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.
- ABDUL GHANI Versus STATE1986 SCMR 1881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing criminal miscellaneous applications for the quashment of proceedings pending against the petitioners before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Karachi. The petitioners, a Headmaster and a Sub-Divisional Education Officer, were implicated in six separate cases involving the fraudulent withdrawal of staff salaries using fictitious names. After being acquitted in one of the cases, the petitioners sought acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the remaining five cases, arguing that no probability of conviction existed based on identical evidence, which the High Court rejected. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners abandoned the section 265-K ground and instead contended that their subsequent trials were barred under the principle of autre fois acquit pursuant to section 403, read with section 222, of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution was allegedly bound to join all charges. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the novel legal questions regarding section 403 and section 222 were not raised before the courts below, it was premature to determine their applicability, though the petitioners remained at liberty to raise these issues before the trial Court.
Questions settled- Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed on the ground that the accused has been acquitted in a connected case based on similar evidence?
- Does the principle of autre fois acquit bar subsequent trials when charges are split by the prosecution?
- Can a legal question not raised before the trial Court or the High Court be urged for the first time before the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
- CHAND KHAN Versus AKBAR1986 SCMR 1878 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a High Court judgment that had altered the conviction of the respondent, Akbar, from murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(1), Pakistan Penal Code, and reduced his sentence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in its assessment that the evidence negated premeditated murder, thereby justifying the alteration of the conviction. Upon reviewing the ocular testimony and medical evidence, the Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning regarding the lack of premeditation to be ill-founded, as the accused had called the deceased out and attacked him with a knife, causing fatal injuries. The Supreme Court held that the act constituted murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code. However, the Court determined that the death penalty was not appropriate given the circumstances where the immediate cause of the attack remained unclear. Consequently, the Court restored the conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, but substituted the death sentence with imprisonment for life, while maintaining the fine.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court erred in altering a conviction from Section 302 to Section 304(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code based on a finding of lack of premeditation?
- Is a death sentence mandatory for a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code when the immediate cause of the attack is not clearly established?
- Does the use of a lethal weapon to inflict fatal injuries on a victim called out by the accused constitute murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- ADHAM Versus AATE1986 SCMR 1853 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, facing trial for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought to be treated as a child under the Sind Children Act, 1955. He filed an application before the trial court requesting separation of his trial from co-accused, asserting he was under 16 years of age at the time of the offence. The trial court dismissed this application, and the High Court subsequently dismissed his criminal revision application. The petitioner challenged this, relying on a Police Surgeon's certificate estimating his age between 15 and 16 years, despite conflicting medical evidence from a Medical Superintendent and a Medical Board, both of which assessed his age at approximately 18 years. The core legal question is whether, in the face of conflicting medical opinions regarding the age of an accused, the opinion favouring the accused's claim of minority must be accepted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts erred in disregarding the evidence supporting the petitioner's minority status.
Questions settled- Does a medical opinion favouring an accused's claim of minority prevail when there are conflicting medical reports regarding the age of the accused?
- Is an accused entitled to a separate trial under the Sind Children Act 1955 if they are found to be under 16 years of age?
- ABDUL HAMID Versus SIND SERVICE TRIBUNAL1986 SCMR 1840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which upheld the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, a former Property Clerk. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules after the loss of firearms and ammunition from his custody. An inquiry established charges of gross negligence and inefficiency, leading to his compulsory retirement. On appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioner raised legal objections, contending that gross negligence was not punishable as misconduct under the rules and that receiving a show-cause notice for dismissal but being awarded compulsory retirement prejudiced his defence. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that inefficiency is an independent ground for punishment under Rule 3, and gross negligence constituted misconduct under Rule 2(4) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Court further held that where a civil servant is put on notice for a higher major penalty (dismissal), awarding a lesser major penalty (compulsory retirement) causes no prejudice.
Questions settled- Whether gross negligence can constitute misconduct under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Can a civil servant who is issued a notice for the major penalty of dismissal be lawfully awarded the lesser major penalty of compulsory retirement without prejudice to his defence?
- Is inefficiency an independent statutory ground for imposing penalties under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- ABDUR REHMAN Versus STATE1986 SCMR 1830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1986 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
- M. ISMAIL & CO. Versus TAHIR SHEIKH1986 SCMR 1824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus MASHA ALLAH JAN1986 SCMR 1823 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his First Rent Appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the Rent Controller's order for his ejectment from a commercial shop on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the default in rent could be interfered with by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the issue stood concluded by concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums, which revealed a clear default for three months, and that such findings did not give rise to any question of law. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact in rent matters are not interfered with absent a question of law.
Questions settled- Do concurrent findings of fact regarding rent default give rise to a question of law?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the High Court in a rent matter?
- WAPDA Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD QURESHI1986 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal to adjudicate appeals by WAPDA employees whose services were terminated under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether subsection (1-C) of Section 17, which purports to oust the jurisdiction of courts, tribunals, and commissions, also excludes the Federal Service Tribunal from reviewing termination orders passed by WAPDA. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal retains exclusive jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that subsection (1-B) of Section 17, read with Article 212 of the Constitution, established the Service Tribunal as the exclusive forum for civil servants, including WAPDA employees. Subsection (1-C) was interpreted not as an ouster of the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction, but as a legislative measure to clarify the ouster of other forums (such as labor courts) that had improperly assumed jurisdiction over these matters. The principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal remains the sole competent forum for adjudicating terms and conditions of service for WAPDA employees, and its jurisdiction is not affected by the exclusionary language of subsection (1-C).
Questions settled- Does Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act 1958 oust the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal to hear appeals regarding the termination of WAPDA employees?
- Are WAPDA employees considered civil servants for the purposes of the Federal Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of service of WAPDA employees?
- ABDUL GHANI Versus MUMTAZ HUSSAIN1986 SCMR 1701 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court dismissing a constitutional petition regarding local bodies elections. The appellant, Abdul Ghani, secured the highest number of votes in Ward No. 30 of Karachi, but his election was declared void by the Election Tribunal because he was a government school teacher at the time of the election, which disqualified him under the relevant law. The Tribunal declared the runner-up, Mumtaz Hussain, as the successful candidate. The core legal question was whether the appellant's disqualification was notorious enough to render the votes cast in his favour 'thrown away', thereby entitling the candidate with the next highest votes to be declared successful, or whether a fresh election ought to have been held. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the appellant was still in government service on the polling day and the voters of the rural community could be deemed to have known him as a teacher, the votes cast for him were rightly treated as thrown away. The key principle established is that where a candidate's disqualification is notorious and known to the electorate, votes cast for him are wasted, allowing the runner-up to be declared elected without necessitating a fresh election.
Questions settled- Whether the disqualification of a successful candidate renders the votes cast in his favour as thrown away so as to declare the candidate with the next highest number of votes successful?
- Does a candidate remain in the service of the Government for the purpose of election disqualification if his resignation has not been accepted by the date of polling?
- Whether the voters in a rural community can be deemed to have notice of a candidate's profession as a school teacher despite a different profession being recorded in the electoral roll?
- ABDUL RAHIM Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against an order of the High Court refusing to set aside the abatement of a constitutional petition and dismissing the same as time-barred upon the death of the contesting respondent. The core legal question examined was whether the penal provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the provisions regarding abatement and the necessity of bringing legal representatives on record within time do apply to constitutional petitions, as effective orders cannot be passed in the absence of necessary parties. Finding no reason to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion on questions of fact regarding the date of knowledge of the death, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that proceedings abate if legal representatives are not impleaded within the prescribed time.
Questions settled- Whether the penal provisions of Order XXII of the Civil Procedure Code apply to proceedings in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Can an effective order of quashment be made in a constitutional petition in the absence of necessary parties who have passed away?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the discretion of the High Court refusing to set aside an abatement based on findings of fact?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus HAYAT MUHAMMAD1986 SCMR 1682 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ABDUL KARIM Versus SARFRAZ BANI1986 SCMR 1668 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBAR RIZVI Versus PAK ARMY FURNISHING STORES1986 SCMR 1658 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Sind High Court regarding the eviction of tenants from a shop premises for reconstruction. The Rent Controller had ordered ejectment, but the High Court affirmed the order while imposing a conditional restriction that the tenants need not be vacated if the building plan's suspension was not withdrawn. During the appeal, subsequent developments occurred, including the extension of the building plan's validity by the Karachi Building Control Authority and a High Court judgment declaring the relevant Building Control Regulations ultra vires. The Supreme Court held that the restriction imposed by the High Court stood removed due to the extension of the building plan, enabling the landlord to execute the ejectment order, while leaving open the validity of conditions imposed in the extension letter for appropriate future proceedings. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller or High Court can impose conditional restrictions on the execution of an ejectment order based on the suspension of a building plan?
- Does the Karachi Building Control Authority have the power to impose pre-conditions relating to tenant agreements on the renewal or sanction of a building plan?
- What are the rights and protections available to a tenant under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 upon eviction for reconstruction?
- TARIQ PARVEZ BUTT Versus MUHAMMAD SULTAN1986 SCMR 1654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-18Read full judgment →
- GUL MUHAMMAD Versus ASMAT ARA1986 SCMR 1651 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by a landlady against her tenant for the reconstruction of the demised property. The tenant raised a preliminary objection that the plot was not a rented land and contested the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller decided the preliminary issue against the tenant and, by the same order, summarily directed eviction due to the tenant's contumacious conduct in challenging jurisdiction, bypassing a trial on the merits regarding the landlady's bona fide requirement. The High Court dismissed the tenant's appeal, endorsing the view that the tenant's frivolous plea forfeited his right to contest on merits. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that under section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the Rent Controller is statutorily obligated to be satisfied through evidence that the premises are reasonably and in good faith required for reconstruction, notwithstanding the tenant's conduct. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the lower orders and remanded the case for a fresh decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller can order eviction upon deciding a preliminary issue against the tenant without adjudicating upon the landlord's bona fide requirement for reconstruction?
- Is a Rent Controller statutorily required to be satisfied under section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, regarding the landlord's good faith before ordering eviction?
- Does a tenant's frivolous objection to jurisdiction disentitle them from a trial on the merits of an eviction petition?
- ABDUL RASHID Versus STATE1986 SCMR 1617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-06-30Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS Versus STATE1986 SCMR 1597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two criminal petitions for leave to appeal arising from a trial court judgment regarding a double murder and murderous assault. The trial court convicted six individuals, sentencing them to death and imprisonment, while acquitting others. The High Court subsequently acquitted two of the six convicted individuals but maintained the convictions of the remaining four, reducing the death sentences of three to life imprisonment while confirming the death sentence of the fourth. The petitioners challenged these findings, arguing that the High Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, particularly regarding the parity of roles among the accused and the reliance on solitary ocular testimony. The complainant also challenged the acquittal of the two individuals by the High Court, asserting the evidence against them was identical to that of the convicted accused. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by both sides warranted further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court adhered to established principles for the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases.
Questions settled- Does the recovery of firearms from multiple accused, without matching ballistics, constitute sufficient corroboration of ocular testimony?
- Can a court maintain the conviction of some co-accused while acquitting others when the evidence against all is identical?
- Is it appropriate to maintain a death sentence for one accused while reducing the sentences of co-accused to life imprisonment when the roles attributed to them are substantially the same?
- AHMAD SULTAN KHAN Versus SANIN KAUSAR1986 SCMR 1591 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-07-01Read full judgment →
- AFZAL SATTAR Versus PRINCIPAL, KING EDWARD MEDICAL COLLEGE, LAHORE1986 SCMR 1570 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- GHULAM RAZA Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1986 SCMR 1502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil review petition arises from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the interpretation of Ordinance No. XIV of 1981 regarding the service status of certain employees. The core legal question is whether the Ordinance applied exclusively to employees whose appointments were made by the Council between April 3, 1977, and June 30, 1977, or whether it encompassed other temporary employees recruited on or after April 30, 1977. The Court held that the clear definitions of 'Council', 'Boards', and 'employee' under section 2 of Ordinance XIV of 1981 brought all temporary or ad hoc employees appointed in the Population Programme on or after April 30, 1977, within the purview of the Ordinance, regardless of whether their prior appointments stemmed from earlier years. The key principle laid down is that statutory definitions within a special enactment must be read comprehensively to determine the scope of applicability, superseding restricted interpretations advanced by individual litigants.
Questions settled- Does Ordinance No. XIV of 1981 cover employees appointed prior to 1977 who were inducted into the Population Programme on a temporary basis after April 30, 1977?
- Whether the definitions of employee, Council, and Board under section 2 of Ordinance XIV of 1981 include temporary and ad hoc employees appointed on or after April 30, 1977?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus STATE1986 SCMR 1480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two criminal appeals against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had upheld the conviction of Muhammad Rafiq under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and enhanced the sentence of Muhammad Siddique for an offense under Section 11 of the same Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the prosecutrix was abducted forcibly or was a consenting party, given the evidence regarding her age and conduct. Upon reviewing the prosecutrix's testimony, the Supreme Court observed that she had ample opportunity to escape, did not raise an alarm in a populated area, and remained in the accused's house for eight days without attempting to return to her parents. Furthermore, medical evidence established her age as 18 years. The Court held that the evidence indicated the prosecutrix was a consenting party, thereby negating the charge of abduction. Consequently, the Court acquitted Muhammad Siddique of the abduction charge and converted Muhammad Rafiq's conviction to the lesser offense of Zina under Section 10(2), reducing his sentence accordingly.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a prosecutrix to raise an alarm or attempt escape when opportunity exists indicate consent in Zina cases?
- Can a conviction under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be sustained if the prosecutrix is found to be a consenting party?
- Is a conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 sustainable if the element of force is negated by the finding of consent?
- ABDUR RASHID Versus GHULAM NABI1986 SCMR 1407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-22Read full judgment →
- AHMAD Versus KARAM HUSSAIN1986 SCMR 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN Versus BHAG DIN1986 SCMR 1383 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ABDUL WAHID Versus GHULAM HAIDER1986 SCMR 1378 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD1986 SCMR 1345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
- CRESCENT AND STAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1986 SCMR 1299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that allowed a constitutional petition filed by a claimant (respondent No. 4) regarding the transfer of a property plot. The core legal question was whether the respondent had acquired a vested right in the property despite the subsequent cancellation of her transfer application by the Settlement authorities and the subsequent transfer of the property to other parties. The Supreme Court held that because the Settlement authorities failed to contest the factual allegations and because the necessary transfer documents (appendices) had been duly prepared and signed by the competent officer, the respondent’s entitlement had matured. The Court affirmed that once these formalities were completed, the respondent acquired a vested right in the property, and subsequent administrative actions to cancel her entitlement were without lawful authority. Furthermore, the Court rejected arguments regarding laches and res judicata, noting the respondent had continuously and diligently pursued her legal remedies through multiple proceedings. The principle established is that where administrative formalities for property transfer are completed and signed, a vested right is created, which cannot be arbitrarily cancelled.
Questions settled- Does the preparation and signing of transfer appendices by a competent settlement officer create a vested right in the property for the applicant?
- Can administrative authorities cancel a property transfer entitlement after the necessary formalities and inquiries have been completed and documented?
- Does the continuous pursuit of legal remedies through various courts and petitions negate a claim of laches?
- ADAMJEE INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND1986 SCMR 1294 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-01-09Read full judgment →
- WALLA Versus A. C., KASUR1986 SCMR 1266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of 'Beshi' (excess) land in District Lahore. The petitioner, having received 25% excess land, challenged the High Court's dismissal of his appeal against the denial of this excess land by Settlement Authorities. The petitioner argued that the allotment was authorized by specific Rehabilitation Commissioner instructions and disputed the validity of admissions recorded against him. Furthermore, he contended that the respondent who initiated the 'Mukhbari' proceedings was an imposter. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's primary factual contention—regarding the timely filing and transfer of his claim form—was not raised or argued before the High Court and thus could not be entertained at the leave-to-appeal stage. Regarding the admissions, the Court found no error in the High Court's reliance on the petitioner's recorded statements. The Court held that the legitimacy of the respondent's status was immaterial, as resumed land would only be allocated to those legally entitled to it. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision.
Questions settled- Can a factual contention not raised or argued before the High Court be entertained for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Is the legitimacy of a Mukhbari applicant material if the resumed land is to be allocated to those legally entitled to it?
- Does the High Court err in relying on recorded admissions of a petitioner in settlement proceedings?
- ABDUL SHAKOOR Versus STATE1986 SCMR 1246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for murder and murderous assault. The core legal question revolves around whether the sudden fight during gambling, lacking pre-meditation and involving injuries on both sides, attracts Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby warranting a reduction of the murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court held that the incident stemmed from a sudden quarrel and mutual attack without pre-design, and that the combatants were on friendly terms prior to the dispute. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction under Section 302 to Section 304(1), reduced the life imprisonment to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, altered the Section 307 convictions to Section 308, and set aside the conviction under Section 449. The key legal principle laid down is that where a homicide occurs during a sudden fight without pre-meditation, and injuries are sustained by both parties indicating a lack of undue advantage or cruel manner, Exception IV to Section 300 applies to mitigate the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Whether a sudden fight arising during gambling without pre-meditation attracts Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 be altered to Section 304(1) when injuries are sustained by both the accused and the complainant party during a sudden altercation?
- Is a conviction under Section 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code sustainable when the evidence on record fails to establish the requisite ingredients of house-trespass for committing an offense punishable with death?
- ABDUL RAHMAN ALIAS AMANULLAH MANU Versus STATE1986 SCMR 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court upholding the appellant's conviction and sentence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for committing Zina-bil-jabr. Leave to appeal was specifically granted to examine the quantum of sentence, focusing on whether the highest sentence of rigorous imprisonment was appropriate and whether the gravity of the offence and its varying shades should be considered in sentencing. The Supreme Court observed that the injuries sustained by the prosecutrix were minor and caused by the blunt side of a weapon with minimal force, distinguishing this case from graver instances involving severe bodily harm or vulnerable victims. Holding that the maximum sentence of 25 years was excessive for the given circumstances, the Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to five years, maintained the 20 stripes, and imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000 to be paid as compensation to the prosecutrix. The key principle laid down is that sentencing under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, must reflect the relative gravity, aggravating circumstances, and degree of force used in each individual case rather than automatically attracting the maximum statutory punishment.
Questions settled- Whether the highest sentence of rigorous imprisonment is the only appropriate sentence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Is it relevant to consider the question of the gravity of the offence and its different shades when awarding the highest sentence for an offence?
- Does the use of minimal force and minor injuries in the commission of Zina-bil-jabr warrant a reduction in the sentence of rigorous imprisonment?
- ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, PAKISTAN REVENUES, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Versus ARBAB MUKHTAR AHMAD1986 SCMR 1206 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a petition filed by the Accountant-General, Pakistan Revenues, Islamabad against Arbab Mukhtar Ahmad. The core legal question is whether a government servant who is not regularly promoted, but is qualified and performs the functions of a higher post, is eligible to draw the financial benefits of that higher post, including pay with periodical increments. Relying on its previous ruling in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1985, the court held that a qualified government servant performing duties of a higher post without regular promotion is indeed entitled to draw the pay and periodical increments attached to the higher post. The court laid down the principle that the performance of higher duties by a qualified civil servant entitles them to corresponding remuneration and increments. Consequently, the petition was found to be without substance and was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a government servant who performs the functions of a higher post without regular promotion eligible to draw the pay and periodical increments of that higher post?
- Does a qualified civil servant performing duties of a higher post have the right to claim the financial benefits associated with it?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1986 SCMR 1175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHANI Versus STATE1986 SCMR 1174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court, which had refused to grant post-arrest bail to the accused/appellants charged under Section 17(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The accused were charged in a promptly lodged F.I.R. and attributed an effective role in the commission of the offence. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that their connection to the offence was not prima facie established, specifically noting that no weapon was recovered directly from their possession, as the pistol in question was discovered in a drain by a witness. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal. The Court held that the circumstances of the case warranted the concession of bail, effectively determining that the appellants' guilt was not so clearly established at this stage as to preclude bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and admitted the accused to bail, subject to the provision of surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a direct recovery of a weapon from the accused entitle them to the concession of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a criminal petition for leave to appeal into an appeal to grant bail?
- Is a case of further enquiry established when the prosecution fails to connect the accused to the recovery of the weapon?
- ABDUL GHANI Versus STATE1986 SCMR 1169 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMEED Versus STATE1986 SCMR 11 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court affirming the petitioner's conviction under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for possession of contraband charas, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question involves the appreciation of evidence regarding police recovery and the evidentiary value of the Chemical Examiner's Report. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact based on credible police testimony regarding the recovery of narcotics warrant no interference, as no mala fides or motive for false implication was established, and the contentions regarding non-production of public witnesses pertain strictly to factual appreciation. The key principle laid down is that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony, in the absence of proven ill-will or motive to falsely implicate, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under narcotics laws.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of police officials alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of narcotics under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
- Does the absence of public witnesses from a bus during a search render the recovery of contraband doubtful?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the Federal Shariat Court regarding the appreciation of evidence be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of a miscarriage of justice?
- ABDUR RABIM ALIAS RAHEEMA Versus STATE1986 SCMR 105 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant acted in the exercise of the right of self-defence or committed intentional murder, and whether the capital sentence remained appropriate given the circumstances of the encounter. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rejecting the plea of self-defence. The Court reasoned that the appellant inflicted nineteen injuries, including several after the deceased had fallen, which demonstrated an intent to kill rather than a defensive act. However, noting the incident was a chance encounter and that prosecution witnesses had exaggerated the involvement of the acquitted co-accused, the Court found the exact genesis of the altercation unclear. Consequently, while maintaining the conviction, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The key principle established is that the right of self-defence is unavailable where an accused inflicts excessive, brutal injuries on a victim who is already incapacitated, and that appellate courts may commute sentences when the prosecution's narrative of the incident's origin is ambiguous or exaggerated.
Questions settled- Does the infliction of excessive injuries after an adversary has fallen negate a plea of self-defence?
- Can an appellate court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment in a murder case involving a chance encounter?
- Is the presence of a single injury on an accused sufficient to establish a valid claim of self-defence against a murder charge?
- THE WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1986 SCMR 1012 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID Versus STATE1985 SCMR 980 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner, who had not surrendered to the police, was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the incriminating nature of the First Information Report and the circumstances of the alleged occurrence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the petition for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The Court reasoned that the determination of the petitioner's innocence or guilt is a matter to be adjudicated during the formal inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or at the subsequent trial. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is not appropriate where the accusation is supported by the First Information Report and the merits of the case require a full trial for resolution.
Questions settled- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the First Information Report implicates the accused in an occurrence witnessed in broad daylight?
- Should the question of an accused's innocence or guilt be determined at the pre-arrest bail stage or during the trial?
- Does the failure to surrender to the police affect the consideration of a pre-arrest bail application?
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus STATE1985 SCMR 81 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased over a marriage dispute. The core legal question was whether a compromise (Badal Sulah) between the legal heirs of the deceased and the convict could be accepted to mitigate the sentence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the compromise between the parties was fair and acceptable, leading to the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the conviction. The key principle laid down is that a genuine compromise between the heirs of a victim and an offender in a murder case can be considered by the court for the reduction of a sentence from death to life imprisonment, subject to the payment of agreed compensation and fine.
Questions settled- Can a compromise between the legal heirs of a deceased and a convict be accepted in a murder case to reduce a death sentence?
- Whether the Supreme Court can convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and reduce the sentence of death to life imprisonment based on a compromise?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN1985 SCMR 707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the acquisition of land under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 for a development scheme in Rawalpindi. The core legal questions were whether the Provincial Government possessed the locus standi to make a reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 when the acquisition was intended for a local authority, and whether the landowners were entitled to the 15% compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Government retains the authority to seek a reference under Section 18(3) even for acquisitions benefiting local authorities, as the legislative intent was to centralize control over such references. Furthermore, the Court held that the 15% compulsory acquisition charges are mandatory under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Court affirmed that previous modifications in the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 excluding these charges were ultra vires, as established in Province of West Pakistan v. Salim Ullah. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, granting the appellants the additional 15% compensation.
Questions settled- Does the Provincial Government have the locus standi to make a reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 when the land is acquired for a local authority?
- Are the 15% compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 mandatory for land acquired under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922?
- Does the deletion of the words 'or a local authority or a company' in Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by the 1958 amendment preclude the Provincial Government from seeking a reference for such acquisitions?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus STATE1985 SCMR 661 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN Versus STATE1985 SCMR 625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case rested primarily on ocular testimony and motive, alleging that the appellant emerged from ambush and inflicted fatal hatchet blows on the deceased. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the number and sequence of injuries were sufficient to discredit the eye-witnesses and render it an unwitnessed crime. The Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies and an honest error in estimating the number of rapid blows do not detract from the otherwise natural and credible testimony of eye-witnesses whose presence at the scene was undoubted. However, considering the appellant's young age and emotional state in seeking revenge for the prior murder of his uncle, the court held that the extreme penalty of death was unwarranted. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that minor inconsistencies or exaggerations in recounting rapid blows during a sudden assault do not vitiate otherwise reliable ocular testimony, and that youthful impulsiveness in retaliatory killings can constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries are sufficient to discredit eye-witnesses?
- Does an honest error by a witness in describing the exact sequence or count of rapid blows during a sudden assault vitiate their testimony?
- Whether youthful age and emotional impulsiveness in taking revenge for a prior murder constitute mitigating circumstances for commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- NAZAR HUSSAIN Versus STATE1985 SCMR 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of an appeal filed by the appellant, Nazar Hussain. During the hearing, the court was informed by the appellant's counsel, and subsequently confirmed by the Jail Superintendent, that the appellant had escaped from custody along with other prisoners and his whereabouts remained unknown. The core legal question addressed by the court is whether a criminal appellant who has escaped from lawful custody and become a fugitive from justice retains the right of audience before the court. Holding that an escaped convict is a fugitive from justice who has forfeited the right of audience, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The key principle laid down is that a fugitive from justice cannot be heard by the court while maintaining their defiance of the law.
Questions settled- Does a criminal appellant who escapes from jail forfeit their right of audience before the court?
- What is the legal consequence of an appellant becoming a fugitive from justice during the pendency of an appeal?
- ASHFAQ ALI QURAISHI Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MULTAN1985 SCMR 597 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an arbitration award made the rule of the court and directed the arbitrator to give a fresh award. The appellant had undertaken construction contracts for the Multan Municipal Corporation, leading to a dispute referred to arbitration under section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator made an award in favor of the appellant, which was filed in court, and notices were issued. The trial court held the Corporation's objections to be time-barred and made the award the rule of the court. The High Court allowed the Corporation's appeal, holding that service was not in accordance with Order XXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and that the arbitrator failed to give reasons or decide the issue of contract rescission. The Supreme Court held that formal notice requirements under Order XXIX are satisfied where parties have constructive or actual knowledge and appear through counsel, that an arbitrator is not bound to decide unreferred questions regarding contract rescission, and that courts must lean toward upholding arbitration awards rather than setting them aside for latent errors. The appeal was accepted and the trial court's order restored.
Questions settled- Whether a formal written notice of the filing of an arbitration award served in strict conformity with Order XXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory when the parties have actual or constructive knowledge and appear through counsel?
- Under what circumstances can an arbitration award be remitted or set aside by the court under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Is an arbitrator required to give findings on the legality of the rescission or abandonment of a contract when no such specific dispute was referred to arbitration and the claim is restricted to actual work done?
- Can an appellate court scrutinize an arbitration award to discover latent errors or sit in judgment over it as a court of appeal?
- HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND1985 SCMR 593 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus STATE1985 SCMR 557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by Muhammad Sadiq and Mian Khan against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld their convictions and sentences under Section 302/34 and Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Mehdi and a murderous assault on a prosecution witness. The trial court had sentenced Mian Khan to death and Muhammad Sadiq to life imprisonment, along with fines. The Supreme Court reviewed the prosecution's case, which relied on ocular testimony from three witnesses, including the injured party. While the petitioners' counsel failed to challenge the merits of the conviction, the Supreme Court examined the sentencing aspect in light of the motive presented by the prosecution. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition regarding Muhammad Sadiq, thereby maintaining his conviction and sentence. However, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically to consider whether the death sentence awarded to Mian Khan should be commuted to imprisonment for life, given the circumstances surrounding the motive for the crime.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal solely for the purpose of reconsidering the quantum of sentence?
- Is a conviction based on ocular testimony sustainable when the motive for the crime is established by the prosecution?
- NADEEM-UL-HAQ KHAN Versus STATE1985 SCMR 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the conviction of four appellants for offences under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question examined by the Court was whether the principles of appreciation of the defence version in criminal cases were properly applied by the courts below, particularly in light of rival versions, serious prior enmity, injuries sustained by the accused, and delayed First Information Report registration. The Supreme Court held that the defence version was plausible and created a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's narrative, noting that the accused had sustained numerous injuries (including sharp-edged wounds) that were inadequately explained by the prosecution and misconstrued by the lower courts. Applying the principle laid down in Safdar Ali v. Crown, the Court ruled that if there is a reasonable possibility that the defence version might be true, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the convictions and sentences were set aside.
Questions settled- What is the standard to be applied by a court when evaluating rival versions presented by the prosecution and the defence in a criminal trial?
- Does the presence of numerous unexplained injuries on the accused person cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's narrative of a one-sided attack?
- At what point is an accused person entitled to the benefit of the doubt arising from a plausible defence version?
- How does a delayed First Information Report impact a criminal case involving serious prior enmity between the parties?
- MUHAMMAD BANARAS Versus SHAH FAKHAR ZAMAN1985 SCMR 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1985 SCMR 472 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing review petitions in an urban settlement case. The core legal question concerns the competing rights of a subsequent auction-purchaser and a non-claimant in possession who had submitted a transfer form. The Supreme Court held that the auction of the property in dispute was illegal because the respondent, being in possession and having submitted an N.C.H. form, was entitled to the transfer of the property prior to any auction taking place. The Court established that a finding of fact regarding the submission of a transfer form, based on official reports and orders, cannot be easily disturbed, and a displaced person in possession who applied for transfer holds a superior right over a subsequent auction-purchaser. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an auction of property can legally take place without disposing of a pending transfer form submitted by a non-claimant in possession?
- Does a displaced person in possession who applied for transfer have a superior right over a subsequent auction-purchaser?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the submission of a transfer form?
- WAJID ALI Versus SAJID ALI1985 SCMR 401 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, filed as of right under Article 185(2)(e) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court making an umpire's award the rule of the court during a regular second appeal. The core legal questions involved whether an appellate court possesses the power under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to refer a dispute to arbitration for the first time during a second appeal, whether such reference must be restricted to questions of law, and whether the umpire's award suffered from legal misconduct. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an appellate court has the inherent power to refer a dispute to arbitration as original and appellate proceedings are steps in a series of judicial proceedings possessing an intrinsic unity. Furthermore, the reference is not strictly limited to points of law, and the allegations regarding the umpire's misconduct were unsubstantiated. The court laid down the principle that the statutory powers of a civil court under the Arbitration Act 1940 are available to an appellate court, and that original and appellate proceedings constitute a continuous legal process.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court has the power under section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to refer a dispute to arbitration for the first time during the pendency of a second appeal?
- Does the scope of a reference to arbitration in a second appeal stand restricted exclusively to questions of law?
- Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185 of the Constitution be curtailed or whittled down by Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- What constitutes legal misconduct by an umpire in failing to consult the record of the court?
- SHAMMAN Versus STATE1985 SCMR 216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected criminal appeals arising from a violent incident on June 8, 1975, in Jhang, where five persons were murdered and others were injured due to a long-standing blood-feud. The trial court convicted seven accused under sections 302/149, 307/149, 449/149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death and terms of imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted one co-accused, Waryam, but maintained the convictions and sentences of the remaining six. The Supreme Court of Pakistan evaluated the prosecution's evidence, which relied on an independent eye-witness and two injured eye-witnesses whose presence at the scene was indisputable. The Court held that the ocular account was consistent, unshaken by cross-examination, and corroborated by medical evidence and motive. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the convicts' appeal. The complainant's appeal against the acquittal of Waryam was also dismissed as it was barred by limitation by eight days without any sufficient cause shown for condonation.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an independent eye-witness, corroborated by injured witnesses and medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Can an appeal against acquittal be entertained if it is barred by limitation and no sufficient ground for condonation of delay is established?
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus STATE1985 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a conviction for murder and related offenses committed in 1971. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the absence of independent corroboration for interested witnesses rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of interested witnesses and the applicability of sentencing provisions introduced after the commission of the offense. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of the deceased's widow was credible and corroborated by the motive and the appellant's abscondence. The Court affirmed that there is no inflexible rule requiring independent corroboration for interested witnesses; rather, corroboration may be found in any circumstance satisfying the court of the witness's truthfulness. Furthermore, the Court held that the sentencing regime under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, could not be applied retroactively to a 1971 offense. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified from imprisonment for life to transportation for life, reflecting the law applicable at the time of the offense.
Questions settled- Is independent corroboration mandatory for the testimony of an interested witness in a criminal trial?
- Can sentencing provisions introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, be applied retroactively to offenses committed in 1971?
- Does the presence of discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Is an accused person vicariously liable for murder if their participation as a culprit is established, even if no specific fatal injury is attributed to them?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1985 SCMR 1922 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus TAJOO1985 SCMR 1911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus STATE1985 SCMR 1827 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN Versus STATE1985 SCMR 1818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Rehman against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which upheld his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Ali Nawaz and his wife Mst. Razia, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's defence version of grave and sudden provocation was reasonably possible, warranting the benefit of the doubt, and whether the same ocular testimony could be relied upon after co-accused were acquitted. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly rejected the defence plea for cogent reasons and properly distinguished the case of the petitioner from that of the acquitted co-accused. The key principle laid down is that where a plea of grave and sudden provocation is raised in defence, it must be evaluated against the overall evidence, and the testimony of witnesses can be accepted against one accused while being safely distinguished or discarded as to another based on individual roles and evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of prosecution witnesses can be relied upon to convict one accused when co-accused from the same trial have been acquitted?
- Is a petitioner entitled to the benefit of the doubt where his defence version of grave and sudden provocation is raised?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the rejection of a defence plea?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE1985 SCMR 1684 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who killed the deceased upon discovering him in his house at night, was entitled to the benefit of the plea of grave and sudden provocation, despite not having explicitly raised it at the trial. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's own evidence, which established the deceased's illicit relationship with the appellant's wife, sufficiently supported the defense's plea of grave and sudden provocation. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction for murder, substituted it with a conviction under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone. The judgment affirms that where the facts and circumstances appearing in the prosecution's own case support a plea of grave and sudden provocation, an accused is entitled to the benefit of that plea even if it was not specifically pleaded at the trial stage.
Questions settled- Can an accused be granted the benefit of a plea of grave and sudden provocation if it was not specifically pleaded at the trial?
- Does the discovery of a deceased in the appellant's house at night, given an established illicit relationship, constitute sufficient grounds to reduce a murder conviction to culpable homicide?
- Is an appellate court permitted to reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on the circumstances of the case?
- KHADIJA BEGUM Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1985 SCMR 1677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUR REHMAN Versus H. FAIZ MUHAMMAD1985 SCMR 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZAM Versus STATE1985 SCMR 1659 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a grant of leave to consider the reduction of the sentence of death to imprisonment for life for the appellants, who were convicted alongside a co-accused for murder committed during the course of a robbery. The core legal question was whether the benefit of extenuating circumstances—specifically, the inability to conclusively prove which of the two appellants fired the fatal shot—warranted a reduction of the death sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and held that the principle of extending the benefit of doubt regarding the attribution of a fatal shot does not apply to heinous offences like robbery or dacoity, which involve depravity of mind and create widespread public alarm. The key principle laid down is that perpetrators of murders committed during premeditated daylight robberies and dacoities are not entitled to a lesser punishment merely because it is uncertain which co-accused fired the fatal bullet.
Questions settled- Whether the benefit of doubt regarding the attribution of a fatal shot can be extended to reduce a death sentence in cases of murder committed during a robbery or dacoity?
- Does the uncertainty of which co-accused fired the fatal shot constitute an extenuating circumstance justifying a lesser punishment in heinous offences?
- Are precedents regarding sudden fights or spur-of-the-moment common intentions applicable to premeditated offenses like robbery and dacoity?
- PIR BAKHSH Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (CONS.)1985 SCMR 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SARDAR KHAN Versus SENIOR MEMBER (ESTABLISHMENT), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1985 SCMR 1483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal filed by a civil servant against his removal from service, which had been upheld by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appellant was initially convicted under anti-corruption laws, leading to his removal from service under rule 9 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules based on that conviction. Subsequently, the High Court set aside his conviction and acquitted him. Despite the acquittal, the Board of Revenue and the Service Tribunal maintained his removal, citing an 'unhonourable' acquittal and a poor service record, while invoking rule 7.3(a) of the Civil Service Rules. The core legal question was whether a removal from service grounded solely on a criminal conviction can survive the setting aside of that conviction on appeal, and whether the concept of 'honourable acquittal' justifies sustaining such removal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that once the conviction forming the sole basis of the removal under rule 9 is set aside, the foundational basis of the removal disappears, rendering the order ineffective. The Court laid down the principle that extraneous factors or a bad service record cannot be used to prop up a void removal order, and rule 7.3(a) deals strictly with pay and allowances during suspension rather than substantive grounds for removal.
Questions settled- Does the setting aside of a criminal conviction on appeal nullify an order of removal from service that was based solely on that conviction?
- Can rule 7.3(a) of the Civil Service Rules be invoked as a substantive ground for the removal of a civil servant?
- Is a service authority permitted to support a removal order using additional grounds such as a bad service record when the original foundational conviction has been set aside?
- Does an acquittal by granting the benefit of doubt preclude a civil servant from reinstatement when removed under rule 9 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus STATE1985 SCMR 1472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASHIM Versus PROVINCIAL ELECTION AUTHORITY, SIND1985 SCMR 1338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged a judgment of the Sind High Court which allowed a constitutional petition and ordered a fresh election for K.M.C. Electoral Unit No. 144. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court could interfere in election matters via constitutional jurisdiction when an election petition was available, whether the omission of a block in the official Gazette notification vitiated the election without proof of material effect, and whether the delimitation of constituencies depends strictly upon publication in the official Gazette. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that constituencies stand delimited after the finalization of the list through statutory procedures, and publication in the official Gazette is not a mandatory requirement that undoes valid delimitation. Furthermore, factual disputes regarding voter confusion and low voter turnout could not be resolved without evidence in constitutional jurisdiction and properly belonged to an election petition. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether publication of the final list of electoral units in the official Gazette is a mandatory requirement for the validity of delimitation under the Sind Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979?
- Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding voter confusion and material effect on election results in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether an election can be called in question through a constitutional petition when an alternative remedy by way of an election petition is provided by law?
- SHAUKAT ALI Versus STATE1985 SCMR 1213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI Versus BAGH DIN1985 SCMR 1198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHID Versus STATE1985 SCMR 1156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
- AHMAD Versus STATE1985 SCMR 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a criminal proceeding in which the petitioners, Ahmad and Zulfiqar, along with others, were tried for the double murder of Wali and Hamid Khan. The trial court convicted the petitioners under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced them to death. Upon appeal, the High Court altered their conviction to section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reduced their sentence to imprisonment for life. The petitioners subsequently approached the Supreme Court contending that the reduced sentence of imprisonment was still excessive. The Supreme Court considered the circumstances of the case, held that the petitioners had already been dealt with leniently by the High Court, and declined to interfere with the sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will reduce a sentence of imprisonment upheld by the High Court when the petitioners claim it is excessive?
- Does a sudden fight arising over a land dispute warrant the alteration of a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE1985 SCMR 1041 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1985-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for the murder of the appellant's wife, Mst. Nuran Bibi, for which the Lahore High Court had upheld a death sentence. The appellant initially claimed grave and sudden provocation, alleging he found his wife in a compromising position, but later repudiated this in his jail petition, asserting false implication by relatives. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that the three eye-witnesses were natural witnesses whose presence was plausible and whose testimony remained consistent. The Court rejected the appellant's defense of provocation, finding no evidence of prior enmity or ill-will. However, the Court determined that the murder was an impulsive act triggered by the deceased's refusal to accompany the appellant, rather than a premeditated killing. Consequently, while the Court maintained the conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, it set aside the death sentence, substituting it with life imprisonment, and granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellant.
Questions settled- Does the refusal of a spouse to return to the matrimonial home constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to mitigate a murder charge?
- Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the murder is found to be an impulsive act rather than premeditated?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a sentence of life imprisonment?
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus STATE1984 SCMR 950 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These cross-petitions arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the conviction of Muhammad Shafi under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the acquittal or lesser sentencing of his co-accused, alongside a complainant's revision petition seeking conversion of the conviction to murder under Section 302. The incident stemmed from a street dispute over earthwork and drainage water, leading to a physical altercation wherein the convict inflicted a fatal chhuri blow. The core legal questions involved whether the convict acted in self-defence and whether the conviction ought to be converted to murder. The Supreme Court held that the plea of self-defence was rightly rejected as the injuries sustained by the convict were minor and did not reasonably apprehend death or grievous hurt, and that no intention to cause death was established to warrant a conviction for murder. The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, upholding the High Court's judgment.
Questions settled- Whether minor injuries on the accused are sufficient to establish the right of self-defence when the opposite party is unarmed?
- Does the use of a knife by itself conclusively prove an intention to commit murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a High Court's appraisal of evidence and reduction of sentence under Section 304, Part II be interfered with when no legal error is shown?
- MUHAMMAD LQBAL Versus STATE1984 SCMR 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the appellant's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for three counts of murder, while altering his death sentence to imprisonment for life. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co-accused entered a house and fired at the deceased persons. The trial court and High Court acquitted the other co-accused due to a lack of corroboration and poor ocular evidence, but sustained the appellant's conviction based on partial eyewitness testimony. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained on tainted and conflicting ocular testimony when co-accused had been acquitted on the same evidence. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the ocular testimony was unreliable, uncorroborated, and inconsistent with medical evidence. The key principle laid down is that a conviction for murder cannot safely rest on inherently weak and tainted ocular testimony that has been disbelieved regarding co-accused, in the absence of strong, independent corroboration.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on tainted ocular testimony when the same evidence has been rejected regarding co-accused?
- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a witness who delayed reporting to the police can be relied upon to uphold a death sentence or life imprisonment?
- Is mere absence of enmity against prosecution witnesses sufficient to bring home a charge of murder when the evidence is inherently unreliable?
- ABDUL SATTAR Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI1984 SCMR 925 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment upholding an ejectment order against the appellant, who occupied property formerly associated with an industrial concern. The core legal questions concerned whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the respondents and the appellant, whether the property constituted an industrial concern exempt from rent control jurisdiction, and whether the High Court correctly inferred an oral tenancy in its writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship was not established. The Court found that the respondents' previous denials of subletting before settlement authorities contradicted their claim of an oral tenancy. Furthermore, the Court held that the mere issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) did not automatically create a statutory tenancy without the necessary declaration under the relevant settlement laws. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Additional District Judge, restoring the Rent Controller's order which had dismissed the ejectment application due to the disputed title. The principle laid down is that a landlord-tenant relationship cannot be inferred in the absence of clear evidence, especially when the alleged landlord has previously denied the existence of such a tenancy.
Questions settled- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) automatically create a statutory tenancy under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Can a High Court in writ jurisdiction establish the existence of an oral tenancy when no such finding was made by the lower courts and evidence is lacking?
- Is an objection regarding the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller based on the nature of the premises as an industrial concern maintainable if raised for the first time in a writ petition?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD1984 SCMR 919 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This certificated appeal arises from a suit filed by the respondent bank against the appellants for the recovery of money through the sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties. The claim was based on a promissory note and collateral securities executed by the defendants to cover a shortfall caused by the devaluation of sterling, after the bank opened letters of credit for importing goods from countries outside the sterling area. The trial court decreed the suit only partially, but the High Court allowed the bank's appeal and decreed the suit in full. The core legal question concerned the liability of the importer for the exchange rate shortfall resulting from the devaluation of sterling when an intermediary bank in the sterling area was utilized pursuant to prevailing banking practices and the terms of the letters of credit. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were liable under the terms of the contract and indemnity clauses to bear the loss caused by the devaluation and that they were estopped by their conduct from challenging the validity of the promissory note. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether an importer is liable for a shortfall arising from the devaluation of sterling when letters of credit for imports from outside the sterling area are routed through an intermediary bank in the sterling area?
- At what point in time does the liability of an importer to pay for goods under a letter of credit crystallize with respect to the exchange rate?
- Can an importer challenge the validity of a promissory note and collateral security on the grounds of undue influence after having accepted the goods and remained silent without written protest?
- WALI MUHAMMAD Versus NAWAB1984 SCMR 914 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a Lahore High Court judgment acquitting respondents in a murder case. The core legal question is whether an accused can be convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence after the rejection of ocular testimony, and whether the High Court erred in acquitting the respondent, Nawab, without considering such circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that while the acquittal of other respondents was justified due to the unreliability of eye-witnesses, the case against Nawab required further examination. The Court observed that circumstantial evidence—including the respondent's abscondence, the presence of a blood trail leading to his house, the fabrication of medical evidence, and the existence of a contemporaneous injury—was not adequately evaluated by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against Nawab's acquittal to determine if this evidence warranted conviction. The key principle established is that even where ocular testimony is rejected, a court must evaluate whether available circumstantial evidence is wholly incompatible with the accused's innocence before confirming an acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a court convict an accused based on circumstantial evidence if the ocular testimony is rejected?
- Does the fabrication of medical evidence by an accused constitute a relevant circumstance for conviction?
- Is an appellate court required to evaluate circumstantial evidence even after rejecting eye-witness accounts?
- SHAMSHAD Versus MUKKAMMIL SHAH1984 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a suit for possession of land instituted by respondents against mortgagees and subsequent defendants claiming adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the petitioners were merely tenants-at-will. Although the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and held that the petitioners had perfected title through adverse possession, the Peshawar High Court restored the trial court's decree upon revision, concluding from the revenue records that the petitioners were recorded as tenants-at-will and paying no rent did not confer ownership. The Supreme Court dismissed the leave petition, holding that consistent entries in Jamabandis designating the petitioners as tenants and the original owners in the ownership column negated the claim of adverse possession. Furthermore, the plea of res judicata could not be entertained for the first time before the apex court when it was not raised in the lower courts and lacked necessary foundational documents and parties. The key principle laid down is that long-term possession as a tenant without paying rent does not mature into adverse possession or ownership against the landlord.
Questions settled- Does long-term possession of land as a tenant without paying rent ripen into ownership by adverse possession?
- Can a plea of res judicata be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when it was not pleaded in the lower courts?
- Do entries in the revenue record showing a party in the column of tenants support a claim of ownership?
- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Versus ZAIN KHAN1984 SCMR 910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court refusing to restore an appeal dismissed in default for non-appearance. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court's dismissal of the Regular First Appeal under Order XLI, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without considering the merits was a proper exercise of discretion, and whether gross negligence by the appellant's counsel in failing to appear warrants interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's power under Order XLI, rule 17 to dismiss an appeal for non-appearance is plenary and discretionary, and where an appellant or their counsel has been grossly negligent and failed to appear on dates fixed—including on a restoration application fixed at their own request—the appellate court's refusal to restore the appeal does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. The key principle laid down is that an appellant cannot claim leniency or challenge the exercise of judicial discretion against them when they or their counsel exhibit gross negligence and lack of vigilance in prosecuting the proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court is bound to adjourn an appeal or whether it has plenary discretion to dismiss it under Order XLI, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the event of the appellant's non-appearance?
- Does the failure of a counsel to appear on multiple dates, including a date fixed at their own request for a restoration application, constitute sufficient ground for the Supreme Court to interfere with the High Court's refusal to restore an appeal?
- Can an appellant avoid the consequences of non-appearance by merely asserting that their counsel failed to inform them of the hearing date?
- SHAHID MALIK Versus STATE1984 SCMR 908 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner, Shahid Malik, was convicted by the Sessions Judge for committing zina-bil-jabr against a staff nurse and sentenced to fifteen years' rigorous imprisonment, thirty stripes, and a fine. The Federal Shariat Court upheld the conviction and sentence of imprisonment and stripes but set aside the fine, holding that it was not legally permissible under the relevant provision. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the acquittal of his co-accused mother, based on the same witness testimony, necessitated his own acquittal. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, finding that the acquittal of the co-accused did not undermine the credibility of the evidence against the petitioner. The Court affirmed that the testimony of witnesses could be relied upon to convict the principal offender even if the co-accused was acquitted due to a lack of evidence regarding conspiracy. The petition was dismissed, and the suspension of the sentence of stripes was withdrawn.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on the same witness testimony automatically invalidate the conviction of the principal offender?
- Can a fine be imposed for a conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Is the failure of a witness to rescue a victim sufficient to establish criminal conspiracy?
- AFTABA Versus RAZA KHAN1984 SCMR 906 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a civil dispute over the inheritance of a deceased person's estate, specifically involving Shamilat land claimed by the appellants under a will and contested by respondents seeking a 3/8th share. The core legal question was whether the appellants' claim to the Shamilat land was barred under section 3 of the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959, and whether title could be acquired through adverse possession among co-sharers. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' claim was hit by section 3 of the Ordinance and that the doctrine of adverse possession did not apply among co-sharers, dismissing the appeal. The key principles laid down are that disposition of Shamilat land is subject to statutory restrictions under the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959, and adverse possession cannot be claimed amongst co-sharers.
Questions settled- Whether title to Shamilat land can be acquired through adverse possession amongst co-sharers?
- Does the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959 apply to the disposition of Shamilat land claimed under a will?
- Whether a claim to Shamilat land is hit by section 3 of the West Pakistan Land Disposition (Saving of Shamilat) Ordinance, 1959 in the absence of a competent court decision to the contrary?
- ALI RAZA SHAH Versus STATE1984 SCMR 903 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by a convict arises as a matter of right under Article 203-F of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging his conviction and enhanced sentence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The appellant, a bus driver, was initially convicted by the trial court under sections 10(3) and 11 of the Ordinance. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court acquitted him under section 10(3) but enhanced his sentence under section 11 to life imprisonment, stripes, and fine. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the essential ingredients of the offence under section 11 were established beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the victim's initial statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which omitted allegations against the appellant and indicated his conduct may have been one of rescuing or assisting the victim. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and held that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary intent under section 11, giving the appellant the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the essential ingredients of an offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 are established when the initial statement of the victim under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 fails to attribute incriminating conduct or intent to the accused?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt where his conduct is equally consistent with rescuing the victim rather than abducting or seducing her?
- Can a conviction under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 be sustained in the absence of proof of the requisite statutory intent?
- INAYATULLAH Versus RENT CONTROLLER, RAWALPINDI1984 SCMR 901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld his eviction from a residential house. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to contest the quantum of rent or prove that non-payment of rent was not willful after the relationship of landlord and tenant was established, and whether the requisite statutory notice under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was served. The Supreme Court held that where a tenant mala fide and contumaciously denies the landlord's title and admits non-payment of rent, and where previous litigation has conclusively settled the question of ownership and transfer, no further inquiry or order regarding default is necessary, and the tenant is liable to immediate eviction. Furthermore, the concurrent finding regarding the service of notice was upheld. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant who mala fide denies the relationship of landlord and tenant is entitled to a further opportunity to contest the quantum of rent or show that default was not willful?
- Is an order of eviction justified without making a tentative rent order when default in the payment of rent is admitted and the denial of title is rejected?
- Whether notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was duly served upon the occupant?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus SAFAHUDDIN1984 SCMR 900 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
- GBULAM DAUD Versus STATE1984 SCMR 898 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KARIM Versus STATE1984 SCMR 896 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302/34, P. P. C., for the murder of Mst. Jamala. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence, including a judicial confession, last-seen evidence, recoveries, and a false first information report lodged by the appellant, was sufficient to sustain his conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence was indeed sufficient, noting that the retracted judicial confession was voluntary and truthful, supported by recoveries of blood-stained articles at the appellant's instance, the abscondence of co-accused, and corroborative testimony regarding motive. The key principle laid down is that a retracted judicial confession, when found voluntary and corroborated by reliable circumstantial evidence such as recoveries and the conduct of the accused, forms a sufficient basis for a criminal conviction.
Questions settled- Whether a retracted judicial confession can be relied upon for conviction if duly corroborated?
- Is the evidence of last seen together, coupled with a false first information report and recoveries, sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- RAB NAWAZ KHAN Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE1984 SCMR 895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus STATE1984 SCMR 893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- MAHMOODA BEGUM Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ1984 SCMR 890 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a High Court order dismissing an appeal as time-barred. The appellants challenged a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a bungalow. The appellants had initially filed their appeal in the District Court, which lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, and subsequently refiled in the High Court after the limitation period had expired. The core legal question was whether the delay in filing the appeal in the correct forum should be condoned, particularly given the appellant's claim of being a 'Pardahnashin' lady misled by her counsel's advice. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's status as a 'Pardahnashin' lady did not automatically entitle her to condonation of delay. The Court affirmed that gross negligence by counsel in failing to identify the correct forum for an appeal, despite clear statutory provisions, does not constitute a valid ground for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The principle established is that a client cannot seek condonation of delay based on counsel's gross negligence; the remedy for such professional failure lies in a suit for damages against the counsel.
Questions settled- Does the status of a 'Pardahnashin' lady automatically entitle a litigant to condonation of delay in filing an appeal?
- Can gross negligence by a counsel in filing an appeal in the wrong forum constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act 1908?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a client who suffers loss due to their counsel's gross negligence in legal proceedings?
- GHULAM HAIDER Versus STATE1984 SCMR 887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of three individuals and sentenced to death. The incident arose from a dispute over the construction of a wall by the deceased, which obstructed the appellant's access to his portion of a shared property. Following an altercation involving verbal abuse and the throwing of clods of earth, the appellant killed the three deceased using a knife. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant acted in self-defence or exceeded that right. The Court held that while the deceased's actions regarding the property constituted mischief under Section 425 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the appellant faced an initial physical attack, the appellant's use of force was excessive and cruel, thereby exceeding the right of private defence. The Court affirmed the conviction but concluded that the absence of premeditation or prior malice rendered the death penalty inappropriate. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment, ordering them to run concurrently.
Questions settled- Does the construction of a wall that obstructs access to a shared property constitute mischief under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a person claim the right of private defence when they have exceeded the force necessary to protect their person or property?
- Is the death penalty appropriate in a murder case where there is no evidence of premeditation or prior malice?
- Does the right of private defence against property extend to causing the death of an aggressor?
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ Versus PAKISTAN1984 SCMR 886 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASAF ZAFAR Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1984 SCMR 884 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI1984 SCMR 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
- HAROON Versus UMAR AHMED1984 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which dismissed the petitioner's First Rent Appeal against an ejectment order. The respondent landlord had originally sought the ejectment of the petitioner from a shop premises, citing personal and bona fide requirement for his own occupation, as well as for his children and grandchildren, alongside allegations of tenancy infringement. The Rent Controller initially allowed the ejectment application, finding the landlord's requirement to be bona fide. Upon appeal, the High Court affirmed this decision, concluding that the findings were supported by the evidence on record. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged these findings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. Emphasizing that there were concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide requirement, the Court determined that these findings did not raise any substantial question of law and were therefore unexceptionable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
Questions settled- Do concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide requirement for premises constitute a question of law suitable for Supreme Court review?
- Can a landlord obtain an ejectment order based on the personal and bona fide requirement of the premises for himself and his descendants?
- MUHAMMAD AHMAD Versus SAKINA BEGUM1984 SCMR 881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
- SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HEADQUARTER, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF1984 SCMR 879 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus ANJUMAN TALIM-UL-ISLAM1984 SCMR 877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB1984 SCMR 876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSF Versus MUMTAZ BIBI TARIN1984 SCMR 874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- NUR SULTAN Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN1984 SCMR 873 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the respondents for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder. The respondents were originally tried and convicted by a Magistrate for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically for causing the death of the deceased and injuries to others. The complainant sought to alter the charge to murder (Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860), arguing that the trial court and subsequently the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offense. The core legal question was whether the appellate court correctly affirmed the lower court's finding that there was no premeditated intention to kill, thereby justifying the conviction under Section 304 rather than Section 302. The Supreme Court held that since the lower courts concurrently found no intention to kill based on the evidence—noting the incident was not premeditated and involved a single fatal blow—it would not re-appraise the evidence. The petition was dismissed as the findings were supported by the record.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence regarding the intention to kill when lower courts have reached concurrent findings?
- Is a trial court required to alter a charge to murder if the evidence does not disclose an intention to kill?
- Does a single fatal blow in a non-premeditated scuffle necessarily establish an intention to commit murder?
- SBARIF MASIH Versus JAMILA MARRY1984 SCMR 871 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →