisal of evidenceocular testimonybenefit of doubtmurdercriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was brought by the brother of the deceased against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed the convicts' appeal, dismissed the State appeal, and refused to confirm the death sentence of respondent Zahid Javid Butt. The prosecution alleged that the respondents killed the deceased with a churri during a political agitation due to a previous altercation. The trial court had convicted the accused, but the High Court acquitted them by rejecting the eye-witness testimony due to a discrepancy regarding the time of the injured witness's medical examination relative to his presence with the dead body. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the ocular testimony on minor grounds. The Supreme Court held that the case of Zahid Javed required re-examination of evidence regarding the appraisal of criminal testimony, granting leave to appeal partially for Zahid Javed while dismissing the petition against co-respondent Hamid Javed. The principle laid down is that minor discrepancies or casual admissions should not form the sole basis for wholesale rejection of otherwise credible ocular testimony without proper evaluation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured eye-witness can be discarded solely on the basis of a minor discrepancy regarding the time of his medical examination?
  • Can the High Court reject eye-witness testimony as interested on legally insufficient grounds without proper appraisal of evidence?
  • Is a co-accused entitled to the benefit of doubt where contradictions exist regarding his specific role and participation in the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL MAJID Versus NAWAB DIN1988 SCMR 570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-21
  leave to appealcriminal revisionculpable homicidemurderappreciation of evidencesolitary injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's criminal revision against the respondent's conviction under section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code instead of section 302, Pakistan Penal Code in a murder case. The core legal question is whether the trial court and High Court erred in convicting the respondent under section 304, Part II rather than section 302, Pakistan Penal Code given the circumstances of the solitary injury and lack of premeditation. The Supreme Court held that although technical errors might exist, the appeal would not ultimately succeed on substance, as re-examination of evidence could at most alter the conviction to section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code without changing the practical outcome. The court laid down the principle that leave to appeal will be refused where a re-appraisal of evidence is unlikely to alter the substantial outcome or remedy a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted where re-examination of evidence would not alter the substantial outcome of the case?
  • Does a solitary injury inflicted without premeditation warrant a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When can a conviction under section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained in place of a murder charge?
  Read full judgment →
• YASEEN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-21
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailunlawful assemblymurderabuse of concessioncondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail of the petitioners who were involved in a case registered under sections 302, 429, 149, 109, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code for forming an unlawful assembly, firing at the complainant party, and causing a death and the killing of an animal. The petitioners were initially granted bail by the High Court based on favorable police investigation reports. Subsequently, the High Court cancelled their bail due to the registration of subsequent FIRs indicating that the petitioners were intimidating and assaulting members of the complainant party. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the cancellation of bail for misuse of concession. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal for certain petitioners and granted them bail subject to surety bonds, while refusing leave for the remaining petitioners. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be cancelled if the accused abuses the concession of bail by intimidating or assaulting the complainant party.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail once granted be cancelled if the accused abuses the concession by intimidating the complainant party?
  • Whether subsequent registration of FIRs against the accused for intimidation constitutes sufficient ground for bail cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• ALEY NABI Versus CHAIRMAN, SIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1988 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
• REHMAT ALI Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-20Read full judgment →
• RIAZUL HAQUE Versus ABDUL SAMAD1988 SCMR 565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 564 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1988 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-23
  settlement lawstransfer of propertydiscretionary jurisdictionleave to appealurban property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a dispute over the transfer of a double-storeyed premises situated in Lahore Cantt, currently occupied by three parties: the petitioner Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent Amanullah, and respondent Fazal Ahmad. The core legal question concerns the proper transfer and allocation of urban property under settlement laws among competing occupants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's decision to accommodate each occupant in the specific portion long in their respective occupation was just and fair. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal, laying down the principle that equitable distribution reflecting long-standing occupation will generally not be disturbed by the apex court in discretionary review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court judgment that equitably divides property among long-standing occupants?
  • Is the grant of leave to appeal under discretionary jurisdiction warranted when the impugned order achieves a just and fair result?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAFAR Versus SAKHI MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 56 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03
  criminal petitionfree fightindividual liabilityalteration of convictionreduction of sentenceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which modified the convictions and sentences of the respondents in a criminal case arising from a clash between closely related parties. The core legal question concerns the justification for altering convictions and reducing sentences after finding that a free fight had occurred between the parties where each member of the accused party was held responsible for their individual acts. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error in its appraisal of the evidence regarding the free fight and individual liability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that interference is unwarranted where the lower court properly assesses the evidence in sudden mutual clashes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in altering convictions and reducing sentences upon finding that a sudden free fight occurred between related parties?
  • Is each member of an accused party to be held responsible only for their individual act in the absence of a common object in a free fight?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings regarding the appraisal of evidence in criminal revision matters without strong grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASUL Versus STATE1988 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-16
  benefit of doubtdacoityidentification paradetracker evidencerecovery of stolen propertycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the Special Judge Court for Speedy Trial, convicting four appellants under Section 394/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing them to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fines. The core legal question concerns the safety of relying on uncorroborated eye-witness testimony, flawed identification parades, doubtful tracker evidence, and suspicious delayed recoveries of stolen property. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions and sentences by giving the appellants the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witness accounts are improbable, identification parades lack specification of individual roles, tracker evidence is compromised by trampled footprints at a busy crime scene, and recoveries suffer from severe police padding and lack of independent local corroboration, the prosecution's case fails to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for dacoity be sustained solely on the basis of a sole eye-witness whose conduct and varying versions render him unreliable?
  • Does an identification parade lose its efficacy if the witness fails to describe the specific role played by each accused during the commission of the offence?
  • Is tracker evidence reliable when footprints are taken from a busy highway subject to heavy public and police movement after the incident?
  • What is the evidentiary value of belated recoveries of stolen property made from open and unprotected premises without independent local witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• JALA Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, 'PUNJAB, LAHORE1988 SCMR 556 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-22
  petition for leave to appealrevenue matterwrit petitionboard of revenueSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court as a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court passed on 27 July 1980 in a writ petition. The core legal question involves the correctness of the High Court's judgment concerning revenue matters, which was previously examined by this Court in a connected matter. The Supreme Court holds that since the challenge mounted to the correctness of the impugned High Court order was already found to be infirm and dismissed in a previously reported judgment involving the same common judgment, the instant petition cannot succeed either. Consequently, the Court dismisses the petition for leave to appeal, following the precedent set in the earlier connected case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal against a common judgment of the High Court must fail when a connected petition arising from the same judgment has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• FAUZIA PARVEEN ALIAS FAUZIA TIWANA Versus SAHIB KHATOON1988 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-26
  ex parte decreesetting aside ex parte decreeminor representationguardian ad litemsubstituted servicePardahnashin ladiesconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil suit instituted by the appellant seeking a declaration of legitimacy and a share in the estate of the deceased. An ex parte decree was passed against the respondents, some of whom were minors and Pardahnashin ladies, after a transfer of the suit. The respondents subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed by the District Judge and upheld in limine by the High Court upon finding that service of summons was defective and that minor respondents were not properly represented by their guardian ad litem who had failed to perform her duties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the High Court's view. Holding that the courts below correctly exercised their discretion in setting aside the ex parte decree given the lack of proper service and the negligence of the guardian representing the minor respondents, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that courts must remain vigilant as custodians of minors' interests.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ex parte decree can be set aside on the ground of defective service and lack of proper representation of minor defendants?
  • What is the duty of the court when a guardian ad litem fails to perform their duty in representing minor defendants during a suit?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts regarding the insufficiency of service of process?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 550 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-19
  partition suitburden of proofexecution of documentattesting witnessessettlement propertyestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the ownership and partition of a house transferred by the Settlement Department. The respondent, Ghulam Mohammad, filed a suit for partition claiming a share in the property. The petitioner, Mohammad Shafi, contested this, asserting that the respondent had transferred his share to him via a document dated 29th November 1972, and that the respondent was estopped from claiming partition due to prior conduct and agreements. The trial court granted a preliminary decree for partition, which was initially reversed on appeal but subsequently restored by the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether the petitioner had successfully proven the execution of the alleged transfer document (Ex.D/1). The Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof, as he did not produce any of the four attesting witnesses to the document, and the testimony of the scribe was rightly disbelieved by the lower courts. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, upholding the partition decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving the execution of a disputed document lie on the party relying upon it?
  • Can a document be considered proved if the attesting witnesses are not produced to testify?
  • Is a finding of fact regarding the non-execution of a document by the lower courts subject to interference in a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMADAMIR QASMI Versus MUHAMMAD IDREESY1988 SCMR 549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-19Read full judgment →
• NAZEER AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ ZAHID1988 SCMR 547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
• AJMAL KHAN Versus ELECTION AUTHORITY, PUNJAB, LAHORE1988 SCMR 546 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-12
  election disputewrit petitionelection tribunalalternative remedylocal government electionballot papers
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court, which arose from a dispute in a local government election to a Union Council where the Presiding Officer referred the tied election to the Returning Officer due to a tense situation and power failure, and the Returning Officer decided the result through the spin of a coin. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction when alternative statutory remedies were already invoked. The Supreme Court held that matters regarding the validity of ballot papers and the propriety of the Returning Officer's method of deciding the election fall primarily within the exclusive domain of the Election Tribunal, before which proceedings were already pending. The Court affirmed that constitutional writ jurisdiction ought not to be prematurely invoked when adequate alternative remedies are available and pursued, consequently dismissing the petition with costs for unnecessary litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disputes regarding the rejection or acceptance of ballot papers and the determination of election results should be decided by an Election Tribunal?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable when the petitioner has already approached the Election Tribunal for the same relief?
  • Whether the High Court's refusal to interfere in writ jurisdiction under the circumstances was justified?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMADAZEEM Versus STATE1988 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-18Read full judgment →
• MEHR ALI Versus ATTA MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-19
  petition for leave to appealsudden fightcommon intentionmurderculpable homicideinjuries on both sidescriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 12 February 1985, which modified the convictions and sentences of the respondents originally tried under section 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and causing injuries. The High Court had set aside the murder and attempt to murder convictions, instead convicting the respondents under lesser provisions including section 304 Part II, section 324, and section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code based on a finding that a sudden fight had occurred without previous enmity, and injuries were sustained by both sides. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the original convictions under sections 302/34 and 307/34. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted as the High Court correctly concluded that the incident was a sudden fight where liability was properly fixed individually. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, laying down that in cases of sudden mutual fights with injuries on both sides and no prior enmity, individual criminal liability corresponding to specific injuries is appropriately determined rather than invoking joint liability under section 34.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside convictions under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code when an occurrence takes place in the form of a sudden fight?
  • Can joint criminal liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained in the absence of previous enmity and where injuries are sustained by both competing parties?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's reappraisal of evidence regarding sudden provocation and individual attribution of injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE1988 SCMR 541 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-26
  post-arrest bailunlawful assemblyabductionmurderaffidavits of witnessesdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order refusing their post-arrest bail application in a case involving the abduction and subsequent murder of two persons. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly that forcibly abducted the deceased persons, and they were apprehended at the spot where the dead bodies were recovered. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the grounds of being empty-handed, having filed affidavits from prosecution witnesses supporting their innocence, and the delay in the commencement of the trial. The Supreme Court held that prima facie there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners were guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the affidavits of prosecution witnesses could not be evaluated at the bail stage. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that close involvement in an abduction leading to murder disentitles an accused to bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while leaving open the remedy to renew the bail application if the trial suffers inordinate delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person apprehended at the spot of a double murder following an abduction is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Can affidavits sworn by prosecution witnesses in favor of the accused be evaluated at the bail stage to override direct incriminating allegations?
  • Does a delay of two years in the commencement of a trial constitute inordinate delay warranting the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMEED Versus STATE1988 SCMR 540 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-17
  petition for leave to appealmurderacquittalocular testimonymedical evidencemotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously convicted the respondents, sentencing some to death and one to life imprisonment, based on an incident resulting in the deaths of two persons, arising from a land dispute. The petitioner challenged the High Court's rejection of the motive version and its finding of material discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical testimony. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the impugned judgment, the statements of the eye-witnesses, and the medical evidence, and concluded that no grounds existed to interfere with the acquittal. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the acquittal of the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court when ocular testimony and medical evidence contain material discrepancies?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be sustained against the rejection of a motive version by the High Court?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court set aside an appellate court's judgment acquitting persons charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus SULEMAN1988 SCMR 539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-17
  leave to appealenhancement of sentencegrievous hurtcompensationcriminal appealintention to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which maintained the convictions of the respondents under sections 326 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing their sentences to the period already undergone. The respondents were originally charged with murder, but the trial court convicted them for causing grievous hurt and hurt, respectively, following an incident where the deceased died twenty days later due to complications from knife wounds. The petitioner challenged the adequacy of the sentences, arguing that the injuries were inflicted with the intention to murder, thereby warranting a conviction for murder rather than lesser offences. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the trial court failed to impose mandatory compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine the potential enhancement of the sentence under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and to consider the imposition of compensation under section 544-A and section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to impose compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a legal error requiring correction?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the purpose of enhancing a sentence imposed by the High Court?
  • Is the imposition of fine under Section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory in cases involving grievous hurt?
  Read full judgment →
• NLAHMOODA SULTANA Versus JAMILA BEGUM1988 SCMR 538 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus STATE1988 SCMR 535 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-09
  leave to appealmurderenhancement of sentenceconstructive liabilityalteration of sentencereappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the death sentences of the convict-petitioners to life imprisonment for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and set aside the murder convictions under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for four co-accused, convicting them instead under section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant sought enhancement of sentences and challenged the partial acquittals. The core legal questions involved the propriety of altering sentences from death to life imprisonment and setting aside constructive liability convictions under section 149 when eyewitness testimony was found credible. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that arguable points were raised regarding the reappraisal of evidence and justification for altering sentences and acquitting co-accused. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to both the convict-petitioners and the complainant for the safe dispensation of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside convictions under section 302 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when eyewitnesses were found to be present and reliable?
  • Is the absence of proof of an immediate cause a sufficient ground to alter a death sentence to imprisonment for life for a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused of murder and their conviction under section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was legally sustainable based on the nature of simple injuries caused by blunt weapons?
  Read full judgment →
• DIN MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF Versus ABDUL AZIZ1988 SCMR 529 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-16Read full judgment →
• WEST PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Versus RASHID AHMED1988 SCMR 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-21
  right of appealpending proceedingsLabour Appellate TribunalIndustrial Relations Ordinanceretrospective operationsubstantive right
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court addressed whether an appeal lies to the Labour Appellate Tribunal against a decision of the Labour Court in a matter pending when the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance (XLVIII of 1972) came into force, which Ordinance deleted subsection (3) of section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The respondent's service termination dispute was pending before the Labour Court upon the promulgation of the amending Ordinance, and the Labour Court subsequently ruled in his favor, after which the Labour Appellate Tribunal heard and allowed the employer's appeal. The High Court, however, held the appeal to be not maintainable under section 28 of the amending Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that a right of appeal is a substantive right that accrues on the date the proceedings are instituted, and such a right survives an amendment unless taken away retrospectively or by necessary intendment, neither of which applied here. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, affirming that the right of appeal against the Labour Court's decision in pending proceedings survived the statutory amendments.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie to the Labour Appellate Tribunal against a decision of the Labour Court in a matter pending at the time of the promulgation of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972?
  • Whether the right of appeal against an order of the Labour Court survives the deletion of subsection (3) of section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can a substantive right of appeal be taken away without express retrospective words or necessary intendment in an amending statute?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAB Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ1988 SCMR 524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  special leave to appealacquittalappreciation of evidenceright of self-defencecriminal appealprosecution versiondefence version
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which acquitted four respondents and upheld the acquittal of four others previously tried for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial Magistrate had convicted four respondents for various offences, including attempted murder and causing hurt, while acquitting the remaining four. The High Court, in a common judgment, acquitted the convicted respondents and dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of the others, citing the complainant party's attempt to implicate the entire accused family and finding support for the defence's version of self-defence through ballistic evidence. The petitioners challenged this, arguing the High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning for disbelieving the prosecution case and misappreciated the evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the case presented features requiring deeper scrutiny regarding whether the acquittals were recorded based on correct legal principles and proper appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court's failure to provide specific reasons for disbelieving prosecution evidence in an acquittal warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
  • Can an appellate court's preference for a defence version over the prosecution version be challenged if it lacks proper appreciation of the evidence?
  • Is the acquittal of respondents sustainable when the High Court relies on the complainant's attempt to implicate an entire family as a basis for reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• AHMAD ALI Versus STATE1988 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  private defenseculpable homicideexceeding right of self-defensecriminal appealconviction modificationPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that modified the petitioners' convictions from Section 304, Part II, to Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the death of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the High Court, having acknowledged the petitioners' right of self-defense, was required to acquit them rather than convict them, absent an explicit finding that the right of self-defense had been exceeded. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the conviction under Section 304, Part I, inherently presupposed a finding that the petitioners had exceeded their right of private defense. The Court emphasized that the severity of the outcome—two deaths and multiple injuries—clearly demonstrated that the force employed by the petitioners went beyond what was necessary for self-protection. Consequently, the Court affirmed that no miscarriage of justice occurred, establishing that a conviction under Section 304, Part I, is legally consistent with a finding that the right of private defense was exceeded.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, inherently imply that the accused exceeded their right of private defense?
  • Is an explicit finding of exceeding the right of self-defense required in the judgment text if the conviction itself is for an offense that presupposes such excess?
  • Can an accused be convicted for culpable homicide when the court determines they were not the initial aggressors but acted in self-defense?
  Read full judgment →
• HASSAN ZAI Versus SHAMSUL TABREZ1988 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1971-04-17
  mortgage redemptionrestitution of mortgaged landcivil court jurisdictionlimitation periodnovation of contractspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a suit challenging an order of the Additional Commissioner under the N.-W.F.P. Restitution of Mortgaged Land Act, 1950. The dispute arose over land mortgaged in 1870, with a subsequent mortgage deed executed in 1896 and a purported redemption in 1898. The respondents successfully obtained an order for the extinction of the mortgage under the 1950 Act. The petitioners filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership, arguing the mortgage was no longer subsisting due to the expiration of the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1908, and that the Commissioner's order was without jurisdiction. The High Court held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 11 of the 1950 Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to try the suit and whether the redemption of the first mortgage and creation of a second mortgage constituted a novation of contract.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try a suit challenging an order passed under the N.-W.F.P. Restitution of Mortgaged Land Act 1950?
  • Whether the redemption of a first mortgage and the creation of a second mortgage constitutes a novation of contract?
  Read full judgment →
• REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS Versus WALTER RAU NEUSSER 01 UND FETT AG1988 SCMR 518 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
• ZAMEER AHMAD Versus BASHIR AHMAD1988 SCMR 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-30
  evacuee propertyPermanent Transfer Deedwrit jurisdictiondiscretionary remedybreach of trustSettlement Authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute between brothers regarding the transfer of evacuee property in Hyderabad. The appellants and the respondent jointly applied for the transfer of the property, and the respondent, acting on behalf of all, executed an agreement to ensure the transfer documents were in their joint names. However, the respondent breached this agreement by obtaining the Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) exclusively in his own name. The appellants challenged this before the Settlement Authorities, who ordered the correction of the P.T.D. to include the appellants. The High Court, in a writ petition, set aside these orders, citing a lack of jurisdiction to correct the P.T.D. under the relevant rules. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction to restore an unfair and improper P.T.D. obtained through the respondent's breach of trust. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in aid of injustice, particularly when doing so perpetuates a fraud or unfair outcome, regardless of technical jurisdictional arguments regarding the Settlement Authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Should the High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to restore a Permanent Transfer Deed obtained through a breach of trust?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to decline a writ petition if granting it would result in an injustice?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVBNUE1988 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA Versus ALI SHER1988 SCMR 512 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAFAR Versus HAFIZA KHANUM1988 SCMR 511 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-06Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI Versus MALIK OIL MILLS1988 SCMR 506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-02
  sales tax exemptionmanufacturing licencetax referencefinding of factbona fide purchaserburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil appeals against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court answering tax references in favour of the assessee. The respondent assessee claimed exemption under section 4 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, for sales made to parties holding manufacturing licences. The Sales-tax Officer disallowed the exemption on the assumption that the purchasing parties were bogus and non-existent, a view upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner based on surmises. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversed these findings, holding that the assessee was entitled to rely on the valid manufacturing licences issued by the Department itself, and it was not the assessee's responsibility to investigate the genuineness of the licence-holders. The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Department bore the onus to prove the assessee knew the purchasers were fictitious, and in the absence of cancellation of the licences by the Department, the assessee was fully justified in making sales on the strength of valid manufacturing licences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessee is legally required to verify the genuineness of a manufacturing licence issued by the Department before making tax-exempt sales to the licence-holder?
  • Can a conclusion of fact by a tribunal based on surmises and conjectures be interfered with by the High Court under section 17 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
  • Does the onus lie on the Revenue to prove that an assessee had knowledge that a purchaser holding a valid manufacturing licence was a fictitious entity?
  Read full judgment →
• AMAN ULLAH Versus WAZIR ALI1988 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
• SALEEM AKHTAR Versus ALLAH DITTA SETHI1988 SCMR 502 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus RASHID1988 SCMR 500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• MIAN AFTAB A . SHAIKH Versus INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1988 SCMR 50 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-31
  income tax assessmentIncome Tax Appellate TribunalSpecial Benchdraft judgmentlocus paenitentiaeconstitutional petitionbinding judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from leave to appeal granted to examine whether an income-tax assessment order was complete based on individual judgments recorded and signed by two out of three Tribunal members before the Chairman constituted a Special Bench to rehear the matter. The core legal question was whether signed draft opinions of individual members constitute a final, binding judgment of the Tribunal capable of communication, or merely a tentative step subject to change before formal delivery. The Supreme Court held that individual opinions and signed drafts remain tentative until a final decision of the whole bench is reached and formally crystallized, and judges or tribunal members retain a locus paenitentiae to alter their views until the judgment becomes operative. Consequently, the third member's failure to express a formal opinion left the case unconcluded, justifying the Chairman's constitution of a larger bench. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether signed draft opinions of individual members of a tribunal constitute a final and binding judgment?
  • Does a tribunal member retain the right to change their mind until a judgment is formally delivered or communicated?
  • Can a case be reheard by a newly constituted larger bench if the original bench failed to deliver a complete and operative decision?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus TUFAIL MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-12
  evacuee propertytemporary allotmentwrit jurisdictioncompensation poolleave to appealland confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over evacuee property in Faisalabad, which the Provincial Government had exchanged for State land, thereby removing it from the compensation pool. The respondents, claiming to be temporary allottees, initially filed a writ petition. During those proceedings, the Assistant Advocate-General conceded that the Government would allow the land to be confirmed in the respondents' favour if they were found entitled under the applicable scheme, with the matter referred to a Settlement Commissioner for determination. However, the Settlement Commissioner failed to conduct this inquiry. Subsequently, the respondents filed a second writ petition, and a learned Single Judge of the High Court ordered the confirmation of the land in their favour based on the previous High Court order. The Provincial Government sought leave to appeal, arguing that the High Court erred by ordering confirmation without the prerequisite determination of the respondents' entitlement by the Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the High Court could not bypass the necessary factual inquiry into the respondents' status as claimants and temporary allottees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court order the confirmation of evacuee property in favour of claimants without a prior determination of their entitlement by the Settlement Commissioner?
  • Is a concession made by an Assistant Advocate-General regarding the transfer of land binding if the underlying factual conditions for entitlement remain unverified?
  Read full judgment →
• MAQSOOD AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 498 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-23
  criminal appealmurdercompromisesentence reductionmitigating circumstancedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court judgment maintaining his conviction and sentence of death under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the proceedings, the parties compromised the matter out of court, and the petitioner provided proof that the complainant party had been amply compensated. The State counsel did not oppose the compromise. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a compromise between the parties constitutes a sufficient mitigating circumstance to warrant the reduction of the death sentence. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it in part, and reduced the petitioner's sentence from death to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the sentence of fine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the parties serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and partly allow it?
  Read full judgment →
• SALAH-UD-DIN BUTT Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL1988 SCMR 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-16Read full judgment →
• DIRECTOR FOOD, PUNJAB, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD YASIN BHATTI1988 SCMR 496 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-17
  service tribunaldisciplinary penaltyrecovery of lossgovernment employeespecial leave to appealservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against an order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The respondent, a government employee, had been subjected to disciplinary penalties, specifically the stoppage of increments and the recovery of monetary losses incurred by the government due to a theft of sugar. While the Punjab Service Tribunal upheld the penalty regarding the stoppage of increments, it set aside the order for the recovery of the loss. The Tribunal concluded, based on an analysis of the record, that the respondent was not responsible for the shortage or loss of sugar, as the theft was attributable solely to the chowkidars, who had already been punished by the competent authority. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the Tribunal and determined that the conclusion reached was neither perverse nor unjustified. Finding no substantial question of law of public importance requiring further consideration, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the petition, affirming that the respondent could not be held liable for the loss.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service tribunal's finding of fact regarding the liability of a government employee for financial loss be interfered with if it is not perverse?
  • Is a government employee liable for the recovery of losses caused by the theft of goods if the theft is proven to be the fault of other employees?
  Read full judgment →
• AHMAD NAWAZ Versus KHAN ZAMAN1988 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  acquittalself-defenceinterested witnessesappreciation of evidencecriminal appealmedical evidenceF.I.R.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The respondents had been convicted by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the petitioner's father. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's version of events—supported by interested eye-witnesses—in favor of the defence's plea of self-defence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution's eye-witnesses were rightly disbelieved due to their interested and hostile nature. The Court held that where two conflicting versions of an occurrence exist, the version supported by medical evidence, the presence of injuries on the accused, and an earlier-in-time F.I.R. lodged by the accused is to be preferred. The principle laid down is that when prosecution evidence is unreliable and the defence version is corroborated by independent medical and documentary evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and the appellate court's acquittal will not be interfered with.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court prefer a defence version of an occurrence over the prosecution version if the prosecution witnesses are found to be interested and hostile?
  • Does the presence of a fire-arm injury on an accused person support a plea of self-defence in a murder case?
  • Is an F.I.R. lodged by an accused person prior to the prosecution's F.I.R. a relevant factor in determining the credibility of the defence version?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus MUHAMMAD JAN1988 SCMR 492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  leave to appealsentence reductionmurderdeath sentencelife imprisonmentconjectureappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 23rd April, 1984, whereby the respondent's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code was maintained, but his sentence was reduced from death to life imprisonment. The prosecution case is that the respondent murdered the deceased with a chhuri following an earlier altercation over a cloth purchase transaction. The High Court reduced the sentence based on the conjecture that the deceased must have provoked the respondent during the encounter. The core legal question is whether the High Court's reasoning and conjecture for awarding a lesser penalty are sustainable based on the evidence on record. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to examine the sustainability of the reasons given by the High Court for the commutation of the death sentence. The principle laid down is that sentence reduction cannot be based on mere conjectures unsupported by the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the reason given by the High Court for awarding a lesser penalty to the respondent is sustainable in the light of the evidence on the record?
  • Can a sentence of death be reduced to imprisonment for life based on a conjecture of sudden provocation without supporting evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• FEROZE Versus INAYAT HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 491 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-11
  civil revisiondeclaratory suitinheritance mutationconcurrent findings of factpetition for leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil revision dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' declaratory suit. The petitioners challenged an inheritance mutation in favour of the respondent, claiming to be the rightful heirs of the last male holder, whereas the respondent was recognized as the son of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the lower courts properly appraised the evidence regarding the paternity and inheritance rights of the respondent. The Supreme Court held that since the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts suffered from no material irregularity or illegality, and no substantial question of law was raised, the petition lacked merit and was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in the absence of any material irregularity, illegality, or question of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts where no material irregularity or illegality is pointed out?
  • Can a civil revision be maintained against concurrent judgments of lower courts in the absence of a substantial question of law?
  Read full judgment →
• AMANULLAH KHAN Versus MAQSOOD JAVAID1988 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  petition for special leave to appealmurderplea of alibiacquittaleye-witness testimonyinjured witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction and sentence of death imposed upon the respondent for a murder committed during a student scuffle at a hostel in Lahore. The prosecution case alleged that the respondent, along with others, arrived in a vehicle and attacked the deceased and an injured witness following a previous dispute over a banned student meeting. The trial court convicted the respondent under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, but the High Court acquitted him, accepting his plea of alibi. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court erred in rejecting the testimony of eye-witnesses, including an injured witness, and that the alibi was unsupported by primary written records. The Supreme Court examined the contentions, found them worthy of consideration, and granted leave to appeal, ordering the issuance of warrants of arrest against the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in accepting the plea of alibi without the production of available written records of the wrestling competition?
  • Whether the testimony of an injured witness should be discarded when corroborated by other hostel residents?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an acquittal in a murder case based on the re-appreciation of eye-witness evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus ARSHAD JAVAID1988 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-09
  petition for leave to appealalteration of convictionsudden fightappraisal of evidencemurderculpable homicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court altering the conviction and sentence of the respondent from section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code, reducing the sentence from death to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the murder of Muhammad Asif. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of evidence by concluding that the incident was a sudden fight arising from a children's dispute rather than a premeditated murder. The Supreme Court held that where the appraisal of evidence by the High Court leads to a plausible conclusion of a sudden fight without premeditation, a mere alternative view of the evidence does not constitute a sufficient ground for interference by the apex court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that concurrent factual findings based on a plausible view of the evidence will not be disturbed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's appraisal of evidence when an alternative view is possible?
  • Does carrying a weapon like a Chhuri necessarily establish premeditation in a murder case arising from a sudden dispute?
  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering a conviction under section 302 to section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code upon finding that a sudden fight ensued over a children's quarrel?
  Read full judgment →