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.
- KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus STATE1983 SCMR 124 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus ADMINISTRATOR (RESIDUAL PROPERTIES), MULTAN1983 SCMR 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
- BHUREY KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR1983 SCMR 1033 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFI Versus MUHAMMAD ALI1983 SCMR 1030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
- FAZAL DIN ALIAS MUHAMMAD FAZIL Versus MAZHAR IQBAL1983 SCMR 1017 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH Versus THAI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1983 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-02-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE1983 SCMR 1001 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's application for bail in a murder case. The core legal question is whether the plea of tender age, supported by a school leaving certificate, can be rejected solely based on a contrary police assessment of age. The Supreme Court held that the police's view was insufficient to displace the certified school leaving certificate, especially when the State could not raise objections against its genuineness. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the appellant was granted bail. The key principle laid down is that official documentary evidence such as a school leaving certificate carries superior evidentiary value regarding age determination at the bail stage compared to a contrary police opinion unsupported by cogent material.
Questions settled- Can a plea of tender age supported by a school leaving certificate be rejected solely on the basis of a contrary police assessment?
- What is the evidentiary value of a school leaving certificate regarding the age of an accused in a bail application?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus STATE1983 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 of the appellant Muhammad Afzal while converting his death sentence to life imprisonment, in a case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained solely on ocular testimony corroborated by a disputed weapon recovery, particularly when co-accused had been acquitted on similar evidentiary deficiencies. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the recovery of the weapon was highly doubtful due to lack of independent and respectable witnesses from the locality and because the recovery location was jointly possessed, thereby stripping the prosecution case of necessary corroboration. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony requires corroboration, a weapon recovery is inadmissible or insufficient if it fails to comply with statutory discovery requirements under the Evidence Act 1872, involves biased or interested witnesses without associating independent local inhabitants, and occurs from premises under joint or non-exclusive possession.
Questions settled- Whether the recovery of an incriminating weapon can serve as valid corroboration of ocular testimony when the recovery witnesses are interested parties and no independent local inhabitants are associated?
- Does a recovery from a premises in joint possession exclusively incriminate the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on uncorroborated ocular testimony when co-accused facing identical allegations have been acquitted on the basis of insufficient corroboration?
- KABIR AHMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1982 SCMR 978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil petitions were filed before the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal regarding the seniority list dated 11-7-1978. The petitioners were recommended for appointment in 1973 under Rule 5-A of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964 (a temporary special provision for that calendar year), but appointment letters were issued on 10-5-1974 before the formal notification dated 18-5-1974 amending Rule 5-B was gazetted. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' seniority was governed by Rule 5-A or the subsequent notification of 18-5-1974, and whether respondents appointed under normal rules or treated as promotees held seniority over them. The Supreme Court held that Rule 5-A lapsed after 1973 and could not confer seniority rights for appointments made in 1974. The petitioners' appointments were governed by the notification dated 18-5-1974, which validly ranked them junior to regular appointees and promotees under Rule 5. The petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a special temporary recruitment rule limited to a specific calendar year continue to confer seniority rights after the expiration of that calendar year?
- Whether an appointee who accepts an offer of appointment conditioned upon future rules and regulations is bound by a subsequent notification regulating recruitment and seniority?
- Can the Government invoke its statutory power under section 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 to relax rules and grant presumptive seniority by treating appointees as promotees to prevent undue hardship?
- Is a notification determining seniority under special appointment provisions ultra vires of section 8 of the Punjab Civil Servants Ordinance 1974 when issued under section 25 thereof?
- ALLAH BAKHSH Versus STATE1982 SCMR 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition seeking the same benefit extended to co-convicts in an impugned judgment, following the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal. The core legal question is whether a petitioner who has become a fugitive from law is entitled to seek relief by way of review before the court. The court holds that a petitioner having remained a fugitive from law is not entitled to seek any relief, including through review proceedings. The key principle laid down is that a fugitive from law disentitles themselves from obtaining judicial relief, leaving them to seek remedies from executive authorities if so advised.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner who has become a fugitive from law entitled to seek relief by way of review?
- Can a fugitive from law obtain relief from the Supreme Court?
- FATEH MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1982 SCMR 910 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had cancelled the post-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner, Fateh Muhammad, in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency, given that his co-accused had been granted bail by lower courts. The Supreme Court observed that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) contained a direct charge against the petitioner for firing the fatal shot at the deceased, and that medical evidence corroborated the cause of death as a gunshot wound. Furthermore, the court noted the existence of a blood-feud between the parties. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order cancelling the bail was justified given the specific allegations and evidence against the petitioner. The court affirmed that the mere fact that co-accused have been granted bail does not automatically entitle a petitioner to bail when there is specific, direct evidence of their involvement in the crime. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the grant of bail to co-accused automatically entitle a petitioner to bail?
- Is the existence of a direct charge in the F.I.R. for a fatal act a valid ground for the cancellation of bail?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order cancelling bail when there is specific evidence of the petitioner's involvement?
- HAKAM DIN Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL1982 SCMR 734 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a constitutional petition challenging an order of the Board of Revenue, which had upheld a Collector's order directing the restitution of mortgaged land without payment under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1964. The appellant contended that the Act was void ab initio as it violated fundamental property rights under the 1962 Constitution, and that the mortgage was anomalous rather than usufructuary. The Supreme Court dismissed the constitutional challenge, noting that the argument regarding the retrospective invalidity of the Act under fundamental rights was unsustainable. On the merits, the Court examined the mortgage deed, which contained a main body and an addendum note. It held that because the possession was transferred to the mortgagee and any unpaid interest on the specified sum was to be added to the principal amount rather than being personally recoverable through a suit, the transaction remained a usufructuary mortgage. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Collector had validly ordered restitution under the Act.
Questions settled- Whether a mortgage is classified as usufructuary or anomalous if an addendum note stipulates that unpaid interest is to be added to the principal sum rather than creating a personal liability?
- Can a mortgage transaction be deemed usufructuary under the Transfer of Property Act 1882 if possession is transferred and the principal and interest are to be adjusted against the income of the land?
- Does the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1964 empower the Collector to order the restitution of usufructuary mortgaged land without payment?
- MANSAB KHAN Versus STATE1982 SCMR 722 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal and confirming his death sentence for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the reliability of closely related eye-witnesses without independent corroboration, the sufficiency of motive, and the validity of confirming a death sentence where another concurrent murder occurred. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of related eye-witnesses, being consistent and free from major infirmities, can be safely relied upon without independent corroboratory evidence, especially when the witnesses are also related to the accused and no motive for false substitution is shown. Furthermore, the court held that the existence of a weaker motive or a separate murder conviction does not constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The petition was consequently dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Can related eye-witness testimony be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder trial?
- Does a weak or minor motive furnish a ground for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Can a separate murder conviction of the accused be taken into consideration when assessing the quantum of sentence?
- MANSHA Versus STATE1982 SCMR 671 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Mansha, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of two individuals and a murderous assault, receiving a death sentence. The High Court acquitted some co-accused, acquitted the petitioner of the assault charge, but maintained his conviction for murder and confirmed the death sentence, while reducing the sentences of other co-convicts to life imprisonment based on their age and influence by elders. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction on merits and the sentence. The Supreme Court found no evidence of misreading or ignoring material evidence by the High Court, declining to grant leave on the merits of the conviction. However, the Court granted leave specifically to consider the question of sentence, particularly whether the petitioner was entitled to a lesser penalty due to the alleged influence of his elders, despite their subsequent acquittal by the courts below. The matter was set for further consideration regarding the legal permissibility of applying the 'influence of elders' doctrine when those elders have been acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a convict be granted a lesser penalty on the ground of being under the influence of elders if those elders were acquitted by the courts?
- Is it permissible to reappraise evidence in a criminal appeal where the High Court has not ignored or misread material evidence?
- MEHAR DIN Versus ALAMDAR HUSSAIN1982 SCMR 670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus STATE1982 SCMR 641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-10Read full judgment →
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1982 SCMR 628 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MASHLAKHUDDIN Versus ALI HAIDER1982 SCMR 570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-05-08Read full judgment →
- ILAHI BUX Versus STATE1982 SCMR 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 7980-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellants' appeal against their conviction for murder, house trespass, and abduction. The core legal question revolves around whether the conviction can be sustained based on eye-witness testimony that was heavily compromised by a subsequent contradictory private complaint, false recoveries, and material discrepancies with medical evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions and sentences, holding that when the prosecution introduces a false version, witnesses deliberately perjure themselves, and recoveries are found to be false and dishonest, it becomes extremely dangerous to rely on such testimony without unimpeachable and independent corroboration. The key principle laid down is that while courts may sift grain from the chaff, where the prosecution's case is riddled with false evidence, contradictions, and fabricated versions, uncorroborated and perjured testimony cannot form the basis of a safe conviction, and motive alone is insufficient corroboration.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained when eye-witnesses have deliberately perjured themselves and introduced a completely contradictory version through a private complaint?
- Does medical evidence showing gunshot injuries from a distance contradict eye-witness claims of point-blank firing during a struggle?
- Can motive alone serve as sufficient independent corroboration to maintain a conviction where the primary testimony is untrustworthy and recoveries have been disbelieved?
- RAJAB ALI SYAL Versus AHMADI BEGUM1982 SCMR 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
- SAFIA BIBI Versus AISHA BIBI1982 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed an application for the recall of a previous order disposing of a constitutional petition based on an alleged compromise. The petitioner asserted that the compromise was fraudulent, as it was entered into by an unauthorized person claiming to be her attorney. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to inquire into allegations of fraud and misrepresentation regarding the validity of its own order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was legally obligated to adjudicate these allegations. The Court emphasized that under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a person challenging a judgment, decree, or order on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction must seek their remedy by making an application to the court that passed the order, rather than by filing a separate suit. Consequently, the High Court’s refusal to hold an inquiry was improper, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on the merits of the fraud allegations.
Questions settled- Does Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require a court to adjudicate allegations of fraud or misrepresentation in its own orders?
- Can a party challenge a judgment or order on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation by filing a separate suit?
- Is a court empowered to decide an application for recall of an order based on fraud even if the applicant cited the wrong provision of law?
- NEMAT KHAN Versus ABADAN KHAN1982 SCMR 465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-31Read full judgment →
- BAKHAT BAIDAR Versus STATE1982 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal under Article 185(2)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the appellant's acquittal and convicted him under section 302/149 and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's finding of fact regarding the appellant's abscondence, which served as the sole corroboration for interested eye-witness testimony in an appeal against acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in substituting its own view for that of the trial court on the question of abscondence without giving proper weight to the trial judge's assessment. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that in appeals against acquittal, findings of fact by the trial court—especially those based on the evaluation of witness demeanour and explanations for conduct such as abscondence—should not be lightly disturbed by the High Court unless the view taken by the trial court is perverse or clearly unreasonable.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in an appeal against acquittal to substitute its own view for that of the trial court regarding the explanation of abscondence?
- Does the testimony of interested eye-witnesses require independent corroboration before it can form the basis of a conviction?
- Can an appellate court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a trial judge who had the advantage of observing the witnesses?
- ROBERTS COTTON ASSOCIATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NORTH ZONE, LAHORE1982 SCMR 403 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding the tax treatment of a loss incurred by the appellant, Roberts Cotton Association Ltd., during a business reorganization. The appellant, part of the 'Roberts Group,' sold its shares in Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd. and simultaneously sold its outstanding debt claim against the Mill to the 'Ali Group' at a significant discount. The appellant sought to claim this shortfall as a bad debt, a business expenditure, or a trading loss under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The tax authorities and the High Court rejected these claims, finding the transaction was a voluntary, colourable arrangement to benefit the Ali Group rather than a necessary business expense or an irrecoverable debt. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the loss was not a deductible bad debt or trading loss because there was no evidence of the debtor's inability to pay, and the loss was voluntarily incurred for purposes unrelated to the appellant's own business operations. The Court held that a voluntary relinquishment of a claim to facilitate a group-level exit strategy does not constitute a deductible business loss.
Questions settled- Can a voluntary discount on an actionable claim sold to a third party be claimed as a bad debt under the Income-tax Act 1922?
- Is a loss incurred by a company to facilitate a group-level business exit considered an allowable business expenditure?
- Does the mere fact that a debtor is running at a loss justify treating an outstanding debt as a bad debt for tax purposes?
- Can a taxpayer claim a trading loss for a transaction that was not incidental to its own business operations?
- SHABBIR AHMAD Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1982 SCMR 375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AWAIS Versus MUHAMMAD ALAM1982 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-02Read full judgment →
- MESSRS T.V SERVICE STATION Versus PARVEEN ANWAR AFIRIDI1982 SCMR 260 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the concurrent findings and orders of the Rent Controller, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court, which all concurrently ordered the eviction of the tenant under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 on the ground of personal requirement. The core legal question was whether the landlord, who attained majority during proceedings and wished to live independently from his step-father, established a genuine and good-faith personal requirement for the disputed residential annexe, despite accommodation existing in the main bungalow owned by his mother's current husband. The Supreme Court held that the landlord cannot be compelled to reside in the property of another person, and upheld the concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of the personal requirement. The Court laid down the principle that a landlord's desire to live separately from a step-father in his own independent residential property constitutes a genuine and bona fide personal requirement under rent restriction laws.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord can be compelled to reside in a house belonging to another person when assessing personal requirement for eviction?
- Does a landlord's desire to live separately from a step-father constitute a genuine and good-faith personal requirement for eviction?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement in a rent matter?
- GULZAR ALIAS GULZARI Versus STATE1982 SCMR 254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-12-14Read full judgment →
- ALLAH DITTA Versus FARZAND ALI1982 SCMR 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QADIR Versus STATE1982 SCMR 226 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-28Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE1982 SCMR 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-17Read full judgment →
- HALIM ALI Versus DILBAR MUHAMMAD1982 SCMR 170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GHAFOOR Versus STATE1982 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which confirmed the death sentence of the appellant, Abdul Ghafoor, while acquitting his co-accused. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, armed with a rifle, and his co-accused, armed with guns, intercepted and shot the deceased. The trial court convicted the accused based on ocular testimony and recovery of weapons. The High Court, however, discarded the recovery evidence and acquitted the co-accused, but maintained the appellant's conviction on the ground that the deceased's bullet injury corroborated the ocular testimony that the appellant was armed with a rifle. The Supreme Court observed that the ocular evidence was highly tainted, exaggerated, and riddled with material contradictions, including unexplained blunt-weapon injuries and the improbable escape of the eye-witnesses. The Court held that medical evidence showing a bullet injury merely proves the type of weapon used, but cannot corroborate the identity of the assailant when the ocular testimony itself is unreliable. Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquitted him.
Questions settled- Can medical evidence showing a specific type of injury serve as independent corroboration of the identity of an accused if the ocular testimony is otherwise found to be unreliable?
- Whether the acquittal of co-accused on the ground of unreliable ocular evidence necessitates the acquittal of the main accused if the same tainted evidence is used against him?
- Does the failure of eye-witnesses to explain additional blunt-weapon injuries on the deceased cast doubt on their presence at the crime scene?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE1982 SCMR 1181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus STATE1982 SCMR 1137 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus STATE1982 SCMR 1097 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
- SALAMAT ALI Versus ABDUL RAUF1982 SCMR 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the conversion of an open space into a residential plot by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA), the successor to the Lahore Improvement Trust. The appellant, an owner of a residential plot in the Shad Bagh Scheme, challenged the LDA's decision to allot a portion of adjacent open land to a third party, claiming he had acquired a vested right in the open space by paying extra charges for it. The core legal question was whether the appellant could establish a legal right to the open space based on alleged extra payments, despite his registered sale deed being silent on the matter. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to prove any such right. The Court found the document relied upon by the appellant to prove extra payments to be spurious and noted that rights in immovable property cannot be created by extraneous evidence or unregistered instruments when not reflected in the final conveyance deed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that no vested right existed in the open space.
Questions settled- Can a vested right in open space be established through extraneous evidence when the registered sale deed is silent on the matter?
- Does the payment of extra charges for a plot, if not reflected in the final conveyance deed, create a legal right in adjacent land?
- Can a right in immovable property valued over Rs. 100 be created by an unregistered instrument?
- ASGBAR ALI Versus STATE1982 SCMR 1026 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1981 SCMR 961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus ABDUL MAJID1981 SCMR 923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
- BARKAT ALI Versus STATE1981 SCMR 917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1972-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan which had previously dismissed a criminal petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether a review petition could be entertained when it failed to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in the Supreme Court Rules regarding the advocate who drafts and presents such applications. The Court observed that the review petition was drawn by an advocate other than the one who had conducted the original leave petition, and the original advocate was not present at the hearing, both of which violated the established rules. Consequently, the Court held that the petition was procedurally defective and liable to be dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a review petition must strictly adhere to the procedural mandates of the Supreme Court Rules, specifically the requirement that the application be drawn by the same advocate who appeared at the hearing of the original case and that said advocate must be present at the review hearing unless otherwise dispensed with.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be filed by an advocate other than the one who conducted the original case without special leave of the Court?
- Is the presence of the original advocate required at the hearing of a review petition under the Supreme Court Rules?
- What is the consequence of filing a review petition in violation of the procedural rules regarding advocate representation?
- SHAH SAWAR Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM1981 SCMR 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a dispute over a square of land granted to the first respondent for his bravery as a police officer. The Board of Revenue subsequently cancelled the grant without affording him a pre-decisional hearing, prompting the first respondent to challenge the cancellation via a constitutional writ petition in the High Court, which was allowed on the ground that the initial order was void for want of hearing. The petitioners, who were allotted the land after displacement, sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the writ petition had abated due to the un-substituted death of certain respondents, and that the initial lack of hearing was cured by a subsequent review application before the Board of Revenue. The Supreme Court held that procedural objections not raised before the High Court cannot be entertained for the first time in a petition for leave, that a review proceeding does not ordinarily cure an initial violation of natural justice unless a fair and full opportunity of hearing is provided, and that no provision under the relevant statute empowered the Board of Revenue to cancel a gallantry grant. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a plea regarding the abatement of a writ petition due to the death of respondents be raised for the first time in a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Whether the failure to provide a pre-decisional hearing in an administrative order can be cured by a subsequent review application?
- Does the Board of Revenue have the legal competence under the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 to cancel a land grant made for valour?
- RIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD NASIB1981 SCMR 882 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-21Read full judgment →
- MURAD ALI Versus STATE1981 SCMR 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld his conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of bribery through a trap raid despite the petitioner's defense that the recovered money was a friendly loan, and whether acquittal under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vitiates a conviction under section 161, P.P.C. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution established the guilt on cogent evidence, the defense plea was rightly rejected, and an acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act does not weaken the proven charge under section 161, P.P.C. The key principle laid down is that the failure of a charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act does not automatically undermine a separate, well-supported charge and conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Questions settled- Whether the acquittal under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 adversely affects the prosecution case on a charge under section 161, P.P.C.?
- Can a defense plea of a friendly loan be accepted over consistent prosecution evidence in a bribery trap case?
- Does the inability of raiding party members to hear the conversation between the accused and the decoy witness vitiate the prosecution case?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1981 SCMR 856 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellant admitted to causing the injuries with a sharp-edged weapon (bughda) but pleaded grave and sudden provocation, claiming he found the deceased in a compromising position. The trial court and High Court rejected the defence version and awarded the death sentence. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the sentence of death was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court noted that eye-witnesses arrived only after the attack had commenced and could not testify to the immediate trigger, but circumstantial evidence and prior marital discord indicated that the appellant acted under serious provocation. The Supreme Court held that while grave and sudden provocation was not strictly proved, sufficient mitigating circumstances existed to warrant commutation of the sentence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with a reduction of the sentence from death to imprisonment for life, establishing the principle that the presence of serious provocation, even if falling short of full legal exception, may suffice to commute a death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the sentence of death should be commuted to imprisonment for life when circumstances indicate serious provocation despite the failure to strictly prove grave and sudden provocation?
- Can eye-witnesses who arrive after an attack has commenced testify conclusively as to what immediately preceded the initiation of the assault?
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE1981 SCMR 850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order dated 21st January, 1976, which dismissed the petitioner's application for post-arrest bail. The case was initially registered under Sections 148 and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and later converted to Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following the death of the victim. The High Court had declined bail on the ground that the petitioner facilitated the murder as an active member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued entitlement to bail on grounds of rule of consistency, prolonged detention exceeding three years without likelihood of immediate trial commencement, and because only an act of catching hold (japha) was attributed to him without inflicting any fatal blow. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail, accepting the petitioner's pleas regarding detention duration, the nature of participation, and parity with co-accused already enlarged on bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused merely assigned the role of catching hold (japha) without inflicting fatal injuries is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of parity when similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail?
- Whether prolonged incarceration of an accused exceeding three years without likelihood of trial commencing constitutes a valid ground for grant of bail in a murder case?
- Whether vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 invariably bars the concession of post-arrest bail during the pendency of trial?
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR Versus CHAIRMAN MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE JALALPUR JATTAN1981 SCMR 837 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus BAKHAN1981 SCMR 828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
- NAZAR ALI Versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD1981 SCMR 807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-23Read full judgment →
- BEGUM BIBI Versus ABDUL GHANI1981 SCMR 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute over agricultural land originally sold by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, which was challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents on the ground of lack of legal necessity under customary law. The trial court and the district judge concurrently dismissed the suit, holding that the sale was for valid consideration and legal necessity. However, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal and reversed these concurrent findings. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was legally justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact on the question of legal necessity under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts without demonstrating any illegality, procedural defect, or failure to determine a material issue, particularly when substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the vendor was driven to necessity. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court can be upset by the High Court in a second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without showing any error of law or procedure?
- What is the nature and scope of the enquiry required to be made by an alienee regarding the legal necessity of an agriculturist governed by customary law?
- Whether the vendor's statements and surrounding circumstances such as shifting residence and previous mortgage constitute sufficient evidence of legal necessity?
- IHSAN ILLAHI Versus ISLAM MAHMOOD1981 SCMR 787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-07Read full judgment →
- FAZALUR REHMAN Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL1981 SCMR 785 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF1981 SCMR 784 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- RASHID BROTHERS, FAISALABAD Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN1981 SCMR 782 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-26Read full judgment →
- ABBASI BEGUM Versus GHULAM FATIMA1981 SCMR 752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-07Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD Versus DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, RESIDUAL PROPERTY1981 SCMR 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-02Read full judgment →
- ENAYAT BIBI Versus SALAMAT BIBI1981 SCMR 724 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER1981 SCMR 708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-25Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1981 SCMR 705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE Versus UMAR SAIGAL1981 SCMR 697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1960-03-09Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus COMBINED TRADERS1981 SCMR 583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL BAQUI Versus SHAISTA KHAN1981 SCMR 468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-12Read full judgment →
- GUL HAIDER Versus STATE1981 SCMR 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which reversed the trial court's acquittal of the appellant for the murder of his step-brother and sentenced him to death. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's reappraisal of evidence, specifically the ocular testimony, the dying declaration, and the circumstantial evidence of motive and abscondence, in setting aside an acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence, finding that the trial court erred in rejecting credible eyewitness accounts and the dying declaration based on minor improvements or medical opinions regarding the timing of death. The Court affirmed that medical expert evidence is confirmatory and cannot outweigh direct, creditworthy ocular testimony. Furthermore, the Court held that the murder was premeditated, given the appellant's travel to the deceased's residence, and thus warranted the death penalty. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence as the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Can medical expert evidence regarding the time of death outweigh direct, creditworthy ocular testimony?
- Is the High Court justified in reversing an acquittal when the trial court's assessment of evidence results in a miscarriage of justice?
- Does the presence of minor improvements in witness statements necessitate the rejection of their entire testimony?
- GRINDIAYS BANK LTD. Versus ABDUR RAZAQ KHAN1981 SCMR 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-10Read full judgment →
- FAZAL ELAHI IJAZ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1981 SCMR 433 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves civil appeals and petitions regarding the terms and conditions of service of Principals, Head Masters, and Head Mistresses of nationalised educational institutions under Martial Law Regulation No. 118. The core legal question concerned the competence of constitutional petitions in light of the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 relating to the jurisdiction of Services Tribunals. The Supreme Court permitted the appellants and petitioners to withdraw their matters to approach the appropriate Punjab Services Tribunal. The Court held that the appellants' and petitioners' present status and emoluments should be maintained for a limited period until the Services Tribunal decides their interim relief applications, provided they file their appeals within one month. The key principle laid down is that while service matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Services Tribunals pursuant to constitutional and statutory bars, appellate courts may preserve interim status for a reasonable limited duration to enable parties to seek relief from the competent tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants are barred from the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the Supreme Court preserve the existing status and emoluments of appellants temporarily upon the withdrawal of appeals to enable them to approach the Services Tribunal?
- Whether a Services Tribunal has the authority to consider applications for interim relief in service matters?
- KHOZAB GUL Versus STATE1981 SCMR 389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which reversed the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Khana Mir, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence of abscondence, arising from a background of deep-rooted family enmity. The Sessions Judge had initially acquitted the appellant, finding the eye-witnesses unreliable and discrepant. The Supreme Court examined the conflicting versions regarding the lodging of the First Information Report and the testimonies of the alleged eye-witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for disbelieving the prosecution evidence were cogent and that the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal where the view taken by the trial court was a plausible one. The Court laid down the principle that an acquittal should not be interfered with lightly unless the assessment of evidence by the trial court is arbitrary or perverse. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in reversing an acquittal when the trial court's view of the evidence is plausible and based on cogent reasons?
- Can contradictory testimonies of eye-witnesses regarding the lodging of the First Information Report form a safe basis for conviction?
- What is the evidentiary value of abscondence when the primary ocular testimony is found to be unworthy of credence?
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE1981 SCMR 372 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal arising from a criminal appeal where the Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence of the petitioner convicted for murder. The prosecution case was that the petitioner killed his brother's wife after she complained to her father that the petitioner was compelling her for sexual intercourse and illicit relations. The petitioner sought leave to appeal on merits regarding false implication and medical evidence contradictions, as well as on the question of sentence based on a compromise and acceptance of compensation under Islamic principles. The Supreme Court repelled the arguments on merits, finding no infirmity in the ocular account provided by closely related eye-witnesses and holding that the medical discrepancy was based on a hypothesis. However, the Court granted leave to consider whether a compromise and payment of compensation effectuated after the High Court's judgment can be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a capital sentence to life imprisonment under Islamic criminal jurisprudence, and whether the timing of such compromise affects the relief.
Questions settled- Can a compromise and payment of compensation effectuated after the pronouncement of judgment by the High Court be considered as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a capital sentence to life imprisonment in a murder case?
- Whether closely related eye-witnesses' testimony regarding a murder can be discounted on the mere suggestion of false implication without tangible infirmities?
- Does a minor discrepancy between medical evidence regarding semi-digested food and the ocular account of the time of occurrence necessitate the reappraisal of evidence by the Supreme Court?
- AHSAN LLAHI Versus HABIB BANK LTD.1981 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- DIN MUHAMMAD Versus UMAR HAYAT1981 SCMR 326 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- HASHMAT BIBI Versus GULZAR MUHAMMAD1981 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-02-07Read full judgment →
- NASEEM SHAFI Versus TANVIR AFFARNDI1981 SCMR 313 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD UMAR Versus AIYSHA AZIZ1981 SCMR 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent-landowner against the appellant-tenant in Karachi. The Rent Controller ordered the deposit of tentative rent, which the appellant failed to deposit within the stipulated time, resulting in his defense being struck off and an order for vacant possession. The Additional District Judge set aside this order, but the High Court, in an ex parte hearing, restored the Rent Controller's order. The appellant's subsequent application for rehearing was dismissed by the High Court. Upon granting leave, the Supreme Court examined whether the appellant had been served with reasonable notice of the High Court appeal and whether his illness justified the delay in depositing rent. The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to prove lack of service or justify the delay, as his plea of illness was insufficient given that he operated a hotel and could have arranged for the rent deposit through employees. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with a four-month grace period granted to vacate the premises.
Questions settled- Does illness of a tenant operating a business constitute a sufficient justification for failing to comply with an order for the deposit of tentative rent?
- Whether a tenant running a business establishment can excuse a delay in depositing rent by claiming personal illness without proving inability to have employees make the deposit?
- Can an appellate court interfere with a finding of fact regarding postal service of notice when the appellant's plea is found to be false and unsupported by necessary witnesses?
- Is a tenant who delays depositing rent until the last day running the risk of being held in willful default if unforeseen circumstances arise?
- SIKANDAR ALI Versus SIND SERVICES TRIBUNAL1981 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Sind Services Tribunal, which summarily dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding his dismissal from service for willful absence from duty. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal erred in holding the appeal not maintainable due to a belated departmental appeal. The Supreme Court held that since the material on record clearly sustained the charges of willful absence against the petitioner and his explanations regarding illness and police detention were unsubstantiated, it was not a fit case to grant special leave to appeal or remand the matter, regardless of the legal questions raised. The key principle laid down is that where ample evidence sustains disciplinary charges and explanations lack cogent proof, the Supreme Court will decline to interfere or grant leave, bypassing technical legal questions whose resolution would serve no useful purpose.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal can dismiss an appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the departmental appeal was barred by time?
- Does consideration of a belated departmental appeal on merits imply condonation of delay by the appellate authority?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when ample material exists on record to sustain the disciplinary charges of willful absence?
- BARKATEY Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1981 SCMR 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- NAZAR ALI Versus LBNE ALI1981 SCMR 239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
- MUNAWAR BEG Versus HASSAN BIBI1981 SCMR 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-07-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the refusal of the Lahore High Court to restore their writ petition, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the omission of the petitioner's counsel's full name from the cause list constituted sufficient cause for non-appearance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the incomplete name in the cause list hindered the counsel from identifying his case, thereby constituting a sufficient cause for his absence. The Court set aside the High Court's orders and directed that the writ petition be heard on merits. The key principle laid down is that an omission or error in a cause list affecting the proper identification of a case by counsel serves as sufficient cause for setting aside a dismissal for non-prosecution.
Questions settled- Does the omission of a counsel's full name from the cause list constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance?
- Can an order refusing to restore a writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution be set aside when the counsel missed the date due to a defective cause list?
- MUSHTAQ AHMED Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM1981 SCMR 1248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which altered the respondent's conviction from murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code, reducing his sentence to six years' rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner, brother of the deceased, contended that the attack was premeditated and that the High Court erred in applying Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the offense constituted premeditated murder or a culpable homicide committed upon a sudden quarrel without premeditation. The Supreme Court held that the conclusions of the High Court were sustainable on the record, noting the absence of evidence of a pre-planned ambush, the occurrence of a sudden scuffle resulting in injuries to the accused, and the applicability of Exception IV to section 300. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact reasonably arrived at by the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether the possession of a weapon by the accused necessarily establishes premeditation in a charge of murder?
- Does a sudden fight arising from a previous grievance attract Exception IV to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the High Court regarding the nature of an assault?
- BASHARAT ALI SHAH Versus STATE1981 SCMR 1243 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants for murder and attempted murder, originally upheld by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the ocular testimony and the First Information Report (FIR), in a case involving indiscriminate firing by a group of armed individuals. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with significant doubts, noting inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the ocular accounts, as well as procedural irregularities in the recording of the FIR. The Court observed that the medical evidence of contused wounds was inconsistent with the claim of close-range firearm injuries, and the lack of independent corroboration in a case involving deep-seated enmity rendered the testimony of interested witnesses unsafe. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is inherently doubtful, inconsistent with medical findings, and lacks independent corroboration in a case of enmity, it is unsafe to maintain convictions, necessitating the acquittal of the accused in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence?
- Does the failure to record an FIR in accordance with the law, specifically regarding the identity of the complainant and the timing of the recording, cast doubt on the entire prosecution case?
- Is it safe to rely on the testimony of interested witnesses in a case of enmity without independent corroboration?
- What is the impact on the prosecution's case when the medical evidence of injuries contradicts the alleged manner of assault?
- NIAZOO MALIAS NIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1981 SCMR 1217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a triple murder conviction. The appellant, Niazoo, and his four brothers were tried for the murder of three individuals. The trial court convicted Niazoo and one brother, Sobho, while acquitting the remaining three. The High Court subsequently acquitted Sobho but upheld Niazoo’s conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was indivisible; having been disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused, their evidence could not sustain his conviction without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the lower courts had not disbelieved the witnesses but had merely extended the benefit of doubt to the acquitted co-accused due to the absence of specific overt acts or contradictions in the specific roles attributed. The Court held that the prosecution evidence against the appellant was consistent and sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence, and established that the principle of indivisibility of witness testimony does not apply where the court has not rejected the witnesses' credibility but merely applied the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of some co-accused due to the benefit of doubt automatically render the testimony of eye-witnesses unreliable against the remaining accused?
- Is the testimony of eye-witnesses divisible when the trial court has not rejected their credibility but granted the benefit of doubt to specific co-accused?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on eye-witness testimony if the trial court has acquitted some co-accused for lack of overt acts?
- GHULAM RASUL Versus INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1981 SCMR 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
- HAJI MUHAMMAD Versus SHAH MUHAMMAD1981 SCMR 1190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →
- MURID AHMAD Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1981 SCMR 1182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus DISTRICT JUDGE1981 SCMR 1175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-24Read full judgment →
- ZINDA MAHMOOD BAJWA Versus FARHAT HASAN1981 SCMR 1174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-08-23Read full judgment →
- SHER MUHAMMAD Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE1981 SCMR 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
- WAZIR KHAN Versus BUDH SINGH1981 SCMR 1165 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHMAN Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL1981 SCMR 1164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant holding Grade 17, sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against the decision of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 4-5-1980. The petitioner had been appointed as a Section Officer by the Punjab Government, subsequently promoted as Deputy Secretary on 12-2-1977, and later reverted to the Federal Government when his promotion notification was cancelled on 12-9-1977. The Service Tribunal had upheld the regularization of his initial appointment and promotion but found that his appointment was against an existing vacancy until further orders, reserving power to terminate it. The core legal question was whether the Government could interfere with an appointment made until further orders without following the strict rules governing reversion. The Supreme Court held that the appointment was of indefinite duration and operated on probation since the requirement of probation was not dispensed with, and his reversion within a year caused no legal grievance as there was no stigma attached to it. The petition raised no question of law, and leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether an appointment made until further orders can be interfered with by the Government without strictly following the rules governing reversion?
- Does an appointment of indefinite duration without a waiver of probation requirements operate as an appointment on probation?
- Whether the reversion of a civil servant within a year from a post held on probation without any stigma attached gives rise to a valid legal grievance?
- ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1981 SCMR 1162 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-05-10Read full judgment →
- JEHANGIR Versus MALLAH1981 SCMR 1146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-25Read full judgment →
- LIAQUAT ALI Versus STATE1981 SCMR 1130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-11Read full judgment →
- NOOR HUSSAIN Versus MISRI KHAN1981 SCMR 1125 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal concerning the resumption of land allotted under the Grow-More-Food Scheme. The core legal question was whether the resumption order passed by the Collector without examining if the breach was rectifiable under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 was illegal, and whether subsequent default after being granted time by the Commissioner vitiated the forfeiture. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was given time by the Commissioner to pay the price and failed to comply, the petitioner could not legitimately grieve against the forfeiture, and successive extensions of time cannot be claimed indefinitely. The key principle laid down is that a defaulter who fails to pay dues even after being granted an opportunity by an appellate authority cannot challenge the ultimate resumption of land, and statutory powers of resumption cannot be defeated by endless demands for extensions upon repeated defaults.
Questions settled- Whether the resumption of land by a Collector is illegal if an opportunity to rectify the breach is not initially examined?
- Can a tenant claim successive extensions of time to pay dues after committing repeated defaults following an appellate grant of time?
- Whether forfeiture of tenancy is justified when a default persists despite opportunities granted to rectify the non-payment?
- KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus STATE1981 SCMR 1115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-01-23Read full judgment →
- M. ABDUL LATIF Versus G. M. PARACHA1981 SCMR 1101 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-04-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TAJ Versus STATE1981 SCMR 1090 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-09-17Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus STATE1981 SCMR 1089 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, aggrieved by the judgment dated 31st of May, 1980, passed in his appeal. The core legal question was whether a judgment delivered by three judges of a four-judge bench that originally heard the appeal, with the Chief Justice's name inadvertently omitted and without his opinion, constitutes a nullity in the eye of law. The Supreme Court held that the submission had substance, as the omission of a member of the bench who heard the case rendered the judgment defective, necessitating a rehearing. The court established the principle that an appeal must be decided by the complete quorum of judges who heard it, and any omission in the panel resulting in a failure to obtain the opinion of a participating judge warrants recalling the judgment and fixing the matter for a fresh hearing.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment delivered by a truncated bench when the appeal was heard by a larger bench is a nullity in the eye of law?
- Does the omission of a judge who heard the appeal from the panel and judgment sheet merit the rehearing of the appeal?
- KARAM KHAN Versus STATE1981 SCMR 1072 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a review petition filed against a Supreme Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction and death sentence for murder. The petitioner sought review primarily on the grounds of mitigating circumstances regarding the motive, a compromise reached between the families of the deceased and the petitioner, and the alleged inconsistency of the death penalty with Shariat law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a review petition requires demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record, which the petitioner failed to establish. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings by lower courts regarding sentencing discretion should not be interfered with in review proceedings. Furthermore, the Court held that a private compromise between parties does not constitute a legal ground for reviewing a criminal conviction or sentence, though it may be relevant for executive clemency. Finally, the Court ruled that it must apply the law as it stood at the time of the offense, rejecting arguments based on subsequent legal developments or potential future legislative changes.
Questions settled- Does a compromise between the families of the deceased and the accused constitute a valid ground for reviewing a criminal judgment?
- Can a court in a review petition interfere with the concurrent exercise of sentencing discretion by lower courts?
- Is a court required to apply the law as it stood at the time of the offense rather than subsequent legal developments?
- Is a private compromise between parties a relevant consideration for executive mercy under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- MUHAMMAD AJMAL Versus ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BAHAWALPUR1981 SCMR 1051 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-04Read full judgment →
- ZILLADAR Versus ALLAH BANDA1981 SCMR 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1981-03-24Read full judgment →
- NAWAB ALI Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1981 SCMR 1025 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
- INAMULLAH KHAN Versus LAHORE CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., LAHORE1980 SCMR 998 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →