Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.

• MUHAMMAD YASIN Versus STATE1984 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-09
  explosive substancesmalicious intentpossession of explosivesburden of proofappellate poweralteration of convictionreasonable suspicion
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted by the trial court under sections 3 and 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, following an accidental explosion in his residence that injured him and his minor son. The core legal question was whether the evidence established the necessary elements of malicious intent or specific intent to endanger life required for convictions under sections 3 and 4(b). The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the requisite malicious intent or specific intent for sections 3 and 4(b), as the appellant himself suffered injuries, negating the element of malice. However, the Court found the appellant’s possession of explosives under suspicious circumstances satisfied the requirements of section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Court laid down the principle that section 5 does not require strict proof of mala fide intent, only that surrounding circumstances create a reasonable suspicion of unlawful possession, shifting the burden of rebuttal to the accused. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction to section 5 and reduced the sentence accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the accidental injury of the accused in an explosion negate the element of 'maliciously' causing an explosion under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • Does Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, require proof of specific mala fide intent, or is reasonable suspicion of unlawful possession sufficient?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction to a section for which the trial court did not explicitly impose a sentence, provided the accused was charged under that section?
  Read full judgment →
• ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus PUNJAB SERVICES TRIBUNAL1984 SCMR 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATIE OFFICER, G H Q, RAWALPINDI1984 SCMR 864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
• DIN MUHAMMAD Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1984 SCMR 863 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-02
  abatement of appealcondonation of delaylegal representativesdeath of appellantSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where the sole appellant, Din Muhammad, passed away during the pendency of the proceedings on 12-12-1978. The core legal question was whether the delay of nearly forty-four months in filing an application for setting aside abatement and bringing the legal representatives on record could be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause. Holding that no sufficient cause was shown for the extraordinary delay, the Court decided that the delay could not be condoned. The key principle laid down is that where an appeal abates due to the death of a party and no sufficient cause is established for a prolonged failure to bring legal representatives on record within the prescribed limitation period, the abatement will not be set aside and the appeal stands disposed of as abated.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal abate if an application to bring legal representatives on record is not filed within the prescribed period?
  • Can a delay of nearly forty-four months in seeking to set aside abatement be condoned without sufficient cause?
  • How is an appeal disposed of when an application for condonation of delay in bringing legal representatives on record is rejected?
  Read full judgment →
• KHUDA BAKHSH Versus FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1984 SCMR 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• ATIQUE HUSSAIN Versus FAQIR MUHAMMAD1984 SCMR 859 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-16
  interim injunctionconstruction disputeright of supportbuilding safetycourt-appointed expertleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a High Court judgment dismissing an appeal concerning competing suits for injunctions regarding construction work on a building in Karachi. The petitioners, occupants of the upper floors, sought to restrain the respondents, owners of the ground floor, from making alterations. Conversely, a building contractor filed a suit seeking to restrain the petitioners from interfering with the construction. The High Court granted an injunction allowing the construction, subject to the condition that a licensed architect appointed by the Nazir of the High Court inspect the premises to certify that the proposed work would not adversely affect the safety of the upper floors. The petitioners challenged this, arguing they were not informed of the inspection or the resulting certificate. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's condition adequately safeguarded the petitioners' interests. It emphasized that once the court-ordered safeguard was implemented, the burden lay on the petitioners to raise objections if they were dissatisfied with the architect's findings. Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court-ordered inspection by a licensed architect is a sufficient safeguard for occupants of upper floors during ground floor construction?
  • Is it the responsibility of the party benefiting from a court-ordered condition to ensure its compliance or object to its execution?
  • Can an injunction against interference with construction be sustained if the court imposes protective conditions for the safety of other occupants?
  Read full judgment →
• BAHADUR Versus STATE B1984 SCMR 855 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-21
  murderacid throwingtransferred malicemens reaimminently dangerous actsentence commutationcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the petitioner under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of an infant who was accidentally injured by sulfuric acid intended for the child's mother. The core legal question was whether the conviction for murder was sustainable given that the child's death was accidental, and whether clause fourthly of section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applied regarding the requisite degree of knowledge. The Supreme Court held that the conviction for murder under section 302 was fully justified as the appellant had direct knowledge of the child's presence and the imminently dangerous nature of throwing corrosive acid. However, considering that the appellant was not convicted of attempting the life of the principal victim, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life while maintaining the conviction. The key principle laid down is that where an accused throws corrosive acid with the knowledge that a child is present in the lap of the primary target, the resulting death falls squarely within clause fourthly of section 300, importing direct knowledge of the fatal consequences regardless of whether the primary intent was directed at the mother.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the accidental death of a child caused by acid intended for another person constitutes murder under clause fourthly of section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does throwing corrosive acid at a person holding an infant establish the requisite degree of knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death?
  • Can a lesser sentence of imprisonment for life be awarded instead of death when the accused had no intention to kill the primary target but caused a bystander's death?
  Read full judgment →
• DIVISIONAL EVACUEE TRUST COMMITTEE Versus MUHAMMAD IDRIS QURESHI1984 SCMR 851 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
• PERVAIZ Versus STATE1984 SCMR 848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-26
  murderdeath sentencequantum of sentencecompromisecompensationdying declarationmitigation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that confirmed the appellant's conviction and death sentence for murder. The primary legal question concerned the appropriateness of the death penalty, specifically whether a compromise between the parties and the payment of compensation could justify a reduction in sentence. The Supreme Court, having previously granted leave to appeal solely on the quantum of sentence, examined the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented. The Court found that the conviction was soundly based on ocular evidence and a dying declaration. However, upon being satisfied that a genuine compromise had been reached and that adequate compensation had been paid to the heirs of the deceased, the Court exercised its discretion to mitigate the punishment. Consequently, the Court set aside the death sentence, substituting it with life imprisonment, and enhanced the fine to be paid as compensation to the heirs. This decision reinforces the principle that a bona fide compromise and restitution to the victim's family are significant factors in judicial sentencing discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the parties and payment of compensation to the heirs of the deceased justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is a dying declaration admissible and reliable even if the deceased suffered injuries to the mouth and jaws?
  • Does the payment of compensation to the heirs of the deceased constitute a valid basis for enhancing a fine in lieu of a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM NABI Versus ABDUL HAMID1984 SCMR 845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-07Read full judgment →
• ALI ZAMAN Versus WAHAB NUR1984 SCMR 843 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-05
  purdahnashin ladypower of attorneyfraudsale of landmutationletters patent appealcertificate of fitness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two petitions for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed Letters Patent Appeals arising from a property dispute. The core legal questions involve the validity of a sale of land executed through a general attorney on behalf of a purdahnashin lady, the effect of subsequent cancellation of the power-of-attorney, and the competency of a Letters Patent Appeal without a certificate from the Single Judge. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court that the power-of-attorney was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation without explaining its contents to the purdahnashin lady, and that no consideration was received by her. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable without the requisite certificate of the Single Judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, holding that the sale transactions based on the fraudulent power-of-attorney were void and that the procedural requirement of a certificate for a Letters Patent Appeal is mandatory.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sale executed through a power-of-attorney obtained from a purdahnashin lady by fraud and without explaining its contents is valid?
  • Is a Letters Patent Appeal competent against a Single Bench judgment without a certificate from the learned Single Judge?
  • What is the effect of the cancellation of a power-of-attorney after a disputed property transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZEERUDDIN Versus ABDUL RASHID1984 SCMR 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-17
  leave to appealtentative rentchronic defaultstriking off defenceejectmenttenant eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his second appeal by the Lahore High Court, which upheld his eviction on the ground of chronic default in complying with rent deposit orders. An ejectment application was filed against the petitioner alleging default in rent payment since 1966. The Rent Controller fixed a tentative rate of rent and directed the deposit of arrears and future rent. Upon the petitioner's failure to comply, his defense was struck off and his ejectment was ordered. Subsequent appeals before the Additional District Judge and the High Court were similarly dismissed after the petitioner repeatedly failed to comply with deposit orders and offered no satisfactory explanation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether any legal error existed in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Rent Controller and the High Court. The Court held that the dismissal of the second appeal was eminently justified given the admitted non-compliance and chronic default without explanation. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, laying down that consistent unexcused default in complying with tentative rent fixation orders warrants the striking off of defense and eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to tentatively fix the rate of rent when a dispute arises regarding the rate of rent?
  • Does consistent non-compliance with rent deposit orders passed under the Rent Restriction Ordinance justify striking off a tenant's defence?
  • Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a second appeal against eviction when the tenant fails to deposit arrears and future rent as ordered?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUKHDOOM Versus STATE1984 SCMR 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-07
  triple murdercapital punishmentcommutation of death sentencebenefit of doubtcorroboration of eyewitnessesinadequate motiveappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the death sentences of two appellants, Muhammad Makhdoom and Muhammad Munir, convicted for a triple murder along with related charges. The core legal questions involved the necessity of corroborating eyewitness testimony in cases of long-standing enmity and the appropriateness of the extreme penalty of death under the circumstances. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the participation of one appellant, Muhammad Munir, and his absconding brother was established beyond doubt, the participation of the other appellant, Muhammad Makhdoom, suffered from major evidentiary doubts and inconsistencies, leading to his acquittal. Regarding sentence, the Court held that the failure of the prosecution to prove an adequate motive and the suppression of the immediate cause of the violent incident warranted commuting the death sentence of Muhammad Munir to transportation for life. The key principles laid down relate to the standard of proof required for corroboration in partisan witness testimonies, the evaluation of mitigated culpability due to concealed immediate provocation, and the strict scrutiny of individual roles in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether eyewitness testimony requires corroboration in cases involving long-standing enmity and related witnesses?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an adequate motive justify commuting a death sentence to transportation for life?
  • Can the participation of an accused be affirmed when medical evidence contradicts the specific role attributed to him?
  • What is the effect on sentencing when the prosecution conceals the immediate cause of a violent occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• MANSU KHAN Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS)1984 SCMR 836 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Versus HAMIDULLAH1984 SCMR 835 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD NAWAZ Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL1984 SCMR 834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
• ABDU, SATTAR ALIAS BABU Versus STATE1984 SCMR 832 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-12
  sentence reductiondeath sentencemitigating circumstancegrave and sudden provocationcriminal appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises out of a leave granted solely to consider the question of sentence imposed upon the appellant, Abdus Sattar. The core legal question was whether the grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased slapping the appellant earlier at a village panchayat warranted mitigating the death sentence to imprisonment for life, particularly when a similar mitigating circumstance had been extended to a co-accused. The Supreme Court held that the slap administered by the deceased amounted to a provocation, the benefit of which ought to have been extended to the appellant, especially since it was extended to his elder brother. The Court ruled that the slapping constituted a mitigating circumstance rendering the extreme penalty of death undeserved. Consequently, the Supreme Court reduced the appellant's sentence of death to imprisonment for life, while dismissing the appeal in all other respects. The key principle laid down is that public insult and slapping at a village panchayat by an adversary can constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a public slap received at a village panchayat constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the benefit of provocation extended to a co-accused should also be extended to the principal accused who directly suffered the insult?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI KHAN Versus STATE1984 SCMR 716 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-10
  culpable homicide not amounting to murdersudden quarrelheat of passionfree fightsuppression of injuriesmurder conviction alteredself-defense
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had set aside the acquittal of the appellant by the trial court and convicted him under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased, sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The incident occurred inside a police station where rival parties had arrived following an earlier violent clash. During a verbal altercation, the appellant inflicted a single fatal knife wound on the deceased. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances, noting the absence of premeditation, the presence of injuries on the accused side which the police witnesses had suppressed, and the sudden heat of passion arising from the confrontation. The core legal question was whether the offense constituted premeditated murder under section 302 or fell within the exceptions for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court held that the circumstances attracted Exception IV of section 300, punishable under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code. The court accordingly partially allowed the appeal, altering the conviction to section 304, Part I, and reducing the sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden fight arising from a verbal altercation at a police station attract Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party by eyewitnesses affects the reliability of the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be altered to section 304 Part I when the act was committed without premeditation in the heat of passion?
  Read full judgment →
• SARDAR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1984 SCMR 714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-19
  jail appealmedical evidenceocular testimonycommon intentioncontradiction in evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenges the conviction of the appellants, Sardar and Dildar, primarily on the ground of an alleged contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular testimony regarding the weapon used against the deceased. The core legal question is whether discrepancies in weapon attribution and medical findings vitiate the eyewitness testimony and the application of common intention. The court held that there was no material discrepancy between the medical and ocular evidence, noting that the injured eyewitness corroborated the use of the .12 bore pistol by one of the appellants, and that both appellants were present and active during the incident. The court laid down the principle that the presence of an accused and active participation, along with corroborative medical evidence on another injured witness, sufficiently sustains a conviction under common intention, even if specific shots aimed at the deceased missed or left no corresponding injuries.

  Questions settled

  • Whether discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding weapon use is sufficient to set aside a conviction?
  • Does the absence of specific weapon injuries on a deceased person exonerate an accused shown to be present and participating with common intention?
  • Whether leave to appeal can be recalled upon re-evaluation of the prosecution and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• ANGLO-ARABIC COLLEGE AND SCHOOL Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984 SCMR 625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
• EJAZ HUSSAIN Versus SAEED AHMAD BUTT1984 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-16
  leave to appealre-examination of witnessestransfer of Sessions Judgematerial prejudicecriminal trialpredecessor evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Baluchistan setting aside a trial court's order for the re-examination of prosecution witnesses following the transfer of the previous Sessions Judge. The core legal question is whether a Sessions Judge is legally mandated to recall and re-examine witnesses previously recorded by a predecessor upon the engagement of new counsel or change of judge, or whether reliance on prior testimony is permissible. The Supreme Court held that under Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as amended, a Sessions Judge may act on evidence recorded by a predecessor and is not bound to re-examine witnesses unless the accused is materially prejudiced. The key principle laid down is that the mere change of a trial judge or engagement of a new counsel does not automatically entitle the accused to a de novo trial or the re-examination of already recorded witnesses unless material prejudice is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Sessions Judge is bound to re-examine witnesses recorded by a predecessor upon a change of judge?
  • Does the engagement of a new counsel by the accused automatically warrant the recall of prosecution witnesses already examined?
  • Under what circumstances may a High Court order a new trial or the re-examination of witnesses under Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus STATE1984 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE1984 SCMR 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984 SCMR 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus SHER AHMED1984 SCMR 419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-14
  acquittalconcurrent findings of factreappraisal of evidencecriminal revisionabsconding accusedleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant, Muhammad Aslam, challenging the acquittal of the respondents, Sher Ahmad and Mumtaz alias Taj, who were previously acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Attock, for the murder of Ashraf. The High Court had subsequently dismissed the petitioner's revision petition against that acquittal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel sought a reappraisal of the evidence. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner failed to raise any question of law or provide sufficient grounds to warrant interference with the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the acquittal. The Court further clarified that this dismissal would not prejudice or affect the pending case against the third accused, Muhammad Akram, who remained an absconder. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not typically undertake a fresh reappraisal of evidence in the absence of a substantial question of law or compelling reasons to disturb concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in an acquittal case where no question of law is raised?
  • Does the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of co-accused affect the case of an absconding co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE1984 SCMR 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
• DOST MUHAMMAD Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN KHAN1984 SCMR 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-08
  pre-emptioncontingent decreedeposit of decretal amountextension of timeinterim stay orderdismissal in defaultappellate court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a grant of leave to appeal to examine whether a pre-emptor-decree-holder's first appeal in the High Court against a pre-emption decree regarding the price of land could survive the non-compliance with the terms of the decree which entailed the dismissal of their suit. The appellants challenged the High Court's order holding that the appeal survived despite a prior dismissal in default of an interim stay application regarding the deposit of the decretal amount. The core legal question was whether the interim refusal to restore a default dismissal of a stay application exhausts the appellate court's discretion to subsequently consider the extension of time for depositing the decretal amount at the final disposal stage or upon an application. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that provisional or interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of an appeal do not exhaust the primary and extensive power of the appellate court to adjudicate the cause finally and meaningfully on its merits, including the grant of reasonable time to deposit the decretal amount. The Court reaffirmed that while a pre-emptor files an appeal without complying with a contingent decree at their own peril, the appellate court retains the discretion to extend time or preserve the appeal until its final hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emptor's first appeal against a pre-emption decree survives non-compliance with the conditional deposit terms of the trial court decree?
  • Does the refusal by an appellate court to restore a dismissed interim stay application exhaust its power to subsequently grant an extension of time for depositing the decretal amount?
  • Can an appellate court consider and grant an extension of time for depositing the decretal amount at the final hearing of a pre-emption appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus STATE1984 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-12-06
  murdersolitary eye-witnessdelayed FIRcircumstantial evidencefire-arms expertcriminal appealmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the appellant's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and his sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the solitary, interested ocular testimony of the complainant, in the face of alleged discrepancies regarding the First Information Report delay, motive, and minor medical inconsistencies, could lawfully form the sole basis of the murder conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that the minor discrepancies in the complainant's testimony were immaterial and that his natural presence, lack of personal animus, and corroboration by unblemished circumstantial weapon recovery evidence sufficiently established guilt. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies regarding details and delay in lodging the First Information Report do not impair the credibility of a natural and otherwise trustworthy ocular witness, especially when corroborated by reliable forensic and circumstantial evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the solitary statement of an interested ocular witness form the sole basis of a murder conviction?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report necessarily undermine the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Whether minor discrepancies between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence are sufficient to discard an otherwise reliable eye-witness?
  • Is circumstantial evidence consisting of a weapon recovery rendered inadmissible solely due to a delay in despatching the empty cartridge to the forensic laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAH KISHWAR Versus IKRAMULLAH1984 SCMR 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-23
  leave to appealmurder referencedying declarationreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealacquittalsentence commutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment in a murder case, where the High Court had acquitted one co-accused and commuted the death sentence of the other to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s reappraisal of the evidence, including the dying declaration and oral testimony, was legally sound and whether the acquittal and sentence reduction were justified. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s analysis of the evidence was proper and unexceptionable. The Court determined that the High Court correctly identified and excluded exaggerations and embellishments in the prosecution's case, ensuring the safe administration of criminal justice. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court's reappraisal of evidence in criminal matters where the lower court has correctly analyzed the facts, particularly in cases involving counter-reports and sudden occurrences, provided no significant question of law is raised.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with the High Court's reappraisal of evidence in a murder appeal if the analysis is found to be proper?
  • Can the same evidence be used to convict one accused while being disbelieved regarding another co-accused?
  • Is the High Court justified in commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment based on its analysis of the evidence and the nature of the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• BAKHTINA Versus SALTNAT1984 SCMR 234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
• ABDUL JABBAR KHAN Versus DIRECTOR, PCSIR LABORATORIES, PESHAWAR UNIVERSITY1984 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF Versus STATE1984 SCMR 211 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-01
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtinterested witnesscommon objectgrievous hurtattempt to murderconviction maintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, along with co-accused, was tried for trespassing and attempting to cause death, resulting in grievous injury to a victim. While the trial court convicted the petitioner and co-accused, the High Court subsequently acquitted the co-accused while maintaining the petitioner's conviction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction could be sustained on the same evidence that led to the acquittal of his co-accused, and whether the prosecution evidence, being allegedly interested, required independent corroboration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was directly charged and specifically identified for causing a severe head injury resulting in partial paralysis. The Court found no merit in the argument regarding the inconsistency of the acquittal of co-accused, as the evidence against the petitioner was distinct and sufficient. The principle affirmed is that where direct, specific evidence of a distinct criminal act exists against an accused, a conviction may be maintained even if co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained against one accused when co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence?
  • Does the testimony of an interested witness require independent corroboration in all criminal cases?
  • Is a conviction for attempted murder sustainable where the accused is specifically identified for causing grievous injury?
  Read full judgment →
• BAHADUR KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR1984 SCMR 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-23
  leave to appealculpable homicidemedical evidencecause of deathperitonitiscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment that acquitted certain respondents of murder charges and modified convictions for hurt. The core legal question involves whether the High Court correctly appraised medical evidence regarding the cause of death—specifically, whether stab wounds to the abdomen, which led to peritonitis, constituted an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death under the definition of culpable homicide. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the acquittal of one respondent (Mir Zaman) to re-examine the evidence regarding the nature of the injury and the intent behind the act, referencing the principle that death caused by bodily injury is attributable to the assailant even if medical treatment might have prevented it. Conversely, the Court refused leave to appeal regarding the acquittal of the other respondents. The judgment reaffirms the necessity of evaluating medical evidence in the context of statutory definitions of homicide and the causal link between injury and death.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injury that leads to peritonitis and subsequent death constitute an act sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death?
  • Can a court determine the nature of a fatal injury even if the medical expert does not explicitly state it is sufficient to cause death?
  • Is a person who causes a bodily injury deemed to have caused the death even if the death might have been prevented by skillful medical treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• MALIK KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB1984 SCMR 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-23
  criminal appealmurderacquittalocular testimonyinterested witnesschance witnessleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Malik Khan, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the conviction and death sentence/imprisonment for life of the respondents, Muhammad Yaqub and Samandar Khan, for the murder of the complainant's brother, Amir Hussain, and acquitted them. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the ocular testimony and acquitting the respondents. The Supreme Court held that where ocular evidence requires strictest scrutiny and the prosecution witnesses are interested or chance witnesses with existing enmities, and where the joinder of accused appears artificial without proof of a common cause or conspiracy, the High Court's view acquitting the accused is a possible view requiring no interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly rejected, affirming that the Supreme Court will not interfere with an acquittal based on a plausible view of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal based on a plausible view of the evidence taken by the High Court?
  • Does ocular testimony in a capital case require the strictest possible scrutiny when coming from interested or chance witnesses?
  • How should evidence be examined when there is a danger of artificial joinder of accused persons based on separate enmities?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus STATE1984 SCMR 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-11-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1984 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-31
  Supreme Court RulesSingle Benchcondonation of delayinterim reliefbail pending appealleave to appealZina
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a reference before the Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the competence of a Single Bench in Chambers to consider an application for interim relief, specifically bail and suspension of sentence, when the main petition for leave to appeal is prima facie time-barred and the application for condonation of delay is pending. The core legal question addressed is whether a Single Judge in Chambers can grant interim relief before the delay in filing the main petition is condoned. The Court held that while the power to condone delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal is not vested in a Single Bench (as 'and' in the relevant rule is read conjunctively, making refusal or condonation equivalent to disposal reserved for a larger bench), the power of a Single Bench to pass interim orders such as bail or stay of execution under specific clauses of the Supreme Court Rules is not restricted by the mere fact that the main petition is time-barred. Consequently, leave to appeal was also granted on merits to re-appraise the evidence regarding Zina charges where public witnesses were hostile and police enmity was alleged.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Single Bench in Chamber can deal with the question of interim relief if the petition is prima facie time-barred and the application for condonation of delay is yet to be heard and disposed of?
  • Does the power of a Single Bench to pass an interim order for grant of bail or stay of execution get clogged by the main petition being apparently filed beyond the prescribed time?
  Read full judgment →
• CHAIRMAN, CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED TRIBAL AREA (CATA) DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PESHAWAR Versus MALIKZADA MUHAMMAD AKBAR1984 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  ex parte decreestay of executionmoney decreeprocedural negligencesecurity for decretal amountcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved two connected proceedings: a petition for special leave to appeal against an order setting aside an ex parte decree, and an appeal against an order staying execution of a money decree. In the first matter, the petitioners failed to seek a stay of proceedings before the trial court, resulting in the passing of a decree and rendering the petition infructuous. The Supreme Court dismissed this petition, noting the petitioners' own negligence. In the second matter, the High Court had stayed the execution of a money decree without requiring the deposit of the decretal amount or security. The Supreme Court held that this violated the proviso to Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court established the principle that the execution of a money decree cannot be stayed without ordering the deposit of the decretal amount in court or the furnishing of sufficient security. Consequently, the Court modified the stay order, conditioning it upon the deposit of the decretal amount, while allowing the appellant to withdraw it against a bank guarantee.

  Questions settled

  • Can the execution of a money decree be stayed without requiring the deposit of the decretal amount or the furnishing of security?
  • Does a failure to seek a stay of proceedings in the trial court render a petition for special leave to appeal against an interlocutory order infructuous upon the passing of a final decree?
  • What is the effect of failing to comply with the proviso to Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the stay of execution of a money decree?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus STATE1984 SCMR 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-19
  leave to appealZina-bil-Jabrhostile witnessappreciation of evidencecompromisesentence reductionFederal Shariat Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which upheld the petitioner's conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, along with a sentence of 14 years rigorous imprisonment and 20 stripes for committing Zina-bil-Jabr with a minor. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence from eye-witnesses and hostile witnesses, the legal effect of an alleged compromise between the parties regarding sentence reduction, and the treatment of improvements in witness statements. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts rightly relied on the eye-witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, that the alleged compromise was not satisfactorily proved, and that the sentence awarded did not merit interference. The Court laid down that concurrent findings based on proper appreciation of evidence will not be disturbed unless found defective, and an unproved compromise cannot serve as a ground for sentence reduction in heinous offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statement of a hostile witness must be entirely rejected or can be relied upon partially?
  • Does an unproved compromise between the parties serve as a valid ground for reduction of sentence in a Zina-bil-Jabr case?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on the appreciation of evidence by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHIDA BEGUM Versus GHULAM RASUL1984 SCMR 178 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
• ZAFAR LQBAL Versus STATE1984 SCMR 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-10-15
  jurisdiction of Court of Sessionappellate jurisdictionFederal Shariat CourtHudood Ordinancecriminal trialleave to appealSection 354 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, convicted under section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by an Additional Sessions Judge, sought leave to appeal against the Federal Shariat Court's dismissal of their appeal. The core legal questions were whether an Additional Sessions Judge possessed the jurisdiction to convict an accused under section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, an offence triable by a Magistrate 1st Class, and whether the Federal Shariat Court had the competence to hear the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge acted within jurisdiction, as section 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers the Court of Session to try any offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Federal Shariat Court correctly exercised appellate jurisdiction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The principle laid down is that the Court of Session holds concurrent jurisdiction to try offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and appeals arising from such trials under the Hudood Ordinance lie exclusively to the Federal Shariat Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to convict an accused for an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 that is otherwise triable by a Magistrate 1st Class?
  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have the competence to hear an appeal against a conviction recorded by an Additional Sessions Judge under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does section 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower the Court of Session to try offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSUF Versus STATE1984 SCMR 1567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  culpable homicidecommon intentionbenefit of doubtreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealmurder convictionmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a High Court judgment upholding the convictions of the appellants for murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellants attacked the deceased and the complainant using brickbats and a Sota (stick) following a prior dispute. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court found that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's ocular account regarding the specific injuries attributed to the accused, particularly the brickbat injuries. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a common intention to kill or that the injuries were inflicted with the intent to cause death. Instead, the Court determined that the accused acted with the knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death, but without the specific intent to murder. Consequently, the Court acquitted one appellant due to insufficient evidence and altered the conviction of the other from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing that the nature of the injuries and the circumstances did not warrant a murder conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the medical evidence contradicts the ocular version of the incident?
  • Does the mere presence of a motive suffice to establish an intention to kill under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When should a conviction for murder be altered to one under Section 304, Part II, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to establish their specific role in the commission of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus ABDUL AZIZ1984 SCMR 1536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• NOOR HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR1984 SCMR 1506 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR1984 SCMR 1482 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  AcquittalOcular testimonyCriminal appealMurderEvidence appraisalMedical evidenceFIR credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents in a murder case involving the deaths of two individuals and injuries to others. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony and prosecution evidence were sufficient to sustain convictions despite significant discrepancies. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court’s decision to uphold the acquittals. The Court held that the prosecution’s ocular account was highly unreliable, noting that the FIR appeared to have been lodged after deliberation rather than at the reported time. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the victims' stomach contents contradicted the prosecution's timeline of the incident, and the prosecution failed to establish the connection between the recovered weapons and the crime. The Court laid down the principle that the mere fact that an incident occurred in daylight does not validate a prosecution case if the evidence regarding the presence of witnesses, the timing of the event, and the specific roles of the accused is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the medical findings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular testimony is found to be unreliable and contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Does the mere occurrence of an incident in daylight establish the guilt of the accused if the prosecution's version of events is otherwise improbable?
  • Is the timing of an FIR relevant to the credibility of the prosecution's case when evidence suggests it was lodged after deliberation?
  Read full judgment →
• MUH MMAD RAFIQ Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE1984 SCMR 1471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-01-11
  evacuee propertyauction purchasertransfer of propertysettlement authoritiescompromise decreeDisplaced Persons Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property in Lahore, initially auctioned to Respondent No.4, whose bid was later cancelled for non-payment of the full price. The property was subsequently auctioned to the appellant, who obtained a Permanent Transfer Document (P.T.D.) and took possession. The High Court, in a writ petition, set aside the Settlement authorities' decision, ruling that under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the original auction-purchaser was entitled to a three-year period to pay the transfer price. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the parties reached a compromise to resolve the competing claims. The Supreme Court accepted this settlement, finding it a fair and just solution. Consequently, the Court set aside the previous orders of both the Settlement authorities and the High Court. The Court directed the Settlement authorities to partition the property and issue fresh transfer documents, granting one shop to each party, thereby effectively dividing the disputed asset between the two auction-purchasers to settle the litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court accept a compromise between parties to resolve a dispute over the transfer of evacuee property?
  • Does the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 allow an auction-purchaser a three-year period to pay the transfer price?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ Versus STATE1984 SCMR 1426 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• NAZIR HUSSAIN Versus STATE1984 SCMR 1382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-27Read full judgment →
• NAZIR HUSSAIN Versus STATE1984 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus STATE1984 SCMR 134 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-23
  bail cancellationjudicial proprietyforum shoppingsuccessive bail applicationsjudicial conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that cancelled the petitioner's bail in a murder case. The petitioner had previously filed three bail applications; the first two were rejected by an Additional Sessions Judge. The third application, filed shortly after the second without fresh grounds, was heard and granted by a different judge (the Sessions Judge) rather than the judge who had rejected the prior applications. The High Court cancelled this bail, citing judicial impropriety in bypassing the judge who had previously seized the matter and noting the lack of fresh grounds. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that it is highly improper for a subsequent bail application to be heard by a different judge when the original judge is available, particularly without fresh grounds. The Court emphasized that such practices undermine public confidence in the judiciary. Finding no merit in the petition, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed the Registrar to bring the matter to the Chief Justice's attention.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally proper for a subsequent bail application to be heard by a different judge when the judge who rejected the previous applications is still available?
  • Can a bail application be entertained and granted when it contains no fresh grounds and follows multiple rejections by a court of equal jurisdiction?
  • Does the granting of bail by a different judge, after prior rejections by another judge, constitute a ground for the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• IHSANULLAH Versus STATE1984 SCMR 1323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
• ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus STATE1984 SCMR 1223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-03-25
  murderdeath sentencereappraisal of evidencemotiveocular testimonyidentification in darknessrecovery of weaponunexplained injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Sabir Ali. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to reappraise the evidence concerning motive, medical evidence regarding injuries on the appellant, the recovery of the crime weapon, and the possibility of mistaken identity due to darkness at the time of the occurrence. Upon a thorough reappraisal of the evidence, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully established a strong motive arising from previous enmity, that the injuries on the appellant were satisfactorily explained by the arresting officer and not attributed to the complainant party, that the recovery of the weapon was duly proved, and that the time of the incident (6 p.m. on a well-lit main road) did not preclude proper identification by eye-witnesses. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's judgment confirming a death sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code warrants interference upon reappraisal of evidence regarding motive, recovery, and identification?
  • Does the existence of injuries on the person of the accused, when explained by the arresting officer and not attributed to the complainant party, support a plea of self-defence?
  • Can the identification of an assailant by eye-witnesses at 6 p.m. on a main road be discarded on the assumption of pitch darkness?
  Read full judgment →
• TAYYABA KHANAM Versus CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1984 SCMR 1110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
• REHMAT ALI Versus STATE1984 SCMR 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-21
  criminal appealocular testimonymurder convictionrecovery of weaponFIR credibilitywitness reliabilityappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the evidentiary value of testimony provided by a witness, Muhammad Aslam, and to address discrepancies regarding the timing of the First Information Report and the recovery of the weapon. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of ocular witnesses, the reliability of a weapon recovery made without independent local witnesses, and whether the FIR was recorded at the spot rather than the police station. The Supreme Court held that the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses was consistent and credible, noting the absence of prior enmity. The Court further held that the recovery of the blood-stained knife was reliable despite the lack of independent attestation, as the investigating officer's testimony was straightforward and credible. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. The judgment reinforces the principle that minor discrepancies in police statements or the absence of independent witnesses for recoveries do not automatically invalidate prosecution evidence if the testimony is otherwise consistent and reliable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-examination of independent local witnesses for a recovery memo automatically render the recovery of a weapon unreliable?
  • Can discrepancies in the testimony of a witness regarding minor details affect the overall credibility of ocular evidence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable based on ocular testimony where there is no prior enmity between the witnesses and the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LATIF Versus STATE1984 SCMR 1076 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-20
  murderleave to appealeyewitness testimonycorroborationrecovery of weapondeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Latif against the dismissal of his murder appeal by the High Court, which maintained his conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns the reliability of eyewitness testimony and corroboration through weapon recovery in a murder trial. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of independent, uninimical eyewitnesses is reliable and sufficient for conviction even without corroboration, though corroborative evidence in the form of a blood-stained chhurri was also present in this case. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the guilt of the petitioner was duly proven.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of independent and uninimical eyewitnesses can be relied upon for conviction without corroboration?
  • Is the recovery of a blood-stained weapon considered sufficient corroborative evidence in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• SABIR HUSSAIN Versus STATE1984 SCMR 1062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
• IJAZ HUSSAIN SHAH Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1984 SCMR 1023 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
• AMNA Versus IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HYDERABAD1983 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-24
  guardianshipcustody of minorsinfructuous petitionage of majorityconstitutional petitionspecial leave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an order regarding the custody of two minors. The petitioner had originally filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of the children. Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the application. When the matter reached the High Court, it was observed that both children had attained the age of majority during the pendency of the proceedings. Consequently, the High Court held that the constitutional petition had become infructuous, as no appointment of a guardian could be made for individuals who are no longer minors. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the petitioner's own pleadings confirmed the children's ages. The Court affirmed that where the subject matter of a custody dispute—the minority of the children—ceases to exist, the underlying legal proceedings become infructuous, rendering any further adjudication an exercise in futility. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petition for the custody of minors under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 become infructuous if the minors attain the age of majority during the proceedings?
  • Can a court adjudicate on the merits of a constitutional petition if the underlying cause of action has ceased to exist?
  • Is a finding of fact regarding the age of minors based on the petitioner's own pleadings binding on the petitioner in subsequent appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• HADI HASSAN JAFRY Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT, COMMISSIONER1983 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus ILAM DIN1983 SCMR 949 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-03
  property disputemunicipal recordsproperty classificationsettlement matterSialkot property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed by leave of the Court, challenged a judgment of the High Court dated 23-11-1973 concerning a property dispute in Sialkot City. The core legal question was whether the property bearing No. 3/413, situated on Hakim Khadim Ali Road, constituted merely a 'deori' (an entrance or vestibule) or a separate shop. The High Court had previously declared the property to be a separate shop. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the municipal records dating back to 1942. The Court found that the property had been treated and assessed as a separate shop even prior to the Partition of the subcontinent. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in its determination. The appeal was dismissed as being without merit, affirming the status of the property as a separate shop based on historical municipal assessment records.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the property bearing No. 3/413, Hakim Khadim Ali Road, Sialkot City, should be classified as a 'deori' or a separate shop?
  • Can municipal records from 1942 be used to determine the status of a property in a settlement dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR Versus MUBAMMAD SHAFI1983 SCMR 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-03
  review petitionsettlement schemeproperty transferabandoned contentionadditional settlement commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition was filed against the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal, concerning the transfer of a disputed property. The petitioner contended that the Court overlooked his acquired rights under Paragraph 20 of Settlement Scheme No. I, promulgated in July 1959, which existed prior to the property's disposal on January 29, 1960, and before the issuance of a subsequent Press Note dated May 3, 1960. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim transfer rights under Settlement Scheme No. I when the property had already been disposed of and the contention was not raised in the initial appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that it was doubtful whether any rights accrued to the petitioner under Paragraph 20 of Settlement Scheme No. I, and furthermore, the petitioner had failed to press this contention in the appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner against the disposal order of January 29, 1960.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner seek review of a judgment based on a contention that was not pressed in the initial appeal before the lower settlement authorities?
  • Does the subsequent issuance of a Press Note affect the validity of a property disposal that was completed prior to its publication?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1983 SCMR 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-06-28
  zinahudoodconsent of minorreduction of sentenceleave to appealsentence computation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Aslam against his conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance. The petitioner was initially convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 10 of the said Ordinance for committing zina-bil-jabr with a 12/13-year-old girl, Mst. Azra, and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, stripes, and a fine. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court modified the conviction to Section 10(2) of the Ordinance, holding that the victim was a consenting party, reduced the imprisonment to five years, increased the stripes, and set aside the fine. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the conviction and the quantum of sentence where the minor victim was a consenting party. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was rightly convicted of zina with a consenting minor and that the reduced sentence was not excessive, but granted the petitioner the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the computation of his sentence. The petition was otherwise dismissed, establishing the principle regarding sentence computation and the application of Hudood laws in cases involving minor consenting parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance is sustainable when the minor victim is found to be a consenting party?
  • Can a petitioner be granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the computation of sentence in a Hudood case?
  • Whether the sentence of stripes and imprisonment awarded under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance is excessive under the circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• MAHMOOD Versus STATE1983 SCMR 829 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1983 SCMR 824 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
• FAQIR MUHAMMAD Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER1983 SCMR 812 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
• HIRJINA & CO. (PAK.) LTD. Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1983 SCMR 789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-10
  excise dutyconstitutional interpretationlegislative competencealcoholic liquortaxation on servicesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the levy of excise duty on services provided by hotels, restaurants, and bars in relation to alcoholic liquor, arguing that under section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the levy constitutes a duty on 'alcoholic liquor' itself. They contended that such a levy is prohibited by the bar contained in Entry 43(b) of the Third Schedule of the 1962 Constitution. Furthermore, the petitioners questioned the constitutional validity of imposing excise duty on services rendered by these establishments. The Supreme Court observed that the issues raised regarding the constitutional competence of the levy and the interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions were of general public importance requiring an authoritative adjudication. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the petitions, and directed that the appeals be heard on the existing record, while permitting parties to file additional documents. The Court also issued notice regarding the petitioners' request for interim relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the levy of excise duty on services rendered by hotels, restaurants, and bars in relation to alcoholic liquor constitute a duty on the liquor itself?
  • Is the levy of excise duty on services provided by hotels, restaurants, and bars constitutionally permissible under the 1962 Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• MANZOOR AHMAD Versus ABDUL HAQUE1983 SCMR 788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-21
  landlord and tenantejectment applicationtentative rentinterlocutory ordercompetency of appealrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a dispute over a shop transferred to the respondent by the Settlement Department, where the respondent filed an ejectment application against the predecessor of the petitioners, Jan Muhammad. The Rent Controller determined that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed and ordered the deposit of tentative rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. On appeal, the Additional District Judge dismissed the ejectment application after finding no such relationship existed. The Lahore High Court allowed the respondent's revision petition and remanded the case. The core legal question is whether an appeal lies against an interlocutory finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant and an order for tentative rent under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court held that section 15(1) of the Ordinance is restrictive, limiting appeals to specific final orders, and that incidental or interlocutory orders regarding the existence of tenancy are not appealable. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, leaving the Rent Controller to proceed with the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal is competent against an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller determining the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Does section 15(1) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 limit the right of appeal to specific final orders?
  • Is an order directing the deposit of tentative rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 appealable?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMAD Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN1983 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE1983 SCMR 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
• MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus AGHA HUSSAIN NAQVI,1983 SCMR 775 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-10-11Read full judgment →
• WAHAJUL HASNAIN RIZVI Versus ZABID HUSSAIN1983 SCMR 774 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMID Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER1983 SCMR 760 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
• ZAHOOR AHMAD Versus DADU KHAN1983 SCMR 746 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-07
  leave to appealtransfer of open plotDisplaced Persons Actauctionsettlement scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court concerning the legality of the transfer of an open plot. The petitioner contended that the plot was validly transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 4 on June 15, 1960, under para 13 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, read with Settlement Scheme VI, and therefore was not available for subsequent transfer by auction in 1961. The core legal question is whether the earlier transfer of the plot to a local was legal and whether it could be ignored as an illegal transfer to uphold the subsequent auction. The Supreme Court held that the contentions regarding the legality of the initial transfer require further consideration. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an open plot could be lawfully transferred to a local under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Can a prior transfer of a property be ignored as illegal to validate a subsequent auction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1983 SCMR 740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• NIZAM DIN Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KABIRWALA1983 SCMR 739 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-19
  no-confidence motionlocal governmentstatutory interpretationChairman of Town Committeetenure protectionPunjab Local Government Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which challenged the convening of a no-confidence motion meeting against the petitioner, the Chairman of a Town Committee. The core legal question was whether a no-confidence motion moved against a previous Chairman counts towards the statutory six-month interval required before a subsequent motion can be moved against a successor Chairman under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory restriction regarding the six-month interval is personal to the Chairman against whom the motion is moved. The Court clarified that the 'date of assumption of office' referenced in the statute refers specifically to the incumbent Chairman, not their predecessor. Consequently, the interval calculation for a no-confidence motion against a successor Chairman begins from the date that specific individual assumed office, rather than being tethered to the history of motions moved against previous officeholders. This interpretation prevents a successor from facing a motion before completing their own six-month tenure.

  Questions settled

  • Does a no-confidence motion moved against a previous Chairman count towards the six-month interval required before a motion can be moved against a successor Chairman?
  • From what date is the six-month period for a no-confidence motion calculated under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a successor Chairman face a no-confidence motion before completing six months in office?
  Read full judgment →
• ALIMA AHMAD Versus AMIR ALI1983 SCMR 724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-28
  Special Leave to Appealtenancy agreementtermination of tenancyefflux of timeconflict of viewslarger bench
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a grant of Special Leave to Appeal to resolve a conflict of judicial view between two previous Benches of the Court regarding whether all terms of a tenancy agreement between a landlord and tenant continue to remain in force despite the termination of that agreement by efflux of time. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court noted that the earlier conflicting decision rendered in Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdullah was delivered by a Bench consisting of four Judges. Consequently, the Court held that an authoritative pronouncement on this core legal question requires consideration by a larger Bench. The hearing of the case was accordingly adjourned, and the file was directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders to constitute a larger Bench.

  Questions settled

  • Do all terms of a tenancy agreement between a landlord and tenant continue to remain in force in spite of termination of that agreement by efflux of time?
  • Is an authoritative pronouncement required from a larger Bench when a conflict of view exists between previous Benches of the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• DAULAT ALI Versus BARGUZIDA MUNTIZAR1983 SCMR 713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  writ petitiondismissal for non-prosecutionlachesdiscretionary jurisdictionrestoration applicationpermanent transfer deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging a 1960 transfer order and a 1967 Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). The petitioner's initial writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, and subsequent restoration applications were also dismissed. The petitioner then filed a fresh writ petition, which the High Court dismissed in limine, reasoning that it was an attempt to review the previous dismissal order and that the challenge was barred by laches. The core legal question was whether a fresh writ petition is maintainable after a previous one is dismissed for non-prosecution, and whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the petition due to delay. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while a fresh petition might be procedurally permissible under Order IX, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the High Court was justified in refusing to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction due to the significant delay in challenging the long-standing transfer order and P.T.D. The petition was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is a fresh writ petition maintainable after a previous writ petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Can the High Court refuse to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction on the grounds of laches despite the procedural availability of a fresh petition?
  Read full judgment →
• REHMAT KHAN Versus SARDAR BIBI1983 SCMR 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
• EHSAN ALI Versus STATE1983 SCMR 683 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-05-04Read full judgment →
• NAZAR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1983 SCMR 667 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-18
  murderdeath sentencecommutation of sentencecompromiseKhunbahaappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan wherein the appellant, Nazar Muhammad, challenged his conviction and death sentences under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Hazur Ahmad, along with convictions under Sections 307, 452, 149, and 148, P.P.C. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the conviction based on the appraisal of evidence and the legal effect of a subsequent compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the appellant was maintained upon a proper appraisal of the evidence and found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding guilt. However, upon presentation of a valid compromise and affidavits confirming the receipt of Khunbaha by the legal heirs of the deceased, the Court exercised its discretion to alter the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the fine and extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with concurrent findings of guilt based on proper appraisal of evidence in a murder case?
  • Can a compromise effected between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased warrant the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be extended to a convict whose death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB LABORE Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF1983 SCMR 665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-06Read full judgment →
• FAZAL DIN Versus STATE1983 SCMR 648 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAFDAR Versus STATE1983 SCMR 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-01-28Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMED Versus STATE1983 SCMR 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-02
  service lawdisciplinary proceedingsenquiry reportshow-cause noticenatural justicepresumption of regularitydismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld the dismissal of the appellant, a former Kanungo, from service. The appellant was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings where an Enquiry Officer found certain charges proved. The core legal question was whether the appellant was prejudiced in his defense because he was allegedly not provided with a copy of the enquiry report prior to the show-cause notice. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the Collector had explicitly ordered the issuance of the show-cause notice along with the enquiry report. Furthermore, the case diary indicated that the appellant had participated in numerous hearings without ever raising a grievance regarding the non-receipt of the report. The Court held that, based on the official record and the presumption of regularity in official acts, it must be presumed that the enquiry report was duly supplied. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the contention that the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to supply a copy of an enquiry report to a civil servant during disciplinary proceedings constitutes a violation of natural justice?
  • Can a court presume that an official order directing the supply of an enquiry report was complied with in the absence of an objection on the record?
  • Does the absence of a grievance regarding the non-receipt of an enquiry report in the case diary preclude a later claim of prejudice?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM ALI Versus STATE1983 SCMR 630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  HudoodTheftAmputationLeave to appealNisabHirzWitness competency
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner was convicted for the theft of a mosque clock and sentenced to the amputation of his right hand. The core legal questions raised concern the definition of 'hirz' (custody) regarding the stolen property, the competency of the prosecution witnesses to testify under Islamic law, the sufficiency of the number of witnesses required to prove the offence, and the proper valuation of the stolen item relative to the 'nisab' threshold, specifically considering potential depreciation. The Supreme Court, finding these issues merit further examination, granted leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court suspended the operation of the impugned order regarding the amputation of the petitioner's hand pending the final adjudication of the appeal. The Court further directed that the stolen property and relevant records be produced at the hearing, requiring the attendance of the appellant and the witness who assessed the clock's value.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a stolen object is considered to be in the 'hirz' of witnesses who were not its custodians?
  • What is the required number of competent witnesses to prove an offence under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • How should the value of stolen property be calculated relative to the 'nisab' threshold, specifically regarding depreciation since the date of purchase?
  • Are the prosecution witnesses competent to depose against an accused in a case involving Hudood punishments?
  Read full judgment →
• MISRI KHAN Versus KALA KHAN1983 SCMR 623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  special leave to appealocular testimonycorroborationrecovery of weaponsmurdercriminal appealmiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges, overturning their convictions by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question is whether the High Court erred in discarding the prosecution's evidence—specifically the recovery of crime weapons—on the grounds that the attesting witness was related to the complainant and that the recovery occurred on the last day of police remand. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning for rejecting this corroborative evidence required further examination to ensure that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that while ocular testimony in cases involving bitter enmity requires independent corroboration, the rejection of recovery evidence based solely on the witness's relationship to the complainant or the timing of the recovery must be carefully scrutinized by the appellate court to prevent a failure of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of an attesting witness to the complainant party automatically render their testimony regarding the recovery of crime weapons unreliable?
  • Can the recovery of crime weapons be discarded solely because it occurred on the last day of police remand?
  • Is independent corroboration required for ocular testimony in cases involving bitter enmity between parties?
  Read full judgment →
• EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PESHAWAR Versus TOUR MUHAMMAD1983 SCMR 619 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
• GHULAM QADIR Versus STATE1983 SCMR 616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-05Read full judgment →
• JALAL SHAH Versus CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE1983 SCMR 614 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1967-03-28
  evacuee propertyadverse possessionleave to appealstatutory interpretationunauthorized possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a dispute concerning evacuee land originally belonging to Hindus who left for India upon Partition. The petitioners claimed ownership through adverse possession exceeding twelve years prior to March 1947. After various proceedings before the Deputy Custodian, Custodian, and the High Court—which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition and held that section 3 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1957 did not protect persons in unauthorized possession—the petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved the proper appreciation of revenue records regarding adverse possession and the correct interpretation of section 3 of Ordinance XII of 1957 regarding whether its protection extends to unauthorized occupants. The Supreme Court held that the questions raised involved matters of general public importance requiring statutory interpretation, thereby granting leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that substantial questions regarding the interpretation of statutory protections for possession of evacuee property warrant a full hearing on appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the benefit of section 3 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1957 is available only to persons who possessed property under lawful authority?
  • Whether findings on adverse possession prior to 1st March 1947 are vitiated if not based on proper appreciation of revenue records?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMEED Versus IMAM DIN1983 SCMR 611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
• ZOHRA BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA1983 SCMR 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-09
  agricultural landallotment disputeremand orderconstitutional petitionfactual controversysettlement authoritiesleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an appeal regarding a dispute over agricultural land in District Sheikhupura. The land was originally allotted to the respondent in 1955, subsequently cancelled in 1960, and re-allotted to the petitioners in 1961. Following protracted litigation, the High Court allowed the respondent's constitutional petition based on a re-verified claim and remanded the matter to Settlement Authorities to determine the respondent's entitlement and dispose of any excess land according to law. The petitioners challenged this remand, arguing that the re-verification document was not genuine and that, as long-term possessors, they should be entitled to the land. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's remand order was appropriate because the case involved a factual controversy regarding the genuineness of documents that could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that directing the disposal of land 'in accordance with law' is legally sound, as courts cannot dictate a specific outcome contrary to statutory disposal procedures. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a remand order appropriate when a case involves a factual controversy regarding the genuineness of documents?
  • Can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction resolve factual disputes regarding the validity of re-verification documents?
  • Is a direction by the High Court to dispose of land 'in accordance with law' legally sufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• FEROZE BEGUM Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1983 SCMR 606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-26
  child custodyhizanatwelfare of the minorguardianshipparental jurisdictionmaintenance of minors
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a custody dispute over two minor children between their divorced parents. The Family Judge and the High Court both ruled in favor of the father, granting him custody primarily based on his superior financial status as a military officer, without adequately discussing the evidence or evaluating the actual welfare of the minors. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the lower courts' judgments. The Court held that the paramount and overriding consideration in custody matters under the Guardians and Wards Act is the welfare of the minor, which encompasses material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being, and that a father's statutory right to guardianship does not automatically entitle him to custody unless it serves the minor's welfare. The Court further laid down that a mother's poverty or inability to maintain the children does not deprive her of her right to hizanat, as the father remains legally obligated to provide maintenance, and uprooting children from stable schooling merely for elite boarding institutions without assessing their current well-being is improper.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a father's statutory right to guardianship automatically entitles him to the custody of his minor children?
  • Does a mother's poverty or lack of independent financial resources serve as a valid ground to deprive her of the custody of her minor children?
  • What constitutes the paramount consideration in determining an application for the custody of a minor under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus STATE1983 SCMR 561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-05
  illegal gratificationanti-corruption raidtainted currency notesmagistrate supervisioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant, a clerk in the District Food Controller's office, under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the recovery of tainted currency notes and the mechanics of the bribery raid beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the supervising Magistrate, corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, sufficiently proved the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant's custody and sustained the conviction. The key principle laid down is that credible and consistent eyewitness testimony of a judicial magistrate supervising a raid, corroborated by recovery and lack of major discrepancies in cross-examination, is sufficient to maintain a conviction in corruption cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncontradicted testimony of a supervising Magistrate regarding the recovery of tainted currency notes is sufficient to sustain a conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can a conviction for bribery be maintained when the raiding party members did not overhear the conversation between the complainant and the accused?
  • Is the recovery of tainted currency notes from an almirah pursuant to a supervised raid sufficient proof of illegal gratification?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus STATE1983 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• FATEH KHAN Versus STATE1983 SCMR 514 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Versus STATE1983 SCMR 308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-13Read full judgment →
• GHUFRAN AHMAD SIDDIQI Versus SUBBAN SHEIKH1983 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHEEMA Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1983 SCMR 179 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-11-23
  leave to appealservice tribunalacting charge promotionstopgap arrangementreversioncivil servantsexhaustion of departmental remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by sixteen petitioners challenging the order of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals against their threatened reversion from the acting charge of Sub Divisional Officers or Assistant Engineers to their substantive posts of Overseers or Sub-Engineers. The petitioners were initially promoted on an acting charge basis as a stopgap arrangement under section 11 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, with a liability to termination without notice. The core legal question concerned the competency of the service appeals against threatened reversion and stopgap arrangements. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were not fit for leave to appeal because the petitioners had approached the Service Tribunal without complying with section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, rendering their appeal incompetent under section 4(a) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974. The key principle laid down is that statutory preconditions for approaching a service tribunal, including departmental remedies, must be strictly fulfilled, and acting charge stopgap promotions do not confer a vested right against reversion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal to the Service Tribunal is competent without complying with section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
  • Do civil servants holding acting charge appointments on a stopgap basis acquire a vested right against reversion?
  • Can leave to appeal be granted against the dismissal of an appeal by the Service Tribunal where statutory departmental remedies were bypassed?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus GHULAM HAIDER1983 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-23
  service matterjurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunaldate of birthcivil servantleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had restored a trial court decree declaring the correct date of birth of a civil servant and ordering its substitution in his service record, thereby allowing him to continue in service. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such service-related matters, specifically the determination of a civil servant's date of birth and service record entries, following the establishment of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction in light of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and the constitutional bar on the jurisdiction of other courts in service matters. Pending the final adjudication of this appeal, the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court, thereby preserving the status quo regarding the respondent's service status until the matter is definitively resolved by the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the establishment of a Service Tribunal oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to adjudicate matters concerning the service record and date of birth of a civil servant?
  • Can the High Court restore a trial court decree regarding a civil servant's date of birth after the enactment of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• A. GHANI SAYEED Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN1983 SCMR 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
• AFZAL ALI Versus ASHRAF ALI1983 SCMR 1271 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →