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.

• AFTAB AHMAD KHAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-16
  post-arrest bailcriminal lawleave to appealfatal injuryjudicial discretionbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which had rejected the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail. The petitioner was implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 307, and 324, read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was one of the individuals responsible for inflicting the fatal blow upon the deceased. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its judicial discretion by denying bail to the petitioner given the specific allegations of a fatal injury attributed to him. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity or violation of established legal principles in the High Court's order refusing bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by lower courts in bail matters absent a clear violation of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court violate legal principles by rejecting a bail application where the petitioner is alleged to have inflicted a fatal blow?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to interfere with a High Court order refusing bail if no violation of law is demonstrated?
  Read full judgment →
• NASEEBAN Versus MAQBOOL AHMAD1988 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-11
  gifthibadelivery of possessionminor doneeregistered deedIslamic law of gift
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal concerns the validity of a gift made by a grandfather to his minor grandson, specifically whether the gift remained inchoate due to the alleged non-delivery of possession. The donor had executed a registered deed explicitly stating that possession had been delivered. The respondent, a minor, was residing with the donor, who was also providing for his maintenance, while the respondent's father held interests adverse to the minor. The High Court concluded that formal delivery of possession was not required in these circumstances, as the donor effectively held the property on behalf of the minor donee after the execution of the deed. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding no reason to disagree with the High Court's reasoning regarding the completion of the gift under the specific facts of the case. The petition was consequently dismissed, affirming that in cases involving a grandfather and a minor grandson living together, the donor's continued possession can be construed as possession on behalf of the donee.

  Questions settled

  • Is formal delivery of possession necessary for a gift to a minor grandson when the donor is the grandfather and the minor resides with him?
  • Can a donor's possession be construed as possession on behalf of a minor donee after the execution of a registered gift deed?
  • Does a recital in a registered gift deed regarding the delivery of possession carry legal weight in determining the completion of a gift?
  Read full judgment →
• ASGHAR ALI Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1988 SCMR 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-18Read full judgment →
• MUZAFFAR IQBAL Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN1988 SCMR 482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-16Read full judgment →
• MANZOORAN Versus MUHAMMAD ALI1988 SCMR 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-09
  leave to appealalteration of convictionculpable homicidemedical evidencesentence reductionsafe administration of criminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the conviction of the respondents under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code was altered to Section 304 Part II, and their sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case is that the respondents caused injuries to the deceased on her legs with weapons like Pawa and Sota, resulting in her death due to shock and haemorrhage. The High Court based its alteration of conviction on a statement made by the medical officer in cross-examination that the injuries were not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and that the injuries were on non-vital parts. The core legal question is whether the High Court properly evaluated the medical evidence and arrived at a correct conclusion in accordance with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code based solely on a stray sentence in the medical officer's cross-examination?
  • Did the High Court properly evaluate the medical evidence in accordance with the well-established principles of the safe administration of criminal justice?
  Read full judgment →
• ARIF Versus ALLAH BAKHSH1988 SCMR 48 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03
  criminal petitionmurderacquittalocular testimonymedical evidencemistaken identityappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondent, who was previously convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, was acquitted. The core legal question involves the appreciation of ocular testimony, medical evidence, motive, and alleged mistaken identity in a night-time murder occurrence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court rightly rejected the ocular testimony due to conflicts with the medical evidence, material improvements at the trial stage, and the implausibility of the alleged mistaken identity when the actual target of the motive was present at the scene. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in setting aside a murder conviction when ocular testimony is in conflict with medical evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of a mistaken identity where the primary target of the alleged motive was present at the scene unharmed?
  • Does a material improvement made by eye-witnesses at the trial stage warrant the rejection of their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMADANWAR Versus STATE1988 SCMR 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-07Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAYAT Versus STATE1988 SCMR 474 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-04
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationabductionHudood Ordinancevalidity of divorce
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court cancelling the post-arrest bail previously granted to the appellants, Muhammad Hayat and Mst. Sultana, who were accused under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for alleged abduction. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of bail was justified and whether the validity of the divorce and subsequent marriage could be determined at the bail stage. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that obtaining affidavits from witnesses while on bail does not prima facie constitute tampering of the record unless coercion is alleged, and the question of whether the female appellant was validly divorced by her former husband falls to be determined by a Family Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and admitted the appellants to bail, establishing the principle that disputed questions of marital status and family law must be adjudicated by the competent Family Court rather than prejudged at the bail stage in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does obtaining affidavits from prosecution witnesses while on bail constitute tampering with the record without allegations of coercion?
  • Can the question of whether a valid divorce has taken place be conclusively determined at the bail stage in criminal proceedings?
  • Whether accused persons charged under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 are entitled to post-arrest bail when the marriage and divorce status is disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-17Read full judgment →
• KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus AMIR1988 SCMR 470 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-15
  criminal petitionleave to appealconvictionsentence reductionlife imprisonmentmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from cross-petitions seeking special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court dated 20th March, 1984, which upheld the conviction of two accused persons under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment for one and reducing the death sentence of the other to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the conviction and the quantum of sentence awarded to the convicts. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the conviction of both accused was well-founded and the sentences imposed, including the lesser sentence, were legally sustainable. The Court established that where a lesser sentence imposed by the High Court is a lawful exercise of discretion, the Supreme Court will not interfere with it on a petition for enhancement, and accordingly dismissed both the complainant's petition for enhancement and the convicts' petition against conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a lesser sentence of life imprisonment passed by the High Court when it is a legal sentence?
  • Are the convictions under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when supported by the record?
  Read full judgment →
• HANEEF-UR-RAHMAN Versus MUHAMMAD JALAL-UD-DIN1988 SCMR 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ZAMAN Versus MAQSOODA BEGUM1988 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-12
  maintenance allowancefamily courtconcurrent findingsquestion of factwrit jurisdictionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Additional District Judge regarding maintenance allowance. The petitioner, the husband and father, contested the maintenance awards granted to his wife and minor daughter, arguing that the lower courts misread the record concerning his financial status and that the quantum of maintenance was improperly fixed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the arguments and determined that the issues raised by the petitioner were exclusively questions of fact that had already been adequately addressed by the High Court. The Court held that in the absence of any substantial question of law, it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the principle that the Supreme Court generally declines to re-examine factual determinations made by lower courts in maintenance disputes where no legal error is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding maintenance allowance where no question of law is involved?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be maintained when the underlying arguments relate solely to the appreciation of evidence and factual findings?
  Read full judgment →
• ABBAS Versus STATE1988 SCMR 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-07Read full judgment →
• WALLAN BIBI Versus SALEEM1988 SCMR 466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-10
  leave to appealconviction modificationculpable homicidemurdercommon intentionmedical evidencenon-bailable warrants
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant, Mst. Wallan Bibi, challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that modified the conviction of the respondents, Saleem and Shamas, from Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting two other co-accused. The trial court had originally convicted all four respondents under Section 302/34, sentencing one to death and the others to life imprisonment for the murder of the petitioner's husband, which involved both blunt weapon injuries and throttling. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in reducing the conviction given the medical evidence of fatal injuries. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically regarding the respondents Saleem and Shamas to determine whether the facts of the case warranted a conviction under Section 302/34 rather than the lesser offence of Section 304, Part II. The Court ordered the issuance of non-bailable warrants for the respondents to ensure their presence for the appeal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court erred in converting a conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the presence of both blunt weapon injuries and throttling justify a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• RASHIDA BEGUM Versus HAMAYUN MIRZA1988 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-17
  petition for leave to appealmurdersudden fightreduction of sentenceappreciation of evidenceself-defenceinjuries on accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court which altered the respondent's conviction from section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304, Part I, and reduced his sentence of life imprisonment to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the murder of Muhammad Idrees. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by treating the incident as a sudden fight and accepting the defence version regarding the nature of the occurrence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding of a sudden fight was correct, noting that the respondent sustained eight injuries, including three incised wounds, while the deceased had only one fatal injury, thus justifying the reduction in conviction and sentence. Consequently, the Court laid down that where mutual injuries on the accused support the existence of a sudden fight, appellate interference with the High Court's assessment of facts is unwarranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from section 302 to section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code based on the existence of a sudden fight?
  • Does the presence of multiple injuries on the person of the accused support the plea of a sudden fight in a murder case?
  • When will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment reducing a sentence of life imprisonment to ten years' rigorous imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• SHER ALI Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF1988 SCMR 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-13Read full judgment →
• DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION Versus MUHAMMAD YUSUF SHAMI1988 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service tribunalannual confidential reportadverse remarksbiasleave to appealcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  The Director of Education filed petitions for special leave to appeal against orders dated 28th October 1986 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which expunged adverse remarks recorded in the annual confidential reports of the respondent on the ground of bias. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in relying upon the comments of the Director of Education, Lahore Region, rather than the Director Education, Rawalpindi Division. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner lacked merit as the Education Department had not disowned the comments of the Lahore Directorate before the Tribunal, and further observed that no substantial question of law of public importance arose in the matter. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petitions, affirming the Tribunal's orders expunging the biased adverse remarks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal can rely on comments furnished by a departmental authority other than the immediate reporting officer?
  • Does an expungement of adverse remarks on the ground of bias raise a substantial question of law of public importance?
  • When will the Supreme Court refuse leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD, ADVOCATE1988 SCMR 460 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-13
  interlocutory orderleave to appealjudicial privilegeadministrative correspondenceinstitutional dignityproduction of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  The Government of Punjab filed a petition for leave to appeal against an interlocutory order of the Lahore High Court, which directed the Advocate-General to produce a letter of recommendation regarding the appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court should compel the production of confidential correspondence between the Chief Justice and the Chief Executive of the Province, and whether the Advocate-General was entitled to a further opportunity to argue against such production to protect the institution's dignity. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interlocutory order, noting that the Government did not claim privilege over the document. However, acknowledging the Advocate-General's concern regarding the precedent of disclosing such sensitive administrative correspondence, the Court disposed of the petition with the observation that the Advocate-General should be granted a further opportunity to present his arguments before the High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court itself is best positioned to balance the necessity of evidence production against the need to maintain the prestige and dignity of the judicial institution.

  Questions settled

  • Should the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory order of the High Court regarding the production of documents?
  • Does the production of administrative correspondence between the Chief Justice and the Chief Executive of a Province violate the dignity of the High Court?
  • Is the Advocate-General entitled to a further opportunity to argue against an order requiring the production of official correspondence?
  Read full judgment →
• BARKAT ALI Versus KARAM ELAHI ZIA1988 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-13
  leave to appealcircumstantial evidencemurderacquittalappetate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had set aside the conviction and death sentence of the respondent for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and acquitted him. The core legal question involves determining whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including the falsity of the respondent's explanation, his absence from the crime scene, physical evidence relating to footprints and car brakes, and the implausibility of the dacoity plea—was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding material circumstances overlooked by the High Court required detailed examination. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal in both petitions and directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the respondent. The key principle laid down is that where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, appellate review must carefully assess all material links and explanations offered by the accused to determine guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted against the acquittal of an accused by the High Court?
  • Does the failure of dacoits to remove valuables from the scene negate the plea of innocence based on a dacoity attack?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus ZAFAR1988 SCMR 455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  murderculpable homicideappreciation of evidenceleave to appealcriminal liabilitycommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that modified the convictions of the respondents in a murder case. The respondents were initially convicted by the trial court under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, who succumbed to injuries five days after an assault. The High Court, however, acquitted them of the murder charge, reasoning that the assailants did not intend to kill the deceased outright, despite inflicting numerous injuries, and instead convicted them under lesser sections (323, 324, and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860). The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the medical evidence, specifically the presence of fifteen injuries including head wounds, and the expert testimony stating the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, brought the case within the ambit of Section 300, clause 'thirdly', of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court correctly applied established principles regarding the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases involving severe, fatal beatings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the infliction of multiple injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature bring a case within the scope of Section 300, clause 'thirdly', of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a conviction from murder to a lesser offence when medical evidence indicates the injuries sustained were fatal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM NASEEM Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1988 SCMR 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-19
  leave to appealdeclaratory suitdivorceTalaq noticemaintenancecivil court jurisdictionfamily court
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court, which declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with judgments affirming the dismissal of the petitioner's declaratory suit. The core legal question involves the validity and effectiveness of a divorce (Talaq) given by the petitioner, the procedural requirements of sending notice of Talaq to the Chairman of the Union Council, whether failure to appear before the Arbitration Council constitutes a revocation of Talaq, and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts versus Family Courts in such matters. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the jurisdiction of civil courts and the alleged revocation of Talaq upon non-appearance before the Chairman require detailed examination. The key principle noted is that substantial legal questions concerning family law determinations and statutory notices of divorce warrant a full hearing by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Are Civil Courts competent to entertain a suit seeking to declare orders passed regarding maintenance and Talaq as illegal and without jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure of a husband to appear before the Chairman of the Arbitration Council amount to a revocation of the notice of Talaq?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to properly serve a notice of Talaq to the Chairman of the Union Council?
  Read full judgment →
• NOOR AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR1988 SCMR 451 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-21
  leave to appealmurderous assaultocular testimonycredibility of witnessesdelay in FIRacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal challenges the Lahore High Court's judgment that acquitted the respondent, Muhammad Anwar, of charges under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent had been convicted by a Judicial Magistrate for a murderous assault on the petitioner, Noor Ahmad. The High Court had overturned this conviction, citing the witnesses' unreliability due to enmity, the status of an independent witness as a 'chance witness,' contradictions in testimony, lack of corroboration by medical evidence, and an unexplained delay in filing the First Information Report. The petitioner argues that the occurrence happened in daylight, the accused was identified, and the delay in the FIR was justified because the police initially refused to register the case. The Supreme Court finds that the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the credibility of the ocular testimony and the explanation for the delay in the FIR warrant further examination. Consequently, the Court grants leave to appeal and issues bailable warrants for the respondent's arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal of the police to register a case provide a satisfactory explanation for a delay in lodging the First Information Report?
  • Are minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses sufficient to warrant the rejection of their evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the High Court finds that ocular testimony is contradicted by medical evidence and the witnesses are biased due to enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• KHAN WAJID NAWAZ KHAN Versus NASIR KHALIL,1988 SCMR 450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-10
  leave to appealinterim orderselection tribunalswrit jurisdictionexpeditious disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against interim orders passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, during the pendency of writ petitions arising from decisions of Election Tribunals. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel regarding the interim nature of the High Court's orders. Upon review, the Court determined that no sufficient grounds existed to warrant its interference at this interlocutory stage. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal. However, in the interest of justice and the expeditious resolution of the underlying election disputes, the Supreme Court issued a directive requesting the High Court to dispose of the pending writ petitions during the week commencing from 16-1-1988. The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial restraint regarding interim orders in ongoing proceedings while emphasizing the necessity for timely adjudication in election-related matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with interim orders passed by the High Court during the pendency of writ petitions?
  • Can the Supreme Court issue directives to the High Court regarding the timeline for disposing of pending petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI SHER Versus BILQEES BEGUM1988 SCMR 45 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• AKBAR Versus SAIRA BIBI1988 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  pre-emption decreeleave to appealretrospective operationcivil revisionSaid Kamal Shah caseafterthought objectionvendee
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a petition seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 12-7-1986, which had dismissed the petitioners/vendees' civil revision arising out of a pre-emption decree passed in favour of the respondent. The petitioners raised two principal grounds: first, that although the pre-emption decree was passed prior to 31-7-1986, it was rendered void by the retrospective effect of the Shariat Appellate Bench decision in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah; and second, that the decree was invalid because there was no assertion or proof on the record establishing that the pre-emptor and vendor were Muslims. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the retrospective operation argument was unavailable and already rejected in precedent, including Muhammad Masood Khan Bhatti v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima. The Court further ruled that the objection concerning religious faith was an afterthought that had not been raised at the proper stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench in Said Kamal Shah's case has retrospective operation to annul pre-emption decrees passed prior to 31-7-1986?
  • Can an objection regarding the religious faith of a pre-emptor or vendor be entertained if it was not raised at the proper stage during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNIS Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE1988 SCMR 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-21
  Lambardar appointmentwrit jurisdictionleave to appealland revenuehereditary claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an order of the Board of Revenue regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. The original Lambardar was removed for alienating his entire holding, leading to a contest for the vacancy between the petitioner and the son of the removed Lambardar. The Collector appointed the petitioner, whose appointment was initially reversed by the Commissioner, subsequently restored by the Board of Revenue, and finally set aside by the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in interfering with a Lambardari dispute and misconstrued rule 19(2) of the relevant rules. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the questions raised regarding the scope of writ jurisdiction in Lambardari matters and the interpretation of the applicable rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction with an appointment order regarding a Lambardar?
  • How is rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 to be interpreted regarding the appointment of a new Lambardar in place of a removed landless Lambardar?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IDRIS Versus MUHAMMAD FEROZ BANGASH1988 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
• SAIFUR REHMAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 443 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-07
  criminal appealdeath sentencevicarious liabilitysentencing paritymurderPakistan Penal CodeCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the death sentence awarded to the appellant, Saifur Rehman, for the murder of the deceased and murderous assault on a prosecution witness. The core legal question concerned the proportionality of the death sentence, given that the trial court had attributed fatal injuries to multiple participants, yet only the appellant received the death penalty, while co-accused received life imprisonment. The Supreme Court observed that the role attributed to the convicted accused was similar and that the fatal injuries were not caused by the appellant alone. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant’s liability was equivalent to that of his co-accused. The Court modified the death sentence to life imprisonment, enhanced the fine payable as compensation to the heirs, and extended the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment establishes the principle that in cases of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing must maintain parity among co-accused when the fatal injuries are not exclusively attributable to a single individual.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require parity in sentencing among co-accused when fatal injuries are distributed?
  • Can a death sentence be maintained when the fatal injuries are not exclusively attributable to the appellant?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a convict whose death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• MANZOOR AHMAD Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA1988 SCMR 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-05
  limitationcondonation of delaysufficient causeordinary diligencetime-barred petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seven days after the expiry of the period of limitation. The petitioner sought condonation of the delay, contending that a misreading of the date on the certified copy of the judgment—specifically misinterpreting '28-3-1978' as '18-3-1978'—caused the filing error. The Court examined the endorsement of the Copying Department and found that the figure '2' was distinct from the figure '1' used elsewhere in the document. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner should have been aware of the actual date they submitted their own application for copies. The Court held that the petitioner failed to exercise ordinary diligence in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the Court determined that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was established. The plea for condonation was refused, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as time-barred, establishing the principle that a party's failure to exercise ordinary diligence regarding their own procedural timelines does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does a misreading of a date on a certified copy by a party constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
  • Is a party's failure to know the date of their own application for copies considered a lack of ordinary diligence?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed if it is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation without sufficient cause?
  Read full judgment →
• TEHMAS KHAN Versus ZOHRA ARSHAD1988 SCMR 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZIAUL HAQ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1988 SCMR 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-02
  allotment of landStatement of Conditionsresumption of landstatutory ceilingnatural justiceaudi alteram partemillegalityleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit wherein the petitioners partially succeeded in protecting an allotment of land granted to their father up to 121 acres, while the remaining area allotted in excess was resumed by the government. The core legal questions pertained to whether an allotment made by a Revenue Minister in excess of the statutory ceiling under the Statement of Conditions 1949 could be protected on grounds of passage of time, investment made, or lack of prior notice. The Supreme Court held that statutory functionaries are bound to implement relevant schemes rather than ignore or subvert them; thus, an illegal allotment exceeding the prescribed statutory limit cannot be legally validated by the passage of time or ignorance of law. Furthermore, the court held that any requirement of natural justice regarding a prior hearing was fully satisfied by the extensive proceedings and hearings conducted before the civil courts. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an allotment of land made by a Minister in excess of statutory limits prescribed under a Statement of Conditions be legally protected or cured by the passage of time?
  • Does ignorance of law or investment made on land validate an illegal allotment made in defiance of statutory rules?
  • Is the requirement of natural justice satisfied if a party, who was not granted a hearing prior to the resumption of land, receives a full hearing before civil courts of plenary jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• MURAD SHAH Versus MEHR SHAH1988 SCMR 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-10
  special leave to appealmurderocular testimonyrecovery evidenceacquittalinvestigating officer testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for special leave to appeal against a 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 initially convicted the respondents based on ocular testimony and the recovery of firearms. On appeal, the High Court set aside these convictions, finding the prosecution witnesses hostile and the recovery evidence unreliable due to the alleged bias of the public witness. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred in rejecting the recovery evidence, arguing that the testimony of the investigating officer, who recovered the weapons, should not have been discarded in the absence of evidence of dishonesty or fabrication. The Supreme Court, finding that the contention regarding the reliability of the investigating officer's testimony required further examination, granted leave to appeal and issued warrants for the arrest of the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an investigating officer regarding the recovery of incriminating evidence be discarded solely because the public witness to the recovery is considered unreliable?
  • Does the absence of evidence showing dishonesty or motive to fabricate on the part of an investigating officer validate their testimony regarding recoveries?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus STATE1988 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-08Read full judgment →
• BOARD OF REVENUE Versus BASHIR AHMAD KHAN1988 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-03
  land acquisitionreview petitionvalidating statutemarginal systemslab systemretrospective operationThal Development Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns review petitions filed by the Board of Revenue against a previous Supreme Court judgment regarding land acquisition schemes under the Thal Development Act. The core legal question was whether the Thal Development (Amendment) Ordinance 1971 effectively validated the 'marginal system' of land return, which had been previously invalidated by the Thal Development (Amendment) Act 1955 in favor of a 'slab system'. The Court held that the 1971 Ordinance was enacted specifically to provide legal protection and validity to acquisitions and the marginal system of return applied before July 20, 1955, notwithstanding any prior contrary judgments or provisions in the 1955 Amendment Act. Consequently, the Court allowed the review petitions, correcting its previous judgment to reflect that the marginal system, rather than the slab system, governed the acquisitions made during the specified period. The key principle laid down is that a validating statute, by its nature, can override prior inconsistent provisions and judicial orders to provide retrospective legal validity to actions, rights, and obligations that were previously irregular or invalidated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Thal Development (Amendment) Ordinance 1971 validate the marginal system of land return for acquisitions made prior to July 20, 1955?
  • Can a validating statute override prior judicial orders and inconsistent provisions of earlier legislation?
  • Do Press Notes regarding land acquisition schemes possess statutory force?
  Read full judgment →
• BOOTE SHAH Versus AZMAT SHAH1988 SCMR 430 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-19
  leave to appealculpable homicide not amounting to murdersudden fightheat of passionself-defencereduction of sentencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Boote Shah against a judgment of the High Court, which had altered the conviction of the respondent Azmat Shah from section 302 to section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code and reduced his sentence of imprisonment for life to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The respondent was originally tried by the Sessions Judge for the murder of Khadim Hussain, convicted under section 302, and sentenced as a juvenile to imprisonment for life. The prosecution alleged that the respondent stabbed the deceased following a dispute over the distribution of 'Niaz' near a local shrine. The High Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code, holding that the occurrence was unpremeditated and the result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion. The core legal question is whether Exception 4 to Section 300 was properly attracted to the facts of the case, given the absence of evidence showing a sudden fight between the parties. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the inapplicable nature of Exception 4 required examination, granted leave to appeal, and issued bailable warrants of arrest against the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code applies when there is no evidence of a sudden fight between the parties?
  • Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be altered to section 304 without establishing the applicability of a recognized exception?
  • Whether the plea of self-defence is available to an accused who initiates an assault following a minor verbal dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASEEN Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04
  dismissal in limineregular first appealinterim staybank guaranteeexecution of decreeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by a Judge-in-Chamber, which dismissed a regular first appeal in limine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the summary dismissal of a regular first appeal by a Judge-in-Chamber is legally permissible, particularly in light of established precedent regarding the procedural requirements for disposing of such appeals. The petitioner contended that such dismissal violated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Abid Hussain v. Mst. Afsar Jehan Begum and another (PLD 1973 SC 1). The Court, upon considering the contention, issued a notice to the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be converted into an appeal and allowed. Furthermore, the Court granted interim relief, ordering a stay of the execution of the decree, subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for half the decretal amount and personal security for the remainder to the satisfaction of the Executing Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is the dismissal in limine of a regular first appeal by a Judge-in-Chamber legally valid?
  • Under what conditions may the execution of a decree be stayed pending the disposal of a petition for leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD BASHIR Versus MUBINA BEGUM1988 SCMR 427 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD KHAN Versus TELEPHONES AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-07Read full judgment →
• ZAFARULLAH KHAN BROHI Versus FEDERAL MINISTRY OF PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AT ISLAMABAD1988 SCMR 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-09-01
  service tribunallimitation perioddepartmental appealpay fixationdisciplinary penaltycondonation of delaycivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal as incompetent and barred by time. The appellant, a Sub-Inspector in the Pakistan Railways Police, challenged a departmental letter regarding pay fixation. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an administrative letter communicating the implementation of a prior disciplinary penalty—and an appeal filed without exhausting the statutory departmental appeal against the actual penalty order—was maintainable before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the appeal against the consequential pay-fixation letter was incompetent and that any challenge to the substantive penalty order dated 14-6-1983 was hopelessly time-barred. The Court laid down the principle that a civil servant aggrieved by a disciplinary penalty must challenge the operative penalty order directly through a departmental appeal before approaching the Service Tribunal, and limitation begins to run from the date of knowledge of the actual penalty order rather than subsequent clarifiably consequential communications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal to the Service Tribunal against an administrative letter communicating a pay adjustment based on an earlier disciplinary order is maintainable as an appeal against the penalty itself?
  • Does limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal against a penalty order commence from the date of the consequential pay fixation communication when the employee had knowledge of the proceedings?
  • Is an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal barred if filed without first exhausting the departmental appeal against the operative penalty order pursuant to section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YASEEN Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
• MIR KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD USMAN1988 SCMR 419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-16
  leave to appealmurder caseforensic evidencecrime emptieseyewitness testimonyacquittalmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a murder case where the Lahore High Court acquitted seven respondents, setting aside their convictions and sentences previously awarded by the trial court. The occurrence involved three deaths in December 1973, with a prompt F.I.R. lodged. The prosecution's case faced challenges regarding the omission of certain names in the F.I.R. and the reliability of eyewitness testimony given the visibility conditions and the promptness of the report. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court misread evidence, particularly regarding the independence of eyewitnesses and the impact of the acquittal of other co-accused on the remaining respondents. The Court held that while the acquittal of co-accused generally weakens the prosecution's case, leave to appeal should be granted specifically against those respondents whose recovered weapons matched the crime empties found at the scene. Conversely, leave to appeal was refused regarding the remaining respondents. The judgment reaffirms the principle that forensic evidence, such as the matching of recovered weapons with crime empties, serves as a critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to appeal in criminal matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of some co-accused automatically necessitate the acquittal of all other co-accused in a criminal case?
  • Is the matching of recovered weapons with crime empties a sufficient ground to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal?
  • Can an appellate court's misreading of an eyewitness's relationship to the deceased justify a review of the acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM1988 SCMR 417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-09Read full judgment →
• TAYYABA Versus FAZAL ELAHI1988 SCMR 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  evictionlandlord and tenantreconstructionmisreading of recordleave to appealconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that restored an eviction order granted by a Rent Controller. The respondent landlord had sought eviction of the petitioners, who were tenants, on the ground that the premises were required for reconstruction. While the Rent Controller initially allowed the eviction, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, holding that the proposed reconstruction could proceed without vacating the premises. The High Court, exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the appellate order, finding that the Additional District Judge had misread the record regarding the feasibility of the construction. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the existing and proposed construction plans and concurred with the High Court's finding that the proposed work could not be executed while the house remained occupied. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly identified the misreading of the record and refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby affirming the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord obtain an eviction order on the ground of reconstruction if the proposed work requires the premises to be vacated?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to set aside an appellate order if it finds a misreading of the record?
  Read full judgment →
• PIRAN DITTA ALIAS PEERO Versus STATE1988 SCMR 415 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  clerical errorjudgment correctioncompensationminor victimmaintenancecompromiseinterest-bearing account
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-judgment application for the correction of a clerical error and directions regarding the management of compensation funds in a criminal case. Following a conviction for murder and attempted murder, the Supreme Court had previously reduced the death sentence of the accused to life imprisonment based on a compromise, which included a financial undertaking by a third party, Ghulam Hussain, to pay monthly maintenance to the victim's daughter, Mst. Shamim Akhtar. The core legal questions were whether a clerical error in the victim's name in the court's judgment could be rectified and how to ensure the security of the compensation funds for the minor victim, who suffers from a disability. The Court held that the clerical error regarding the victim's name, erroneously recorded as Mst. Nasim Fatima, should be corrected to Mst. Shamim Akhtar. Furthermore, to protect the victim's interests, the Court directed the State Bank of Pakistan to deposit the compensation funds into an interest-bearing account, payable only upon the victim's marriage or upon her attaining the age of eighteen years, whichever occurs later.

  Questions settled

  • Can a clerical error in the name of a party or victim in a judgment be corrected by the court?
  • What measures can the court order to ensure compensation funds for a minor victim with disabilities are preserved?
  • Under what conditions should compensation funds held by an employer be released to a minor victim?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Versus MARDAN INDUSTRIES LTD.1988 SCMR 410 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1968-02-22
  excise dutyexemptionvested righttribal areassubsequent notificationretrospective operationprivilegia favourabilia
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by special leave addresses whether an exemption from excise duty granted by the Central Government for a period of four years could be regulated by a subsequent notification before the expiry of that period. Mardan Industries Limited established a cigarette manufacturing undertaking in the Tribal Areas, relying on an initial exemption notification issued under section 12-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Subsequently, the Central Government issued a notification adding a proviso restricting the exemption for goods bearing brand names or trademarks of similar goods marketed in settled areas of Pakistan. The High Court had ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that they had acquired a vested right. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the exemption was a privilegia favourabilia which the Government could regulate by subsequent notification, and that section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, empowered the Government to issue such regulatory notifications without violating any vested rights, provided there was no retrospective operation affecting past and closed transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the operation of an exemption from excise duty granted by the Central Government can be regulated by a subsequent notification before the expiry of the exemption period?
  • Does an industrial undertaking acquire a vested right to an excise duty exemption that prevents the Government from regulating or restricting the exemption through a subsequent notification?
  • Whether a notification restricting tax exemptions for goods bearing brand names of similar goods marketed in other areas constitutes an impermissible retrospective operation destroying vested rights?
  Read full judgment →
• SADDIQA BEGUM Versus CLAIMS COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE1988 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUNSHI Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• SAMIULLAH Versus HAMEED KAUSAR1988 SCMR 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-20
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantconcurrent findings of factleave to appealeviction application
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the ejectment order passed by the Additional Rent Controller. The core legal questions involved the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the eviction application suffered from a legal defect for failing to implead other heirs of the petitioner's deceased father. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent factual findings regarding the existence of tenancy, based on the appreciation of evidence, warranted no interference, and that the non-joinder of other heirs did not vitiate the proceedings in the absence of evidence showing their occupation or interest in the property. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be disturbed by the apex court, and that non-impleadment of non-occupying heirs is not a fatal defect in ejectment proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
  • Does an eviction application suffer from a fatal legal defect if other heirs of a deceased tenant, who are not in occupation of the property, are not impleaded?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHID NAWAZ KHAN Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ REGISTRATION OFFICER1988 SCMR 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMID Versus GHULAM RASUL1988 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-14
  ejectmentpersonal needconstitutional jurisdictionmisreading of evidencerent controllandlord-tenant dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an appellate order and restore an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly interfered with the Additional District Judge's findings regarding the landlord's claim of personal need for the rented premises. The Rent Controller had initially ordered the tenant's ejectment based on the landlord's requirement of the shop for his son's law office. The Additional District Judge had reversed this, citing the son's lack of familiarity with the shop's interior and suspecting a motive to increase rent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded the Additional District Judge had misread the record and engaged in conjecture. The Court affirmed that the landlord's son was a practicing lawyer without office space, and the lower appellate court's reasoning was flawed. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court's decision to restore the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction interfere with an appellate order based on misreading of evidence?
  • Does a finding of personal need for rented premises become vitiated if the appellate court relies on conjectural motives regarding rent increases?
  • Is an appellate court's conclusion regarding the bona fide nature of a landlord's personal need subject to correction if it misinterprets the witness's testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• ZUBEDA BEGUM Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND1988 SCMR 400 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• SUGHRA BIBI ALIAS MEHRAN BIBI Versus ASGHAR KHAN1988 SCMR 4 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-28
  constitutional jurisdictionleave to appealtransfer of propertysettlement authoritiespermanent transfer deednatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 3rd April, 1986. The petitioner had initially applied for the transfer of an open plot on a D.P. Form, and was issued an appendix for a specific area of 262 sq. yds. Subsequently, a revised appendix and permanent transfer deed (P.T.D.) were issued for a substantially reduced area without notice to the petitioner, while the remaining portion was auctioned. The petitioner challenged the reduction before the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction, but the High Court dismissed the petition holding that factual controversies could not be examined and that the petitioner failed to avail alternate remedies. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that transfer documents and entitlements initially issued could not be lawfully modified behind the allottee's back without association and notice. The Court concluded that the legality of the subsequent reduction required detailed examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether settlement authorities are competent to modify a previously issued transfer order and reduce an allottee's entitlement without providing notice and an opportunity of hearing?
  • Can questions regarding the factual correctness of a settlement inspector's report and the modification of allotment documents be examined within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the issuance of a revised appendix and permanent transfer deed behind the back of an allottee warrant interference by the Supreme Court through leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• HAFEEZAN COAL COMPANY Versus ABDUL QAYYUM1988 SCMR 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-08Read full judgment →
• BEGUM LAILA SARFARAZ Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
• KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD ALI1988 SCMR 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
• MIRATUL AIN Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB1988 SCMR 392 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22Read full judgment →
• KHALID JAVED & CO. Versus JAVED OIL INDUSTRIES1988 SCMR 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-12
  leave to defendrecovery suitbank guaranteejudicial discretionsupreme court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondents filed three suits against the petitioner firm for the recovery of Rs.75,000 before the Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan, who granted leave to appear and defend the suits on the condition that the firm furnish a bank guarantee equal to the claimed amount within one month. The petitioner firm challenged this condition through a revision petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the imposition of a bank guarantee as a condition for granting leave to defend a recovery suit involved any illegality or improper exercise of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court held that the order of the Additional District Judge contained no illegality and that no ground existed to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower forums. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that courts possess the discretion to impose reasonable conditions for granting leave to defend in summary recovery matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court impose the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for granting leave to defend a recovery suit?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent discretion exercised by lower courts regarding conditions for leave to defend?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHANI Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)1988 SCMR 390 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-06Read full judgment →
• HAMID JAVED ALIAS HAMIDI Versus STATE1988 SCMR 39 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-28
  criminal petition for leave to appealdying statementfirearm injuriesmurdermurderous assaultcommutation of sentencedelay in recording statements
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for murder and murderous assault. The incident occurred during a dispute between rival supporters in a horse race, resulting in firearm injuries to the deceased and an injured eye-witness. The trial court convicted the petitioner under section 302 and section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to death and imprisonment respectively, while acquitting or altering sentences for co-accused. On appeal, the High Court maintained the petitioner's conviction under both sections but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the imprisonment for attempt to murder. The Supreme Court evaluated contentions regarding the reliability of the dying statement and the delay in recording eye-witness statements. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding the dying statement and eye-witness testimony, supported by medical evidence of the victim's consciousness, were unexceptionable, and that mere delay by the investigating agency in recording statements of named eye-witnesses does not render them unreliable. The petition was dismissed both on merits and as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying statement can be relied upon when the deceased suffered a firearm injury to the chest?
  • Does a delay by the investigating agency in recording the statements of eye-witnesses named in the FIR render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMAN Versus DOST MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 388 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-19
  right of private defenceacquittalleave to appealappreciation of evidenceSection 342 statementmurder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondent, Dost Muhammad, of murder charges. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in extending the right of private defence to the respondent, despite the respondent not explicitly pleading self-defence in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was sound, noting that even if a formal plea of self-defence is not explicitly articulated in the accused's statement, the court may still consider the right of private defence if it can be reasonably inferred from the circumstances of the case. The Court found no misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice in the High Court’s assessment that both parties had suppressed the full truth. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the acquittal, affirming that where the circumstances support the inference of self-defence, the benefit cannot be denied to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the right of private defence be extended to an accused even if not explicitly pleaded in their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an appellate court justified in acquitting an accused if the circumstances reasonably suggest a right of private defence, despite the accused's failure to formally assert it?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1988 SCMR 387 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-22Read full judgment →
• PIRAN DITTA Versus QADIR BUX1988 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-16
  special leave to appealmurderacquittalocular testimonymotiverecovery evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two petitions for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the conviction of the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and acquitted them of the murder of Shah Muhammad. The prosecution alleged that the respondents attacked and killed the deceased due to a motive stemming from his marriage to a widow whose hand had been rejected by one of the respondents. The trial court had convicted the respondents based on ocular testimony and weapon recoveries. However, the High Court acquitted them after finding that the motive was unestablished, the eye-witnesses lacked satisfactory explanation for their presence, the recovery evidence was doubtful, and the investigating officer was dishonest. The core legal question was whether the High Court's appreciation of evidence warranting acquittal suffered from any legal infirmity. The Supreme Court held that the High Court provided substantial reasons for rejecting the ocular and recovery evidence and for finding the motive unproved. Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that no case for granting leave was made out and dismissed the petitions, affirming the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside a murder conviction when ocular testimony and motive were found to be doubtful?
  • Does the rejection of recovery evidence and the finding of a dishonest investigation provide sufficient grounds to maintain an acquittal?
  • When will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA Versus GHULAM SHABBIR1988 SCMR 383 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-12
  leave to appealacquittalocular testimonyprompt FIRapprehension of accusedmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondents of murder under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reversing their conviction by the trial court. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony from three witnesses who claimed to have witnessed the respondents attack the deceased with a kassi, overpowered them at the spot, and produced them at the police station. The High Court acquitted the respondents, finding the motive weak due to the passage of time since the marriage in question, and doubting the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene at 1:30 A.M. The petitioner contended that the prompt lodging of the First Information Report and the physical apprehension of the armed assailants at the spot strongly corroborated the ocular testimony. Finding that these contentions required deeper examination, the Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal and issued bailable warrants of arrest against the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prompt lodging of a First Information Report and the physical apprehension of accused persons at the crime scene can sufficiently corroborate ocular testimony?
  • Can an acquittal be sustained if the High Court rejects ocular evidence solely on the ground that the witnesses' presence at the scene at night was not satisfactorily explained?
  • Does the passage of several years since an event that allegedly caused resentment automatically negate the existence of a motive for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  bailinvestigating agency reportmurdercriminal trialjudicial discretionspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order rejecting the petitioners' bail application in a criminal case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners were accused of murder and attempted murder, with the fatal injury specifically attributed to one petitioner. During the investigation, the police initially found the petitioners innocent and recommended case cancellation; however, the Illaqa Magistrate disagreed, concluding that evidence existed to warrant a trial, and directed the submission of a challan. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in denying bail despite the investigating agency's opinion of innocence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the High Court provided cogent reasons for disregarding the police's opinion on the petitioners' involvement. The Court held that the trial court must remain uninfluenced by the bail proceedings and the investigating agency's initial findings, determining the guilt or innocence of the accused solely based on the evidence presented during the trial. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Magistrate bound to accept a police report recommending the cancellation of a criminal case?
  • Can a court deny bail even when the investigating agency has opined that the accused is innocent?
  • Does an order refusing bail influence the trial court's subsequent determination of guilt or innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• STARE Versus LIQAT1988 SCMR 380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-21Read full judgment →
• MANZOORULLAH Versus INAYAT ALI1988 SCMR 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03
  review petitionSupreme Court Rulesprocedural complianceservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition seeking review of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court dated 10-12-1986. The core legal question addressed is whether a review petition can be formally entertained without fulfilling the mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the certificate required under the relevant Supreme Court Rules. The Court held that the petition cannot be formally entertained unless the requirements of the rules are fully satisfied. Additionally, the Court noted that related petitions arising from the same Service Tribunal judgment should be heard by an equally large Bench to ensure consistent consideration of the relief to be granted. The key principle laid down is that procedural prerequisites, such as filing the requisite certificates under the rules, are mandatory for the formal entertainment of review petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a review petition be formally entertained without the certificate required under the Supreme Court Rules?
  • Should related petitions arising from the same judgment be heard by an equally large Bench?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL JABBAR Versus NAZRA1988 SCMR 378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-15
  leave to appealculpable homicidesudden fightException 4 to Section 300murder convictioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that partially allowed an appeal in a murder case. The High Court had converted the respondent's conviction from murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by applying Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court correctly applied the 'sudden fight' exception in the absence of a specific finding that a sudden fight had actually occurred between the parties. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court noted an exchange of abuses, it failed to establish the essential prerequisite of a 'sudden fight' before the assault. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was properly extended. The petition regarding other respondents was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an exchange of abuses between parties satisfy the requirement of a 'sudden fight' under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a finding of a 'sudden fight' a mandatory prerequisite for the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 304, Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without establishing the elements of a sudden fight?
  Read full judgment →
• TAJJAMAL HUSSAIN MAL IK Versus PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 377 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-15
  criminal appealremissions of sentenceconvictionmilitary courtleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's miscellaneous petition seeking remissions of his sentence. The petitioner, a retired Major-General, was convicted and sentenced to fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment under the Pakistan Army Act and had challenged his conviction through a constitutional petition alongside seeking remissions. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the convict to remissions of sentence under the relevant law and rules. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court was based on sound reasoning and that no flaw could be pointed out by the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the dismissal of the miscellaneous petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict sentenced under the Pakistan Army Act entitled to remissions of sentence as a matter of right under the relevant rules?
  • Whether the High Court's refusal to grant remissions of sentence warrants interference by the Supreme Court when based on sound reasoning?
  Read full judgment →
• SAID MUHAMMAD Versus FALAK SHER1988 SCMR 374 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-14
  petition for special leave to appealdying declarationocular testimonymedical evidencerecovery of weaponballistic reportacquittalmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the conviction and sentences of the respondents recorded under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in their acquittal. The core legal question involves the appreciation of evidence, specifically the genuineness of a dying declaration, the credibility of ocular testimony in relation to medical evidence, and the reliability of weapon recoveries. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in respect of the respondent who allegedly fired the fatal shot and whose implication was supported by ballistic evidence, while dismissing the petition as regards the other respondents. The key principle laid down is that where ballistic evidence corroborates the ocular and dying declaration testimony regarding the principal accused, leave to appeal may be granted to examine the High Court's reasons for acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in doubting the genuineness of the dying declaration?
  • Does conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence warrant an acquittal in a murder trial?
  • Whether the recovery of a weapon matching crime empties provides sufficient corroboration to grant leave to appeal against an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus DAUD1988 SCMR 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-22
  leave to appealreduction of sentencesudden fightspur of the momentindividual responsibilitymurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 28-2-1984, which reduced the sentence of Suba respondent from death to imprisonment for life, acquitted Muhammad Sadiq respondent of the charge under section 302, PPC, and reduced the sentences of Muhammad Sadiq and Manzoor Ahmad respondent No.3 under section 323, PPC to the period already undergone. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the convictions and reducing the sentences on the ground that the murder was committed during a sudden fight arising at the spur of the moment where every person was responsible for their own act. The Supreme Court held that the finding of the High Court was based on sound reasons warranted by the evidence on record. The key principle laid down is that in cases of murder committed during a sudden fight arising at the spur of the moment, each participant is individually responsible for their own specific act, justifying a reduction of sentence or alteration of conviction accordingly, and leave to appeal will be refused if the High Court's findings are sound.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an individual is responsible only for their own act when a murder is committed during a sudden fight arising at the spur of the moment?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's reduction of sentence based on sound appreciation of evidence in a sudden fight case?
  • Is a case where the High Court reduces a death sentence to imprisonment for life upon finding a sudden fight a fit case for grant of leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDULLAH Versus SHAUKAT1988 SCMR 370 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-21
  sentence reductionmitigating circumstancesjudicial discretionage of accusedleave to appealcriminal appealmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction of the respondent under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reducing the sentence based on the grounds of provocation and the age of the accused. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court incorrectly identified the provocation (slaps received by the accused) as a mitigating factor—finding it to be self-sought by the accused—the reduction of the sentence was nonetheless justified based on the finding regarding the accused's age. The Court affirmed the High Court's factual determination that the accused was sixteen years old at the time of the occurrence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the exercise of judicial discretion in favor of the accused regarding the sentence was not against established legal principles, as the age factor provided a valid basis for the reduction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a self-sought provocation be considered a valid mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Is the factual determination of an accused's age by the High Court subject to interference by the Supreme Court if supported by material?
  • Does the exercise of judicial discretion to reduce a sentence based on the age of the accused constitute a valid legal ground?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAAR BUTT Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1988 SCMR 37 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-03
  service appeallimitationcondonation of delaydepartmental representationservice tribunaljurisdictional requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a Service Tribunal decision that dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The petitioners, who were deprived of a special research allowance by a Finance Department order, challenged the order before the Service Tribunal after a delay. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the delay should be condoned because similar cases were pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the pendency of identical cases in the Supreme Court does not constitute a valid justification for condoning a patent delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal, especially when no satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of filing a departmental representation against the impugned order. Consequently, the Court refused to grant interim relief, noting that the petitioners had taken a calculated risk in their approach to the litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of identical cases before the Supreme Court constitute sufficient grounds for condoning a time-barred appeal before a Service Tribunal?
  • Is the filing of a departmental representation a mandatory jurisdictional requirement before approaching a Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMEED Versus TARIQ MAHMOOD1988 SCMR 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-23
  leave to appealalteration of convictionmurdergrievous hurtcommon intentionfemoral artery injurycriminal intent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which partly allowed the criminal appeals of the respondents. The respondents were initially convicted by the trial court under sections 302 and 397 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased during a robbery incident. The High Court altered the conviction from section 302/34 to section 326/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, reducing the sentence to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, relying on the circumstance that only a single blow was struck on a non-vital part of the body, which accidentally severed the femoral artery. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the reasons adopted by the High Court for converting the conviction were sustainable, whether the underlying intent and design of the accused were properly considered, and whether the cited precedent applied. Leave to appeal was refused regarding the co-accused due to a lack of imputed knowledge of the fatal weapon use.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the reasons which prevailed with the High Court for converting the offence from section 302 to section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code are available in this case?
  • Whether when examining the nature of the offence vis-a-vis the intention or knowledge of the culprit it was relevant to consider as to why the accused had attacked the deceased?
  • Whether in all cases where death is due to the cutting of the femoral artery the punishment has to be under section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code or whether it depends upon the circumstances of each case including the design of the accused and the weapon used?
  Read full judgment →
• SHER MUHAMMAD Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 365 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-13
  leave to appealgrave and sudden provocationmurderalteration of convictionunreasoned judgmentreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  Sher Mohammad filed a petition against the Lahore High Court's judgment which altered Ghulam Muhammad's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304 Part II and reduced his death sentence to imprisonment already undergone, based on a plea of grave and sudden provocation arising from suspected illicit relations. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in accepting the defence version and altering the conviction without recording sufficient and detailed reasons. The Supreme Court found that both the High Court and the Trial Court failed to provide adequate discussion and reasoned analysis for accepting or rejecting the conflicting versions. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the matter itself, noting that remanding the case would cause further delay. The key principle laid down is that appellate and trial courts must record detailed and cogent reasons when evaluating conflicting prosecution and defence versions in heinous criminal cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can alter a conviction from murder to culpable homicide without providing detailed reasons for accepting the defence version?
  • Is it proper for a court to accept a plea of grave and sudden provocation based on a sketchy and brief discussion?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal when both the trial and high court fail to properly discuss and evaluate conflicting versions of an occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• AFTAB MAHMOOD Versus ISHTIAQ1988 SCMR 364 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-20Read full judgment →
• KHALAS KHAN Versus AMIR KHAN1988 SCMR 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-12
  leave to appealacquittalappreciation of evidencecriminal revisionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, Khalas Khan, challenging a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 14-11-1982. The High Court had previously upheld a trial court's judgment which resulted in the acquittal of the respondents in a criminal case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts had properly appreciated the evidence on record and whether the acquittal of the respondents was justified based on that evidence. Upon reviewing the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel and examining the relevant portions of the evidence, the Supreme Court found no merit in the contention that the lower courts failed to appreciate the evidence properly. The Court held that the trial court's reasons for acquittal were sound and that the High Court was justified in its decision to uphold that finding. Consequently, the Court determined that the case was not a fit one for the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the lower courts have provided sound reasoning for an acquittal?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal where the evidence has been properly appreciated by the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• MUNAWAR HUSSAIN Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-13
  leave to appealalteration of convictionreduction of sentenceright of private defenceprivate defence of bodymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had altered the convictions and reduced the sentences of the respondents. The respondents' convictions were modified from Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304-I/34 and Section 324 of the same Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in accepting the respondents' defence version of the incident, which asserted the right of private defence of the person of a female relative who was allegedly being forcibly dragged by the deceased. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, after reviewing the evidence and the impugned judgment, held that the High Court was fully justified in accepting the defence version. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming that the right of private defence of body was properly established under the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in altering a conviction from Section 302/34 to Section 304-I/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the plea of right of private defence of body is established?
  • Can a plea of right of private defence of the person of another, specifically a female relative being forcibly dragged, justify the mitigation of an offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASNAIN IBRAHIM Versus MUHAMMAD RANA CIVILJUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER1988 SCMR 361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-19
  contempt of courtundertakingejectmentcivil suitsinterim orderexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking the initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. During the proceedings, an undertaking was given by the Advocate-on-Record representing the respondents, through their special attorney, that the respondents would not eject the petitioners from the disputed house pursuant to a specific ejectment order until the final decision of two pending civil suits between the parties. It was further undertaken that if an appeal is filed following the decision of those suits, the execution of the ejectment order would remain subject to any interim order passed by the first appellate court. In light of this binding undertaking, the petitioners' counsel did not press the contempt petition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan disposed of the petition accordingly, while noting and emphasizing the High Court Chief Justice's direction for the trial court to expedite the pending suits on a day-to-day basis and conclude them promptly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contempt petition be disposed of based on an undertaking given by the respondents regarding the subject matter of pending litigation?
  • What effect does an undertaking not to execute an ejectment order pending civil suits have on a contempt petition?
  • How should trial courts handle proceedings when directed by the High Court to conduct a trial on a day-to-day basis?
  Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus SABIR ALI1988 SCMR 360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-12
  leave to appealacquittalplea of alibiappreciation of evidencecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 18-3-1981, which acquitted respondents 1 to 4 in a case under Section 304 Part-II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court misappreciated the evidence on record, particularly regarding the plea of alibi taken by one of the respondents supported by a defense witness. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had properly appreciated the evidence and was fully justified in acquitting the respondents. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal order passed by the High Court where the evidence has been properly evaluated and no misappreciation is established. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused and the petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's judgment of acquittal based on the appreciation of evidence?
  • Can a plea of alibi supported by defense testimony be accepted if the High Court has properly evaluated the record?
  Read full judgment →
• MANZOOR AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 359 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24
  petition for leave to appealacquittalmurdercircumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant Manzoor Ahmad against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondent Falak Sher of charges under sections 302, 376, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Mst. Munawar Bibi. The trial court had initially convicted and sentenced the respondent based on last seen evidence, an extra-judicial confession, recoveries, and medical evidence. The High Court, however, determined that the dead body was in an extreme state of decomposition, indicating the occurrence took place much earlier than alleged by the prosecution. Upon examination of the evidence, the Supreme Court agreed that the circumstantial and other pieces of evidence were insufficient to warrant a conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether last seen evidence and an extra-judicial confession are sufficient to sustain a conviction in an unwitnessed crime when the medical evidence regarding the state of decomposition contradicts the prosecution's timeline?
  • Does an extreme state of decomposition of a dead body warrant interference with the prosecution's alleged time of occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAMSUDDIN Versus NOOR SHAHINFSY1988 SCMR 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-24
  criminal petitionmurderacquittalappreciation of evidenceSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the High Court, who were initially convicted by the trial court under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question was whether the High Court's judgment acquitting the respondents suffered from any legal defect or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the findings of the High Court were based on due and proper appreciation of evidence, and no legal defect or infirmity was pointed out. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment of the High Court unless a clear legal defect, misappreciation, or perversity is shown in the appreciation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment based on proper appreciation of evidence?
  • Can a petition against acquittal be maintained without pointing out any legal defect or infirmity in the impugned judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• CHIRAGH DIN Versus MUHAMMAD TUFAIL1988 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25
  criminal petitionleave to appealmurderalteration of sentencedeath sentencelife imprisonmentappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking the restoration of the death sentence awarded to the respondent by the trial court, which had been altered to life imprisonment by the High Court. The core legal question involved the propriety of altering the death sentence to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code in view of mitigating circumstances regarding the time of occurrence and the state of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in altering the sentence based on the decomposed state of the dead body and the surrounding evidence, which indicated the occurrence happened earlier than alleged, and that the evidence would not have otherwise warranted the conviction. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts may alter sentences where prosecution evidence and surrounding circumstances present mitigating doubts regarding the exact nature of the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is justified in altering a death sentence to life imprisonment when the medical evidence regarding the state of the dead body casts doubt on the prosecution's timeline?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence and reduction of sentence where the evidence does not strictly warrant the higher penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM1988 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-14
  leave to appealmurderculpable homicideself-defenceappraisal of evidencereduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which had altered the respondent's conviction from section 302, Pakistan Penal Code to section 304-I, Pakistan Penal Code, and reduced his sentence of imprisonment for life to ten years rigorous imprisonment based on a plea of self-defence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appraisal of evidence and in accepting the defence version under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the High Court provided cogent reasons for believing the defence version and was fully justified in altering the conviction. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently dismissed, establishing that appellate courts may rely on a substantiated plea of self-defence and the statement of the accused to reduce a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder where supported by evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in altering a conviction from section 302 to section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code based on a plea of self-defence?
  • Can an appellate court rely on the statement of the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to accept a defence version?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BOOTA Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-12
  leave to appealacquittalself-defencereappraisal of evidencecriminal appealplea of self-defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the High Court, which had upheld the acquittal of the respondents by the Sessions Judge in a criminal case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the High Court's judgment was brief and failed to adequately address the plea of self-defence that the trial court had accepted. The Supreme Court examined the trial court's judgment to determine if the reasoning regarding the plea of self-defence was sound and whether a reappraisal of the evidence was warranted. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had provided an elaborate and cogent analysis for accepting the plea of self-defence and acquitting the respondents. Consequently, the Court determined that the case did not merit the grant of leave to appeal solely for the purpose of reappraising evidence to challenge the trial court's findings on the plea of self-defence. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely for the reappraisal of evidence regarding a plea of self-defence?
  • Is a High Court judgment upholding an acquittal necessarily defective if it does not extensively discuss a plea of self-defence already elaborated upon by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus ZAFAR ABBAS1988 SCMR 354 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25
  leave to appealre-appraisal of evidenceacquittalmurdercriminal appealSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted the respondents, Zafar Abbas and Muhammad Iqbal, of charges related to the murder of Salabat. The respondents had initially been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death, with a fine imposed under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought to challenge the High Court's acquittal by requesting a re-appraisal of the evidence regarding the facts of the case. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments and reviewing the record, determined that the case did not warrant a re-appraisal of the evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal was without merit and dismissed it, thereby upholding the acquittal granted by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the sole purpose of re-appraising evidence in a criminal case?
  • Is a case fit for re-appraisal of evidence if the High Court has already acquitted the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DIN Versus ABDUL GHANI1988 SCMR 352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-21
  private defenceright of self-defencecriminal trespasspossession of landexceeding right of private defenceleave to appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302, 307, 325, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, holding that their actions resulting in two deaths and five injuries were protected as a valid exercise of the right of private defence of person and property. The complainant party had stocked hay on a disputed plot of land in the cultivating possession of the respondents. When requested to remove it, the complainant party failed to do so and initiated a confrontation resulting in injuries on both sides. The High Court found that the respondents faced criminal trespass and imminent threat of grievous hurt. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, holding that a party in possession is entitled to use reasonable force to resist criminal trespass and defend against severe physical attack. Finding that the right of private defence was not exceeded, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a party in lawful possession of property have the right to exercise force to resist criminal trespass by an opposing party?
  • Whether the receipt of numerous injuries by the accused party during a confrontation justifies the use of weapons in exercise of the right of private defence of body and property?
  • Can a complainant party rely upon its own act of criminal trespass to deny the accused party the right of self-defence?
  Read full judgment →
• BENAZIR BHUTTO Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-06
  political partiesfundamental rightsconstitutional petitionvires of statutepublic importance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a constitutional petition filed by Benazir Bhutto challenging the vires of sections 3-A and 3-B of the Political Parties Act, 1962, inserted by Ordinance No. XLII of 1979, as being violative of Article 17 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, while also considering the protective coverage afforded under Article 270-A of the Constitution. The core legal question involves the constitutionality of the impugned provisions governing political parties in light of fundamental rights and constitutional indemnification. The Court held that these constitutional questions are of public importance requiring full consideration and accordingly issued notices to the Attorney General for Pakistan, the Election Commission, and the Advocates General of the Provinces for a full hearing. The key principle established is that challenges to statutory provisions implicating fundamental rights and protected under constitutional provisions raise matters of public importance warranting comprehensive judicial review after notice to relevant law officers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sections 3-A and 3-B of the Political Parties Act, 1962 violate Article 17 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
  • Does Article 270-A of the Constitution provide protective coverage to Ordinance No. XLII of 1979?
  • Do challenges to the constitutionality of political party regulations raise questions of public importance requiring consideration by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNIS1988 SCMR 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR AHMAD Versus AHMAD BAKHSH1988 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-29
  petition for leave to appealacquittalmurderappraisal of evidencecriminal administration of justicerecoveries
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 302, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court appraised the evidence against the primary respondent in accordance with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice, given prompt FIR lodging, eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative recoveries. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as not pressed regarding four respondents, but granted leave to appeal solely against the acquittal of the main respondent, Ahmad Bakhsh, to examine the proper appraisal of evidence. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal against acquittal may be granted when there is a prima facie case that the High Court's evaluation of ocular and corroborative evidence against a principal accused departed from established principles of safe criminal administration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the evidence against the principal accused was appraised in accordance with the well-established principles of safe administration of criminal justice?
  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be pressed against a single respondent while being abandoned against others?
  Read full judgment →
• TEHZEEB-UL-HASSAN SHAH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 349 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-29
  review jurisdictionvires of memorandumplinth areaChief Settlement CommissionerCantonment Land Administration Rulesfresh argument
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard a review petition wherein the petitioner challenged the vires of Memorandum No. 4952-PI-Reh/60 dated 12-7-1960 on the ground that it conflicted with the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, and contended that the transfer of land could not exceed three times the plinth area without a special order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the second proviso to section 2(4). The core legal questions pertained to whether a new argument challenging the vires of a memorandum could be entertained for the first time in review jurisdiction, and whether the validity of such a memorandum remained an open question. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that fresh arguments not raised during the hearing of the main appeal cannot be agitated within the scope of review jurisdiction. The Court further noted that the legal issue concerning the vires of the memorandum had already been settled and concluded by binding precedent, which overruled the contrary High Court view.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a fresh argument regarding the vires of an administrative memorandum for the first time in review jurisdiction?
  • Whether an argument not raised at the time of the hearing of the main appeal can be agitated in a review petition before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• ROSHAN JAHAN Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 346 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-02
  industrial concernresumption proceedingssettlement schemeconsent orderpast and closed transactiondisplaced personsauction confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute regarding the transfer and subsequent resumption of an industrial concern (a flour mill) originally allotted in 1950. The core legal question was whether the legal representatives of the original transferee were entitled to the benefit of a proviso added to paragraph 2 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII on 30-10-1973, which barred resumption proceedings where 25% of the transfer price had been paid. The Supreme Court held that since the dispute had been settled by a competent consent order prior to the prospective amendment, and the appellants had defaulted on that agreed payment, the matter had become a past and closed transaction incapable of being reopened by subsequent prospective amendments. The Court laid down the principle that a prospective statutory amendment or rule change cannot affect a dispute that has already attained finality through a valid consent order, and that wilful default under such an order renders resumption and subsequent auction proceedings unassailable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of a prospective proviso added to Settlement Scheme No. VIII can affect a dispute that has attained finality through a prior consent order?
  • Can proceedings be maintained against a valid consent order passed by a competent authority under the settlement laws?
  • Does a wilful default in complying with a conditional consent order for the payment of transfer dues render the resumption of property automatically operative?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAHOOR FATIMA Versus MUHAMMAD NAEEM1988 SCMR 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-18
  appeal against acquittalocular testimonyinterested witnessesrecovery evidencechemical examiner reportcriminal justice administrationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's judgment acquitting four respondents of charges under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case relied on ocular testimony from two interested witnesses, dying declarations, and recovery evidence of blood-stained weapons. The High Court had acquitted the respondents, finding the ocular testimony unreliable due to extreme enmity and the failure to distinguish between guilty and innocent parties. Furthermore, the High Court rejected the recovery evidence due to the unexplained three-month delay in sending blood-stained items for chemical analysis, rendering the serologist's report unreliable. The Supreme Court examined the findings and determined that the High Court had fully considered all aspects of the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view was neither perverse nor contrary to established principles of criminal justice. Consequently, the Court affirmed that it would not undertake a reappraisal of evidence in an appeal against acquittal where the lower court's reasoning was sound, and thus refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending blood-stained recovered items for chemical examination render the recovery evidence devoid of corroborative value?
  • Can the Supreme Court reappraise evidence in an appeal against acquittal if the lower court's findings are not perverse?
  • Is the testimony of interested eye-witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration in cases of long-standing enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• RASHIDA BEGUM Versus QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN1988 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-17
  leave to appealcriminal investigationapprover testimonybenefit of doubtpolice misconductacquittalmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 302/34, 120-B, and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents had been convicted by the trial court for the murder of Malik Amir Bakhsh Khokhar, based largely on the testimony of an approver and circumstantial evidence. The High Court, however, set aside these convictions, finding the approver's testimony lacked credibility and sufficient corroboration, thereby extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted significant irregularities in the initial investigation, including evidence that respondent No. 1, who was in charge of the investigation, had interfered with the crime scene and manipulated the investigative process. Given these serious procedural failures and the potential for miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-examine the entire case, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring that the requirements of law for the safe administration of criminal justice are fully observed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the interference by an investigating officer in the collection of evidence necessitate a re-examination of the case by the Supreme Court?
  • Can a conviction based on an approver's testimony be sustained if the investigation itself is shown to be compromised by the investigating officer?
  • Is the Supreme Court empowered to grant leave to appeal when the High Court's acquittal is based on a flawed assessment of the investigative process?
  Read full judgment →
• IJAZ MAHMOOD Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 34 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-28
  concurrent findingsrevisional jurisdictionamendment of written statementadverse possessionbelated amendmentSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging concurrent findings of fact regarding the ownership of a disputed house, which both the Trial Court and the first appellate Court found to be owned by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, a finding left undisturbed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction. The core legal questions involved whether the concurrent findings of fact suffered from any legal infirmity and whether the Trial Court rightly refused an application to amend the written statement to include a plea of adverse possession at the stage of final arguments. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of fact were unexceptionable and that the refusal to allow the amendment of the written statement at a belated stage, without any explanation for the delay and after evidence had already been recorded, was justified. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that amendments seeking to introduce new pleas at a late stage after the conclusion of evidence may be validly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction when no infirmity is shown?
  • Can a party be permitted to amend its written statement to raise a plea of adverse possession after the evidence of both parties has been recorded and the case is fixed for arguments?
  • Whether the refusal of a trial court to allow a belated amendment of the pleadings without sufficient explanation warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-21
  criminal reviewbail cancellationcommon intentionerror of factsupreme court reviewdistinguishable role
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal review petitions filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning an earlier judgment involving the cancellation of bail and common intention in a criminal case. The core legal question addressed is whether an error of fact on the face of the judgment regarding the role and weapon attributed to a petitioner warrants a review and amendment of the judgment, and whether the bail granted to the petitioner should be cancelled. The court held that there was indeed an apparent error of fact regarding the weapon ascribed to Nazir Ahmad, distinguishing his case from that of the co-accused Abdul Kabir who was armed with a pistol. Consequently, the court reviewed and amended the previous judgment to correct the factual error, upheld the refusal to cancel bail for Nazir Ahmad, and cancelled the bail of the co-accused Abdul Kabir. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will rectify an error of fact on the face of its judgment in review proceedings where such an error leads to an erroneous consideration of a party's distinct role in a criminal case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an error of fact on the face of a judgment regarding a petitioner's role warrants a review of the case?
  • Can bail be cancelled for an accused whose case is distinguishable from a co-accused who used a firearm?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can amend its previous judgment to rectify factual inaccuracies upon a criminal review petition?
  Read full judgment →
• DILAWAR HAYAT Versus STATE1988 SCMR 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →