Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- MUHAMMAD HALEEM Versus ANAYAT BIBI1988 SCMR 1977 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus REHMAT BIBI1988 SCMR 1976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus WEST PAKISTAN DRILL WELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS1988 SCMR 1975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
- KHALIDA MUMTAZ Versus HAMID ALI KHAN1988 SCMR 1973 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED Versus COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR DIVISION1988 SCMR 1972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
- ANWARUD DIN AKMAL Versus ABDUL MATEEN SIDDIQUI1988 SCMR 1971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1970 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL AZIZ Versus STATE1988 SCMR 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from two interconnected criminal petitions, one seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal and the other challenging the dismissal of a revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The Additional Sessions Judge had convicted the respondents under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court subsequently acquitted the respondents in the criminal appeal, while a revision petition for sentence enhancement filed by the complainant remained pending due to administrative oversights and was later disposed of as infructuous. The Supreme Court considered whether the 156-day delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal could be condoned on the ground of registry oversight. The Court held that the delay was not sufficiently explained for the period after certified copies were obtained, and further found that the High Court's acquittal order was fair and proper. Consequently, both petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed, establishing principles regarding the strict requirement of explaining limitation periods and the non-interference with sound acquittals.
Questions settled- Can a delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal be condoned when no reasonable explanation is furnished for the period after obtaining certified copies?
- Whether a revision petition for enhancement of sentence becomes infructuous upon the acquittal of the respondents in the main criminal appeal?
- ABDUL MALAK KIANI Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 1969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL HAIDRI Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JHANG1988 SCMR 1968 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD HUSSAIN Versus ZAHOOR HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 1967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-12Read full judgment →
- KHAIR DIN Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL1988 SCMR 1966 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-31Read full judgment →
- QAIM DIN Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 1965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
- HAKAM ALI Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF. REVENUE1988 SCMR 1964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1988 SCMR 1963 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Abdul Rashid challenging the Lahore High Court order dated 29-8-1975 granting bail to Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Sadiq in a criminal case registered under sections 148 and 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail considering the nature of the injuries and subsequent trial delay. The Supreme Court held that interference with the bail granted by the High Court was not warranted, primarily due to the considerable delay in the completion of the trial where no witness evidence had been recorded since the registration of the FIR on 13th July 1975, without any attributable fault by the respondents. The key principle laid down is that undue and unexplained delay in the commencement or completion of a trial constitutes a justified ground for declining to interfere with the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether delay in the completion of the trial justifies upholding the grant of bail?
- Is interference warranted with a High Court bail order when trial evidence has not commenced?
- M USARRAT BIBI Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had reversed an acquittal order and convicted the petitioner, Mst. Musarrat Bibi, for the transportation of narcotics. The petitioner was apprehended on a train with 250 grams of heroin and 150 grams of opium in her possession. The core legal question was whether the conviction under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, was appropriate given the petitioner's status as a first-time offender and her background. The Supreme Court, upon review, acknowledged the argument that the petitioner did not appear to be a person engaged in trafficking narcotics. Consequently, the Court held that while the conviction stood, the ends of justice required a modification of the sentence. The Court reduced the substantive imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner, while maintaining the sentence of fine. The principle laid down is that the status of an accused as a first-time offender is a significant mitigating factor that must be duly considered in sentencing under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
Questions settled- Does the status of a first-time offender constitute a mitigating factor for sentencing under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Can the Supreme Court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining a fine in a narcotics case?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 1960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- JUMA Versus MANZOOR1988 SCMR 1958 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a Railway civil servant challenging the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of his claim for a specific allowance. The petitioner sought a consolidated allowance of Rs. 350, which the Tribunal denied on the basis that the petitioner had not been formally promoted to B-16. However, the petitioner had previously successfully claimed the difference between B-15 and B-16 emoluments before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, based on the assumption that he held a post entitled to B-16 pay. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the disputed allowance despite the lack of formal promotion to B-16, given that he was previously adjudicated as entitled to the emoluments of that higher grade. The Supreme Court found that this issue warrants further examination and granted leave to appeal to determine if the entitlement to higher grade emoluments inherently includes the disputed allowance. The Court ordered the matter to be heard alongside a related appeal, thereby setting the stage for a determination on the consistency of service benefits.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant is entitled to a consolidated allowance attached to a higher grade if they have already been adjudicated as entitled to the emoluments of that higher grade?
- Does the absence of a formal promotion to a specific grade bar a claim for allowances attached to that grade if the emoluments of that grade have already been granted?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF1988 SCMR 1955 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
- SALIM Versus AMIR NAWAZ KHAN1988 SCMR 1954 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-21Read full judgment →
- FAIZ AHMAD Versus FATEH MUHAMMADF1988 SCMR 1953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- DURAB KHAN Versus ALLAH WASAYA1988 SCMR 1952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal filed by plaintiffs and pre-emptors challenging matters arising from pre-emption suits and applications. The core legal question is whether pre-emption decrees can be passed in favour of petitioners when the laws under which pre-emption was sought ceased to have effect. The Supreme Court held that since the relevant laws ceased to be effective on 31st of July, 1986, following the judgment in Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah, no fresh decree can now be passed in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petitions were dismissed. The key principle laid down is that pending pre-emption suits where no decree had been passed abate or fail upon the relevant pre-emption laws ceasing to have effect pursuant to constitutional and Shariat appellate declarations.
Questions settled- Can a pre-emption decree be passed after the pre-emption laws have ceased to have effect?
- What is the effect of the Shariat Appellate Bench judgment in Malik Said Kamal Shah on pending pre-emption claims?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN1988 SCMR 1951 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from seven appeals by special leave directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the termination of services of temporary employees of the Islamabad Milk Plant after the plant was leased to a private party. The core legal question was whether the termination order passed on 27-7-1982 with retrospective effect from 31-5-1982 was void ab initio, and what relief the temporary employees were entitled to upon the abolition of their posts. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents were temporary employees whose posts came to an end on 31-5-1982 and who performed no duties thereafter, their employment stood terminated on that date, rendering the question of retroactivity irrelevant. However, acknowledging the Government's own stance under the Civil Servants Act that the employees were entitled to 14 days' notice or pay in lieu thereof, the Court modified the Tribunal's order, holding that the respondents were only entitled to 14 days' pay in the absence of written notice. The key principle laid down is that temporary employees whose posts expire are not entitled to reinstatement with full consequential benefits merely due to a technical defect of retroactivity in a subsequent termination order, but remain entitled to statutory notice or pay in lieu thereof.
Questions settled- Can an order of termination of service of a temporary employee be invalidated solely on the ground that it was given retrospective effect?
- What is the relief available to temporary government employees whose posts come to an end upon the leasing out of a government project?
- Whether temporary employees whose posts have expired are entitled to reinstatement and full consequential benefits due to the lack of a prior written notice of termination?
- SAEED AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM1988 SCMR 1948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT1988 SCMR 1946 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
- AHMAD ALI Versus HAJI1988 SCMR 1945 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
- AZIZUR REHMAN Versus FATA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION1988 SCMR 1944 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WAPDA1988 SCMR 1943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-20Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus SAID AHMAD1988 SCMR 1940 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which set aside the conviction of the respondent under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and instead convicted him under Section 304, Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the culpable homicide not amounting to murder of the deceased. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, the existence of a prior civil dispute and stay order regarding the property, and the validity of the plea of right of private defence of property. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had thoroughly sifted the evidence, rightly discarded parts of the ocular account due to material improvements, and correctly accepted the plea of self-defence and defence of property. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, laying down that appellate courts may properly convert a murder conviction to culpable homicide where the evidence reveals a sudden fight arising from a property dispute and the exercise of the right of private defence.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in converting a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 304 Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the plea of private defence?
- Can ocular testimony suffering from material improvements be relied upon without independent corroboration?
- Does a property dispute and a subsisting stay order warrant the exercise of the right of private defence of property?
- PAKISTAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had acquitted respondents Nos. 2 to 8 of charges under section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, following their conviction by the trial court for smuggling a large quantity of charas. The core legal question involved the propriety of the High Court's acquittal based on alleged material contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, without a proper evaluation of incriminating circumstances such as the admitted presence of the accused on the intercepted launch, the high-speed chase at sea, the massive weight of the recovered contraband, and the statutory shift of burden of proof under the Customs Act. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to attach due importance to vital inculpatory features and that the noted discrepancies were minor or explainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the correctness of the acquittal and ordered non-bailable warrants for the appearance of the respondents.
Questions settled- Whether minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence justify the complete acquittal of accused persons in narcotics smuggling cases?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under the special provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 upon the recovery of contraband from a vessel under their control?
- Whether the High Court failed to properly evaluate incriminating circumstances such as flight from law enforcement and the massive quantity of recovered contraband?
- IJAZ HUSSAIN Versus HUSSAN ARA1988 SCMR 1939 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA1988 SCMR 1937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan is directed against the dismissal of the appellant's constitutional petition regarding an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to determine if the nature of the property in dispute was evacuee trust property. The Supreme Court held that once a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) had been issued by the Settlement Department in favor of the predecessor-in-interest and the property transferred, neither the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, nor the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to go behind the P.T.D. and re-examine the nature of the property. The Court established the principle that a P.T.D. issued by the competent settlement authorities is conclusive regarding title in rent proceedings, and the relationship of landlord and tenant having been established through cogent evidence, the ejectment order was validly maintained.
Questions settled- Whether the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to decide if the nature of a property is evacuee trust property after a Permanent Transfer Deed has been issued?
- Can the High Court or appellate courts go behind a Permanent Transfer Deed issued by the Settlement Department in ejectment proceedings?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed establish conclusive title for the purpose of determining the relationship of landlord and tenant?
- CHAUDHRI WIRE ROPE INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus SALES TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1934 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition against notices issued by the Sales Tax Officer under section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951. The appellant company manufactures stay wire sold to the Water and Power Development Authority, initially claiming exemption under a Federal Government notification issued pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Following a Central Board of Revenue clarification that stay wire is not machinery or a component thereof, the Sales Tax Officer issued reassessment notices for escaped tax. The appellant challenged the notices directly in the High Court without participating in the proceedings. The Supreme Court considered whether the Sales Tax Officer possessed jurisdiction to reopen tax liability despite an earlier assessment order granting exemption. The Court held that section 28 empowers the Sales Tax Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings if tax has escaped assessment or been underassessed, and affirmed that the constitutional petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court as premature, leaving the appellant to raise its defenses before the tax authorities.
Questions settled- Does the Sales Tax Officer have the jurisdiction to reopen the question of tax liability under section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, despite having held the item as exempt in an earlier assessment order?
- Can an assessee invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against a notice issued under section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, before participating in the proceedings before the Sales Tax Officer?
- Does a change of opinion by the Sales Tax Officer preclude the initiation of proceedings for escaped assessment under section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
- KHURSHID AHMAD Versus AMINUDDIN1988 SCMR 1933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
- AROO ALIAS ARAB Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1931 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal concerns the conviction of the appellant for abduction and Zina-bil-jabr. The appellant was originally convicted by the trial court under sections 11 and 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The Federal Shariat Court subsequently altered the conviction for abduction to section 366, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the grounds that the Ordinance was not in force at the time of the alleged abduction, while maintaining the conviction for Zina-bil-jabr. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence sufficiently established the charges of abduction and Zina-bil-jabr. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the abduction, which allegedly occurred eight years prior to the F.I.R., leading to the acquittal on that charge. However, the Court upheld the conviction for Zina-bil-jabr, finding that the appellant failed to prove a valid Nikah with the victim. The principle established is that a conviction for abduction cannot be sustained where the evidence is insufficient to prove the occurrence, even if the subsequent sexual relations are proven to be non-consensual.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be sustained for an act of abduction that occurred prior to the Ordinance's enforcement?
- Is a conviction for Zina-bil-jabr sustainable if the accused fails to establish a valid Nikah with the victim?
- Does the failure to prove the initial abduction invalidate a conviction for Zina-bil-jabr if the sexual relationship is otherwise proven to be non-consensual?
- ASGHAR ALI Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had dismissed his appeal against convictions under Section 10 read with Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution established that the petitioner forcefully took a minor girl into a mosque under construction, removed her clothing, laid her on the floor, and leaned on her wildly before witnesses arrived upon her shrieks. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's actions amounted to an 'attempt' to commit Zina-bil-Jabr or merely fell short of an attempt. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the factual narration clearly demonstrated an attempt to commit Zina-bil-Jabr, as the petitioner had moved beyond mere preparation to physical execution. Consequently, the Court found no justification for interfering with the conviction and sentence. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether taking off a victim's clothes and forcing her to lie down constitutes an attempt to commit Zina-bil-Jabr?
- Does leaning wildly on a minor victim after stripping her move beyond preparation to constitute an attempt under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT Versus BASHIR AHMED1988 SCMR 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-16Read full judgment →
- IMRAT KHAN Versus AHMAD DIN1988 SCMR 1928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three civil appeals by plaintiffs arise from pre-emption cases involving a common question of law regarding court-fee valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioners had obtained pre-emption decrees prior to July 31, 1986, but were denied the benefit of these decrees by the High Court due to improper valuation of the subject-matter for court-fee jurisdiction, and in one case, due to a defect in the presentation of the plaint before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. The core legal question concerned whether the principles settled in Siddique Khan's case regarding court-fee deficiencies and the conditions under section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act regarding pecuniary jurisdiction applied. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the matters are covered by the precedent in Siddique Khan and that the requirements for interference regarding pecuniary jurisdiction under section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act were not met, thereby setting aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and restoring the pre-emption decrees.
Questions settled- Whether pre-emption suits can be non-suited due to improper valuation of the subject-matter for court-fee jurisdiction when covered by the principles in Siddique Khan's case?
- Does the presentation of a plaint before a civil court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction invalidate the suit without satisfying the conditions of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act 1887?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus BEHRAM KHAN.1988 SCMR 1926 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NOOR Versus MBR-I1988 SCMR 1924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
- AHMAD NAWAZ Versus WAPDA1988 SCMR 1922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-02Read full judgment →
- LUTFE ALI KHAN Versus SECRETARY, IRRIGATION & POWER DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB1988 SCMR 1921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-11Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ MASIH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
- KHAN DAD Versus KHUDAI MIR1988 SCMR 1919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
- HAJI MUHAMMAD Versus JEHAN, KHAN1988 SCMR 1918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM AKHTAR Versus MINHAJUL ABIDIN KHAN1988 SCMR 1917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-09Read full judgment →
- PEHLAJ RAI Versus KHEM CHAND PARAS RAM1988 SCMR 1916 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
- TAJ MUHAMMAD SHAH Versus COMMISSIONER, NASIRABAD1988 SCMR 1915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld an order of the Commissioner, Nasirabad, setting aside the allotment of land made in favor of the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner under the Land Reforms (Baluchistan Pat Feeder Canal) Regulation, 1972. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Commissioner, Nasirabad division, possessed the jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner acting as a delegatee of the Board of Revenue, especially where counsel for the respondents conceded that the appeal before the Commissioner was incompetent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention regarding the Commissioner's lack of jurisdiction and the High Court's failure to give effect to that finding requires detailed examination. The key principle recognized is that an appellate authority cannot exercise jurisdiction over an order passed by an officer acting under specific delegated powers unless duly authorized by law.
Questions settled- Whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner acting as a delegatee of the Board of Revenue under the Land Reforms (Baluchistan Pat Feeder Canal) Regulation, 1972?
- Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed on extraneous grounds after conceding that the impugned order of the lower authority was without jurisdiction?
- QUETTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus AJMAL KARIM BUTT1988 SCMR 1913 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-01Read full judgment →
- NAMEER AHMAD Versus TEHSILDAR/ASSISTANT COLLECTOR1988 SCMR 1912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
- DIVISION MANAGER (ZONAL), RICE MILLING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN GUJRANWALA Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
- KHAIROO Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB1988 SCMR 1910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was filed with a delay of two days. The core legal question considered by the court was whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay in filing the petition, where the applicant pleaded confusion in calculating time. The Supreme Court held that the plea had no basis and that no valid justification existed for condoning the delay, especially since a valuable right had accrued to the respondents. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that a vague plea of confusion in calculating limitation periods, unsupported by plausible grounds, does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the law.
Questions settled- Whether confusion in calculating time constitutes sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing a petition?
- Can a time-barred petition be entertained when a valuable right has accrued to the opposite party?
- SHAHNAWAZ KHAN KUNDI Versus N.-W.F.P.1988 SCMR 1909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
- ISLAM COAL CO. Versus GHULAM RASOOL1988 SCMR 1907 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. A tentative rent order was passed by the Rent Controller directing the deposit of arrears and future monthly rent. Subsequently, an application under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 to strike off the petitioner's defence for non-payment of future rent was dismissed by the Rent Controller, who found that the petitioner had misunderstood the tentative order and accepted the explanation as satisfactory. However, upon appeal by the respondents, the High Court set aside the Rent Controller's order and directed eviction. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court was unjustified in interfering with the Rent Controller's discretionary acceptance of the explanation regarding an ambiguous order, and that the eviction application itself was liable to be dismissed due to prior deposit of arrears under an amended provision. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine these contentions.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Rent Controller's order accepting the tenant's explanation regarding ambiguity in a tentative rent order?
- Whether an application for striking off defence under section 13(6) of the Rent Ordinance is liable to be dismissed if arrears of rent are deposited before the filing of the written statement following the 1984 amendment?
- GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN Versus ABDUL NABI1988 SCMR 1906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a time-barred petition filed by the Government of Baluchistan seeking leave to appeal, with a delay of 111 days. The core legal question is whether procedural delays caused by internal departmental movement of files and obtaining sanctions from various government quarters constitute sufficient ground for the condonation of delay under the law of limitation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the Government cannot claim any special treatment or exemption regarding limitation periods compared to ordinary litigants. The ratio decidendi is that bureaucratic delays and inter-departmental examinations do not furnish a valid or sufficient ground for condoning delay, and each day of delay must be properly and satisfactorily explained. The key principle laid down is that government departments must organize their affairs efficiently to institute legal proceedings within the prescribed limitation period, as administrative red tape does not excuse non-compliance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether internal departmental proceedings and movement of files constitute a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay?
- Can the Government claim a different standard or preferential treatment regarding the law of limitation compared to an ordinary litigant?
- Does the excuse of delay caused by obtaining sanctions from various government quarters justify the extension of the period of limitation?
- GHULAM JILANI Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding disputed land, which was dismissed by the trial court after it found that the necessary formalities of Talab-e-Mowasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad had not been effectively proved. The dismissal was upheld by the Additional District Judge on appeal and subsequently by the High Court in civil revision. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal, contending that there was a conflict of opinion regarding the proof of these pre-emption formalities, specifically pointing to a differing view previously taken in Hussain Bakhsh v. Mir Muhammad. The Supreme Court examined the contention and held that the matter required further examination. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal subject to furnishing security.
Questions settled- Whether the necessary formalities regarding the performance of Talab-e-Mowasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad were effectively proved by the plaintiffs?
- Whether there exists a conflict of opinion in judicial precedents regarding the proof of pre-emption demands requiring resolution by the Supreme Court?
- ABDUL JABBAR Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1903 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Abdul Jabbar, sought leave to appeal against his conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, for Zina-bil-Jabr. The Federal Shariat Court had upheld his conviction while acquitting his co-accused. The petitioner challenged the conviction primarily on the ground of his age at the time of the occurrence, arguing he was a non-adult. Relying on medical evidence and previous case law, the petitioner contended that the mere presence of semen does not satisfy the statutory definition of an 'adult' under Section 2(a) of the Ordinance, which requires specific physical developmental markers such as the growth of pubic and axillary hair and voice deepening. The Supreme Court observed that the definition of an 'adult' and whether the secretion of semen alone is decisive for determining puberty under the Ordinance required authoritative interpretation. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the precise legal criteria for determining adulthood in the context of the Ordinance, while maintaining the petitioner's existing bail.
Questions settled- Does the secretion of semen alone satisfy the definition of an 'adult' under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979?
- What are the mandatory physical criteria required to establish that a male has attained puberty under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979?
- NAZIR HUSSAIN Versus NAWAZISH ALI1988 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a criminal trial for murder and murderous assault. Several accused were charged with the murder of one person and the assault of others. The trial court convicted certain accused under section 302/34 and section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, awarding death and imprisonment for life, while acquitting others. On appeal, the High Court maintained the convictions but reduced the death sentence of one convict to imprisonment for life. The core legal question involved the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence in a daylight occurrence and the propriety of the High Court's reduction of the death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were unexceptionable, noting that the presence of injured eyewitnesses and the corroborating medical evidence firmly established the guilt of the petitioners, and found the reasons given by the High Court for sentence reduction to be plausible. The petitions for leave to appeal and enhancement were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the presence of injured eyewitnesses is sufficient to establish their credibility in a daylight murder occurrence?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts regarding conviction?
- Whether plausible reasons given by the High Court for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- NADIR KHAN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1899 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LSHAUQE Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1898 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD JAVED UMRAO Versus MISS UZMA VAHID1988 SCMR 1891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a custody dispute between divorced parents over two minor daughters. The respondent mother initiated proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 in Lahore, while the petitioner father initiated separate proceedings in Abbottabad. Simultaneously, the respondent filed a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the Lahore High Court, alleging the father was obstructing the legal process and illegally detaining the minors. The High Court ordered the minors to remain in the mother's custody until puberty. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to determine custody while Guardians and Wards Act 1890 proceedings were pending, and whether the High Court's order was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Section 491 to secure the production of minors in cases of improper detention or obstruction, it cannot use this summary jurisdiction to make a permanent custody determination. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order regarding custody until puberty, directing that final custody be adjudicated by the relevant Guardian Court based on the welfare of the minors.
Questions settled- Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to determine the permanent custody of minors?
- Does the pendency of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 exclude the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is it permissible for a High Court to pass an order granting custody of minors until puberty in proceedings initiated under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ATA MUHAMMAD Versus GHULAM RASOOD KHAN1988 SCMR 189 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had partially accepted an appeal against a conviction for murder. The accused, Naurang Khan and his father Ghulam Rasul Khan, were originally convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Aslam Khan. The High Court acquitted the father but maintained the conviction and sentence of the son. The complainant sought to challenge the acquittal of the father, while the convicted son sought to challenge his own conviction. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the submissions and the evidence on record. The core legal question was whether the High Court's findings on the facts and evidence warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the arguments presented by the complainant's counsel essentially sought a re-appraisal of evidence on questions of fact, which the Court declined to undertake. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions, affirming the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal based on a re-appraisal of evidence?
- Is a petition for special leave to appeal maintainable when it merely seeks a re-evaluation of factual findings?
- ASMATULLAH KHAN Versus BAZI KHAN1988 SCMR 1888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to respondent No. 1, who was accused of abducting a minor girl under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The High Court had admitted the respondent to bail on the ground that subsequent police investigation found him innocent and that the case required further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The complainant appealed, contending that the mere possibility of further inquiry does not justify bail under Section 497(2) and that the statutory conditions were not met. The Supreme Court held that reading the High Court's order and the investigative material as a whole, both the investigating officer and the court concluded that there were no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence, which satisfies the mandatory requirement for bail under Section 497(2). The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the mere possibility of further inquiry in a criminal case is a sufficient ground for granting bail under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is it mandatory to release an accused on bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 once the court or officer concludes there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence?
- Can a police report finding an accused innocent during subsequent investigation form the basis for granting bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- DOST MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1885 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court convicting the appellants under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and enhancing the sentence to life imprisonment, along with convictions under Section 10(3) of the said Ordinance. The prosecution case involved the forcible abduction and rape of the complainant's sister by the accused persons, who broke into the house armed with sticks and caused injuries to the inmates. The core legal question was whether an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed by a Family Court in favor of the accused constitutes conclusive proof of a valid marriage, taking precedence in a criminal trial involving charges of abduction and rape where the status of marriage is in dispute. The Supreme Court held that while a Family Court judgment on a valid Nikah has direct bearing on a criminal trial, the lack of record regarding pleadings and documents before the Family Court prevents a definitive finding. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of both lower courts, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial after summoning the Family Court record.
Questions settled- Does a judgment of a Family Court regarding a valid Nikah take precedence in a subsequent criminal trial involving the same parties?
- Can an ex parte decree for restitution of conjugal rights serve as sufficient proof of a valid marriage in a criminal charge of abduction?
- What is the appropriate course of action for an appellate court when the record of a civil family proceeding relied upon by the accused is missing or incomplete?
- MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1988 SCMR 1883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three appeals arising from rent restriction eviction proceedings where the Lahore High Court had set aside eviction orders against tenants. The primary legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, was justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the special rent forum regarding the alleged default in rent payments. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could substitute its own discretion for that of the special forum when determining if a default had occurred. Upon review, the Court found that in one case, there was no default if the rent payment made to the landlord's father was accepted as valid. In the other two cases, the High Court had correctly reviewed the record and receipts, which demonstrated that no actionable default remained. The Supreme Court affirmed that payment to the landlord's father, in the absence of ill-will, constituted a valid discharge of the tenant's liability. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court's interference was justified, and the appeals were dismissed as lacking substance.
Questions settled- Can a payment of rent made to the father of a landlord be considered a valid discharge of a tenant's liability?
- Is the High Court's exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction appropriate when it reviews the discretion exercised by a special rent forum regarding rent default?
- Does the High Court have the authority to re-examine factual findings regarding rent payment receipts in Constitutional petitions?
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (PWD) D&R CENTRAL REGION LAHORE Versus RANA MOTORS LTD., LAHORE1988 SCMR 1880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from cross-appeals concerning the determination of compensation and interest for land acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,500 per marla, which was upheld by the Senior Civil Judge but subsequently enhanced by the Lahore High Court to Rs. 4,000 per marla based on market value evidence. The owner sought further enhancement, while the Collector challenged the High Court's increase. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's valuation of Rs. 4,000 per marla, noting that the owner had specifically claimed this rate in the pleadings and paid court fees accordingly. However, regarding interest, the Supreme Court held that under the Land Acquisition (West Pakistan Amendment) Act 1969 (referred to as Amendment Act No. 3 of 15th March 1969), the owner was legally entitled to compound interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of taking possession until the date of final payment. Consequently, the owner's appeal was partly allowed to grant the compound interest, while the Collector's appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a landowner can claim compensation at a rate higher than what was originally pleaded and upon which court fees were paid?
- Whether the owner of acquired land is entitled to compound interest on the compensation amount from the date of possession to the date of payment under the 1969 amendment to the acquisition law?
- Can the Collector's arbitrary guess-work in assessing market value be sustained when reliable evidence of market value is available on record?
- MUHAMMADI KHAN Versus SUBHAN KHAN1988 SCMR 1876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected civil appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner cancelling the allotment and confirmation of evacuee agricultural lands made in favour of the appellants. The respondents' previous allotments were cancelled under Martial Law Regulation No. 9, entitling them to preferential accommodation. After discovering bogus allotments through an informant application, the respondents sought allotment, but their claim files were improperly seized by Enforcement Police without cause. Despite an express directive from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner restraining allotment until the files were returned, the authorities confirmed the disputed land in favour of the appellants. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals with costs, holding that the confirmation in favour of the appellants was executed in direct violation of lawful administrative directions and marred by material irregularities. The Court affirmed that displaced persons whose claims were unlawfully obstructed are entitled to preference, and concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed absent legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment of evacuee land made in express violation of a restraining direction issued by a competent Settlement Authority is legally valid?
- Can claimants whose claim forms were improperly detained by enforcement authorities be deprived of their statutory priority or preferential rights for land allotment?
- Whether concurrent factual determinations regarding irregularities in settlement allotments can be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of any legal defect?
- HAZRAT NOOR. Versus KHUDAI RAHIM,1988 SCMR 1875 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus EJAZI BEGUM1988 SCMR 1874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit and subsequent regular first appeal, which were thrown out on the preliminary issue of limitation. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners' suit for declaration and injunction, filed on 29 December 1980 to challenge transfer orders issued in 1961 and 1964 and an adverse appellate settlement order from 1965, was barred by time under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action accrued at least by 1965 upon the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, making a suit filed in December 1980 manifestly time-barred. The court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition, laying down that a civil suit challenging administrative settlement orders filed long after the expiration of the limitation period prescribed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act is incompetent.
Questions settled- When does the cause of action for challenging a settlement order through a civil suit arise under Article 120 of the Limitation Act?
- Whether a civil suit filed in 1980 to challenge settlement transfer orders from 1961 and 1964 and a 1965 appellate decision is barred by time?
- FATIMA Versus ABDUL WAHID1988 SCMR 1872 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
- ANJUMAN TAHAFAZ-E-HAQOOQ-E-SHAHRIAN, QAUIDABAD Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL1988 SCMR 1871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQ Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1988 SCMR 1870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-09Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SHABBIR Versus STATE1988 SCMR 187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment and fine. The core legal question revolves around the reliability of the ocular testimony given by inimical witnesses and the voluntariness and credibility of the deceased's dying declaration recorded in the presence of relatives amidst potential identity disputes. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both the convict's petition and the complainant's petition to thoroughly re-appraise the entire evidence on record. The key principle laid down is that where serious questions are raised regarding the corroboration of interested witnesses and the trustworthiness of a dying declaration, the apex court will grant leave to re-examine the evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony from witnesses who are admittedly inimical to the accused without independent corroboration?
- Whether a dying declaration recorded by a police officer in the presence of relatives, where a dispute regarding the identity of the assailant existed, can be considered voluntary and reliable?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to re-appraise evidence in a criminal case concurrent findings of lower courts?
- ABDUL GHAFOOR RISHI Versus RAZA MUHAMMAD KHAN1988 SCMR 1869 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SAMAD Versus GHULAM RASOOL1988 SCMR 1868 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that reversed a Rent Controller's order. The Rent Controller had initially dismissed the respondents' application to strike off the petitioner's defence for non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order dated 8-7-1986. The Rent Controller's order required the deposit of rent arrears for a specific period but notably omitted any direction regarding the payment of future monthly rent. The respondents sought to strike off the defence due to non-payment of rent for July 1986. The petitioner argued that in the absence of a specific direction for future rent in the initial order, no default occurred regarding subsequent months. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that an amendment to the relevant rent legislation, effective 1-10-1984, rendered the respondents' application liable to dismissal because the petitioner had deposited the claimed arrears before filing the written statement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contentions raised regarding the scope of the rent order and the impact of the legislative amendment required further judicial examination.
Questions settled- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-payment of future rent if the Rent Controller's initial tentative order did not explicitly direct the payment of such future rent?
- Does the deposit of claimed arrears of rent before the filing of a written statement protect a tenant from having their defence struck off under the amended provisions of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- SHAUKAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD INAM1988 SCMR 1867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL1988 SCMR 1866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-20Read full judgment →
- SALAMATULLAH Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, JHANG1988 SCMR 1863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the classification of property as either urban built-up area or agricultural land under the settlement laws following the partition of the subcontinent. The appellants claimed the property as urban property transferred to them under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, while the respondent contended it was agricultural land allotted to him against a verified claim. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the Settlement Department functionaries, who determined the property was agricultural land based on evidence, were subject to interference in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the determination of the property's status as agricultural land was a question of fact supported by oral and documentary evidence, including Jamabandi records showing cultivation. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower forums and the High Court, affirming that findings of fact based on proper consideration of material on record are not open to interference in writ jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact made by settlement authorities?
- Does the classification of property as agricultural land versus urban built-up area constitute a question of fact?
- Is a property considered agricultural land if it was under cultivation at the time of Independence, despite the presence of minor structures?
- TAHIR AHMAD Versus TANSEEF-UR-REHMAN1988 SCMR 1861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
- IQBAL BEGUM Versus AISHA BIBI1988 SCMR 1860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ PATWARI Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KHANEWALI1988 SCMR 1859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD QUDDUS RAJA Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1988 SCMR 1858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- SARWAR Versus KARAMAT HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 1857 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
- SADRO Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1856 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus MANAGER, FINANCE (WATER), WAPDA1988 SCMR 1855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHIQ ANSARI Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI.1988 SCMR 1854 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF1988 SCMR 1852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charges against them. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court failed to examine certain circumstances as corroboration of interested evidence and whether admissions of the respondents regarding their participation along with the recovery of a crime weapon constituted sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court observed that the complainant party had changed the complexion of the case and the entire occurrence was shrouded in mystery, making it impossible to discover the truth. The Court noted that in appeals against acquittal, the considerations differ from those in conviction appeals. Holding that the High Court was justified in extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused due to the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the respondents when the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can the benefit of the doubt be extended to the accused when both parties have withheld the truth and the occurrence is shrouded in mystery?
- Are the considerations in an appeal against acquittal different from those in an appeal against conviction?
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus ABDUL SALAM1988 SCMR 1850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA KHAR1988 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning writ petitions filed by individuals convicted by Special Military Courts and Ex-Army Officers. The core legal question involves the scope of judicial review and the protection afforded by Article 270-A of the Constitution against actions taken by Martial Law Authorities, and whether such actions and orders are immune from challenge. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether Article 270-A validates and renders immune from challenge not only legislative measures like Martial Law Regulations, Orders, and President's Orders, but also every kind of action taken thereunder, noting that similar questions were already under consideration in other connected petitions. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and stayed further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order pending the hearing of the appeals.
Questions settled- Does Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 validate and render immune from challenge every kind of action taken under Martial Law Regulations, Martial Law Orders, and President's Orders?
- To what extent is the jurisdiction of the High Court barred under Article 270-A regarding orders passed and acts done by Martial Law Authorities?
- Are petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable against orders passed and acts done by Military Authorities which are alleged to be mala fide?
- MIR ZAMAN Versus MUHAMMAD FEROZE1988 SCMR 1849 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-02Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ELAHI Versus TAJ MUHAMMAD1988 SCMR 1848 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MOGHIS ASGHAR Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1847 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
- KABUSHIKI KAISHA TOSHIBA Versus MUHAMMAD ALTAF'1988 SCMR 1845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKIM Versus MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN1988 SCMR 1838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of a long-standing property dispute regarding the transfer of a house in Quetta under settlement laws. The core legal questions involve the binding effect of prior constitutional judgments, the maintainability of a civil suit challenging settlement and revenue orders, the requirement of a P.T.D. for eviction proceedings, and the issue of limitation regarding a civil suit filed by a rival claimant. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the contentions raised by the petitioner required detailed examination, particularly concerning the finality of the High Court's earlier judgment, the binding nature of the Member Board of Revenue's order, and whether the respondent's civil suit was time-barred or based on no evidence. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these legal questions.
Questions settled- Does a prior judgment of the High Court in a constitutional petition conclusively resolve property transfer controversies between the parties?
- Can an unchallenged order of the Member Board of Revenue directing the issuance of a P.T.D. be questioned in subsequent civil proceedings?
- Whether a civil suit challenging property transfer orders filed after several years is barred by limitation?
- Can a civil court decree a suit for declaration and injunction in the absence of proof regarding tenancy under the Custodian or an application for transfer?
- MITHA KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNIS.1988 SCMR 1836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision application by the High Court of Baluchistan, which had upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's suit regarding a customary dispute dating back to 1915. The core legal question concerned whether the lower forums and the High Court erred in ignoring the non-compliance of remand directions by the trial court and improperly rejecting the plaint. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions regarding the trial court's failure to follow appellate guidelines and the High Court's application of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 required deeper examination. The key principle laid down is that lower courts must strictly adhere to remand directions and guidelines issued by appellate forums, and procedural irregularities regarding cause of action and limitation require proper framing of issues.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court is bound to follow the specific guidelines and directions contained in an appellate remand order?
- Can a plaint be rejected for disclosing no cause of action without framing a specific issue to that effect?
- Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to remand a matter despite acknowledging the trial court's non-compliance with appellate directions?
- ABDUL SAMAD Versus GHULAM RASOOL1988 SCMR 1832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ COLLECTOR, QUETTA SUB-DIVISION, QUETTA1988 SCMR 1830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which dismissed an appeal against the District Judge's order dismissing an application for the restoration of a land acquisition case for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether an application for the restoration of a reference filed by the Province of Baluchistan could be validly maintained by a counsel appointed solely by the Federal Government, when the Federal Government was not a party to the proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, holding that an application for restoration must be filed by the competent party or through proper authorization. The Court established that a counsel cannot appear or file applications on behalf of a party without proper authorization from that specific party, and a non-party or its appointed counsel has no standing to seek restoration of proceedings instituted by a provincial government.
Questions settled- Can a counsel file an application for restoration of a suit on behalf of an entity that has not authorized them or is not a party to the proceedings?
- Who is the competent authority to seek the restoration of a reference originally filed by the Province of Baluchistan under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- PROVINCE OF N .W. F.P. Versus GENERAL PUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1988 SCMR 1825 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-01-20Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1822 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which affirmed the trial court's conviction of the petitioner under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested on eye-witness testimony, the recovery of a blood-stained dagger upon arrest, and supporting evidence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing the petitioner's application under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to call two named independent eye-witnesses as additional evidence, where those witnesses submitted affidavits contradicting the prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the exercise of power to take additional evidence under Section 428 Cr.P.C. rests upon the satisfaction of the appellate court. The Court observed that the witnesses were untraceable during trial despite process and had become hostile or influenced by the defence. Finding no violation of established principles regarding the appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Is the exercise of power to record additional evidence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to the satisfaction of the appellate court?
- Can an appellate court refuse an application under Section 428 Cr.P.C. to examine unsummoned witnesses who submit affidavits favoring the accused if they appear to have been influenced or kept away during trial?