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.
- BORD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION LAHORE Versus GHULAM QADIR1988 SCMR 1100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE1988 SCMR 110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAZAQ Versus STATE1988 SCMR 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-01Read full judgment →
- DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), FAISALABAD DIVISION, FAISALABAD Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM1988 SCMR 1099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Director of Education (Schools), Faisalabad Division, against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The respondent, a junior clerk, was removed from service following a departmental inquiry, but the Service Tribunal re-examined the evidence, found the charges unestablished, and set aside the removal order. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with a factual re-appraisal of evidence by the Service Tribunal in the absence of a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court held that since the Tribunal's decision rested on the re-appraisal of evidence and no substantial question of law of public importance arose, leave to appeal must be refused. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with factual findings or re-appraisals of evidence by a service tribunal unless a substantial question of law of public importance is involved.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the re-appraisal of evidence by the Punjab Service Tribunal when no substantial question of law of public importance is involved?
- Can the Service Tribunal set aside a departmental removal order after re-examining the evidence led during the inquiry?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1098 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against their conviction and sentences under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question raised was whether the absence of an initial motive to kill, and the presence of an alternative motive to bring back the petitioner's wife, warranted the substitution of the death sentence with a lesser sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioners were rightly convicted and sentenced to death given the circumstances of the case. The court laid down the principle that an underlying domestic or non-fatal initial objective does not automatically mitigate the offense of murder committed during the transaction, thereby dismissing the petition for leave to appeal as meritless.
Questions settled- Does an initial motive to bring back a wife rather than commit murder warrant a lesser sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether conviction and death sentence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are justified when the accused went to the victim's house for a domestic purpose but committed murder?
- NIAMAT ALI Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
- STATE Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR1988 SCMR 1096 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 302, 307, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involved the effect of a compromise between the parties and whether interference with an acquittal based on such a compromise was warranted. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the factum of compromise stood admitted and was genuine, as affirmed by the legal heirs and eye-witnesses who appeared in court, no case was made out for interference with the acquittal. The Court established the principle that an appellate acquittal founded on a genuine and admitted compromise between the parties will not typically be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal judgment when a genuine compromise has been effected between the parties?
- Can eye-witnesses affirm a compromise before the appellate court through affidavits and personal appearance?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal maintainable where the complainant party refuses to press the conviction due to a compromise?
- NASIRA SURRIYA Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM1988 SCMR 1095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AKBAR SHAH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1093 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
- SECRETARV TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT. LAHORE Versus ADDITIONALDISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-06Read full judgment →
- NADEEM LQBAL KHAN Versus FUJI COLOUR PAKISTAN LABORATORY1988 SCMR 1089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Laboratory Assistant, challenged the termination of his services for alleged misconduct involving the preparation of obscene prints. Following his termination, the petitioner accepted his full and final settlement dues without protest but subsequently filed a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court ordered his reinstatement, finding the termination procedurally flawed. However, the Labour Appellate Tribunal, while ruling in favor of the petitioner on other grounds, held that his acceptance of terminal benefits precluded him from challenging the termination. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, affirmed the employer's position, ruling that the petitioner was not an 'aggrieved person' under the law after accepting full settlement. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court erred in overturning the Tribunal's findings regarding the authorization of the appeal and the legal effect of accepting terminal dues. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the acceptance of dues bars a former employee from challenging the legality of their termination under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of terminal dues in full and final settlement without protest bar an employee from challenging the termination of their services under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Can a High Court in writ jurisdiction set aside a finding of fact recorded by a Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the authorization of an appeal?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR1988 SCMR 1087 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8th February, 1987, whereby the respondents' conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder was altered to Section 334, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing their sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction and sentence based on the finding that the occurrence took place as a single transaction during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, rather than being split into two parts as claimed by the prosecution. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court was not perverse and could reasonably be formed upon the evidence. The petition was consequently dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an appellate court's appreciation of evidence regarding whether an occurrence constituted a sudden quarrel in a single transaction unless the view taken is perverse.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from murder to a lesser offence upon finding the occurrence was a sudden quarrel in one transaction?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence regarding the sequence of events during an occurrence?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR1988 SCMR 1086 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the respondent's sentence from imprisonment for life to death under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The respondent and his brother were tried for murder, where the trial court convicted both and sentenced them to death. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction of both accused but reduced the respondent's sentence from death to imprisonment for life, noting that the fatal injury was not attributed to him and relying on precedent. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in reducing the sentence of the respondent while confirming the death sentence of his co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court in taking a lenient view and reducing the sentence was not perverse, as the fatal injury was not attributed to the respondent. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for enhancement of sentence, upholding the exercise of judicial discretion by the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the sentence of life imprisonment instead of death when the fatal injury was not attributed to the accused?
- Is a petition for enhancement of sentence maintainable when the view taken by the High Court in mitigating the sentence is not perverse?
- AKHTAR BEGUM Versus ZAHOOR AHMAD1988 SCMR 1085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAZIR Versus TARIQ1988 SCMR 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent, Tariq, of murder charges, overturning his conviction by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s acquittal of the respondent was justified, particularly given that the respondent admitted to inflicting the fatal injury on the deceased but claimed the right of private defence, a plea the High Court failed to adequately evaluate against the prosecution’s evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had disregarded the ocular testimony and recovery evidence solely because public witnesses were not produced, without properly juxtaposing the prosecution’s version against the respondent’s defence. Finding that the acquittal potentially resulted in a miscarriage of justice, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the acquittal adhered to the established principles of safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court must rigorously evaluate a plea of self-defence in juxtaposition with the prosecution's evidence, especially when the accused admits to causing the fatal injury.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court required to evaluate a plea of self-defence when the accused admits to causing the fatal injury?
- Can an appellate court reject ocular testimony and recovery evidence solely because public attesting witnesses were not produced?
- Does the failure to juxtapose the prosecution's version with the defence's version constitute a ground for granting leave to appeal against an acquittal?
- GHULAM RASUL Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM1988 SCMR 1080 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing a civil revision regarding the validity of a land gift mutation. The core legal question was whether the gift was procured through fraud and undue influence, given the petitioner's claims of illiteracy, deafness, and poor eyesight. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving fraud or undue influence. The Court observed that the petitioner appeared alert and healthy in court, contradicting his own pleadings regarding his physical infirmities. Consequently, the Court found the gift was made with the donor's full understanding and willingness. The key principle laid down is that the onus of proving fraud and undue influence rests squarely on the party asserting it. Furthermore, mere illiteracy does not invalidate a gift transaction, and judicial observation of a party's physical condition can be a decisive factor in assessing the credibility of claims regarding incapacity or undue influence in the execution of legal documents.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proving fraud and undue influence in a gift transaction lie with the party alleging it?
- Can a donor's claim of physical incapacity be rejected if the court observes the donor to be healthy and alert?
- Is a gift mutation rendered invalid solely on the grounds of the donor's illiteracy?
- AZHAR HAIDER SHAH Versus STATE1988 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-26Read full judgment →
- ABU FIAYYAB Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM1988 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for review of a Supreme Court judgment dated 22-2-1988, which had dismissed a petition for leave to appeal. The review petitioners contended that the Supreme Court's previous order contained a factual error regarding the status of the underlying suit, specifically that the suit had already been decided by the trial court, rendering the Supreme Court's direction for the trial court to dispose of the suit redundant. The Supreme Court held that while it was not a fit case for a full review of the judgment, it was necessary to make a consequential correction to the order to reflect the admitted fact that the trial court had already decided the suit. The Court clarified that the High Court's original direction for the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously remained unexceptionable, but amended the specific paragraph of its previous order to remove the directive that had become moot due to the suit's prior disposal. The principle established is that the Court may exercise its power to correct factual inaccuracies in its orders when such corrections are necessary to reflect the admitted status of proceedings.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court correct a factual error in its judgment regarding the status of a suit during review proceedings?
- Is a direction by the Supreme Court for a trial court to dispose of a suit rendered moot if the suit has already been decided?
- MUHAMMADANWAR Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF1988 SCMR 1076 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of an open site adjacent to a residential property, previously transferred to the respondent. The core legal questions were whether the disputed site was available for transfer under the settlement scheme, whether a tenant could independently claim transfer of the site, and the validity of a deed of association executed during a subsisting status quo order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the High Court. The Court held that the disputed area was an integral part of the property already transferred to the respondent and thus unavailable for further transfer. The Court established that a tenant lacks independent title to seek the transfer of property already possessed by the landlord, and that any deed of association or transfer action taken during the subsistence of a status quo order is a legal nullity. The Court further declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding property boundaries and availability.
Questions settled- Can a tenant seek the transfer of an open site that is already part of the property transferred to their landlord?
- Is a deed of association executed during the subsistence of a status quo order legally valid?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the availability of property for transfer?
- AMIR HUSSAIN Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1075 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner Amir Hussain sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding his conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and his sentence of death for the murder of the deceased, while his co-accused was acquitted. The core legal question raised was whether two co-accused who fired at the deceased, resulting in only one fatal shot, are both entitled to the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life merely because it cannot be determined whose shot proved fatal, or whether a murderer can claim such benefit when one of them missed. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether the principle of lesser sentence applies when multiple accused fire at a victim but only one shot hits, specifically considering the effect of a missed shot by a co-accused. The Court laid down that further consideration is required regarding the application of mitigating circumstances based on attribution of fatal injuries in joint firing cases.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person is entitled to a lesser sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when multiple persons fire at the deceased and it cannot be determined whose shot was fatal?
- Can murderers claim the benefit of a lesser sentence merely on the ground that one of them missed the person at whom they intended to kill?
- DILAWAR Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA1988 SCMR 1074 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the trial court's decree was initially reversed by the Additional District Judge on the ground that the suit was time-barred due to a deficiency in court-fee paid after the prescribed limitation period. The High Court subsequently set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree. The petitioners, who were the vendees, challenged this decision before the Supreme Court on two grounds: the incorrect application of the principle of sinker regarding the pre-emptor's superior right, and the issue of limitation concerning the court-fee. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to challenge the finding on the principle of sinker in the lower appellate court or the High Court, and thus could not raise it at the leave-to-appeal stage. Regarding limitation, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision, relying on established precedent that the suit was within time despite the delayed court-fee payment.
Questions settled- Can a party raise a legal ground in the Supreme Court that was not challenged in the lower appellate court or the High Court?
- Does the payment of court-fee after the expiry of the limitation period for filing a suit render the suit time-barred?
- SHAKIR ALI Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-09Read full judgment →
- ALTAF PERVEZ Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1072 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-30Read full judgment →
- SUGHRAN BIBI Versus SARWAR BIBI1988 SCMR 1070 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a complainant mother against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the convictions and sentences of the respondents under sections 304/34 and 452/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged compromise. The prosecution case involved a dispute over drainage water leading to an assault on a pregnant woman who subsequently died from injuries to her abdomen. The defence contended that the deceased accidentally slipped and fell on bricks removed from a gutter. The core legal questions examined by the Supreme Court relate to the validity of a compromise entered into by the estranged husband of the deceased who lacked authority to act on behalf of all legal heirs, whether the conditions for a valid compromise under established precedent were satisfied, and whether the High Court erred in setting aside the entire sentence rather than merely considering sentence reduction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions raised required detailed examination regarding the legality of the compromise and the resultant acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether an estranged husband of a deceased victim possesses the legal authority to enter into a binding criminal compromise on behalf of all legal heirs?
- Can a High Court set aside an entire conviction and sentence on the basis of an invalid or unverified compromise?
- Whether the conditions for a compromise laid down in precedent are duly satisfied when determining a criminal appeal?
- ZAHOOR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus BARKAT HUSSAIN1988 SCMR 1069 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-22Read full judgment →
- STATE Versus GULZAR MASIH1988 SCMR 1068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State filed a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had reduced the respondent's sentence from death to imprisonment for life in a murder case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's decision to reduce the sentence was justified given the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court examined the impugned judgment and heard arguments regarding the enhancement of the sentence. The Court held that the High Court's decision was correct, finding that the circumstances involving family honour warranted a lesser sentence than the death penalty under the relevant penal provisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's petition for lack of merit, affirming the reduction of the sentence. The principle laid down is that matters involving family honour may constitute mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction in sentence from death to life imprisonment in homicide cases.
Questions settled- Can a sentence of death be reduced to imprisonment for life in cases involving family honour?
- Is the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment justified when family honour is a mitigating factor?
- WALI ASGHAR Versus ABDUL QUDOOS1988 SCMR 1066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order passed by the Peshawar High Court acquitting respondent No.1 of a murder charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the respondent, along with another, fired at and killed the deceased, Jalal Khan. The trial court convicted the respondent, but the High Court set aside the conviction, giving the respondent the benefit of the doubt due to material discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses and the lack of reliable corroborating evidence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's evaluation of the evidence and its order of acquittal suffered from perversity, arbitrariness, or illegality warranting interference. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the High Court regarding the evidence was not perverse or arbitrary, and no illegality or violation of established principles of evidence appraisement was pointed out. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that an order of acquittal will not be lightly interfered with unless the appreciation of evidence is wholly unreasonable.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court's order of acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt warrants interference by the Supreme Court when the view taken of the evidence is not perverse or arbitrary?
- Does the presence of material discrepancies in the testimony of eyewitnesses justify setting aside a conviction in a murder trial?
- Is the Supreme Court inclined to interfere with an order of acquittal in the absence of any illegality or violation of established principles of appraising evidence?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD ALI1988 SCMR 1065 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAROON Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1063 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus ABDUL REHMAN ALIAS MANNA1988 SCMR 1060 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the respondents of murder and related charges. The core legal question concerns whether the accused persons acted in the legitimate exercise of the right of private defence of person and property after being attacked by the complainant party. The Supreme Court held that the High Court took a fair and proper view of the circumstances, concluding that the complainant party initiated the attack and the accused acted within their right of private defence without exceeding it. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the accused party acted in the exercise of the right of private defence when attacked by the complainant party?
- Did the High Court commit an error in evaluating the site plan and evidence regarding the exact place of occurrence?
- Whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the acquitted respondents?
- TALAWAT KHAN Versus SAEED ULLAH1988 SCMR 1057 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment that acquitted the respondent of murder charges, overturning a conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence—specifically the recovery of a weapon and a retracted judicial confession—was sufficient to sustain a conviction when the sole eyewitness testimony was found unreliable due to material improvements and contradictions with medical evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution's case lacked credibility. The Court held that the eyewitness's testimony was rightly disbelieved for attempting to align his account with medical evidence post-facto. Furthermore, the Court determined that the recovery of the weapon was suspicious, given the illogical use of a torch for recovery in an electrified house, and that the four-day delay in recording the confession, coupled with the accused's retraction, rendered the confession unreliable. The principle laid down is that where circumstantial evidence is manipulated and eyewitness testimony is contradictory, the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence where the recovery of the weapon is found to be manipulated?
- Does a delay in recording a judicial confession, combined with a retraction at trial, render the confession unreliable?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the sole eyewitness testimony is found to be an improvement over the initial FIR to match medical evidence?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus ZIAFAT PANAH1988 SCMR 1053 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These four connected petitions for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had acquitted two accused persons (Ziafat Pannah and Mumtaz Ali) of murder, dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of five other accused, and dismissed a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence. The case involved the murder of Muhammad Sher, who was shot dead following an alleged motive stemming from illicit relations and a previous murder. The Supreme Court examined the evidence regarding the active role of Ziafat Pannah, identification proceedings, medical evidence, and the charge of abetment against Mumtaz Ali. Finding that the prosecution had presented a case requiring careful scrutiny and that the courts below warranted intervention regarding the acquitted accused whose charges were based on suspicion, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal regarding the five suspected accused but granted leave to appeal against the acquittal of Ziafat Pannah and Mumtaz Ali, ordering that they remain in custody during the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused persons on charges supported by eye-witness testimony and medical evidence?
- Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of suspicion where there is no allegation of active participation in the occurrence?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the prosecution presents a prima facie case connecting the accused to the crime through motive and evidence?
- ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the Lahore High Court's judgment acquitting the respondent of a murder charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had convicted the respondent, relying on ocular testimony, motive, and the recovery of a blood-stained weapon. The High Court, however, acquitted the respondent, finding the ocular testimony unreliable and the motive unproven. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the High Court failed to properly weigh the totality of the evidence. Specifically, the Court noted the respondent was arrested immediately after the occurrence while in possession of a blood-stained weapon near the crime scene, a fact the accused failed to explain. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the FIR was recorded within thirty minutes of the incident and that medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's account. The Supreme Court held that ignoring such compelling circumstantial and corroborative evidence constitutes a potential miscarriage of justice, necessitating a review of the acquittal to ensure that the benefit of doubt is not applied arbitrarily.
Questions settled- Does the immediate arrest of an accused with a blood-stained weapon near the crime scene constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant a conviction despite challenges to ocular testimony?
- Can an appellate court ignore corroborative evidence such as prompt FIR registration and medical reports when assessing the reliability of an eyewitness?
- Is the benefit of doubt applicable when the prosecution presents a chain of incriminating circumstances that remains unexplained by the accused?
- MUHAMMAD ZAKARIYA Versus MUHAMMAD ALI1988 SCMR 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an Election Tribunal's decision declaring an election for a Provincial Assembly constituency void due to the interchange of symbols on ballot papers. The core legal question was whether this misprinting materially affected the election result under the Representation of the People Act. The Supreme Court held that the printing of correct symbols is a mandatory requirement for the proper conduct of elections. The Court reasoned that the interchange of symbols violated provisions regarding the "prescribed form" of ballot papers, thereby creating significant confusion and uncertainty among voters. The Court rejected the argument that the inclusion of candidates' fathers' names mitigated the confusion, noting that voters primarily identify candidates by their symbols. Furthermore, the Court found that the misprinting effectively excluded affected candidates and created an environment where the fairness of the election was compromised. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the breach of statutory requirements materially affected the election result, justifying the declaration that the election was void. The appeals were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the interchange of symbols on ballot papers constitute a violation of the mandatory provisions regarding the prescribed form of ballot papers?
- Can an election be declared void if the misprinting of symbols creates confusion and uncertainty, even if the margin of votes is large?
- Is the inclusion of a candidate's father's name on a ballot paper sufficient to cure the confusion caused by the misprinting of election symbols?
- Does the failure to comply with statutory requirements for ballot paper printing justify a finding that the election result was materially affected?
- NAWAB QUTABUDDIN KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD SAEED KHAN1988 SCMR 1048 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-30Read full judgment →
- MEHRAJ SONS Versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE1988 SCMR 1044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition in a labour dispute. The core legal question involved whether Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to industrial establishments employing less than 49 persons, given the apparent conflict between the proviso to section 1(4) of the Ordinance and clause (5) of Standing Order 12. The Supreme Court noted that this question of law had already been settled by its earlier pronouncements in Al-Hassan Silk Mills Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court and M/s. N.J. Silk Industries v. Presiding Officer IVth Sind Labour Court. Applying those precedents, the Court held that the appeal was fully covered in favour of the appellant, setting aside the impugned judgments as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect, while recording the appellant's concession not to recover the amount already disbursed to the respondent. The principle laid down is that the statutory exclusions regarding applicability of certain Standing Orders to smaller industrial establishments under section 1(4) prevail, consistent with settled precedents.
Questions settled- Whether Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to industrial establishments employing forty-nine or fewer persons?
- Does the proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 prevail over clause (5) of Standing Order 12 regarding the applicability of inquiry procedures?
- Whether a workman dismissed without following the procedure under Standing Order 15 is entitled to reinstatement with back benefits in an establishment exempted under section 1(4)?
- SHAH NAWAZ Versus QALANDAR KHAN1988 SCMR 1039 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from three consolidated criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the conviction and partial acquittal of accused Qalandar Khan for charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had convicted the accused on both counts, rejecting his plea of self-defence. On appeal, the High Court acquitted him of the murder charge under Section 302 by accepting his plea of self-defence under Section 100, but maintained his conviction under Section 307 regarding an injured witness, holding that the witness had retreated when shot. The Supreme Court re-appraised the evidence and observed that the prosecution had suppressed key facts regarding the initial fight, the injuries suffered by the accused, and the scene of occurrence, where no blood was found. The Court held that once the plea of self-defence was established from the overall circumstances and total evidence, there was no factual basis to split the right of self-defence or deny its full benefit regarding the second injured victim. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal of the accused, acquitted him of the charge under Section 307, and dismissed the appeals against his acquittal under Section 302.
Questions settled- Can a plea of self-defence under Section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be accepted where the prosecution suppresses injuries sustained by the accused during the transaction?
- Whether the right of private defence can be partially denied to an accused in respect of one victim when the overall sequence of events establishes a continuous apprehension of grievous hurt?
- Does the absence of blood at the stated place of occurrence create reasonable doubt regarding the venue and prosecution version of the incident?
- SAJJAD HAIDER Versus FIELD GENERAL COURT MARTIAL, RAWALPINDI1988 SCMR 1035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal as incompetent. The petitioner, a former Civilian Intelligence Officer in the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, was tried and convicted by a Field General Court Martial under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 read with section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The petitioner challenged his conviction via constitutional jurisdiction, contending that multiple revisions under section 126 of the Pakistan Army Act were impermissible. The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition and subsequently held the Intra-Court Appeal to be barred under the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, because the applicable statute provided for revision. The Supreme Court examined whether the Intra-Court Appeal was competent and whether the petition against the Single Judge's order was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the Intra-Court Appeal was rightly held incompetent as the Pakistan Army Act provides a remedy of revision, attracting the bar under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and further held that the petition was hopelessly barred by limitation. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is competent against an order passed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan when the applicable law provides for a revision?
- Does the prohibition of a second trial under the Pakistan Army Act apply to proceedings initiated after the promulgation of Ordinance XXXIX of 1983?
- Can time spent prosecuting an incompetent Intra-Court Appeal be excluded for the purpose of condoning delay in filing an appeal against the original order?
- ABDUL KADIR Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court arising from a long-standing property dispute over an evacuee bungalow in Peshawar. The core legal questions involved the competence of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to restore a dismissed revision petition and entertain the matter after a change in revisional powers under Ordinance XIII of 1962, as well as the limits of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding property valuation and transfer eligibility. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order was competent—consistent with its prior ruling in Abdul Hakim v. Government of Pakistan—and that the High Court erred in interfering with the Settlement Commissioner's factual finding that the property's valuation exceeded the threshold for transfer to a local. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact recorded by a settlement authority based on inspection and evidence are not open to interference under constitutional jurisdiction, and settled questions of law previously adjudicated by the apex court cannot be reopened by the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner is competent to restore a revision petition dismissed in default after the amendment of revisional powers?
- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a Settlement Commissioner regarding property valuation in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a local occupant eligible for the transfer of evacuee property when the valuation price of the portion in their possession exceeds ten thousand rupees?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1988 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the convictions of Noor Muhammad and his son, Riaz alias Manna, for the murder of two individuals and causing injuries to another. The trial court had convicted the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death. The petitioners challenged their convictions, arguing self-defence and, in the case of Riaz, that he acted under the influence of his father. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the convictions of both petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to be well-founded based on the evidence. However, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically regarding Riaz alias Manna to determine whether, given the circumstances and his father's presence, he was entitled to a lesser penalty under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petition of Noor Muhammad was dismissed for lack of merit, while the petition of Riaz was granted limited to the question of sentencing.
Questions settled- Whether a son acting under the influence of his father during the commission of a crime is entitled to a lesser penalty under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a plea of self-defence be sustained when the accused admits to firing the fatal shots during a land dispute?
- SALEEM-UD-DIN Versus JAMEEL AKHTAR PERVAIZ1988 SCMR 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1988 SCMR 1024 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a dispute over the devolution of land originally granted as a special service grant (Sukh Lambri grant) made during the Pindhari campaign in 1818-19. The core legal question concerned the correct interpretation of Condition No. 4 of the conditions of the grant, which dictated how proprietary rights would vest upon the lapse of the grant after three lives, and whether the land should devolve exclusively to the appellant or among all heirs of the original grantee according to Shariat. The Supreme Court held that upon the expiry of the grant's three-life tenure, proprietary rights correctly vested in all the legal heirs of the original grantee in accordance with applicable inheritance law, and further upheld that the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere in its discretionary writ jurisdiction with a just and equitable order passed by the Settlement authorities. The key principle laid down is that grants governed by specific multi-life tenure conditions must, upon lapse, vest their proprietary rights in all eligible heirs of the original grantee as per prevailing inheritance laws, and equitable orders of settlement authorities under writ jurisdiction will not be lightly disturbed.
Questions settled- How do proprietary rights devolve upon the lapse of a special service grant limited to three lives under Condition No. 4 of the grant conditions?
- Whether the High Court is justified in declining to interfere in its discretionary writ jurisdiction with a just and equitable order passed by the Settlement authorities?
- Can a claim of adverse possession against the Government succeed without establishing the requisite statutory period of possession prior to the establishment of Pakistan?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus THE STATE1988 SCMR 1022 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court arising out of a criminal trial where the appellant, Muhammad Siddiq, was convicted under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Bashir Ahmad. The core legal question was whether the benefit of Exception IV to section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could be extended to the appellant on the ground that the occurrence was sudden and without premeditation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel and fight in which both parties sustained injuries, the case fell squarely within Exception IV to section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court converted the appellant's conviction from section 302 to section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine and compensation orders. The key principle laid down is that where a homicide is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel and the offender does not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner, the offense is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Whether the benefit of Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be extended to an accused where an occurrence takes place all of a sudden and without premeditation?
- Does a sudden fight accompanied by injuries to both parties attract the application of section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of section 302?
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD MANN Versus MUHAMMAD AHMAD1988 SCMR 1016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the validity of a property claim under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, specifically whether the deletion of paragraph 52 rendered pending proceedings infructuous and whether Settlement Authorities must strictly adhere to the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court held that the deletion of paragraph 52 did not extinguish the authority's power to address hardship cases, as the substantive power remained under paragraph 29 of the Scheme. The Court further determined that proceedings before Settlement Authorities are not strictly judicial in nature; consequently, the strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to their inquiries, allowing for a broader consideration of evidence. Regarding the pre-emption decree, the Court affirmed that under Order XX, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, title vests in the pre-emptor upon the payment of the decretal amount into court. The Court clarified that the execution of the decree and the subsequent withdrawal of the deposited money by the vendee are not necessary conditions for the vesting of title in the pre-emptor.
Questions settled- Does the deletion of paragraph 52 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme render pending proceedings for property claims infructuous?
- Are the strict rules of the Evidence Act applicable to proceedings before Rehabilitation and Settlement Authorities?
- Does title in a pre-empted property vest upon the payment of the decretal amount into court under Order XX, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the execution of a pre-emption decree and the withdrawal of the deposited purchase money necessary for the vesting of title in the pre-emptor?
- TUFAIL AHMAD KHAN Versus RASHIDAN BEGUM1988 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a property dispute regarding the transfer of residential premises located behind a shop in Faisalabad, which was part of a composite building. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to re-open and alter the division of property that had already been finalized and affirmed by the High Court in previous litigation. The appellant, claiming to be the senior allottee, sought the transfer of the entire building, while the respondent contested the subsequent transfer of the residential portion to the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the division of the property had attained finality through earlier judicial proceedings, specifically the High Court’s judgment, which had conclusively settled the distribution of the units. Consequently, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner lacked the authority to interfere with this established division. The Court determined that the property was not available for further transfer, rendering the appellant's claim meritless. The principle laid down is that administrative authorities cannot re-open or modify property divisions that have achieved finality through conclusive judicial orders.
Questions settled- Does a Deputy Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to alter a property division that has been finalized by a High Court judgment?
- Can a party claim the transfer of an entire composite building when the property has already been divided into distinct units by settlement authorities?
- Is a property that has been validly divided and transferred considered available property for the purposes of further settlement claims?
- PREM MASIH Versus IRSHAD MASIH1988 SCMR 1009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-27Read full judgment →
- NABI ALI SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH1988 SCMR 1007 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two civil appeals arising from a property dispute over residential unit 'B' of a building in Lahore, involving rival claims by two displaced persons, Syed Nabi Ali Shah and Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah. The core legal question was whether the property, initially transferred jointly to both parties by the Settlement Department, should be transferred exclusively to one party based on their respective status as claimant or non-claimant displaced persons. The Supreme Court observed that while Syed Nabi Ali Shah, a claimant, lacked possession and was not strictly entitled to the transfer under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the property had been transferred jointly at the express request of Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah. The Court held that Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah was bound by his own conduct and previous admissions regarding the joint transfer. Consequently, the Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the High Court's decision that the exclusion of Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah from the Provisional Transfer Order was without jurisdiction, thereby affirming the joint transfer arrangement.
Questions settled- Can a party who requested a joint transfer of property subsequently challenge the validity of that joint transfer?
- Does a claimant displaced person without possession have a legal entitlement to the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Is the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order to the exclusion of a joint transferee considered to be without jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL QURESHI Versus GULAB DIN1988 SCMR 1001 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court examines the justification of the Lahore High Court in dismissing a constitutional petition on the sole ground of laches. The litigation arose concerning the transfer of a disputed property in Sialkot under the evacuee laws, which was originally earmarked and transferred to a widow and her associate, whose rights vested in the appellants. Subsequently, respondent Gulab Din obtained an order from the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelling the prior transfer without impleading the affected parties and despite the appeal being time-barred. The appellants challenged this through a revision and ultimately a constitutional petition, which the High Court dismissed for delay. The Supreme Court held that the delay was not culpable as the appellants were diligently pursuing records and remedies amidst multiple pending proceedings, and that laches requires equitable considerations such as waiver or prejudice, neither of which barred the claim here. Furthermore, the Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order was a nullity due to non-joinder of necessary parties and being time-barred, and that possession of an outhouse does not entitle a claimant to the entire main property. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the transfer in favour of the appellants restored.
Questions settled- Does mere delay in filing a constitutional petition automatically constitute laches barring relief?
- Can an appellate settlement authority set aside a property transfer without impleading the transferee or interested parties?
- Does possession of an outhouse or garage entitle a claimant to the transfer of the main residential property under evacuee laws?
- What are the equitable principles governing the doctrine of laches in legal proceedings?
- ALI ANWAR Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ1988 SCMR 10 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus ROSHNAI1988 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
- BAHA-UD-DIN Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF1987 SCMR 940 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court holding that a second appeal had abated due to the failure to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased respondent. The core legal question revolved around whether the second appeal abated in total or in part due to the death of a party and non-substitution of her legal representatives. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the respondent in question had died before the filing of the second appeal, she was not a party to that appeal, and consequently the question of abatement of the second appeal did not arise; thus, the High Court's order was unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that where a party dies prior to the institution of an appeal, the provisions regarding the abatement of pending appeals upon the death of a party do not apply, and the appeal does not abate for failure to substitute legal representatives of a person who was already dead when the appeal was filed.
Questions settled- Does an appeal abate when a party to the appeal had already died before the filing of that appeal?
- What is the effect under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure when a respondent dies prior to the institution of an appeal in the High Court?
- Can an appellate court treat an appeal as abated against a person who was not a valid party at the time of filing the appeal?
- GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus STATE1987 SCMR 919 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to death for murder. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s plea of self-defence was reasonably possible, thereby creating doubt in the prosecution’s case, particularly given the medical evidence of scorching on the victim and injuries on the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s theory of an ambush was inconsistent with the medical evidence of close-range firing and the appellant’s injuries, which suggested a chance encounter and a physical struggle. Applying the principle from Safdar Ali's case, the Court determined that the appellant’s version of events was reasonably possible. Consequently, the Court held that while the appellant had a right of private defence, he exceeded it by using lethal force against non-lethal aggression. The conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was set aside and substituted with a conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment.
Questions settled- Does the presence of scorching on a gunshot wound indicate that the firing occurred at close range?
- When does an accused person exceed the right of private defence?
- If the defence version of events is reasonably possible, is the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 be substituted with a conviction under Section 304, Part I, if the right of private defence was exceeded?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus STATE1987 SCMR 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
- RIAZ HUSSAIN Versus STATE1987 SCMR 846 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Sharifan, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence regarding motive, the alleged misreading of witness testimony, compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding weapon recovery, and the credibility of interested prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, finding no misreading of evidence or legal infirmity in the lower courts' judgments. The court affirmed that eyewitness testimony supported by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding appreciation of evidence in a criminal murder case?
- Does the non-association of witnesses from the locality during a weapon recovery vitiate the entire prosecution case under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an eyewitness account corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to maintain a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1987 SCMR 838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal arising from a criminal case where the petitioner Muhammad Ashraf and co-accused Shaukat Anwar were tried and convicted under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The trial court convicted both, but the High Court acquitted Shaukat Anwar, maintained Muhammad Ashraf's conviction under section 302 while reducing the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, and maintained his conviction under section 307. The core legal questions concern the appreciation of ocular evidence, the use of recovery witnesses who are also eye-witnesses, and whether the High Court's findings regarding the sequence of events warranted sustaining the conviction or attracting the right of private defence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases were observed and to consider the State's petition against the acquittal and quantum of sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court properly appreciated the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses while maintaining a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can eye-witnesses who also acted as recovery witnesses provide corroboration for their own testimony?
- Whether the circumstances accepted by the High Court regarding the apprehension of danger attract the right of private defence?
- Should leave to appeal be granted to examine the quantum of sentence and the acquittal of a co-accused when leave has already been granted in the connected petition?
- MUKHTAR HUSSAIN Versus STATE1987 SCMR 824 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased. The petitioner, having admitted to causing the death, contended that he acted in the exercise of his right of private defence of person and property, alleging that the deceased had trespassed onto shrine premises and attempted to attack him. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s actions were justified under the plea of private defence. Upon examining the record, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner’s version was inconsistent with the medical evidence, as the fatal injury was caused by a dagger rather than the wedge he claimed to have used. Furthermore, the absence of injuries on the petitioner’s person contradicted his claim of a scuffle. The Court held that the plea of private defence was unsubstantiated and affirmed the conviction, noting that the trial and appellate courts had correctly rejected the defense and granted the petitioner the benefit of a lesser sentence.
Questions settled- Does the absence of injuries on an accused person contradict a claim of acting in self-defence during a scuffle?
- Can a plea of private defence be sustained when the weapon used is inconsistent with the accused's version of events?
- Is the possession of a lethal weapon like a dagger indicative of aggressive intent rather than defensive action?
- SALAMAT ALI Versus STATE1987 SCMR 821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus STATE1987 SCMR 820 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Ghulam Hussain, who was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for murder, with his conviction and sentence subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an out-of-court compromise between the parties, involving the transfer of land and marriages, could be considered a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of death. The Court held that since the complainant party was sufficiently compensated and had entered into the compromise freely to foster goodwill, the compromise constituted a valid mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, partly allowed it by reducing the petitioner's death sentence to imprisonment for life, granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and maintained the sentence of fine under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 along with sentences under Section 323. The key principle laid down is that a genuine out-of-court compromise resulting in compensation and reconciliation can serve as a mitigating circumstance warranting the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Can an out-of-court compromise between the parties be considered as a mitigating circumstance in a murder case?
- Whether a death sentence can be reduced to imprisonment for life on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased?
- Is a convict entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when his death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1987 SCMR 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
- UMAR HAYAT Versus STATE1987 SCMR 757 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN SHAH Versus HAJI MUHAMMAD1987 SCMR 729 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAEEM Versus STATE1987 SCMR 711 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ1987 SCMR 691 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
- WAQEEL AHMAD Versus ABDUL REHMAN1987 SCMR 689 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a criminal case involving murder and simple hurt. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by acquitting three co-accused on the benefit of doubt while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, Umar Farooq, under Sections 302 and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the accused, motivated by a land dispute, attacked the deceased and an injured witness. The trial court had convicted all four accused, but the High Court found two eye-witnesses unreliable and acquitted three accused due to lack of corroboration, while upholding Umar Farooq's conviction based on the injured witness's testimony and injuries found on the petitioner. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning and appreciation of evidence suffered from no legal infirmity or contravention of established principles. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that re-appraisal of evidence is not justified where the lower court's findings are sound.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal for the purpose of re-appraising evidence when the High Court's findings are legally sound?
- Can a conviction be maintained against one accused while others are acquitted on the benefit of doubt based on the corroboration of an injured witness?
- Is the plea of self-defence sustainable when the evidence indicates the accused caused injuries during a dispute?
- MUHAMMAD LQBAL BUTT Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE1987 SCMR 687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-19Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD Versus ABDUL MAJID1987 SCMR 686 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZEEM ALIAS MUHAMMAD AZIM Versus STATE1987 SCMR 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had previously dismissed the petitioners' application for bail in a criminal case. The petitioners were charged under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of a seven-month-old infant from the mother's custody within the premises of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant bail was justified given the circumstances of the case, which involved a failure to comply with judicial directions to recover and return the abducted child. The Supreme Court reviewed the impugned judgment and the factual background, specifically noting the petitioners' non-compliance with prior court orders regarding the recovery of the minor. The Court found the High Court's findings to be unexceptionable and legally sound. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, thereby affirming the denial of bail to the accused petitioners.
Questions settled- Is the refusal of bail justified when the accused fails to comply with judicial directions to recover an abducted minor?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal merit consideration when the High Court's findings are based on unexceptionable facts and circumstances?
- MUHAMMAD MANZOOR Versus STATE1987 SCMR 681 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioners under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The petitioners, who were brothers, had attacked the deceased with daggers, inflicting multiple fatal injuries. The defense contended that the prosecution's case was contradictory, and that the insult directed at the petitioners' father by the deceased three days prior to the incident constituted grave and sudden provocation, thereby mitigating the offense. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that because the insult to the petitioners' father occurred three days prior to the murder, the petitioners had sufficient time to cool down and reflect. Consequently, the plea of grave and sudden provocation was unsustainable, and the merciless attack with daggers constituted deliberate murder.
Questions settled- Can a plea of grave and sudden provocation be sustained if the provoking incident occurred three days prior to the commission of the offense?
- Does the lapse of three days between an insult and a retaliatory attack allow sufficient time for the accused to cool down, thereby negating the element of sudden provocation?
- Whether multiple incised and stab wounds inflicted with daggers establish a deliberate intention to cause death under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- JUMMA KHAN Versus STATE1987 SCMR 679 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus ZAINAB BIBI1987 SCMR 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
- GHANI KHAN Versus ABDUL MUQTADIR KHAN1987 SCMR 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus IRFAN1987 SCMR 673 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court in a murder case, whereby one accused's conviction was upheld with a reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment, and his co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question revolved around whether the conviction of the petitioner could be sustained based on ocular testimony that was partly disbelieved as to the co-accused, and whether unexplained abscondence and related witness testimony provided sufficient corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of the co-accused out of abundant caution does not render the eye-witness testimony untrustworthy against the remaining accused, and that unexplained abscondence coupled with corroborated ocular testimony sufficiently establishes guilt. The key principle laid down is that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistan, and the testimony of eye-witnesses can be acted upon against one accused even if co-accused are given the benefit of the doubt, provided there is independent corroboration.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal of some co-accused requires the rejection of eye-witness testimony as a whole against the remaining accused?
- Can unexplained abscondence of an accused for a long period serve as corroboration for ocular testimony?
- Whether leave to appeal for the enhancement of a sentence from life imprisonment to death should be granted when the convict acted under the influence of an elder brother?
- Does the relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render them an interested witness incapable of providing independent corroboration?
- MUHAMMAD ABDUL RASHID Versus SHAZIA PARVEEN1987 SCMR 670 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal concerns a dispute over the quantum of maintenance awarded to a divorced wife. The petitioner challenged orders passed by the Arbitration Council and the Collector, which had fixed maintenance at Rs. 2,000 and subsequently Rs. 800 per month, respectively. The core legal question was whether the maintenance amount fixed by the lower authorities was fair and commensurate with the petitioner's actual income, given his contention that his earnings were significantly lower than the awarded amounts. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the salary certificate provided by the petitioner related to a period prior to the marriage and did not accurately reflect his financial capacity during the relevant period. Furthermore, the Court noted allegations of additional income from a private business. Balancing these factors, the Court held that the previously determined rates were excessive. The Court exercised its discretion to modify the maintenance amount to Rs. 500 per month, establishing the principle that maintenance awards must be based on a realistic assessment of the husband's current financial capacity rather than outdated income evidence.
Questions settled- Can a salary certificate from a period prior to marriage be used as conclusive evidence of a husband's income for maintenance purposes?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to modify the quantum of maintenance fixed by lower authorities in a revision petition?
- Is a husband's potential income from private business relevant when determining the rate of maintenance for a divorced wife?
- AHMAD DIN Versus SUGHARI1987 SCMR 63 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
- GHULAM AHMED Versus AUSAF ALI KHAN1987 SCMR 613 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellants' constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a disputed evacuee house in Peshawar. The core legal question was whether a property could be validly transferred to a third party through drawing of lots while a predecessor-in-interest's prescribed transfer application (N.C.H. form) based on lawful possession remained pending and undisposed of by the settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that persons in possession of acquired evacuee property hold a vested right to its transfer under the settlement laws, and once a formal application is submitted, a statutory duty is cast upon the settlement authorities to dispose of it according to law, rendering the property unavailable for disposal during its pendency. Consequently, any subsequent transfer and issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) without deciding the pending application is without legal foundation. The Court laid down the principle that a pending transfer application cannot be defeated by administrative inaction or erroneous earmarking, and a P.T.D. issued under such circumstances does not provide a valid legal cover.
Questions settled- Whether a property can be transferred to another person while an earlier transfer application on the prescribed form remains pending and undisposed of by the settlement authorities?
- Does a person in possession of acquired evacuee property acquire a vested right for its transfer upon submitting an application under the settlement laws?
- Can a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) provide valid cover to a property transfer that was initiated while a prior entitlement form was pending?
- Does administrative inaction on a pending transfer form defeat the statutory entitlement of an applicant in possession?
- MUHAMMAD HAIDER ZAIDI Versus ABDUL HAFEEZ1987 SCMR 611 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- AHMED HUSSAIN Versus STATE1987 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus MAULA BAKHSH1987 SCMR 61 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus ABDUL SULTAN1987 SCMR 609 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Sind High Court dated 1-4-1986 regarding the grant of bail to respondents facing trial under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and causing serious injuries with firearms. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting bail to accused persons facing serious violent charges where the State fully supports the petition for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that a good case for grant of leave is made out despite the non-service of notice on one of the respondents, and directed that the appeal be heard on the existing record with liberty to file additional documents. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal may be granted in appropriate criminal matters supported by the State even if procedural service on a respondent is temporarily incomplete, provided the interests of justice so warrant.
Questions settled- Whether leave to appeal can be granted against an order of the High Court regarding the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Can leave to appeal be granted when one of the respondents has not been personally served with notice but the State fully supports the petition?
- GHULAM NATI Versus FARRUKH LATIF1987 SCMR 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM HADI BALOCH Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)1987 SCMR 602 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Federal Service Tribunal judgment upholding the appellant's removal from service. The core legal questions concern whether departmental authorities, having initiated disciplinary proceedings via a formal inquiry notice, could unilaterally switch to a summary procedure, and whether the denial of a requested personal hearing vitiated the removal order. The Supreme Court held that the removal order was passed without lawful authority. The Court established that once an Authorised Officer initiates proceedings under a specific rule, they cannot switch to an alternative procedure without valid justification. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that where disciplinary rules mandate a reasonable opportunity to show cause, and the accused explicitly requests a personal hearing, the denial of such a hearing—particularly when the charges are vague and unspecific—constitutes a serious procedural irregularity that vitiates the resulting disciplinary order. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Authorised Officer to proceed afresh from the show-cause stage, ensuring the appellant is granted a personal hearing in accordance with the rules.
Questions settled- Can an Authorised Officer unilaterally switch from a formal inquiry procedure to a summary procedure after initiating disciplinary proceedings?
- Does the denial of a requested personal hearing in disciplinary proceedings vitiate the order of removal from service?
- Is a disciplinary order based on vague and unspecific charges legally sustainable?
- MUHAMMAD MOOSA Versus STATE1987 SCMR 601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Sind High Court, whereby the learned Judge stayed criminal proceedings under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code pending the decision of a connected civil suit, while refusing the request for quashment. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in staying the criminal proceedings instead of quashing them when the petitioners had allegedly sought quashment. The Supreme Court held that the petition had no merit because the record of the High Court clearly showed that the only plea raised by the petitioner's counsel during the hearing was for the stay of proceedings, which was duly granted. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot agitate before an appellate forum that a relief was wrongly granted or omitted when the impugned order reflects that only the specific relief ultimately granted was prayed for by their counsel.
Questions settled- Whether criminal proceedings can be stayed pending the decision of a civil suit involving the same cause of action?
- Can a petitioner challenge an order on the ground that quashment was sought when the High Court record shows only a request for a stay of proceedings was made?
- Does a criminal case under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code warrant quashment when a civil suit is already pending between the parties?
- NOORUL HASAN Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD1987 SCMR 598 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the post of Director on an acting charge basis, with the appellant, a senior Deputy Director, alleging that his supersession violated Rule 8-B of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether the appellant's case was duly considered by the Central Selection Board before the appointment was made. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was lawful, noting that the appellant failed to demonstrate that his case was not considered. The Court affirmed the Service Tribunal's finding that the appellant was not found fit for promotion. The judgment establishes the principle that seniority alone does not confer an absolute right to promotion; rather, fitness is a critical, co-existing requirement. The competent authority retains the discretion to determine suitability based on a holistic assessment of seniority, competence, and service record. Consequently, the Court ruled that an acting charge appointment does not violate seniority rights, as it does not constitute a regular promotion or confer vested rights.
Questions settled- Does seniority alone confer an absolute right to promotion in the civil service?
- Is an appointment on an acting charge basis equivalent to a regular promotion for the purpose of seniority?
- Can a civil servant challenge an acting charge appointment on the sole ground of seniority?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AT KARACHI1987 SCMR 594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of Sind Karachi dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal regarding the transfer of a disputed property comprising two rooms under the settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the contesting respondent was rightly transferred the entire property unit when his original request was confined to the transfer of a single room only. The Supreme Court held that the property was an indivisible single residential unit possessing only one set of amenities and could not be partitioned into separate independent units, thereby justifying its transfer as a whole to the contesting respondent who held a preferential claim as a claimant. The court laid down the principle that where a disputed property unit is indivisible and lacks separate amenities for division, it may be transferred as a single entity to a party possessing a preferential entitlement under the applicable settlement scheme.
Questions settled- Whether an indivisible property unit comprising multiple rooms with shared amenities can be transferred as a single entity?
- Does a claimant possess a preferential right to the transfer of an indivisible property unit under the settlement laws?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the indivisibility of a property be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
- HAWABAI Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE1987 SCMR 591 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property in Karachi, originally transferred to the respondent in 1962. The petitioners, occupants of tenements on the property, challenged the transfer decades later, alleging impersonation by the respondent. The Notified Authority had initially set aside the transfer, but a learned Single Judge of the High Court reversed this, finding the allegation of impersonation false and the proceedings time-barred. The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court correctly set aside the Notified Authority's order. The Court held that the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches, as the petitioners failed to explain a twenty-year delay in challenging a transfer that had remained intact despite prior litigation involving their relatives. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the High Court's finding that the allegation of impersonation was factually baseless, as the application form clearly identified the respondent's father correctly. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the Notified Authority acted without lawful authority in reopening the matter after such an extensive period.
Questions settled- Does a delay of twenty years in challenging the transfer of evacuee property attract the doctrine of laches?
- Can a Notified Authority reopen a property transfer matter based on allegations of impersonation when the original application form contradicts those allegations?
- Is a property transfer order immune from challenge after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed and the passage of significant time?
- SAEE MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1987 SCMR 588 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the conviction of the petitioner for the double murder of his sister-in-law and niece, for which he was sentenced to death. The petitioner contended that the presence of semen on the victims' vaginal swabs supported his defense that he found them already dead, and challenged the reliability of the prosecution's eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts erred in relying on ocular testimony and in dismissing the forensic evidence regarding the vaginal swabs. The Court held that the ocular testimony was credible, consistent, and corroborated by motive and recovery evidence. It further ruled that the presence of semen on the swabs was likely an administrative error or bungling by the Chemical Examiner’s office, as it did not align with the medical evidence or the circumstances of the crime. The Court affirmed that the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased does not render them interested witnesses, nor does it necessitate the rejection of their testimony in the absence of proven animosity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased render them interested witnesses whose testimony must be rejected?
- Can a court dismiss forensic reports as administrative errors when they contradict the established prosecution case and medical evidence?
- Is the Supreme Court required to re-appraise evidence when lower courts have concurrently relied on consistent ocular testimony and corroborative evidence?
- SEEMA AKHTAR Versus AHMED DIN1987 SCMR 587 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAQLAIN Versus STATE1987 SCMR 585 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
- WAZARAT HUSSAIN ZAIDI Versus NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD1987 SCMR 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus STATE1987 SCMR 581 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN Versus GHULAM MOHYUDDIN1987 SCMR 58 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the land allotment of a displaced person under evacuee property laws. The core legal question was whether the authorities could reopen and cancel a finalized land allotment and transfer the land to third parties following the adjustment of claims. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly ruled the cancellation order to be illegal and without jurisdiction, as a claimant is entitled to adjust unutilized verification units against alternative claims without third parties acquiring a preferential right to that specific land. The Court laid down that a finalized allotment cannot be reopened merely because an initial claim entry was modified, provided no fraud occurred, and that previous settlement orders exhaust themselves once record mutations reflecting true ownership are executed.
Questions settled- Whether an Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to reopen a finalized land allotment years after the repeal of the settlement laws?
- Does a third party acquire a preferential right to specific land merely because the original claim against which it was allotted was disowned or adjusted by the claimant?
- Can unutilized verification units be adjusted to enable a displaced person to retain land originally allotted under a different claim number?
- Does an order mutating records under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme require further consequential execution to cancel independent allotments?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION1987 SCMR 573 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the removal of the petitioner from his office as a member of the Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad, following his conviction by a Summary Military Court under Section 165-A of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court properly exercised its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction in declining to interfere with the order of removal and whether adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no error or contravention of judicial principles in refusing to interfere under its discretionary jurisdiction, particularly given the petitioner's own admissions and the fact that he was convicted by a competent forum after a raid supervised by a Magistrate. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court's refusal to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction against the removal of a local government representative where findings of fact, admissions, and valid convictions support the administrative action.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction in declining to interfere with the removal of a municipal councillor?
- Does a conviction by a Summary Military Court for corruption constitute valid grounds for removal under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
- Whether a petitioner is entitled to interference in constitutional jurisdiction when material admissions are contained in their reply to a show-cause notice?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus STATE1987 SCMR 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus STATE1987 SCMR 530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court upholding the convictions and death sentences of the petitioners for murder and murderous assault under sections 302 and 307 read with section 149 and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while also setting aside the conviction of a respondent whose appeal was accepted regarding his identity. The core legal questions relate to the appreciation of ocular evidence, the establishment of motive, the plea of private defence, and the correct identification of an accused person. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to both the petitioners and the complainant party to further examine the contentions raised regarding the evidence, injuries sustained by the accused, and the identity of the respondent. The holding establishes that where substantial contentions are raised concerning the evaluation of evidence, identification, and cross-versions of an occurrence resulting in capital punishment, leave to appeal is warranted for a thorough re-examination.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction of an accused on the ground of identity doubt?
- Can a plea of self-defence be sustained when the accused persons are found to be the aggressors?
- Whether contradictions in ocular evidence and the presence of injuries on the accused require a reappraisal of the case by the Supreme Court?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus STATE1987 SCMR 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
- RASHID ALIAS PAPPU Versus STATE1987 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against his conviction for the murder of his step-mother and the sentence of death imposed upon him. The core legal question was whether a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased could form the basis for altering the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that upon verifying the genuineness and voluntarism of the compromise and the receipt of compensation by the legal heirs, including minors, the petition should be converted into an appeal and the capital sentence altered to imprisonment for life with the fine remitted. The key principle laid down is that a genuine compromise between the heirs of a deceased victim and the convict in a murder case constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a sentence of death to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Can a compromise between an accused and the legal heirs of a deceased victim result in the reduction of a death sentence?
- Whether the Supreme Court can convert a leave petition into an appeal and dispose of the matter based on a compromise?
- How are the rights of minor heirs protected when a compromise is reached in a murder case?
- SHAFQAT ALI Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD1987 SCMR 491 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court’s judgment acquitting the respondent, Fateh Muhammad, of charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which was contradicted by medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries, could be sustained by circumstantial evidence, specifically the respondent's motive and subsequent abscondence. The Supreme Court held that the medical evidence, which indicated the injuries were caused by a single assailant using a double-barrel gun rather than two separate shooters as alleged, demolished the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court affirmed the acquittal, ruling that the ocular testimony was intrinsically unreliable and unworthy of credence. The key principle laid down is that where ocular evidence is fundamentally contradicted by medical findings and is otherwise unreliable, circumstantial evidence such as motive and abscondence cannot serve as sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent’s acquittal was maintained.
Questions settled- Can circumstantial evidence like abscondence corroborate ocular testimony that is intrinsically unreliable?
- Does medical evidence contradicting the eyewitness account regarding the number of assailants render the ocular testimony unworthy of credence?
- Is the abscondence of an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction when the primary evidence against them is discredited?
- CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE Versus SHABBIR HUSSAIN1987 SCMR 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-28Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus GUL ZAREEN KHAN1987 SCMR 489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
- KHAN ZAMAN Versus KHAN ZAMSN1987 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the abatement of an appeal following the death of a respondent during the pendency of proceedings. The appellants challenged a mutation of land inheritance, claiming a superior right to succession under Shariat law. During the pendency of the first appeal, one respondent (a transferee of a small, specific portion of the land) died, and the appellants failed to implead his legal representatives within the statutory limitation period. The lower appellate court dismissed the entire appeal, holding that it had abated in toto. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the appeal abated entirely or only against the deceased respondent. The Court held that because the deceased respondent had purchased a specific, divisible portion of the land, the appeal did not abate in its entirety. The principle laid down is that where the interest of a deceased respondent is distinct, severable, and relates to a specific, divisible portion of property, the appeal abates only against that deceased party, rather than abating the entire proceedings.
Questions settled- Does an appeal abate in its entirety upon the death of one respondent if the deceased respondent's interest in the property is specific and divisible?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an entire appeal due to the failure to implead the legal representatives of a respondent who held only a distinct, severable portion of the disputed land?