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.
- IRSHAD BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR1987 SCMR 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABBAS Versus STATE1987 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Lahore High Court rejecting the appellant's application for pre-trial bail in a murder case. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the accused to bail when police investigation reports declare them innocent, notwithstanding a private complaint naming them as assailants. The Supreme Court held that the appeal should be accepted and the appellants released on bail, noting that senior police officers found the appellants innocent after considering defence evidence, which strengthened the presumption of innocence, and that firearm expert reports contradicted the High Court's finding regarding multiple weapons. The key principle laid down is that findings of innocence by investigating officers, corroborated by objective evidence such as firearm reports, reinforce the pre-trial presumption of innocence and weigh heavily in favor of granting bail.
Questions settled- Whether findings of innocence by senior police officers during investigation strengthen the presumption of innocence for the purpose of bail?
- Does a private complaint overriding police discharge reports disentitle an accused to pre-trial bail?
- Can bail be refused on the erroneous assumption that multiple weapons were used when the firearm expert report indicates otherwise?
- ABDUL QADIR Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS)1987 SCMR 481 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the fraudulent allotment of agricultural land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. The dispute arose when heirs of a deceased claimant obtained land allotments in Gujranwala despite the claim having been previously settled in Hyderabad. Informants filed a Mukhbari application, leading a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to resume the allotments. The vendees of this land challenged the resumption order. The High Court, in an Intra-Court Appeal, distinguished between vendees who received notice of the proceedings and those who did not, allowing the appeal of the latter while dismissing the former. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the potential for inconsistent findings. The core legal question is whether, in cases involving identical issues of fraud regarding the same property, a finding of fact can be bifurcated based on whether individual parties received notice of the initial inquiry. The Court held that the possibility of conflicting outcomes necessitates further examination, as evidence presented by one group could potentially benefit the others.
Questions settled- Can a finding of fraud regarding a land allotment be upheld against some vendees while being set aside for others based solely on the lack of notice?
- Does the failure to provide notice to some parties in a Mukhbari proceeding create a risk of inconsistent findings regarding the same subject matter?
- Can a court dismiss a writ petition on the grounds that affording a hearing to the affected parties would be an exercise in futility?
- MUBARAK BIBI Versus ABDUS SATTAR1987 SCMR 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 20-5-1974, which had accepted a second appeal and ordered the ejectment of the appellant and respondents 2 to 6 from the disputed house. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether a member of the village proprietary body and owner of a contiguous house is entitled to the possession of a house in the occupation of non-proprietors merely because they are not shareholders in the undivided Shamilat Deh. The Supreme Court held that since the appellant and respondents 2 to 6 are the direct descendants of the original owner and occupant of the house, they are neither newcomers nor outsiders, and their occupation is thus not hit by the mischief of customary law provisions regarding non-proprietors disposing of village sites. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the judgments of the High Court and trial court were set aside, and the suit for ejectment was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that direct descendants of an original residential site occupant who remain in possession do not fall within the restrictions applicable to non-proprietors disposing of village sites without proprietor consent.
Questions settled- Whether a member of the village proprietary body and owner of a contiguous house is entitled to the possession of a house in occupation of a non-proprietor merely because he is a shareholder in the undivided Shamilat Deh?
- Does the restriction on non-proprietors disposing of village sites apply to direct descendants of the original occupant of the site?
- What is the legal effect of the conversion of tenancy rights into ownership under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950 upon village proprietary status?
- FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1987 SCMR 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
- IMTIAZ HUSSAIN PHULPOTO Versus RETURNING OFFICER, P.S. 26-A, KHAIRPUR-1/S. D.M. , KHAIRPUR1987 SCMR 468 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal arose from a decision of the Provincial Election Tribunal (Sind) which de-seated the appellant, an elected member of the Sind Provincial Assembly, on the ground of disqualification due to a prior conviction by a Summary Military Court under Martial Law Regulations 5 and 36 read with Martial Law Order 77. The respondent contended that the conviction, which arose from leading a political procession during the M.R.D. Movement, involved moral turpitude. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the Tribunal had sufficient legal evidence to establish that the conviction involved moral turpitude. The Court observed that while the police record (FIR and statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.) alleged violence, no evidence of the actual judicial proceedings, depositions, or findings of the Military Court was produced. The Court held that a conviction for organizing or participating in an unauthorized procession under Martial Law Regulation 5 does not per se involve moral turpitude unless the purpose of the procession has a direct nexus with it. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's judgment.
Questions settled- Does a conviction for organizing or participating in an unauthorized procession under Martial Law Regulation 5 per se involve moral turpitude?
- Can an election tribunal rely solely on police records, such as the FIR and statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., to determine if a conviction by a criminal court involved moral turpitude?
- Is the absence of the actual trial record and judicial findings of a convicting court fatal to proving a disqualification based on a crime involving moral turpitude?
- HAIDER ZAMAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P1987 SCMR 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions are directed against the judgments and orders of the Peshawar High Court arising from land acquisition references under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning lands acquired for the Tarbela Dam Reservoir Project. The core legal question raised was whether landowners are entitled to compensation reflecting the market value at the time of actual expropriation or the date of notification under section 4, taking into account inflationary factors and devaluation of the currency when assessment is delayed by several years. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitions, holding that since no factual basis or relevant material including the inflationary index was produced before the lower forums, leave to appeal must be refused, while observing that the point might need serious consideration in a case where proper basis are laid. Additionally, the Court noted that minor arithmetical or clerical calculation errors could be corrected in accordance with the High Court judgment.
Questions settled- Whether compensation under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 should be assessed on the basis of market value at the date of notification or the date of actual expropriation?
- Can the courts take judicial notice of currency devaluation and inflationary factors when assessing land compensation without relevant material and inflationary indices being placed on record?
- Is section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 exhaustive of all factors to be examined when determining fair compensation?
- MUHABBAT ALI Versus AHMAD KHAN1987 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent Ahmad Khan, who was originally tried and convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Noor Sain, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the eyewitness testimony of the deceased's sons and the propriety of the High Court's acquittal based on surmises. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the testimony of natural and related eyewitnesses cannot be discarded merely due to their relationship with the deceased in the absence of any established animus or motive to falsely implicate the accused, especially when corroborated by prompt reporting, medical evidence, and the spot arrest along with incriminating recoveries. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of related eyewitnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased in the absence of animus?
- Whether the acquittal by the High Court can be set aside when it is based on surmises and conjectures and ignores material evidence like spot arrest and recoveries?
- Does the presence of natural witnesses sleeping at the scene of the crime establish their reliability in a murder trial?
- MEHMOOD SULTAN Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL ZILA COUNCIL/ DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA1987 SCMR 458 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a writ petition challenging an order of the Election Tribunal, which had permitted an election petitioner to amend his election petition by adding entirely new grounds of challenge. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition against the interlocutory order. The core legal question was whether Rule 8(4) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979 permits the addition of new grounds of challenge to an election by way of amendment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the Tribunal's and the High Court's orders. The Court held that while Rule 8(4) empowers the Tribunal to allow amendments for better and fuller particulars of existing allegations, it imposes a strict limitation that prohibits the raising of any new ground of challenge. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to permit the introduction of new, unconnected grounds after the original petition was filed.
Questions settled- Does an Election Tribunal have the power under Rule 8(4) of the Election Petitions Rules 1979 to permit new grounds of challenge to be added to an election petition by way of amendment?
- Whether the provisions of the Election Petitions Rules regarding amendments override the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in case of conflict?
- Can an election petitioner introduce new grounds for challenging an election under the guise of furnishing better particulars?
- GHULAM MURTAZA ALIAS BHOPAL Versus STATE1987 SCMR 456 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from petitions directed against convictions as well as an acquittal and a prayer for enhancement of sentences. The core legal question involves the re-evaluation of extensive evidence concerning the involvement of a large number of accused persons, inconsistencies in medical evidence regarding firearm injuries, and the propriety of partially disbelieving a star witness while relying on their testimony for other convictions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the features of the case and the discrepancies in the evidence require a comprehensive review of the entire material to ensure the safe dispensation of justice. The key principle laid down is that where evidence contains significant inconsistencies, particularly regarding medical reports and the selective reliance on witness testimony, a thorough re-appraisement of the record is warranted by the apex court.
Questions settled- Whether inconsistencies between medical evidence and ocular testimony warrant a re-appraisement of the entire material for safe dispensation of justice?
- Can a witness be believed in part against certain accused while being disbelieved regarding the implication of another co-accused?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent findings of conviction and acquittal?
- MUHAMMAD SAQLAIN Versus STATE1987 SCMR 454 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus ATA MUHAMMAD1987 SCMR 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Three petitions seeking leave to appeal were filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding a criminal case involving murder and attempted murder. The trial court had convicted the accused persons under section 302 and section 307 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing one to death, one to life imprisonment, and another. On appeal, the High Court acquitted one accused, altered the conviction and sentence of another, and confirmed the death sentence of the main offender, holding that common intention was not proved due to a chance encounter without pre-concert. The core legal questions involved the assessment of eyewitness testimony, the presence of the complainant, and the application of vicarious liability under section 34 in the absence of common intention. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, holding that where common intention does not appear from the events or pre-concert, vicarious liability does not follow, and each accused must be punished solely for their own criminal acts. Leave to appeal was consequently refused.
Questions settled- Whether vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attaches in the absence of pre-concert or common intention during a chance encounter?
- Can the testimony of injured eyewitnesses be discarded solely because the complainant's presence at the actual spot of occurrence is doubted?
- Whether an accused who played no active role and was merely present can be convicted when common intention is not proved?
- LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR1987 SCMR 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) against a High Court order that dismissed its writ petition in limine. The dispute arose from the acquisition of land under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973, where the LDA challenged the entitlement of subsequent purchasers to compensation after a notification had been issued. The core legal question was whether the LDA could challenge the compensation rights of purchasers who acquired the land after the notification, particularly when the LDA had failed to challenge a prior civil court decree and a Commissioner's order that had already become final against it. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the LDA had allowed the civil court decree and the Commissioner's order to attain finality, it lacked any legal standing to reopen the matter. The Court declined to interpret the relevant statutory provision, noting that the case was not an appropriate vehicle for such an exercise given the procedural history and the finality of the earlier decisions.
Questions settled- Can a statutory authority challenge a compensation award after failing to appeal a final civil court decree on the same matter?
- Does a party have standing to challenge a compensation claim when it has allowed the underlying administrative and judicial orders to attain finality?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner has failed to challenge the final judgment of a civil court regarding the same subject matter?
- MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN Versus SAEED AKHTAR1987 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the High Court in a property dispute concerning an evacuee house in Lalamusa. The appellant, an allottee of the house under Settlement Scheme No. I, had paid the full price but was surreptitiously deprived of his rights through an agreement of association executed by his attorney in favour of the attorney's son, leading to the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) to the latter. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner set aside the transfer upon finding fraud and breach of trust. However, the High Court allowed the respondents' writ petition, holding that the Settlement authorities became functus officio after the issuance of the P.T.D. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in going behind the findings of fact without substantial grounds and reaffirmed that a P.T.D. obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction is subject to appellate and revisional scrutiny under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the High Court's judgment set aside, and the Settlement authorities' orders restored.
Questions settled- Whether the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed deprives the Settlement authorities of their appellate and revisional jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
- Can the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction go behind the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Settlement authorities?
- Does a general power of attorney inherently include the power to alienate or dispose of the principal's property without a clear, specific clause to that effect?
- MUHAMMAD SHAH Versus SAFDAR ZAMAN KHAN1987 SCMR 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the distribution of compensation for land acquired for the Tarbela Dam Project. The appellant, a co-sharer in Shamilat Deh land, claimed exclusive entitlement to compensation for improvements he allegedly made to the land, specifically transforming it from Banjar Qadeem to Chahi Aabi. The trial court initially ruled in his favor, but the High Court reversed this, holding that the compensation belonged to the proprietary body of the village. The core legal question was whether a co-sharer who allegedly improves Shamilat land is entitled to exclusive compensation for those improvements. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to provide evidence of actual improvements. The Court clarified that mere leveling of land or clearing of bushes does not constitute an 'improvement' justifying exclusive compensation. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellant's argument that a separate, unappealed judgment regarding the same award created a res judicata bar, noting that the foundation for that judgment had been invalidated by the High Court's decision in the present case.
Questions settled- Does the mere leveling of land and clearing of vegetation constitute an 'improvement' for which a co-sharer is entitled to exclusive compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Can a judgment based on a prior decision that has subsequently been set aside by a higher court still operate as res judicata?
- Is a co-sharer entitled to exclusive compensation for improvements made to Shamilat land without evidence of substantial investment or structural development?
- DILBAZ KHAN Versus STATE1987 SCMR 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two criminal petitions for leave to appeal arising from a murder case where the Lahore High Court partly allowed a criminal appeal. The core legal questions involve the reliability of eye-witness testimony following the partial acquittal of co-accused, the impact of medical evidence contradicting the ocular account, and the consideration of youth as a mitigating factor for sentencing. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of certain co-accused on the basis of benefit of doubt does not inherently discredit unimpeachable eye-witness testimony against remaining convicts, and that medical evidence must be assessed in its entirety regarding the nature and location of injuries. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal regarding the conviction of the primary petitioner, but granted leave to appeal restricted to the question of sentence for a younger petitioner due to his age.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of certain co-accused on the benefit of doubt render the ocular testimony unreliable against the remaining accused?
- Whether eye-witnesses can be discredited solely because certain recoveries of crime weapons are held to be inconsequential?
- Can a witness be classified as an interested witness merely for assisting an injured person after the occurrence?
- Whether youth is a ground for granting leave to appeal on the question of sentence in a murder case?
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SOUTHERN ZONE, MULTAN1987 SCMR 433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus STATE1987 SCMR 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN JANJUA Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, ISLAMABAD1987 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD MUNIR Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1987 SCMR 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM1987 SCMR 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over territorial jurisdiction in a civil suit filed by the respondent against the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan for the recovery of insurance proceeds. The respondent initiated the suit in Lyallpur, where the cause of action arose, despite an agreement in the insurance policy stipulating that any disputes would be adjudicated exclusively by civil courts in Lahore. The core legal question was whether parties can validly agree to restrict the adjudication of disputes to one of several courts that otherwise possess jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that such an agreement is not contrary to public policy and does not violate Section 28 of the Contract Act 1872, nor does it contravene Sections 9 or 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, provided that the chosen court itself possesses jurisdiction under the Code. The Court established the principle that while parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court that lacks it, they may lawfully agree to limit litigation to one of several competent forums, and such agreements are binding.
Questions settled- Can parties to a contract validly agree to restrict the adjudication of disputes to one of several courts that otherwise possess jurisdiction?
- Does an agreement to limit litigation to a specific court violate Section 28 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Can parties confer jurisdiction upon a court that does not possess it under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 through a mutual agreement?
- ABDUR RAZZAQUE Versus STATE1987 SCMR 341 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
- ANSAR AHMED Versus JAWED SALEHJEE1987 SCMR 339 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which set aside the Rent Controller's ejectment order against the respondent-tenant. The core legal questions involve whether the tenant committed a default in paying electricity charges according to the sub-meter reading and whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for the suit premises. The Supreme Court held that the tenant was indeed a willful defaulter for failing to pay electricity charges based on sub-meter readings and that the landlord successfully proved his bona fide personal requirement for his large family, notwithstanding the use of certain ground-floor rooms for a pre-existing factory. The appeal was consequently allowed, restoring the ejectment order.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to deposit electricity charges according to sub-meter readings constitutes a default in the payment of rent for ejectment purposes?
- Does the expansion of a pre-existing factory into vacated ground-floor rooms negate a landlord's bona fide personal requirement for residential premises?
- When can a High Court interfere with the factual findings of a Rent Controller regarding a tenant's default?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE NASIM Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1987 SCMR 302 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus MANZOOR HUSSAIN1987 SCMR 301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus SAEED AHMAD BUTT1987 SCMR 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) against a Service Tribunal decision that set aside the retirement of an employee, Saeed Ahmad Butt, who was retired under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act while on deputation. The core legal questions were whether the Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to review such orders given Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, and whether an employee on deputation is subject to the Authority's power to retire under Section 17(1-A). The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's interpretation was erroneous. It ruled that the phrase 'employed by or serving under' the Authority in Section 17(1-A) is disjunctive, meaning an employee on deputation remains subject to the Authority's disciplinary powers, including retirement. Furthermore, the Court held that a private 'To whom it may concern' certificate cannot override official service records and assessments. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for fresh examination in light of established precedents regarding the Authority's powers.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'employed by or serving under' in Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 apply to employees currently on deputation?
- Can a private certificate of service override official records and assessments in employment matters?
- Does the WAPDA Act 1958 empower the Authority to retire an employee who is serving on deputation elsewhere?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB1987 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from cross-petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of several accused persons for double murder, house trespass, and causing injuries, while acquitting one co-accused and altering a death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question involves evaluating conflicting versions of a criminal occurrence—specifically, whether the incident was a sudden fight involving the right of self-defence as claimed by the defence, or a premeditated attack and house trespass resulting in murder as established by the prosecution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the lower courts properly evaluated the evidence, rejecting the fabricated defence version supported by the physical evidence of a broken house door and window where one deceased was found. The Court affirmed that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the prosecution's version were sound and warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact based on a careful appraisal of ocular and medical evidence, establishing a clear sequence of aggression and rejecting a false defence plea, will not be disturbed by the apex court in criminal petitions.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the rejection of a defence version of self-defence warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does the chasing of an injured victim into a residential house and breaking open doors negate the plea of a sudden fight?
- Whether the appellate court is justified in granting the benefit of the doubt and acquitting a co-accused while maintaining the convictions of others based on a careful appraisal of evidence?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE1987 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD ALIAS MOONDA Versus STATE1987 SCMR 28 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner was charged with the murders of Inayat Bibi and her daughter Mst. Sajida by inflicting multiple incised wounds with a Chhuri after trespassing into their house with a design to commit sexual intercourse. The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to death, which was upheld by the High Court upon appeal and reference. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the dying declaration made by the deceased victim was reliable, given her physical condition after sustaining severe injuries. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration was fully reliable, noting medical evidence certifying the victim's mental fitness and senses at the time of making the statement, and further observed that the ocular testimony, motive, and recovery of the weapon corroborated the conviction. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether a dying declaration can be relied upon when the victim has sustained multiple severe injuries?
- Does the medical certification of a victim's mental fitness support the admissibility and credibility of a dying declaration?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the concurrent factual findings of lower courts regarding the appraisal of evidence without a legal error?
- LIAQF.T ALI Versus STATE1987 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed his conviction and death sentence under section 302 along with a sentence under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether any mitigating circumstances existed to warrant the reduction of the petitioner's death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Court held that the petitioner's counsel did not press the petition on merits and failed to demonstrate any mitigating circumstance that would justify a lesser sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of valid mitigating circumstances shown by the defense, a death sentence confirmed by the High Court will not be interfered with by the apex court on a petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a death sentence be reduced to imprisonment without proof of mitigating circumstances?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a confirmed death sentence when the petition is not pressed on merits?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1987 SCMR 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal was filed against the order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused bail to the petitioner in a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the High Court was justified in refusing post-arrest bail to an accused facing murder charges on grounds of criminal antecedents and abscondling. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, noting that the petitioner was involved in multiple other criminal cases including theft, rape, criminal intimidation, and house trespass, and had previously absconded while co-accused remained at large. The Court upheld the trial court's finding that releasing the petitioner on bail was likely to hamper the progress of the trial. The key principle affirmed is that an accused person's history of abscondence, criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of obstructing trial proceedings are valid grounds to refuse bail in a capital offense.
Questions settled- Whether previous abscondence and involvement in multiple other criminal cases constitute valid grounds to refuse bail in a murder case?
- Can bail be denied where the release of the accused is likely to hamper the progress of the trial?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order refusing bail when the accused has a history of absconding and criminal antecedents?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE1987 SCMR 268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
- SALIM SIDDIQUI Versus STATE1987 SCMR 2100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
- SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS) Versus WALI MUHAMMAD1987 SCMR 21 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Appeal Bench of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside orders of Settlement authorities and restored land holdings to the respondent petitioners. The core legal questions concern the competency of Intra-Court Appeals in light of prior Supreme Court precedents, the status of property under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, specifically whether it was acquired under Section 4(2) and formed part of the Compensation Pool, and the vesting of land in the Provincial Government under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1973. Additionally, the court must determine the effect of prior Supreme Court decisions on the finality of earlier administrative determinations regarding the evacuee or non-evacuee character of property interests. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that these issues require an authoritative pronouncement, and ordered the appeals and pending review applications to be heard together.
Questions settled- Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is competent and maintainable against a judgment of a High Court in view of the decision in Mst. Karim Bibi v. Hussain Bakhsh?
- Whether property not acquired under Section 4(2) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 forms part of the Compensation Pool?
- Does land, in the absence of a notification under Section 4(2) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, vest in the Provincial Government under Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1973?
- ESSO EASTERN INC. Versus ARK NAVIGATION COMPANY1987 SCMR 2097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the High Court granting an application under sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for time to pay court fees after an application to sue in forma pauperis under Order XXXIII had been dismissed and the subsequent appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court as barred by time. The core legal question was whether a court retains seisin of an application to sue as a pauper to allow time for court fee payment under section 149 after the matter has been finally dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the pauper application and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal ended the proceedings, and a court cannot entertain a section 149 application once it has lost seisin of the case. The Court clarified that its previous order merely permitted the respondents to file a fresh suit on payment of court fees subject to limitation, rather than reopening the concluded matter. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the High Court's order set aside.
Questions settled- Can a court allow time under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to pay court fees after a pauper application has been finally dismissed and the court has lost seisin of the case?
- Whether the dismissal of an appeal against the refusal of permission to sue in forma pauperis leaves any pending matter in which an application under sections 148 and 149 can be made?
- What is the effect of an appellate court's observation permitting a party to file a fresh suit upon payment of court fees subject to limitation?
- SARFRAZ AHMAD Versus STATE1987 SCMR 2044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where he was not directly named in the main dacoity FIR, but 50 bags of stolen cotton yarn out of the stolen consignment were recovered from his possession at his instance. The petitioner argued that there was no material on record to demonstrate that he had prior knowledge of the dacoity. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing bail, holding that it was not a fit case for interference given the magnitude of the recovery linked to the stolen property. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing bail when a large quantity of stolen property from a dacoity is recovered from the accused?
- Whether an accused charged under Section 412 PPC is entitled to bail solely on the ground that he was not named in the initial dacoity case?
- MASKEEN ALI Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF1987 SCMR 2037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge reducing the respondents' sentences based on a compromise. The respondents were originally convicted under sections 307, 326, 324, and 148 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by a Magistrate. During the appeal, three of the four injured persons stated they had compromised with the respondents. The Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentences to the period already undergone while increasing the fines. The core legal question was whether a valid compromise existed despite one injured person not appearing personally. The Supreme Court held that the compromise was validly established by the statements of the other injured family members represented by the head of the family. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, laying down the principle that a partial compromise involving key family members can sufficiently establish a settlement in criminal matters for the purpose of sentence reduction.
Questions settled- Whether a compromise in a criminal case can be established when one of the injured persons does not personally appear before the court?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with the reduction of sentences based on a compromise?
- Whether the head of a family can represent injured family members in effecting a compromise?
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN Versus YASMIN ZAFAR1987 SCMR 2029 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the temporary custody of two minor daughters. The respondent mother had applied for temporary custody under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890, which was dismissed by the Guardian Judge. Her appeal under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 was subsequently dismissed by the District Judge on the ground of incompetency. The respondent successfully challenged this dismissal via a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, which set aside the District Judge's order and remanded the appeal for a decision on the merits. Although the District Judge subsequently decided the appeal on remand, the petitioner sought an authoritative pronouncement on the legal question. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to determine whether an interlocutory order for temporary custody passed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 constitutes a 'decision' within the meaning of Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, thereby making an appeal competent.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by a Family Court or Guardian Judge under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 amounts to a decision within the meaning of Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
- Whether an appeal lies against an order passed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 before the District Judge under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
- GHULAM ZOHRA Versus ZAHOOR1987 SCMR 2026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court upholding convictions and modifying sentences for murder, rape, assault, and related offences committed during an attack across two locations forming part of the same transaction. The core legal questions involve the legality of consecutive sentences exceeding statutory limits and whether co-accused participating at a separate location are liable for offences committed at the primary site under a common object. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the convicts to examine the legality of consecutive sentences under section 35(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and to the complainant regarding the acquittal of certain co-accused for the major offences, while declining to interfere with the High Court's commutation of the death sentences in view of mitigating circumstances regarding family honour. The key principle laid down is that substantive sentences of imprisonment must respect the statutory limits on consecutive sentencing, and dual-site incidents forming part of a single transaction require careful examination of common object and pre-concert.
Questions settled- Does the imposition of multiple substantive sentences of imprisonment without a direction for them to run concurrently exceed the limits imposed by proviso (a) to section 35(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the High Court's discretion in commuting a sentence of death to imprisonment for life should be interfered with where the attack emanated from considerations of family honour arising from illicit relations.
- Can co-accused who participated in an attack at a secondary location escape liability for offences committed at the primary location during a pre-concerted attack carried out in prosecution of the same common object?
- ZAFAR IQBAL Versus STATE1987 SCMR 2017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
- HAFIZAN BEGUM Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK1987 SCMR 1957 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave arises from an ejectment application filed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether an appellate authority, while hearing an appeal solely against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte ejectment order, could set aside the original ex parte ejectment order itself when no appeal had been filed against it and it was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the District Judge erred in interfering with the original ejectment order because no appeal was preferred against it and it was barred by time without any application for condonation of delay. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate court cannot set aside an original judgment or order when the appeal is strictly confined to a subsequent interlocutory or procedural order refusing to set aside an ex parte order, leaving the time-barred original order unchallenged.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court set aside an original ejectment order when the appeal is solely directed against a subsequent order refusing to set aside an ex parte order?
- Whether an appellate authority can interfere with a time-barred order against which no appeal was filed and no condonation of delay was sought?
- SULTAN KHAN Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two cross-appeals arising from a High Court order that maintained the conviction of the appellant, a public servant, under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for the misappropriation of wheat and sugar from a government godown, but reduced his sentence of imprisonment and fine. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence to prove criminal breach of trust, and the propriety of the High Court's reduction of sentence for a corruption offense committed by a public servant. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, supported by the stock shortage and the deposit made by the accused's relatives. Concurrently, the Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, setting aside the sentence reduction and restoring the original trial court sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4,500. The key principle laid down is that corruption and criminal breach of trust by public servants must be dealt with a heavy hand, and punishments must be deterrent and commensurate with the gravity of the offense rather than lenient.
Questions settled- Whether the conviction of a public servant under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained solely on the basis of stock register shortages and incriminating conduct?
- Whether the High Court is justified in substantially reducing the sentence of imprisonment for a public servant convicted of criminal breach of trust?
- What is the appropriate sentencing principle to be applied in cases of corruption and misappropriation of public property by public servants?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
- JAMSHED ALIAS KALU Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1894 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-02Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD Versus TAJ MUHAMMAD SHAH1987 SCMR 1878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for restoration which were filed with a delay of 49 days. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether sufficient grounds existed to justify the condonation of this delay under the relevant legal framework for restoration petitions. Upon hearing the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court determined that the applicants failed to demonstrate any valid or satisfactory justification for the delay. Consequently, the Court held that no case for condonation of delay had been established. The petitions were dismissed on the basis that the delay remained unexplained and unexcused. The principle reaffirmed is that a party seeking restoration of a petition after the expiry of the limitation period bears the burden of providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and in the absence of such justification, the court will not exercise its discretion to condone the lapse.
Questions settled- Does a delay of 49 days in filing a restoration petition warrant condonation without a satisfactory explanation?
- Is the burden of proof on the applicant to justify the condonation of delay in restoration proceedings?
- BISVIL SPINNERS LTD. Versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS CIRCLE, SHEIKHUPURA1987 SCMR 1876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-07-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE1987 SCMR 184 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the petitioner for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life. The core legal question involved the re-appraisal of evidence relating to an eyewitness account and the prompt lodging of the First Information Report. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the guilt of the petitioner, supported by prompt lodging of the First Information Report, natural eyewitness testimony from related witnesses who were not inimical, and immediate apprehension of the accused at the spot with a blood-stained weapon, warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that related eyewitness testimony, corroborated by prompt lodging of the First Information Report and immediate arrest with incriminating evidence at the scene of the crime, is reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.
Questions settled- Whether related eyewitnesses can be relied upon when the First Information Report is lodged promptly after the occurrence?
- Does the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence concurrently evaluated by the lower courts when no misreading or non-reading of evidence is shown?
- Whether immediate apprehension of the accused at the spot along with a blood-stained weapon is sufficient corroboration in a murder case?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1987 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1767 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- LAJWANTI Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR1987 SCMR 1744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an ejectment application filed by landlords against a tenant, Poorandas, under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Following the dismissal of the application by the Rent Controller and the subsequent death of the tenant, the landlords filed an appeal in the High Court. During the appellate proceedings, the landlords sought to implead the remaining legal heirs of the deceased tenant, which was allowed. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that the amendment to Section 15 of the Ordinance, which removed the reference to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, precluded the application of provisions like Order I, Rule 10, thereby rendering the appeal against the newly impleaded heirs time-barred. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine whether the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are applicable to appellate proceedings under the Ordinance following the 1980 amendment. The Court held that the legal question regarding the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to rent appeals requires further examination and stayed the eviction pending the final hearing.
Questions settled- Does the amendment to Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, exclude the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to appellate proceedings?
- Can legal representatives be impleaded in a rent appeal after the period of limitation has expired?
- HAMADULLAH Versus MIR MUHAMMAD NAWAZ1987 SCMR 1734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question involves the sustainability of the petition upon the request of the petitioner. The court's decision is to grant the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the proceedings. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner is at liberty to seek withdrawal of their petition, upon which the court may dismiss the same as withdrawn accordingly.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner seek permission to withdraw a petition before the Supreme Court?
- What is the effect when a request to withdraw a petition is granted by the court?
- GHULAM .DASTGIR Versus NIAZI1987 SCMR 1733 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, which had allowed an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge restoring a criminal complaint. The petitioner initially filed a criminal complaint under section 323/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before a Magistrate, which was referred to a Tribunal under Ordinance II of 1968 and subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution. A second complaint involving additional offences was later filed and dismissed by the Magistrate, leading to revision proceedings and eventual intervention by the High Court. The core legal questions concern the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in areas governed by the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968, and the maintainability of a second complaint involving separate offences. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding jurisdiction and the maintainability of the second complaint merit consideration.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings in an area governed by the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968?
- Is a second criminal complaint maintainable when it includes offences different from those alleged in the initial dismissed complaint?
- NASEER AHMAD UPPAL Versus WATER & POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1987 SCMR 1731 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
- AULAD HUSSAIN SHAH ALIAS PHUL PIR Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1728 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a double murder and rioting incident. Five individuals were originally tried under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the deaths of two women. The trial court acquitted one accused and convicted the other four, sentencing two to death and two to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted two more accused, upheld the convictions of the remaining two, but reduced their death sentences to imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court considered cross-petitions seeking leave to appeal against the acquittals and the reduction of sentences. The core legal questions involved the assessment of ocular testimony, the sustainability of convictions when co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence, and the impact of an unestablished motive on sentencing. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the acquittals of the three accused but granted leave to appeal to the convicted persons against their convictions and to the complainant party for the restoration of the death sentences.
Questions settled- Can the convictions of certain accused persons be maintained when co-accused are acquitted on the basis of the same evidence?
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the death sentences on the ground that the motive was shrouded in mystery?
- Does the acquittal of several co-accused warrant interference with the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding remaining convictions?
- Are ocular testimonies corroborated by a dying declaration sufficient to sustain murder convictions in the presence of family enmity?
- ABDUL QADIR AWAN Versus SHAUKAT ALI1987 SCMR 1726 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the father of the deceased against the acquittal of the respondent by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The respondent was initially convicted by the trial court under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a nurse at Lady Willingdon Hospital, Lahore. The High Court subsequently acquitted the respondent, citing the fact that prosecution eye-witnesses had resiled from their statements and that recovery evidence was unreliable. The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed—specifically documents recovered from the deceased's room linking the respondent to her, and the testimony of a witness who observed the respondent fleeing the scene—to warrant a conviction despite the failure of direct eye-witness testimony. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether this circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder, noting the necessity of re-evaluating the trial record in light of these submissions. Warrants of arrest were issued for the respondent.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when direct eye-witnesses have resiled from their statements?
- Does the recovery of personal documents belonging to an accused from the deceased's possession constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in a murder trial?
- SADIQAN Versus MULTAN SILK RAYON MILLS1987 SCMR 1684 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the title to land between an allottee of the Multan Improvement Trust and successors of a claimant under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The primary issue was whether the disputed land formed part of the compensation pool under the 1958 Act, or if it was excepted due to prior government sanction for acquisition under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the land was excepted from the compensation pool by the notification issued under the 1958 Act. The Court held that the Central Government's prior sanction for acquisition under the 1949 Ordinance effectively removed the land from the pool, rendering the appellants' subsequent allotment invalid. The Court established that the factum of sanction for acquisition under the 1949 Ordinance is sufficient to bring land within the exception clause of the notification, regardless of whether acquisition proceedings were fully completed before the notification under the 1958 Act was issued. Consequently, the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the respondent's possession.
Questions settled- Does a prior sanction for acquisition under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, exclude land from the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Must acquisition proceedings be fully completed before a notification under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, for the land to be excepted from the compensation pool?
- Can a party challenge an existing allotment of land without first establishing a valid title or interest in that land?
- ASHRAF ABBASI Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SOUTH ZONE, KARACHI1987 SCMR 1636 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind regarding the transfer of an evacuee property in Larkana under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether a property could be disposed of under the Earmarking Scheme while an application for its transfer as a converted property (clinic) and a statutory determination of its status under Settlement Scheme No.I remained pending, and whether the rejection of the initial transfer form without notice rendered the subsequent allotment void. The Supreme Court held that the initial rejection of the appellant's form without notice was a nullity, and that pending the determination of the property's converted status under Para 20 of Settlement Scheme No.I, the property was not available for disposal via earmarking. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the transfer order in favor of the appellant, and laid down that an evacuee property whose character is under review for conversion cannot be validly allotted to a third party until the conversion and entitlement proceedings are lawfully concluded.
Questions settled- Whether an evacuee property can be transferred under an earmarking scheme while an application for its determination as a converted property is pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Does the rejection of a transfer application without affording a mandatory hearing or notice render the resulting order a nullity in law?
- Whether a prior transfer of property made in disregard of pending statutory conversion proceedings can prevail over a subsequent transfer granted under applicable settlement policies?
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus MANZOOR AHMAD,1987 SCMR 1620 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that reversed lower court decisions regarding the cancellation of an Ihata allotment by a Collector. The primary issue was whether the Collector had the authority to cancel an allotment obtained through fraud and whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to challenge the Collector's findings on fraud, given the provisions of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The Court held that the Collector was competent to inquire into allegations of fraud and cancel the allotment accordingly. The Court affirmed that Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters where the Collector is empowered to act, provided the Collector acts within the limits of their power and adheres to the principles of natural justice. Since the respondent failed to allege a violation of natural justice or lack of evidence, the suit was barred.
Questions settled- Does a Collector have the authority to cancel an allotment of land if it was obtained through fraud?
- Does Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters where the Collector is empowered to act?
- Under what circumstances can a Civil Court interfere with the findings of a Collector acting under the Colonization of Government Lands Act?
- KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and Section 466 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a clerk, was accused of accepting illegal gratification and forging an allotment order for land. The core legal questions concern whether a conviction for forgery can be sustained when the original document is not produced at trial and whether the testimony of a handwriting expert, who initially exonerated the accused but later reversed his opinion, constitutes reliable evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the original allotment order was missing and noted the contradictory nature of the handwriting expert's testimony. Finding that the submissions regarding the evidentiary value of the missing document and the expert's testimony raised substantial issues, the Court granted leave to appeal. The decision highlights the necessity of scrutinizing the reliability of expert evidence and the impact of missing primary evidence on the sustainability of criminal convictions.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for forgery be sustained when the original document alleged to be forged is not produced at trial?
- Does a handwriting expert's contradictory testimony, where an initial opinion is reversed after a significant delay, undermine the reliability of the prosecution's case?
- Is the absence of the original document in a forgery case a fatal defect to the prosecution's case?
- CONTROLLER OF INSURANCE Versus PLATINUM INSURANCE CO.LTD.1987 SCMR 1597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASGHAR Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
- MEHBOOB SHAH Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1448 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the concurrent convictions and death sentences of the appellants for the double murder of Mehboob and Inayat Hussain under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case rested on prompt ocular testimony by related and natural witnesses, corroborated by motive and the recovery of blood-stained weapons. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, alleged discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence regarding the nature of weapon injuries, and the question of sentencing leniency based on the youthful age of the offenders. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the medical evidence was not in conflict with the ocular testimony, as the injuries were inflicted by heavy sharp-edged weapons, and that the related witnesses were reliable in the absence of proven enmity. The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the elder appellant but partly allowed it for the younger appellant, commuting his death sentence to imprisonment for life on account of his tender age at the time of the commission of the offense. The key principle established is that minor misdescriptions of wounds by an inexperienced medical examiner do not discredit consistent ocular testimony, and youth can be a mitigating factor for sentence commutation.
Questions settled- Whether discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature of wounds are sufficient to discard the prosecution case?
- Does the relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased render their testimony untrustworthy in the absence of previous enmity?
- Can the tender age of an accused person serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether the recovery of blood-stained weapons at the instance of the accused provides reliable corroboration to the ocular account?
- ASGHAR ALI Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by Asghar Ali against the judgment of the High Court, which maintained his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the sentence of death for causing the death of Muhammad Rafique. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of death was appropriate given the mitigating circumstances relating to the motive of the crime. The Supreme Court held that since the deceased's refusal to return the dowry of the petitioner's sister provoked the occurrence, the extreme penalty of death was unwarranted. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, substituted the death sentence with imprisonment for life, maintained the fine, and directed that the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that persistent refusal by the deceased to return property or dowry, leading directly to the provocation of the offender, can constitute a mitigating circumstance justifying the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether the refusal of the deceased to return the dowry of the offender's sister constitutes a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence?
- Can the Supreme Court substitute a sentence of death with imprisonment for life upon finding provocation arising from the conduct of the deceased?
- GHULAM SHABBIR Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court rejecting the post-arrest bail petition of the appellant, Ghulam Shabbir, who was implicated in the murder of Ghulam Hussain. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant was entitled to bail given that the initially charged accused were discharged by the police during investigation and the appellant was subsequently substituted on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession and last-seen evidence, despite the multiplicity of injuries suggesting multiple assailants. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the appellant was entitled to bail and allowed the appeal, directing his release upon furnishing appropriate surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is substituted later on doubtful circumstantial evidence and weak extra-judicial confessions, and the nature of injuries indicates the involvement of multiple persons with a distinct motive originally attributed to others, further inquiry into the guilt of the accused is warranted under the law, making out a fit case for bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused substituted during investigation on weak circumstantial evidence is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the presence of multiple injuries indicating more than one assailant warrant further inquiry into the guilt of a sole substituted accused for the purpose of bail?
- Whether an extra-judicial confession and last-seen evidence of doubtful nature constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE1987 SCMR 128 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a conviction and death sentence imposed under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Amanat Bibi. Following the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the High Court, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the parties presented a compromise deed and supporting affidavits, indicating that the accused had sufficiently compensated the legal heirs of the deceased and that the heirs were satisfied with the settlement, which was intended to ensure future peace between the families. The core legal question was whether a compromise between the parties in a murder case could serve as a mitigating circumstance to warrant the reduction of a death sentence. The Supreme Court accepted the compromise as a valid mitigating factor. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence of death to imprisonment for life, while upholding the sentence of fine. The judgment affirms the principle that a compromise between the parties can be considered a mitigating circumstance in capital cases.
Questions settled- Can a compromise between the parties in a murder case be considered a mitigating circumstance for sentencing purposes?
- Does a compromise between the parties justify the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Versus STATE1987 SCMR 1159 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus SHAHZADA SHAHPUR JAN1986 SCMR 991 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals concern the entitlement of civil servants to receive pay and annual increments in a higher grade when performing the duties of that post without formal promotion. The core legal question is whether such employees are entitled to the presumptive pay of the higher post, including increments, and whether the government can invoke Fundamental Rule 35 to deny these benefits. The Supreme Court held that civil servants who are qualified for the higher post and are assigned its full responsibilities are entitled to the presumptive pay of that grade, including annual increments, absent a specific, valid order to the contrary. The Court clarified that Fundamental Rule 35, which permits the fixing of pay at an amount less than admissible, cannot be used as a general tool to deny increments; its application requires specific, individual consideration. However, the Court distinguished cases where the employee lacks the requisite qualifications for the higher post, holding that such individuals, often designated as 'Clerk-in-Charge,' are not entitled to the higher grade's pay and increments.
Questions settled- Are civil servants performing the duties of a higher post without formal promotion entitled to the pay and increments of that higher grade?
- Can the government invoke Fundamental Rule 35 to generally deny annual increments to civil servants officiating in higher posts?
- Does a civil servant who lacks the requisite qualifications for a higher post, but is assigned its duties, have a legal right to the pay and increments of that higher grade?
- SHAH DAD Versus BORDER AREA ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE1986 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of a land allotment by the Border Area Allotment Committee. The core legal questions involved whether land within the Border Belt could exclusively be allotted by the Border Area Allotment Committee, whether urban land within the border area fell under Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959, and the competence of the Settlement Department to make allotments after the promulgation of the said regulation. The Supreme Court held that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and that the High Court correctly found the underlying allotment transaction to be fictitious, fraudulent, and engineered by the appellant for his own benefit when he was already holding maximum land in the border area. Consequently, the Court recalled the leave to appeal previously granted and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether an allotment of land within the Border Belt could only be made by the Border Area Allotment Committee?
- Whether urban land within the border area came within the ambit of Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959?
- Whether the Settlement Department was competent after the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959 to allot land to persons other than legitimate claimants?
- MUHAMMAD IDREES Versus SAFIA BEGUM1986 SCMR 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an eviction order passed against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment, which was upheld by the Rent Controller, District Judge, and the Lahore High Court. The appellant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, claiming that the disputed property was hidden evacuee property transferred to him by the Settlement authorities. The core legal question was whether the plea of estoppel under section 116 of the Evidence Act barred the tenant from questioning the landlord's title under such circumstances. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant, having been inducted by the landlord and the tenancy subsisting, was estopped under section 116 of the Evidence Act from questioning the landlord's title. The Court laid down the principle that a tenant cannot challenge the landlord's title during the subsistence of the tenancy unless the denial of title is based on undisputed and proved facts demonstrating that the landlord's title was legally nonexistent ab initio.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant is estopped from questioning the title of his landlord during the subsistence of the tenancy under section 116 of the Evidence Act?
- Can a tenant successfully deny the landlord's title based on a subsequent transfer of the property by the Settlement authorities as hidden evacuee property without establishing the invalidity of the landlord's prior title?
- Whether the Rent Controller is bound to enter into complex questions of title when a tenant sets up a setting of evacuee ownership?
- NAZIR BEGUM Versus IQBAL HUSSAIN QURESHI1986 SCMR 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
- AMJAD FAROOQ Versus STATE1986 SCMR 663 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-01Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1986 SCMR 632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment dated 15-12-1983 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby the petitioner, a Sub-Engineer (Mechanical) in the Irrigation Department, was held responsible for a partial shortage of stock and T.P. articles. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal could base its judgment on a re-checking and scrutiny of stock conducted by an Executive Engineer during the pendency of the appeal without formally associating the petitioner with the inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner having welcomed and acquiesced to the course of re-checking adopted by the Tribunal and having benefited from the reduction of liability, cannot subsequently turn around and challenge the procedure when it does not entirely set aside the recovery order. The key principle laid down is that a party who acquiesces in a procedural course adopted by a tribunal and derives benefit therefrom cannot subsequently challenge that same procedure to avoid the remaining adverse consequences.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge a procedural course adopted by a tribunal in appeal after acquiescing to it and deriving partial benefit therefrom?
- Whether the Service Tribunal has the authority to order re-checking of stock during the pendency of an appeal to determine the correctness of allegations?
- ABDUR RAZZAQ Versus STATE1986 SCMR 628 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
- BASHIR Versus STATE1986 SCMR 624 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD SABIR1986 SCMR 607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
- KAUSAR Versus MASHKOOR FATIMA1986 SCMR 595 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mst. Kausar, daughter of the deceased Mst. Aisha Bibi, against a judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 26-10-1981, which had denied the transfer of property claimed on the basis of possession and an order of the Central Government dated 3-8-1960. The current petition is barred by 1270 days. An earlier petition for leave to appeal had been filed improperly in the name of the deceased Mst. Aisha Bibi and was consequently dismissed as incompetent by the Supreme Court on 18-3-1985. The core legal question concerns whether a massive delay in filing a properly constituted petition can be condoned based on the history of previous defective litigation undertaken by the legal representatives. The Supreme Court held that the matter stands concluded by its earlier order dated 18-3-1985, leaving no scope to re-open the grounds or condone the inordinate delay. The principle laid down is that a petitioner cannot circumvent a prior final adjudication regarding a defectively constituted petition to re-litigate limitation and merits.
Questions settled- Can a delay of over one thousand days be condoned on the basis of time spent prosecuting a previously dismissed defective petition filed in the name of a deceased person?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be entertained when the matter stands already concluded by a prior order of the Supreme Court recalling leave?
- Does the filing of a defective petition by a legal representative in the name of a deceased party save limitation for a subsequently instituted properly constituted petition?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1986 SCMR 551 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the High Court in a case involving charges of murder and attempted murder. The trial court had convicted multiple accused for murder and attempted murder under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code. On appeal, the High Court determined that the incident constituted a sudden fight falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, requiring individual determination of culpability. Consequently, the High Court altered the primary murder conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence, and acquitted several co-accused. The Supreme Court evaluated the High Court's reasoning and concluded that a thorough reappraisal of the evidence was necessary regarding the mitigation of the murder offense for the convicted petitioner, as well as the acquittals of the co-accused. Thus, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence.
Questions settled- Does a finding of a sudden fight under Exception 4 to Section 300 PPC require determining individual liability for each participant?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the High Court's reappraisal of evidence regarding sudden fight and acquittals requires further scrutiny?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1986 SCMR 467 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMED Versus PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1986 SCMR 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal arising from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, wherein it was held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide cases brought by employees of nationalized banks and financial institutions whose services were terminated or who were dismissed. The petitioners had initially challenged their termination or dismissal orders before the Labour Courts through petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which had mixed outcomes before the Labour Courts and were subsequently dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. Before the Supreme Court, the parties raised important questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of Labour Courts, the National Industrial Relations Commission, the applicability of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and the definition of 'worker' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively determine these substantial questions of law governing a large number of service-related cases.
Questions settled- Whether the Labour Courts constituted under section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 have jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the grievances of workers employed in the Nationalized Banks and Financial Institutions arising out of the infringement of any term of the award of Wage Commission constituted under section 38-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has sole jurisdiction under section 22-B(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to entertain and adjudicate cases of workers employed in the Nationalized Banks and Financial Institutions for redress of their individual grievance guaranteed under any law or an award or settlement?
- Whether the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are applicable to the cases of workers employed in the Nationalized Banks and Financial Institutions?
- Whether dismissed workers employed in the Nationalized Banks and Financial Institutions are not covered by the definition of 'worker' as embodied in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1986 SCMR 369 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Aslam, a clerk in the office of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, challenging his conviction and sentence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was earlier upheld by the High Court. The core legal question raised was whether the Provincial Government had the lawful authority to accord sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner, given the contention that he was an employee of the Central Government and that the notification purporting to provincialize the Settlement Department had never come into force. The Supreme Court observed that the Additional Advocate-General was unable to place the relevant notification on record and required further time for research. Consequently, the Court held that a fit case was made out to grant leave to consider the question regarding the validity of the prosecution sanction. The Court accordingly granted leave to appeal subject to security for costs.
Questions settled- Whether the Provincial Government is competent to grant sanction for the prosecution of an employee belonging to the Settlement Department?
- Does a failure by the State to produce the notification provincializing a department warrant the grant of leave to appeal regarding prosecution sanction?
- ABDUL KHALIQ Versus STATE1986 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Federal Shariat Court judgment confirming his conviction and sentences under Sections 11 and 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner was charged with abducting a minor girl under sixteen years of age and committing Zina-bil-Jabr. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the victim's consent could be pleaded as a defense when the victim is a minor under the age of sixteen. The Court held that the definition of 'kidnapping from lawful guardianship' under Section 361 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 must be read into Section 11 of the Ordinance, rendering any argument regarding consent immaterial due to the victim's age. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 11 of the Ordinance, the court has no discretion to award a sentence of imprisonment less than life imprisonment. Finding no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence and no grounds for leniency, the Court refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can the defense of consent be availed by an accused under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 if the victim is under sixteen years of age?
- Is Section 361 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable to define kidnapping for the purposes of Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does a court have the discretion to award a sentence of imprisonment less than life imprisonment for an offence under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD1986 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the High Court which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition against the decision of an Election Tribunal. The core legal question concerns whether a party who persuades an Election Tribunal to adopt a particular course of procedure can subsequently challenge the propriety of that procedure in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having induced the Tribunal to follow a specific course to determine the majority of votes, could not be permitted to challenge the propriety of that same procedure, and the High Court rightly exercised its discretion in refusing interference. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by inviting a tribunal to adopt a procedure and later turning around to challenge it in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the propriety of a procedure adopted by an Election Tribunal when that same procedure was suggested and persuaded by the party itself?
- Whether the High Court can interfere in its discretionary writ jurisdiction with an order of the Election Tribunal based on an arrangement agreed to by the parties?
- AFGHAN Versus STATE1986 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for murder. The petitioners, Afghan and Walidino, were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Azmat, while two co-accused were acquitted. The High Court of Sind dismissed the petitioners' appeal, upholding the conviction based on ocular testimony. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction of the petitioners could be sustained when the trial court had acquitted co-accused based on the same evidence, and whether the High Court erred in its reappraisal of that evidence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically invalidate the conviction of others if the evidence against the latter remains credible. The Court affirmed that the conviction was properly based on the testimony of natural witnesses present at the scene. The key principle laid down is that the erroneous or cautious acquittal of one co-accused does not necessitate the acquittal of others whose guilt is independently established by reliable evidence.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on the same evidence necessitate the acquittal of other convicted co-accused?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony of natural witnesses?
- Is the acquittal of one co-accused by a trial court out of abundant caution equivalent to a finding that the evidence against them was false?
- ABDUL RASHID Versus SAKHI MUHAMMAD1986 SCMR 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-08Read full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL, SARGODHA1986 SCMR 298 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed by the petitioner, Abdul Wahid, challenging an election tribunal's decision. The core dispute arose from an election held in Electoral Unit No. 7, which was part of a larger electoral unit comprising units 6, 7, and 8. A misprint in the electoral list index incorrectly identified Unit No. 7 as Unit No. 8. Although the Returning Officer attempted to rectify this error through an amendment order dated 13-9-1983, the correction was issued too late, resulting in significant confusion among voters during the election process. Consequently, the election was challenged via an election petition, which was allowed. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's subsequent writ petition and found no grounds to interfere with the lower court's reasoning. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, effectively affirming that the confusion caused by the late rectification of the electoral list justified the setting aside of the election results.
Questions settled- Does a late rectification of a misprint in an electoral list that causes voter confusion constitute valid grounds for setting aside an election?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment in an election matter where the lower court's conclusion is found to be sound?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1986 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns the true interpretation of section 10 of the Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984. The Court granted leave to consider the statutory interpretation of the said provision and ordered that the appeal be heard at Rawalpindi before the vacation. Additionally, pending the final hearing of the appeal, the Court directed that the petitioner Muhammad Aslam be released on interim bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A. C. Bahawalpur.
Questions settled- What is the true interpretation of section 10 of the Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
- Under what conditions may a petitioner be released on interim bail pending the hearing of an appeal arising from proceedings under the Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
- AHMAD ALI Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL1986 SCMR 244 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a second appeal against a judgment of the District Judge, which had decreed a declaratory suit filed by respondent No.1 regarding agricultural land. The core legal questions involved whether the disputed land was genuinely sold to the appellants contemporaneously with its redemption via a mutation attested on 10-10-1962, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court held that the sale mutation and its subsequent incorporation in the Jamabandi carried a rebuttable presumption of truth under the relevant land revenue law, which the plaintiff-respondent failed to dislodge with credible evidence of a lease, and that the suit instituted twelve years later was indeed time-barred. The Court laid down the principle that a statutory presumption of truth attached to revenue records must be effectively rebutted by concrete evidence, and failure to do so validates the recorded transaction.
Questions settled- Whether a sale mutation supported by entries in the Jamabandi carries a presumption of truth under section 52 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Does a party challenging a revenue entry bear the burden of dislodging the statutory presumption of truth attached to it?
- What is the applicable period of limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 for a declaratory suit challenging a sale mutation?
- Can oral assertions of a lease override contemporaneous revenue records and mutations evidencing a sale of land?
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE1986 SCMR 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYUM Versus PROVINCE OF N.W.F.P.1986 SCMR 210 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Forest Guard, reported that tax duty money amounting to Rs. 19,619.25 collected by him was stolen. Following a departmental inquiry, he was dismissed from service and the amount was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. His departmental appeal reduced the recovery amount. His subsequent civil suit challenging the recovery was dismissed by the trial court, but decreed in his favor by the District Judge on the ground that the amount was not recoverable under the Forest Act. Upon revision, the Peshawar High Court set aside the District Judge's judgment, holding that the amount was recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 82 of the Forest Act. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, noting that the petitioner had been found guilty of misappropriating government tax funds, and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an amount collected as tax duty on timber transport can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 82 of the Forest Act?
- Should the Supreme Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal in a case where the petitioner is found guilty of misappropriating government funds?
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus STATE1986 SCMR 2019 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, N.-W. F. P1986 SCMR 2006 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a Division Bench judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which allowed a writ petition filed by private respondents and set aside a pre-emption decree granted in favor of the petitioner by the Collector. The petitioner claimed a preferential right of pre-emption on the basis of tenancy under clause (d) of paragraph 25(3) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The High Court reversed the lower courts' rulings based on a Shariat Bench decision declaring paragraph 25(3)(d) repugnant to Islam. The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that his statutory pre-emption rights under the existing law still subsisted and could not be extinguished retrospectively, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in N.-W.F.P. v. Said Kamal Shah, which mandated amendments to the Regulation to take effect from 31-7-1986. Finding that these arguments merited detailed consideration, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the prospective application of the law and the subsistence of tenant pre-emption rights.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant's right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 can be affected retrospectively before the date fixed for statutory amendment by the Supreme Court?
- Does a pre-emption decree granted in favor of a tenant remain valid if the underlying statutory provision is subsequently declared repugnant to Islam?
- AFTAB HUSSAIN Versus STATE1986 SCMR 1989 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TARIQ Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI1986 SCMR 1976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil dispute regarding the inheritance of land, where the petitioner claimed title through an oral will and the respondents claimed title through a registered written will. The petitioner sought a temporary injunction to maintain possession, which was initially granted by the trial court but subsequently set aside by the District Judge. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision application, noting that the property was already in the custody of a court-appointed Receiver, rendering the claim of possession untenable. The Supreme Court addressed the petitioner's grievance that certain observations made by the High Court regarding possession might prejudice the trial. The Court held that observations made during interlocutory proceedings are tentative and do not bind the trial court, which must decide the suit on its own merits. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that property held by a Receiver is in custodia legis, precluding the necessity for a temporary injunction. The petition was dismissed, clarifying that the trial court remains uninfluenced by the High Court's preliminary observations.
Questions settled- Do observations made by a court during interlocutory proceedings prejudice the final decision of a suit?
- Can a temporary injunction be granted for property that is already in the possession of a court-appointed Receiver?
- Is property held by a Receiver considered to be in custodia legis?
- ABDUL WADOOD Versus STATE1986 SCMR 1947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan on leave granted to examine whether an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report was adequately explained and whether the identification of the convicts was free from reasonable doubt. The appellants were convicted by the trial court under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for entice-abduction and committing sodomy on a five-year-old child, which convictions were subsequently affirmed by the Federal Shariat Court. Upon re-examining the evidence, the Supreme Court held that the 48-hour delay in lodging the report was satisfactorily explained by local attempts at a compromise, and the identity of the appellants was established without doubt. However, due to lack of proof regarding the exact distance the victim was removed, the Court extended the benefit of doubt regarding the charge under Section 12 of the Ordinance 1979, setting aside that conviction, while maintaining the conviction and sentence under Section 377 of the Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Can a delay of 48 hours in lodging an FIR be condoned if adequately explained by efforts at an out-of-court compromise?
- Does failure to establish the exact distance a victim was removed disentitle prosecution from securing a conviction under Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can the identification of accused persons by a minor victim residing in the same village be accepted without formal identification proceedings in the absence of meaningful cross-examination?
- ABDUL SABOOR Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 SCMR 1943 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a writ petition filed by the petitioner regarding a property dispute. The petitioner sought to challenge the refusal of a property claim that had occurred on 30-8-1960, filing the writ petition only on 12-12-1975. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of laches and delay, noting that the property had already been validly disposed of via auction to the respondent in the interim, and that there was no justification to disturb this transfer after such a significant lapse of time. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's findings and concluded that the reasons provided for refusing to reopen such a belated transaction were legally justified. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no error in the High Court's decision warranting interference and dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, affirming the principle that excessive delay and laches in challenging property transfers, especially where third-party rights have intervened, are fatal to a claim.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches and delay when challenging a property transfer?
- Is a court justified in refusing to disturb a property transfer made via auction after a significant lapse of time?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with High Court orders based on laches where the reasoning is legally sound?
- ABDUL RAUF Versus HAFIZAN MOSAN ATTA1986 SCMR 1893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the disposal of enemy property, specifically Property No. 6-A, Begum Road, Lahore, owned by the Punjab Co-operative Bank Limited. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the Government policy letter dated 21st March 1972, and whether the term "existing allottees" referred to allottees under the Rehabilitation Laws or transferees from the defunct Settlement Department holding Provisional Transfer Orders or Permanent Transfer Deeds. The Supreme Court held that the policy letter and subsequent instructions were intended to benefit those holding transfer orders from the Settlement Department rather than bare allottees from the Rehabilitation Authorities. Consequently, the Additional Custodian of Enemy Property's order transferring portions of the property to rehabilitation allottees was without lawful authority. The Court dismissed the appeals and remitted the case to the Custodian of Enemy Property to determine entitlement and pass necessary orders in light of the judgment, laying down that administrative policy instruments regarding enemy property must be construed in accordance with their manifest intent without extending benefits beyond the specified categories.
Questions settled- Whether the expression "existing allottees" in the Government policy letter dated 21st March 1972 includes allottees from the Rehabilitation Authorities or is restricted to transferees from the Settlement Department?
- Does an order passed by the Deputy Custodian of Enemy Property in excess of his legal authority confer indefeasible rights upon a transferee?
- Whether the High Court, upon declaring an order of transfer of enemy property to be illegal and without lawful authority, should make a direct order of transfer or remand the case to the Custodian of Enemy Property?
- ABDUL WAHEED Versus STATE1986 SCMR 1884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, which dismissed the appellant's challenge to his conviction under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of the deceased during a sudden altercation, modifying only the benefit under Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the appellant had acted in the right of private defence and whether he had exceeded that right. The Supreme Court held that while the appellant faced an attack and possessed a right of private defence, he had brutally exceeded that right by inflicting multiple stab wounds on vital parts of the deceased's body, thereby bringing his act under Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 304 Part I, while altering the substantive sentence of life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who receives simple injuries in an altercation is entitled to the complete right of private defence when causing fatal injuries to the deceased?
- Does the infliction of multiple stab wounds on vital parts of the body by an accused facing a minor assault amount to exceeding the right of private defence under Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code is sustainable when the evidence proves that the accused exceeded the right of private defence?