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.
- FARID Versus ABDUL AZIZ1980 SCMR 996 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFI Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF1980 SCMR 993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
- NISAR HUSSAIN Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE1980 SCMR 991 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-11Read full judgment →
- GUL HASSAN Versus HAYATULLAH1980 SCMR 989 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises out of a Supreme Court judgment that had previously restored the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts in a property dispute concerning agricultural land. The original suit involved a claim by Mir Abdullah that a mutation of his 23/24th share in the land was fraudulent. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in his favor, but the High Court reversed it in second appeal, which the Supreme Court subsequently set aside. In the present review petition, the petitioners argued that there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate court, that the plaintiff's subsequent death and inheritance by a co-defendant affected the decree, and that the executing court might misinterpret the decree. The Supreme Court held that the questions raised were essentially questions of fact properly determined by the lower courts, that the subsequent death of a party had no bearing on the correctness of the prior judgment, and that the decree clearly pertained solely to the plaintiff's share. The review petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court's appellate jurisdiction in second appeal is attracted when the lower courts have fully considered the evidence on questions of fact?
- Does the subsequent death of a plaintiff after the conclusion of proceedings have any bearing on the correctness of a judgment and decree previously rendered?
- Can a review petition be maintained on the ground of an alleged error in appreciating evidence when the findings of fact were concurrently reached by the lower courts?
- MUHAMMAD ASIAM KHAN Versus GOHAR AMAN1980 SCMR 988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD SAJID Versus ZAHEER AHMAD1980 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for Special Leave to Appeal challenged a High Court order quashing criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents for alleged abduction and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The proceedings had remained pending for over four years with no material progress, despite judicial directions to record the evidence of the alleged victim, a 25-year-old educated woman who had voluntarily married the primary respondent and executed an affidavit to that effect. The High Court had quashed the proceedings, deeming the complaint an abuse of the process of the court given the lack of progress and the victim's own admissions regarding her relationship with the accused. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision on the merits, finding no case for the petitioner. However, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically to examine a legal contention regarding whether the enactment of Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had impliedly repealed the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that previous jurisprudence on this specific point required further examination.
Questions settled- Whether Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has by implication repealed Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if there is an inordinate delay and lack of progress in the trial?
- S. PIN LIU Versus MRS. NAJMA KAZMI1980 SCMR 983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant of a residential house in Karachi, who converted a room thereof into a beauty parlour without the landlord's written consent. The core legal question was whether a tenant using a part of a residential building for commercial purposes without the landlord's written consent incurs liability for eviction under the relevant rent legislation, and whether conversion of only a part of the building attracts such penalty. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that converting even a part or single room of a residential building for commercial use without written consent violates the tenancy terms and renders the tenant liable to ejectment under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Rent Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that the statutory prohibition against unauthorized user extends to any part of a leased building, and informal or unwritten permissions cannot override express statutory and contractual requirements for written landlord consent.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant who converts a part of a residential building into commercial premises without the written consent of the landlord is liable to eviction?
- Does the conversion of a single room of a rented residential building bring the tenant within the mischief of section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Rent Ordinance?
- Can an oral or unwritten understanding justify the conversion of a residential premises to commercial use in the absence of a written consent from the landlord?
- HAZOOR BAKHSH Versus WADDON1980 SCMR 979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the Lahore High Court’s acquittal of respondents in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in rejecting the prosecution's ocular evidence and the dying declaration, thereby granting the respondents the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal. The Court held that the dying declaration was correctly disregarded because the trial court failed to examine the accused regarding it under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding ocular evidence, the Court found the witnesses unreliable as they were inimical to the accused and had failed to disclose the assailants' identities to the village Chowkidar immediately after the incident. Furthermore, the Court noted significant discrepancies between the witnesses' testimony and the medical evidence concerning the time of death. The Court established that ocular evidence from interested or inimical witnesses requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, and where such corroboration is absent and the evidence is discrepant, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration be relied upon if the trial court fails to question the accused about it under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the evidence of an inimical witness require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
- Can an acquittal be upheld when the ocular evidence is inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the time of death?
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, MULTAN& BAHAWALPUR DIVISION1980 SCMR 978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-13Read full judgment →
- INAYAT KHAN Versus SAZAN1980 SCMR 976 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD1980 SCMR 974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
- EHSAN-UL-HAD Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1980 SCMR 972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-04Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL ELECTRIC FANS MANUFACTURERS (REGD.), GUJRAT Versus S. MUHAMMAD DIN & SONS LTD., LAHORE1980 SCMR 97 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a passing-off action instituted by the respondent against the petitioner in the District Court, Lahore, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner from using the word "National" in the description and marketing of its electric fans. The core legal question concerned whether a trader can claim a monopoly over an ordinary descriptive word or trade name and completely bar another party from trading under its own bona fide business name, particularly when the latter has used it for an extended period. The Supreme Court held that a person is entitled to carry on business under their own name or descriptive terms so long as they do not act dishonestly, and an unregistered user cannot acquire a monopoly over generic words of common language. The Court concluded that while the respondent was entitled to a qualified interim injunction preventing the petitioner from over-emphasizing or deceptively splashing the word "National" after 1967, an absolute prohibition against trading under its established business name was legally unsustainable. The High Court's judgment was accordingly set aside and terms for interim regulation were prescribed.
Questions settled- Whether a trader can claim a monopoly over an ordinary descriptive word or business name to completely prohibit another from using it?
- Does the right of an individual or firm to trade under its own name constitute an exception to the general rule against passing off?
- Can the owner of an unregistered trade mark claim higher rights than the owner of a registered trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1940?
- Whether an appellate court should interfere with concurrent or interim findings of fact relating to dishonest get-up in passing-off actions?
- KRISHAN LAI Versus AZIZULLAH KHAN1980 SCMR 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JALIL Versus KHAN BAHADUR1980 SCMR 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court arising out of a suit for a declaration that the petitioner, as a mortgagee of the suit land for over 60 years, had become its owner by efflux of time. The core legal question is whether the period of a previous mortgage in favour of a different mortgagee can be tacked or dovetailed with a subsequent mortgage to compute the 60-year limitation period for extinguishment of the right to redeem under Article 148 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that where the previous mortgage was duly redeemed and a new mortgage was created in favour of a different person while the land was in the self-cultivating possession of the mortgagor, the periods of the two mortgages cannot be tagged together, rendering a suit filed before the expiry of 60 years from the subsequent mortgage premature. The key principle laid down is that the period of a prior redeemed mortgage cannot be tacked to a subsequent, independent mortgage in favour of a different mortgagee for the purpose of computing limitation for redemption or extinguishment of mortgage rights.
Questions settled- Whether the period of a previous mortgage can be tacked with a subsequent mortgage in favour of a different mortgagee for computing the 60-year limitation period under Article 148 of the Limitation Act?
- Does a suit for declaration that a mortgage stands extinguished become premature if filed before the expiry of 60 years from the creation of the relevant mortgage?
- Can a subsequent mortgagee claim the benefit of a prior redeemed mortgage created in favour of a different person who was not a privy to the subsequent contract?
- NIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus NOORI1980 SCMR 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-13Read full judgment →
- SULTAN JAN KHAN Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN1980 SCMR 964 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION Versus HASSAN MEHMOOD1980 SCMR 963 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federal Land Commission filed a petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging interim orders passed by the Lahore High Court, which suspended the operation of the Commission's order and directed the maintenance of status quo regarding land in dispute during the pendency of a constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court could grant interim orders extending beyond the statutory time limits prescribed under the Constitution. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had already moved the High Court for the vacation of the interim orders. The Court held that the legal and constitutional position regarding the limitations on interim orders, as previously settled by the Supreme Court, should first be brought to the notice of the High Court seized of the matter. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with the expectation that the High Court would review the interim orders in light of the settled constitutional principles.
Questions settled- Whether interim orders passed by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution can exceed the statutory time limits prescribed therein?
- Can the Supreme Court decline to interfere with an interim order when an application for its vacation is already pending before the High Court?
- GHULAM RASUL ETC Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER,GUJRANWALA1980 SCMR 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 5TH PROVINCIAL BUILDINGS DIVISION, LAHORE ETC. Versus COMBINED TRADERS, LAHORE1980 SCMR 961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-17Read full judgment →
- AHMAD DIN Versus SYRAN BI1980 SCMR 959 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
- INTERHOM LTD. Versus NISAR AHMAD KHAN1980 SCMR 958 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner company sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of its second appeal by the High Court of Sind, which had upheld the concurrent orders for its ejectment from the disputed residential premises leased for business use. The respondent landlord had sought ejectment on the ground of personal requirement. During the pendency of the second appeal, the petitioner filed an application to produce additional evidence regarding the respondent's employment and accommodation, but the petitioner's counsel failed to press or bring this application to the notice of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not be faulted for failing to consider an application that was not pressed at the bar. Furthermore, the contention that the respondent could not seek ejectment because the lease was originally executed by an ostensible lessor was rejected, as the petitioner had subsequently tendered and paid rent to the respondent, thereby establishing a landlord-tenant relationship. The petition was accordingly dismissed with a four-month extension granted to vacate.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner fault the High Court for failing to consider an application for additional evidence that was never brought to its notice or pressed by counsel?
- Does a tenant who tenders and pays rent to a person other than the original ostensible lessor accept that person as the landlord for the purpose of an ejectment application?
- Whether an ejectment application for personal requirement is maintainable by a landlord where the premises were originally leased through an ostensible lessor?
- FAZLUR REHMAN Versus GHULAM HABIB1980 SCMR 956 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- REPUBLIC MOTORS LTD. Versus M. ANWAR1980 SCMR 954 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from an order of the Sind High Court concerning the custody and disposal of five bus chassis recovered from the possession of respondent M. Anwar, who claimed a lien for work done. The petitioner had entrusted bus chassis to a contractor who misappropriated them and handed them over to the respondent. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 403 of the Pakistan Penal Code and obtained recovery and superdari, subsequently compromising with the contractor. The High Court permitted the respondent to withdraw a claimed amount upon furnishing a bank guarantee, pending a civil court decision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was reasonable and just, noting that the respondent possessed a valid lien for work done, and that under special circumstances, the general rule of restoring property to the person from whom it was seized can be departed from to safeguard legitimate claims. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a person in possession of property who has a lien for work done is entitled to protection of his dues upon recovery and disposal of the property?
- Can the general rule that property should be restored to the party from whom it was taken be departed from under special circumstances?
- Is an order permitting withdrawal of a claimed amount upon furnishing a bank guarantee pending civil court adjudication sustainable?
- NIAMATULLAH SHAH Versus FARMANULLAH1980 SCMR 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a dispute over the recovery of Rs. 2,000, comprising Rs. 750 for grams and Rs. 1,250 for miscellaneous goods. The trial court decreed the full claim, relying on oral evidence for the first item and copies of receipts for the second. The respondents challenged the admissibility of the copies. The appellate court modified the decree, rejecting the Rs. 1,250 claim on the grounds that the receipts were inadmissible as secondary evidence without proper justification. The High Court affirmed this decision. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in its assessment of the evidence regarding the admissibility of the receipts. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the receipts were clearly inadmissible. The Court affirmed the principle that under the Evidence Act, documents must be proved by primary evidence unless a proper case for leading secondary evidence is established under the relevant statutory provisions. As the appellant failed to produce originals or justify secondary evidence, the receipts lacked evidential value, rendering the trial court's admission of them erroneous.
Questions settled- Are copies of receipts admissible as evidence when the originals are not produced and no case for secondary evidence is established?
- Does the failure to produce original documents or justify secondary evidence render copies inadmissible under the Evidence Act?
- Can a trial court admit copies of documents into evidence despite objections regarding their admissibility?
- MANZOOR AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD MUNIR1980 SCMR 952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a constitution petition regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. The core legal question is whether a further appeal to the Member, Board of Revenue was competent under section 161 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, given that the dispute involved a question of fact regarding the respondent's residence. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit and dismissed it, ruling that ignoring material evidence in arriving at a finding of fact constitutes an error of law, thereby rendering the matter amenable to further appeal under the law. The key principle laid down is that the overlooking or ignoring of material evidence by a lower appellate authority in reaching a factual conclusion gives rise to a question of law, justifying interference in further appeal.
Questions settled- Does ignoring material evidence in arriving at a finding of fact amount to an error of law under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Whether a further appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue is competent when a question of law arises from the misreading or ignoring of evidence?
- Is the residence of a candidate for the office of Lambardar subject to scrutiny in a further appeal before the Board of Revenue?
- MUHAMMAD YUSUF Versus ASGHAR HUSSAIN1980 SCMR 886 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-04Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZAQ Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1980 SCMR 876 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- LAI MUHAMMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND1980 SCMR 850 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants, former police officers in Karachi, challenged their dismissal from service resulting from allegations of negligence and corruption connected to a mass poisoning incident involving illicit liquor in 1974. Disciplinary action was initiated by the Superintendent of Police under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, by dispensing with a formal inquiry under rule 5(3). The appellants' departmental representations failed, and their subsequent appeals were dismissed by the Sind Service Tribunal. Upon granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the show-cause notices and subsequent proceedings complied with statutory safeguards. The Supreme Court held that the show-cause notices were excessively vague and failed to communicate the necessary grounds as mandated by rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, rendering the disciplinary proceedings illegal. The Court further held that the Tribunal erred by upholding a dismissal based on untested inquiry reports without affording the appellants a proper personal hearing or opportunity to present a defense. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the dismissal orders set aside, with liberty granted to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether an authorised officer is required to pass an order in writing specifically for dispensing with an inquiry under rule 5(3) of the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Does a show-cause notice issued after dispensing with a formal inquiry satisfy statutory requirements when it fails to provide full particulars and grounds of the action proposed?
- Can a service tribunal sustain a dismissal order based partly on an inquiry report without granting the accused civil servant an opportunity to examine the material or cross-examine witnesses?
- Whether the failure to provide a personal hearing renders disciplinary proceedings and subsequent dismissals illegal where the accused raises complex factual defenses regarding duty assignments?
- FAZAL ELABI Versus SHARIFULLAH1980 SCMR 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenges the dismissal of a second appeal by the Lahore High Court arising from proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question concerned whether an interlocutory order regarding the absence of a third party's interest in the rented property was final and appealable separately, or whether fragmentary appeals against interim orders under section 13(6) of the Ordinance are barred. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the practice of fragmentary decisions in rent jurisdictions does not advance the interests of justice and that parties must wait until a final order is passed before filing an appeal. The key principle laid down is that piecemeal or fragmentary litigation and appeals against interim orders in rent matters are impermissible.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal is competent against an interim order passed under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does the practice of fragmentary decisions in rent proceedings advance the interests of justice?
- Whether a third party claiming an interest in the property can maintain a separate appeal before a final order is passed by the Rent Controller?
- RIAZ KHALIL Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ1980 SCMR 68 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BAHADUR Versus STATE1980 SCMR 662 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-02-06Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID Versus STATE1980 SCMR 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-28Read full judgment →
- MUNEER AHMAD Versus ALLAH DITTA1980 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-11-05Read full judgment →
- SHAHUL HAMID Versus TAHIR ALI1980 SCMR 469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the status of the appellant as a tenant of the respondent. The core legal question is whether parties can, by mutual consent or court order, waive the application of the principle of res judicata in future litigation. The appellant contended that a previous judgment, which declared him a tenant, could not be pleaded as res judicata because the respondent had withdrawn an appeal against that judgment on the express condition that the findings would not operate as res judicata. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the principle of res judicata is a matter of public policy and is mandatory under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court ruled that parties cannot contract out of this statutory provision, nor can a court order effectively nullify its operation. There is no estoppel against a statute, and any agreement or order attempting to waive the application of res judicata is void and inoperative, as it contradicts the public policy of finality in litigation.
Questions settled- Can parties to a litigation agree that a judgment shall not operate as res judicata in future proceedings?
- Is a court order allowing the withdrawal of an appeal on the condition that findings will not be treated as res judicata legally binding?
- Does the principle of res judicata constitute a matter of public policy that cannot be waived by the parties?
- Can a party be estopped from pleading the statutory bar of res judicata based on a prior agreement or court order?
- SAID MIAN Versus SAID BAGHDAD1980 SCMR 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether the Court, upon granting leave to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the High Court, possesses the power to order the arrest of the acquitted persons pending the disposal of the appeal. The core legal question revolved around whether the Supreme Court's constitutional and inherent powers include the authority to issue warrants for the arrest of an acquitted accused. The Court held in the affirmative, ruling that Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions and orders necessary for doing complete justice, including securing the attendance of any person, when read with Order XLIX Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1956, provides sufficient authority to order the detention or arrest of respondents in appropriate cases. Furthermore, the Court held that the power to order arrest or detention during the pendency of an appeal is an ancillary and incidental power to facilitate the final adjudication where the Court has jurisdiction to impose a sentence. The reference was accordingly answered, upholding the legality of the warrants issued.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court of Pakistan have the power to order the arrest of an acquitted person pending the disposal of an appeal against acquittal?
- Whether Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 includes the power to order the arrest of a person to secure their attendance in court?
- Is the power to order the detention of an accused during the pendency of an appeal an ancillary and incidental power to the main appellate jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus ABDUL SHAKOOR1980 SCMR 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over shop title and subsequent eviction proceedings. The petitioner's suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed for default by the trial court after the petitioner and his counsel failed to appear on multiple adjourned dates following a remand. The petitioner sought restoration, claiming lack of notice, which was dismissed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court and the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether service on the petitioner's advocate constituted valid service and whether the dismissal for default was justified. The Court held that service on the petitioner's engaged advocate was valid service on the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to disclose a prior, final High Court order that had already affirmed the validity of the service. The Court affirmed that the dismissal for default was proper due to the gross negligence of the petitioner and his counsel in failing to appear, and refused to entertain new factual arguments not raised in the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does service of notice on an engaged advocate constitute valid service on the party?
- Can a party raise a new factual argument in a revision petition that was not raised in the lower courts?
- Is a suit properly dismissed for default when a party and their counsel fail to appear on multiple adjourned dates?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus HAJRA BI1980 SCMR 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJID Versus STATE1980 SCMR 391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 297 of the Pakistan Penal Code for throwing the dead body of the victim on the roadside. The core legal questions examined were whether the act of throwing a dead body away from a burial place constitutes an indignity to a human corpse under section 297, and whether an accused can be convicted of an offence without a separate charge having been framed. The Supreme Court held that offering indignity to a human corpse with the requisite intention or knowledge falls within the purview of section 297 even if done away from a place of burial, and that a conviction can be recorded without a specific charge if all relevant facts were brought out in evidence and put to the accused. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Does offering indignity to a human corpse away from a place of burial fall within the purview of section 297 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can an accused be convicted of an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code without a separate charge having been framed where all relevant facts are brought out in evidence?
- Must the clauses of section 297 of the Pakistan Penal Code be read conjunctively or disjunctively?
- TASADIQ HUSSAIN Versus STATE1980 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus SAEEDA BEGUM1980 SCMR 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition concerning the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner, a local who had filed an LH transfer form that was rejected in 1959, challenged the auction and subsequent issuance of a P.T.D. in favour of the respondents after nearly two decades of delay. The core legal question involves the effect of inordinate delay, laches, and the conduct of a party seeking discretionary constitutional remedies. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to exercise discretion was unexceptionable, as the petitioner was guilty of sheer negligence, laches, and estoppel by sleeping over the matter for long periods while valuable rights accrued to the respondents. The key principle laid down is that discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction will be refused to a party whose prolonged inaction and lack of diligence amount to laches and estoppel.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner is entitled to constitutional relief when guilty of prolonged delay and laches in challenging a property transfer?
- Does failure to pursue a settlement form over nearly two decades attract the bar of estoppel and laches?
- Is the High Court justified in dismissing a writ petition in limine on the ground of sheer negligence and indifference?
- ABDUL QADIR Versus LAHORE COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1980 SCMR 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had challenged the petitioner's liability as a surety for a bank loan. The core legal question was whether a surety, who failed to contest a recovery suit or challenge a consent decree in the civil courts, could subsequently invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court to dispute his liability and the execution of the decree. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner voluntarily failed to avail himself of adequate alternate remedies under civil law by not filing a written statement, appeal, or objection in the executing court, and thus lacked locus standi to maintain a writ petition. The Court laid down the principle that a party cannot bypass ordinary civil remedies and trial proceedings to challenge a civil court decree or execution through writ jurisdiction, and that a surety's liability does not automatically end merely because the debtor's heirs enter into a compromise for repayment.
Questions settled- Can a surety challenge a civil court decree or execution proceedings through a constitutional writ petition after failing to contest the original suit or file an appeal?
- Does the liability of a surety automatically come to an end simply because the heirs of the principal debtor enter into a compromise to pay the loan amount?
- What is the effect of a defendant's failure to file a written statement or raise objections in the executing court regarding their locus standi to invoke writ jurisdiction?
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE1980 SCMR 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants appealed against the Lahore High Court judgment that reversed their acquittal by the Sessions Judge and convicted them under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellants attacked the deceased at dawn due to a land dispute, relying on ocular testimony, weapon recoveries, and motive. The trial court had acquitted the appellants due to discrepancies in ocular testimony, suspicious recoveries, and interpolations in inquest reports indicating the crime occurred during the dark hours of the night. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court appropriately reversed the acquittal. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution bears the burden of explaining evident alterations and interpolations in inquest reports regarding the time of occurrence. Given the uncorroborated ocular testimony, conflicting statements of interested witnesses, suspicious weapon recoveries, and probable fabrication in post-investigation recording of the FIR, reasonable doubt remained. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the High Court convictions, and restored the trial court's acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie on the prosecution to explain material interpolations and alterations appearing on the face of inquest reports?
- Can an appellate court rely on conjectures to overturn a trial court's finding regarding the time of occurrence and visibility at the crime scene?
- Is the omission of eye-witnesses' names from inquest reports a material defect casting doubt on the veracity and promptness of the FIR?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained primarily on the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses where weapon recoveries are doubtful?
- BAIG MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1980 SCMR 131 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-25Read full judgment →
- SHARIFAN Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1979 SCMR 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-12Read full judgment →
- FOUR FRIENDS Versus DOMCX BORIC1979 SCMR 83 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of a civil petition for special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a review of a previous order refusing a temporary injunction is warranted when subsequent events, namely the granting of permission to sue in forma pauperis, have occurred. The Supreme Court held that the review petition was misconceived because the initial refusal was justified at the time it was made, as no plaint was pending before permission to sue as a pauper was granted, and the court had also found prima facie evidence that the petitioner's claim had been satisfied. The key principle laid down is that subsequent developments, such as the later allowance of an application to sue in forma pauperis, do not furnish a valid ground for reviewing a past order that was legally correct when passed, especially when fresh applications and orders can be pursued before the lower courts based on the changed circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether a review of an order refusing a temporary injunction is maintainable on the ground that permission to sue in forma pauperis has subsequently been granted?
- Can provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure be invoked for granting a temporary injunction before permission to sue in forma pauperis is granted?
- Does the subsequent allowance of an application to sue in forma pauperis justify the modification of a past appellate order?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus STATE1979 SCMR 79 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
- WEST PAKISTAN CO OPERATIVE CONSUMERS SOCIETY LTD. Versus NADEEM NAWAZISH MALIK1979 SCMR 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-18Read full judgment →
- TUFAIL MUHAMMAD Versus ABDUL RAHIM ETC.1979 SCMR 71 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review application was filed against the Supreme Court's prior order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal, which had challenged a Lahore High Court decision quashing a private criminal complaint. The petitioner had initiated a private complaint under sections 148, 448, 449, and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against the respondents after a previous police investigation into the same incident was cancelled by a Magistrate. The High Court had quashed the proceedings on two grounds: the existence of a prior civil court judgment against the petitioner regarding the dispute, and the gross delay in filing the private complaint. The Supreme Court, in its initial order, upheld the quashment primarily due to the significant delay of over a year and a half in filing the complaint. In the review proceedings, the Court reaffirmed that the petition failed to establish valid grounds for review, noting that the cited precedents were distinguishable on facts. The Court held that a private complaint filed after an inordinate delay, following the cancellation of a police case, justifies the quashment of proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a private criminal complaint be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to gross delay in filing?
- Does the dismissal of a prior police investigation constitute a valid ground for the High Court to consider the delay in a subsequent private complaint?
- Is a review petition maintainable when it merely seeks to re-argue points already considered and rejected by the Court?
- FAIZ MUHAMMAD Versus GUL KHAN1979 SCMR 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court dated 19th September 1978, whereby bail granted to him in a murder case by the Additional Sessions Judge was cancelled. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in cancelling the petitioner's bail despite alleged previous enmity between the petitioner and his co-accused which rendered the prosecution story improbable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail because the injured complainant directly attributed a firearm injury to the petitioner in a broad-day occurrence, and no enmity or reason for false substitution was shown between the complainant and the petitioner. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that where an accused is directly charged with an effective firearm injury by an injured witness in a broad-day incident, and no plausible ground for false implication by the complainant is established, the accused is prima facie connected with the crime and is not entitled to bail, notwithstanding any antecedent disputes or enmity with co-accused persons.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be cancelled when an accused is directly charged by an injured complainant for an effective firearm injury?
- Does prior enmity between an accused and a co-accused automatically render the complainant's allegation against the accused improbable for the purpose of granting bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry when there is no suggestion of enmity between the complainant and the accused?
- PRINCIPAL NISHTAR MEDICAL COLLEGE MULTAN Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN NIAZI1979 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed by the Principal of Nishtar Medical College against a Supreme Court judgment that had reduced a student's expulsion period from three years to one year, based on the interpretation of the General Disciplinary Rules of the prospectus. The petitioner sought a review of the judgment to restore the original expulsion order or, alternatively, to obtain permission to transfer the respondent to another medical college. The core legal question was whether the merits of the case and the interpretation of the disciplinary rules could be re-argued in review proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding it incompetent. The Court reaffirmed the principle that review proceedings are neither a re-hearing of the whole case nor an appeal against the judgment under review. Because finality attaches to the judgments of the Supreme Court, parties cannot use review petitions to reiterate contentions already considered and repelled. Furthermore, the Court noted that the request for transfer was outside its jurisdiction and that the petition was time-barred by eighty-one days.
Questions settled- Is a review petition before the Supreme Court a re-hearing of the entire case?
- Can a party use a review petition to re-argue points that were already considered and rejected in the original judgment?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the transfer of a student between colleges in a review proceeding?
- ABDUL HAQUE Versus STATE1979 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Abdul Haque and others, who were convicted under section 325 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injury to the complainant, Muhammad Nawaz, and sentenced to varying terms of rigorous imprisonment. Their convictions and sentences were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, and subsequently by the High Court in a revision petition. Upon approaching the Supreme Court, the petitioners submitted that a compromise had been reached between the parties. The complainant appeared in person, confirmed the compromise, and stated it was achieved through the intervention of respectable local persons. The core legal question concerned the effect of a compromise between the parties in a criminal matter. The Supreme Court accepted the compromise, converted the petition into an appeal, accepted the appeal on the basis of the compromise, and acquitted the petitioners while directing their immediate release.
Questions settled- Can a criminal petition be accepted on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
- Whether an appellate court can acquit petitioners based on a confirmed compromise?
- INAYAT ULLAH Versus MUHAMMAD YUSUF1979 SCMR 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, concerning the transfer of a house under settlement laws. The core legal question revolves around whether a belated appeal challenging a transfer order could be entertained after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) and whether the petitioner had established any preferential right of transfer. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's gross laches, abandonment, and non-pursuit of his claim for seven years, coupled with the intervening issuance of the P.T.D. and the lack of any superior claim on merits, justified the High Court's setting aside of the orders passed by the settlement authorities. The key principle laid down is that prolonged laches and non-pursuit of a remedy by a claimant, alongside the finality attached to a P.T.D., preclude the reopening of settlement proceedings, particularly when no preferential right to transfer is established.
Questions settled- Whether a belated appeal against a transfer order can be entertained after a lapse of seven years and the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
- Does an occupant with a later date of possession possess a preferential right of transfer over an allottee with an earlier date of possession?
- Whether gross laches and non-pursuit of a settlement claim render the interference of settlement authorities without lawful authority?
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM Versus STATE1979 SCMR 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-04-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus STATE1979 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonest receipt or retention of stolen property. The petitioner, a truck owner, was apprehended while transporting stolen goods belonging to the Oil and Gas Corporation during the night. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in convicting the petitioner when he denied the recovery and failed to provide an explanation for the possession of the stolen goods. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the conviction was legally sound. The Court affirmed that while possession of stolen property alone does not constitute an offence, the court may invoke the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act 1872 when a person is found in recent possession of stolen goods and fails to account for such possession. Since the petitioner offered no explanation and denied the recovery, the presumption of guilt was correctly applied, and the Court declined to re-appraise the evidence absent any misreading.
Questions settled- Does the possession of stolen property alone constitute an offence under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the court apply the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act 1872 when an accused fails to account for the possession of stolen goods?
- Is the Supreme Court required to re-appraise evidence in a criminal revision petition where no misreading or disregard of evidence is alleged?
- MIS AKBAR Versus KALA1979 SCMR 303 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1979-01-10Read full judgment →
- AHMAD YAR Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE1979 SCMR 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-12-17Read full judgment →
- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), LAHORE DIVISION, LAHORE Versus AHMAN1979 SCMR 162 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against a Lahore High Court judgment that declared an administrative order imposing special charges for unauthorized water use from a canal ultra vires the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873. The core legal question was whether the original Section 33 of the Act, which specifically referenced 'watercourses,' authorized the imposition of charges for illicit water extraction from government-maintained canals. The High Court held that the Act contained a lacuna, as it failed to distinguish between watercourses and government-maintained canals, thereby invalidating the administrative order. During the pendency of the appeals, the legislature promulgated the Canal and Drainage (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1971, which substituted Section 33 to explicitly cover unauthorized water use from canals, with retroactive effect. The Supreme Court held that while the amendment effectively nullified the basis of the High Court’s judgment, the appellants could not challenge the High Court’s decision on grounds not raised before it. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appeals had become infructuous due to the legislative change and dismissed them without costs.
Questions settled- Did the original Section 33 of the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 authorize the imposition of special charges for unauthorized water use from a canal maintained by the Provincial Government?
- Can an appellate court set aside a High Court judgment based on a legislative amendment that was not presented to or considered by the High Court?
- Does the Canal and Drainage (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance 1971 apply retroactively to validate administrative orders previously declared ultra vires?
- ABDUL SHAKOOR Versus ABDUR RASHID1978 SCMR 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court modifying the conviction of respondent No. 1 from murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while dismissing the revision petition against the acquittal of respondent No. 2. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the prosecution's version of events and accepting the defence plea that the fatal shot was fired during an altercation to rescue a co-accused, thereby altering the nature of the offence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's appreciation of evidence—pointing to inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, the presence of injuries on the defence side, and the absence of injuries on the complainant—was based on material on record, and no interference was warranted. The court affirmed that concurrent findings or well-reasoned appellate evaluations of conflicting evidence by the High Court will not be disturbed lightly where plausible.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's appreciation of evidence when the High Court's view is supported by material on record?
- Does firing a shot to rescue a co-accused during an altercation alter the offence from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the absence of injuries on the complainant party and the presence of injuries on the accused party support the plausibility of the defence version?
- PAKISTAN Versus RASHID AKHTAR NADVI1978 SCMR 409 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from contempt proceedings initiated suo motu by the former Chief Justice of Pakistan following the publication of an interview in a London-based weekly newspaper, wherein the respondent made false and disparaging allegations regarding a conversation with the former Chief Justice, alongside an aerogramme sent directly to him. The core legal question was whether the respondent's published statements constituted gross contempt of court and how the court should deal with an unconditional apology tendered by the contemnor. The Supreme Court held that the statements per se amounted to gross contempt of the Supreme Court. However, because the respondent tendered an unconditional apology at the earliest opportunity with real contriteness, and considering the view of the Attorney-General, the court accepted the apology, discharged the contempt notice, and ordered the release of the attached property and accrued rent. The key principle laid down is that while the publication of false and scurrilous statements against a judge constitutes gross contempt, an unqualified apology offered promptly with genuine contrition may be accepted by the court to discharge the notice without imposing punishment.
Questions settled- Whether the publication of a false and imaginary account of a conversation with a judge constitutes contempt of court?
- Can an unconditional apology tendered with real contriteness absolve a contemnor from punishment in contempt proceedings?
- CHOORI Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN1978 SCMR 404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LATIF Versus MUHAMMAD FAROOQ1978 SCMR 319 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court acquitting the first respondent of murder. The prosecution alleged two separate incidents: first, a morning quarrel over land possession where the respondent inflicted injuries, and second, an afternoon attack resulting in the death of the deceased. The trial court convicted the respondent, but the High Court acquitted him, holding that the evidence indicated a single incident wherein the deceased and prosecution witnesses were trespassers, and the respondent acted in the lawful exercise of the right of self-defence. The Supreme Court examined the record and held that the prosecution version of two separate incidents was unnatural and uncorroborated, as the evidence established that the deceased and his associates were the aggressors who trespassed into the land being cultivated by the accused party. The Court affirmed that the accused was fully entitled to exercise the right of private defence of person and property. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether an appellant in a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court can abandon the appeal at will against the established practice of the Court?
- Does the presence of a single continuous incident of scuffle support a plea of right of private defence against aggressors attempting forcible dispossession?
- Is an appellate court justified in reversing a conviction where the prosecution witnesses' presence is doubtful and their narrative is inconsistent with medical and circumstantial evidence?
- RAMZAN Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), MULTAN1978 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan summarily dismissing a writ petition challenging the cancellation of excess land allotted to the appellant, a displaced person. The core legal question was whether an order passed by a Settlement Authority in exercise of delegated powers under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was immune from appeal or revision. The Supreme Court held that subsequent retrospective legislative amendments, specifically subsection (3) added to section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, expressly made orders passed under delegated powers subject to appeal, review, and revision under Chapter VI of the Act. Consequently, the appellate and revisional orders passed against the appellant were competently made. The key principle laid down is that orders passed by settlement authorities in exercise of delegated powers are fully subject to appellate and revisional jurisdiction as provided by the statute, particularly in light of retrospective legislative clarification.
Questions settled- Are orders passed by a Settlement Commissioner in exercise of delegated powers subject to appeal and revision?
- Can a concurrent finding of fact regarding excess land allotment be challenged in the Supreme Court when leave was granted on a limited question?
- Whether an objection regarding the locus standi of a party can be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- NAZAR MUHAMMAD Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1978 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN Versus STATE1978 SCMR 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-14Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1978 SCMR 29 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-17Read full judgment →
- NAZIR Versus STATE1978 SCMR 285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASBFAQ Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR1978 SCMR 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-11Read full judgment →
- BANARAS Versus STATE1978 SCMR 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
- SHAMIM NUSRAT Versus KHURSHID JAHAN BEGUM1978 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
- AZIZ KHAN Versus HAIDER KHAN1978 SCMR 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1978-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Peshawar High Court which set aside an appellate decree and remanded a civil suit for fresh trial. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration regarding the ownership of agricultural land, alleging that a mutation entry was fraudulent. While the trial court dismissed the suit, the appellate court decreed it in the petitioner's favor. The High Court, in revision, found the evidence provided by revenue officials to be insufficient and sketchy, necessitating a remand for further evidence. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in remanding the case for fresh evidence rather than deciding the matter on the existing record. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was just and proper because the revenue officials' evidence was crucial, and the trial court had failed to record their detailed statements. The Court affirmed that when evidence is inadequate to reach a positive finding on a material issue, a remand for fresh proceedings to ensure a complete record is a valid exercise of judicial discretion.
Questions settled- Can a High Court remand a civil suit for fresh trial if the evidence on record is found to be insufficient or sketchy?
- Is it permissible for a court to order a remand when the trial court failed to record detailed statements of crucial witnesses?
- Does the High Court have the authority to set aside an appellate decree if the underlying evidence is inadequate for a positive finding?
- AMANULLAH KHAN (A. KHAN) Versus CHOTEYKHAN1978 SCMR 14 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- JAVED AHMAD Versus STATE1978 SCMR 114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-07-09Read full judgment →
- AHMAD GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1977 SCMR 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1973-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a High Court order directing the prosecution of an Assistant Sub-Inspector and a doctor under Sections 193 and 218 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly fabricating a dying declaration and giving false evidence. The High Court had issued this direction ex parte without prior notice to the appellants. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was legally exercised. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the evidence of fabrication—specifically the absence of a thumb impression on a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—to be inconclusive, reasoning that a fabricator would likely have forged such an impression. Concluding that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a successful prosecution and that proceeding at such a late stage would not serve the interests of justice, the Court set aside the High Court's direction for prosecution, thereby allowing the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can order the prosecution of witnesses for fabricating evidence without providing them prior notice?
- Does the absence of a thumb impression on a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 conclusively prove that the statement was fabricated?
- Is it appropriate to direct the prosecution of public servants for fabricating evidence when the evidence of such fabrication is not free from doubt?
- PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY Versus ZAHID H. USMANI1977 SCMR 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition is directed against the order of the High Court of Sind dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition which challenged the publication of directions issued by the National Industrial Relations Commission in the official Gazette. The core legal question concerns whether an employer, having successfully persuaded labor forums and the High Court that jurisdiction lay exclusively with the specified authority under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1962, can subsequently challenge the jurisdiction of that very authority after submitting to its proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the specified authority having itself insisted upon that remedy and submitted to its jurisdiction, and accordingly dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a party who successfully pleads before a court that an alternative forum possesses exclusive jurisdiction is estopped from subsequently turning around and challenging the jurisdiction of that alternate forum after participating in its proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an employer who successfully contends that a Labour Court lacks jurisdiction and that the matter must go before the specified authority under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1962 is subsequently estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of that specified authority?
- Can a party who submits to the jurisdiction of a specified authority and defends a case on merits later challenge its jurisdiction in constitutional proceedings?
- Does a subsequent differing judicial view by a High Court allow a party to resile from its previously adopted jurisdictional stance and approbate and reprobate?
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus STATE1977 SCMR 5 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from the judgment of the High Court maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while reducing his sentence to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question involved whether the case attracted the exception of sudden fight without premeditation or established a right of private defence. The Supreme Court held that where the origin of the fight is obscure and the evidence establishes a sudden mutual combat in the heat of passion without premeditation or undue advantage taken by the offender, conviction under Section 304 Part I is proper, and the plea of self-defence cannot be sustained when unsupported by evidence. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of proof regarding the initial aggressor and where a sudden fight occurs between the parties, the courts will view the altercation as mutual combat, negating a general right of private defence unless substantiated by the record.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under Section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable when the origin of the fight remains obscure and unproved?
- Can the plea of right of private defence be accepted when it is not raised at the trial and cannot be spelled out from the record?
- Does a sudden fight without premeditation in the heat of passion warrant a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE1977 SCMR 450 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mehr Dil, but the High Court altered the conviction to Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The prosecution alleged the appellant fired shots from his house following an altercation over flute playing, resulting in deaths and injuries. The appellant raised a plea of self-defence, claiming he was attacked by a mob and fired in retaliation. The Supreme Court held that the evidence, including the recovery of the licensed gun used in the crime and the appellant's own admissions, established his guilt. The Court rejected the plea of self-defence, finding that the mob's actions—throwing stones and breaking the door—were a reactive response to the appellant's initial indiscriminate firing, rather than an unprovoked attack. The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 but modified the sentence from imprisonment for life to transportation for life, noting the legal requirements at the time of the offence.
Questions settled- Can a court alter a conviction from Section 304 to Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the evidence establishes intentional killing?
- Does the right of self-defence under Section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply when the accused initiates the violence and the mob's subsequent actions are a reaction to that violence?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution evidence is partially rejected regarding the formation of an unlawful assembly but corroborated by physical evidence like the recovery of a crime weapon?
- Can a sentence of imprisonment for life be substituted for transportation for life if the former was not the prescribed legal sentence at the time of the offence?
- ALLAH RAKHIO Versus STATE1977 SCMR 347 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition regarding the transfer of a house in village Piplan, District Mianwali, under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The core legal questions were whether the Settlement Authorities possessed the jurisdiction to divide a rural property valued under Rs. 10,000, and whether the High Court correctly upheld the division of the house based on the possession of the parties. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authorities acted within their jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that paragraph 4 of the Revised Settlement Scheme No. VII explicitly permits the application of general principles from the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 and other Settlement Schemes (I, IV, and VI) to facilitate the disposal of property occupied by multiple persons. Consequently, the power to divide the property is inherent in these schemes to resolve competing claims of possession. The Court found no merit in the appellant's contention that division was impermissible, ultimately dismissing the appeal and affirming the transfer orders made by the Settlement Authorities.
Questions settled- Do Settlement Authorities have the power to divide a rural house under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Can general principles from the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 be applied to the disposal of property under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Is a plea regarding the lack of power to divide property maintainable if raised for the first time in the High Court?
- HAYAT Versus STATE1977 SCMR 340 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the murder of their co-villager. The primary legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular evidence, specifically whether the testimony of related and partisan witnesses could be accepted, and whether such evidence was fatally contradicted by medical findings regarding the deceased's bladder and intestinal contents. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The Court held that ocular evidence, if natural and consistent, should not be discarded based on speculative medical theories regarding digestion or physiological functions, particularly when the medical expert was not specifically examined on those points. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the presence of witnesses at the scene was natural and that discrepancies in collateral details did not undermine their credibility. The judgment establishes that courts should avoid rejecting reliable ocular testimony based on conjectures about the time of occurrence derived from post-mortem findings, emphasizing that judges are not medical experts and should rely on direct expert testimony rather than speculative interpretations of medical reports.
Questions settled- Can ocular evidence be discarded based on speculative medical theories regarding the deceased's bladder and intestinal contents?
- Is the testimony of related and partisan witnesses inherently unreliable in a murder case?
- Does a discrepancy in land record entries regarding crop status necessarily invalidate the presence of a witness at the scene?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE1977 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants for murder and arson. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony provided by related witnesses, the identification of the accused at night in the light of fire and moonlight, the sufficiency of the dying declaration, and the establishment of motive. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the ocular testimony was credible and did not require independent corroboration simply due to the witnesses' relationship to the deceased, as they were natural witnesses to the incident. The Court further held that the dying declaration was genuine and consistent with the ocular evidence, and that the identification of the appellants was reliable given the witnesses' familiarity with them. The Court also upheld the findings regarding the motive and the forensic evidence linking the weapon to the crime. While maintaining the sentences, the Court exercised its power to impose mandatory compensation to the heirs of the deceased under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable without independent corroboration?
- Can a conviction be sustained based on identification of the accused at night in the light of fire and moonlight?
- Is the imposition of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory upon conviction for murder?
- Does a discrepancy in the date of abscondence in witness testimony necessarily discredit the entire prosecution case regarding motive?
- ALLAH RAKHIO Versus STATE1977 SCMR 330 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a tax reference regarding the rate of depreciation permissible on plant and machinery used for printing religious books. The respondent concern claimed depreciation at the rate of 10% under clause III(3) of rule 8(2) of the Income-tax Rules framed under the Income-tax Act of 1922, whereas the Income-tax Officer allowed 7% under clause III(1). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the lower authority's view, holding that the rate depended on the particular use to which the machinery was put rather than the classification of the machinery itself. Upon a reference, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that depreciation was governed by clause III(3)M, which applied to newspaper production plant and machinery regardless of the specific use or concern. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that depreciation under clause III(3) is determined by the classification of the plant and machinery itself rather than the particular purpose for which it is utilized, thereby dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether depreciation on plant and machinery under clause III(3) of rule 8(2) of the Income-tax Rules is determined by the classification of the machinery or the particular purpose for which it is used?
- Does clause III(3)M of the Income-tax Rules apply to newspaper production plant and machinery regardless of the specific concern using it?
- Was the High Court correct in answering the reference in favor of the assessee allowing depreciation at the rate of 10%?
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE Versus TAJ COMPANY LTD.1977 SCMR 328 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal arising from an order of the Lahore High Court rejecting the appellants' application for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 307, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The case involved allegations that the appellants, office-bearers of a political alliance, opened fire on the complainant and the injured party following a political dispute, resulting in a bullet injury to the victim. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to pre-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that without pre-empting the trial court's functions on the merits, the case was a fit one for the grant of anticipatory bail. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the appellants were admitted to pre-arrest bail upon furnishing appropriate security.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted when the accused are nominated in a promptly lodged First Information Report with specific roles assigned?
- Can the Supreme Court grant anticipatory bail while refraining from expressing a definite opinion on the merits of the case?
- Whether alleged political malice is a sufficient ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail in an attempted murder case?
- PROVINCE OF SIND Versus ARSALA KHAN1977 SCMR 324 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns a preliminary objection regarding the abatement of an appeal due to the failure to bring the legal representatives of a deceased appellant on record within the prescribed limitation period. The appellant, Seth Ahmad Ali, died on March 3, 1972, but an application to substitute his legal representatives was not filed until February 9, 1976, nearly four years later. Despite multiple notices issued by the Court Registry between 1974 and 1976, no action was taken by the counsel or the legal representatives. The Court examined the application for condonation of delay, which cited family ailments and financial difficulties as reasons for the delay. The Court held that the explanation provided was vague, unsupported by medical evidence, and insufficient to justify the gross delay of 1,348 days. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on this technical ground, affirming the principle that unexplained, inordinate delay in substituting legal representatives warrants the dismissal of the appeal.
Questions settled- Does a delay of nearly four years in bringing legal representatives on record warrant the dismissal of an appeal?
- Is a vague assertion of family illness, unsupported by medical evidence, sufficient grounds to condone a significant delay in legal proceedings?
- AHMAD ALI Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1977 SCMR 323 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the disputed allotment of agricultural land measuring 23 kanals and 7 marlas in District Multan, initially claimed to have been allotted to the appellants' father in 1952. The core legal question is whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner acted without lawful authority in cancelling the alleged prior allotment and reallotting the land to the respondent. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the factual premise upon which leave was granted was incorrect, as revenue records (RL II and Khasra Girdawaris) demonstrated that no land was ever allotted to the appellants' father and neither he nor the appellants were ever in possession of the disputed property. The key principle laid down is that claims of unlawful cancellation of land allotment fail when the foundational assertion of a prior valid allotment and continuous possession is disproven by official revenue records.
Questions settled- Does an order cancelling a land allotment stand if the foundational claim of a prior valid allotment is disproven by revenue records?
- Can an appellant maintain a challenge against the reallotment of state land without proving prior valid allotment and possession?
- ILAM DIN Versus LAL MUHAMMAD1977 SCMR 322 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the dismissal of an appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which had upheld the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition challenging the Government's cancellation of a sale of Lumbardari land. The core legal question involved the applicability of a prior precedent regarding proprietary rights in state-owned land grants and whether any error apparent on the record warranted a review of the court's earlier decision. The Supreme Court held that the review petition lacked merit as no error apparent on the face of the record was pointed out, and new contentions could not be raised in review. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be used to re-argue a case or introduce new questions of fact not previously urged, absent any patent error on the face of the record.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition is maintainable when no error apparent on the face of the record is pointed out?
- Can a new question of fact or a fresh contention be raised for the first time in a review petition?
- HABIBULLAH KHAN Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN1977 SCMR 321 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from three consolidated appeals concerning the ejectment of tenants from three shops under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of reconstruction. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, but the Additional District Judge reversed the decision, and the High Court subsequently dismissed the landlords' second appeals and Letters Patent Appeals. Upon granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan recorded a compromise reached between the parties during the hearing. The Court held that the appeals be decided in terms of the compromise, whereby the tenants agreed to vacate the premises within one month for reconstruction, and the landlords undertook to complete reconstruction within four months and relet the newly constructed shops to the respective respondents pursuant to section 13(5-B) of the Ordinance, with rent to be fixed by the Rent Controller. The key principle laid down is that parties can settle urban rent disputes by mutual compromise before the apex court, binding them to statutory obligations of reletting reconstructed premises.
Questions settled- Whether an order for ejectment on the ground of reconstruction can be resolved through a compromise in the Supreme Court?
- What are the obligations of a landlord who obtains ejectment of tenants for reconstruction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- How is the rent of newly reconstructed premises to be determined upon reletting to the previous tenants?
- SHAH IQBAL Versus STATE1977 SCMR 316 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a dispute regarding the allotment of agricultural land measuring 91 kanals and 11 marlas in Tehsil Chunian, District Lahore, involving competing claims of inheritance, consolidation proceedings, and subsequent allotments by settlement authorities. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court committed a factual error apparent on the face of the record by observing in its judgment that a necessary party, Mst. Mehmoodi Begum, had not been impleaded or claimed relief against, despite being formally added as a co-respondent during the writ proceedings, thereby prejudicing the scope of the remand order. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's observation was indeed factually incorrect and partially negated the remand order. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, maintaining the order of remand while clarifying that the earlier order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in favour of Mst. Mehmoodi Begum would not remain protected from re-examination, and directed that she be included as a party in the fresh proceedings before the Chief Settlement Commissioner for a comprehensive determination.
Questions settled- Does an observation by the High Court that a co-respondent was not impleaded constitute an error apparent on the face of the record when records show the party was formally added?
- Can a remand order by the High Court operate against a party who was duly impleaded as a co-respondent in the writ petition?
- Whether settlement authorities must re-examine claims in their entirety when a remand order affects the underlying allotment rights of all contesting parties?
- REHMAN BEGUM Versus MAHMOODI BEGUM1977 SCMR 314 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the sentence of transportation for life imposed upon the appellant following his conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in awarding the maximum sentence based on the perceived deterioration of the law and order situation, despite the appellant’s plea of self-defense. The Supreme Court held that while courts may consider deterrence and the general law and order situation when exercising sentencing discretion, such discretion must be exercised judicially by weighing specific mitigating factors. In this case, the Court found that the appellant did not act with brutality, the weapon choice was fortuitous, and the deceased had initiated the altercation. Consequently, the Court held that the maximum sentence was not justified and reduced the sentence to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The key principle established is that sentencing must balance the object of deterrence against the specific circumstances of the offense, including the absence of callousness and the nature of the provocation.
Questions settled- Can a court consider the general law and order situation when exercising sentencing discretion?
- Is a sentence of transportation for life appropriate for a conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where the accused acted in self-defense without brutality?
- Should a court rely solely on general crime statistics to impose a maximum sentence without considering the specific mitigating circumstances of the case?
- BAKHSHISH ELAHI Versus THE STATE1977 SCMR 309 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of land to displaced persons under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, specifically regarding the excess of land entitlement. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, could properly interfere with the Rehabilitation Commissioner's proceedings regarding the condonation of a two-year delay in filing a revision petition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have interfered with the Rehabilitation Commissioner’s exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as the Commissioner possessed the statutory authority to determine whether to condone the delay. The Court established that where a statutory authority is seized of jurisdiction, including the power to condone delay, the High Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction to preempt the exercise of that discretion. However, the Court ultimately dismissed the appeal on its merits, finding that the respondents had surrendered sufficient land to remain within their entitlement limits, rendering the appellants' challenge groundless.
Questions settled- Can the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with the proceedings of a Rehabilitation Commissioner regarding the condonation of delay?
- Does the jurisdiction of a Rehabilitation Commissioner to revise orders include the power to condone delay?
- Does a Rehabilitation Commissioner have the authority to decide whether to condone delay in filing a revision petition?
- NUR AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD YUSUF KHAN1977 SCMR 283 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a judgment of the High Court upholding the maintainability of a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land purchased by confirmed allottees. The core legal question was whether the sale of evacuee property by a confirmed allottee was subject to right of pre-emption and whether civil courts had jurisdiction to entertain such suits. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding, based on precedent, that the sale of land by a confirmed allottee of evacuee property is pre-emptible and that civil courts possess jurisdiction over such matters. The Court further held that land not declared as Katchi Abadi by the Chief Settlement Commissioner does not fall within the definition of the Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katchi Abadi) Act 1972 so as to bar pre-emption. The key principle laid down is that confirmed allottees' sales of evacuee property are amenable to pre-emption laws.
Questions settled- Whether the sale of evacuee property by a confirmed allottee is pre-emptible?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a pre-emption suit regarding evacuee property?
- Whether land not declared as Katchi Abadi by the Chief Settlement Commissioner is exempt from pre-emption under the Transfer of Evacuee Lands (Katchi Abadi) Act 1972?
- JAVID DASTGIR MIRZA Versus STATE1977 SCMR 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court convicting the appellant, a Magistrate, of contempt of court for demolishing a shop in deliberate defiance of an interim injunction issued by a civil court. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant's belated apology warranted acquittal and whether he was protected under general exceptions for acting under superior orders or by mistake of fact under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a belated and reluctant apology does not purge contempt, that an executive order cannot override a judicial stay order, and that obeying an unlawful executive command despite knowledge of a court injunction constitutes a mistake of law rather than fact, affording no statutory protection. The key principle laid down is that judicial orders must be obeyed, and public servants cannot claim protection for flouting stay orders on the pretext of superior executive directions without seeking vacation of the injunction.
Questions settled- Whether a belated apology can be accepted as a sufficient ground to purge contempt of court?
- Does an executive order from a superior authority justify the flouting of a judicial stay order?
- Can a public servant claim the benefit of mistake of fact under section 76 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for obeying an unlawful order in violation of an injunction?
- HABIBULLAH KHAN Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN1977 SCMR 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed by the legal representatives of Sardar Habibullah Khan against the dismissal of their appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The original dispute concerned the cancellation of a land grant and the refusal of proprietary rights to the deceased appellant, who had been appointed as a Lambardar in 1940 and sought to purchase the land pursuant to a government memo of 1951. After the High Court dismissed their writ petition challenging the cancellation order, leave to appeal was granted to examine the applicability of a precedent, which was ultimately held to be inapplicable. In the review petition, the petitioners failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record and raised a new factual question regarding hereditary status. The Supreme Court held that no ground for review was made out and dismissed the review petition. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot succeed in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to agitate new questions not previously established.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition can be maintained without showing an error apparent on the face of the record?
- Can a new question of fact be raised for the first time in a review petition before the Supreme Court?
- SHAMIM IQBAL Versus STATE1977 SCMR 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1977-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a conviction for contempt of court. The appellant, a police official, engineered a fictitious habeas corpus petition under the guise of a third party to manipulate judicial proceedings for personal motives, specifically to facilitate the recovery of a woman he had allegedly enticed. Upon investigation, the High Court determined the petition was fraudulent and initiated contempt proceedings against the appellant and his accomplices. The core legal question was whether an unqualified apology automatically purges contempt of court and necessitates acquittal. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that an unqualified apology does not automatically purge contempt, particularly when the contempt is of a serious nature involving the abuse of judicial process. The court affirmed that while an apology may be considered for mitigation of sentence, it does not absolve the contemner of guilt once the allegations are admitted. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding that the High Court had already exercised sufficient leniency in sentencing given the gravity of the appellant's conduct.
Questions settled- Does the tendering of an unqualified apology automatically purge contempt of court?
- Can a court convict a person for contempt of court if they tender an unqualified apology after the evidence is closed?
- Is an unqualified apology a sufficient ground to set aside a conviction for serious contempt of court?
- SHAHZAR KHAN Versus SIND LABOUR COURT NO. KARACHI1977 SCMR 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing a Constitution petition regarding the termination of the appellant, a Head-Chowkidar and Assistant Manager (Security). The core legal question was whether the appellant qualified as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether his termination was lawful. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was indeed a 'workman' under the definition provided in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, noting that the High Court had erroneously applied the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, instead of the relevant Ordinance. The Court established the principle that the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is broad and covers employees regardless of the specific nature of their duties, provided they do not fall within the definition of an employer. However, the Court declined to remand the matter for further proceedings because the appellant had admitted the allegations of misconduct during the inquiry, which had been conducted fairly and impartially. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the termination of services was upheld.
Questions settled- Does a Head-Chowkidar qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Is the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, limited to those performing manual or clerical work?
- Should a case be remanded for reconsideration on merits if the employee has already admitted to the allegations of misconduct?
- SHAMIM AKHTAR Versus ASHRAF BEGUM1977 SCMR 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1976-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court dismissing a second appeal and confirming concurrent orders for the appellant's ejectment from a disputed house formerly evacuee property. The respondent-landlord sought ejectment on grounds of default in rent payment, subletting, and personal bona fide use. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment upon finding a default in rent, which was maintained by the District Judge and the High Court, holding that the requirement of a statutory notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was obviated because the tenancy commenced under a fresh rent note executed pursuant to a settlement between the parties. The core legal question was whether the rule laid down in the majority decision in Evan's case applied to exempt or protect the appellant as a statutory tenant. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove possession of the premises prior to 20 December 1958 to claim privileges under section 30 of the Act, and that the appellant was duly a tenant under the fresh rent note. The principle laid down is that a tenant cannot claim statutory protections under section 30 without establishing prior qualifying possession, particularly where a new tenancy is created by the parties' settlement.
Questions settled- Whether the rule laid down in the majority decision in Evan's case is attracted when a tenancy commences under a fresh rent note executed during settlement?
- Is a tenant entitled to the privileges of a statutory tenant under section 30 of Act XXVIII of 1958 without proof of possession prior to 20th December 1958?
- Does default in the payment of rent render a tenant liable to ejectment despite disputes regarding statutory notices?
- REHMAT ALI Versus STATE1977 SCMR 121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court, challenging the appellant's conviction for negligence in the discharge of his duties as a police constable. The appellant was charged with allowing an under-trial prisoner to escape from custody while escorting him to court. The core legal question was whether the evidence established that the appellant was negligent in his duties, thereby facilitating the prisoner's escape. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the prisoner's escape from handcuffed custody could not have occurred without the appellant's negligence, as the handcuffs could not have been removed or broken without notice. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully discharged its burden of proof regarding the offence. Furthermore, the Court determined that the matter involved a question of the appreciation of evidence rather than a question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
Questions settled- Does the escape of a prisoner from police custody constitute negligence under Section 223 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the question of whether a police officer was negligent in allowing a prisoner to escape a question of law or a question of fact?
- Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving negligence in a case involving the escape of a prisoner from custody?
- AHMAD ALI KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN1977 SCMR 12 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the inheritance of agricultural land allotted to a deceased refugee owner. The petitioner, a pre-deceased daughter's son, challenged the inheritance mutations of the deceased owner's estate. Although he succeeded in respect of lands in one district, his appeal against the inheritance mutation of lands in another district was initially abandoned and subsequently re-filed following a change in the law. The Lahore High Court set aside the favorable orders of the Rehabilitation Authorities, holding that the mutation had attained finality. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that a subsequent amendment to paragraphs 46 and 46-A of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, even if couched in retrospective language, cannot reopen past and closed transactions. Furthermore, the petitioner, having abandoned his initial appeal against the mutation, was precluded from re-agitating the matter through a subsequent appeal based on a subsequent change in the law.
Questions settled- Can a subsequent amendment to a statutory scheme reopen past and closed transactions that have already attained finality?
- Whether a party who has voluntarily abandoned an appeal against an inheritance mutation can subsequently file a fresh appeal against the same mutation based on a subsequent change in the law?
- Does the retrospective application of paragraphs 46 and 46-A of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme apply to cases where the inheritance dispute was already finalized prior to the amendment?
- GULLA Versus ALI NAWAZ1977 SCMR 117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of four respondents accused of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in acquitting the respondents by relying on minor discrepancies in ocular testimony and an inadmissible statement by the Investigating Officer, while failing to consider that even the defense's alternative version of events—alleging grave and sudden provocation—would constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal resulted from an unrealistic appraisal of evidence and a failure to address the legal consequences of the defense's own version. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal and ordered a retrial. The key principle laid down is that courts must evaluate evidence in a realistic and judicial manner; an acquittal is improper where the evidence is sufficient to establish criminal liability, and courts cannot ignore the legal implications of a defense version that admits to the act of killing, even if asserting mitigating circumstances.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal if the trial court failed to consider the legal implications of the defense's own version of events?
- Does an admission of killing under grave and sudden provocation warrant an acquittal or a conviction for culpable homicide?
- Should an acquittal be overturned when it is based on an unrealistic appraisal of evidence and minor discrepancies in witness testimony?
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1977 SCMR 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the Lahore High Court’s confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon the appellant for the murder of Muhammad Ramzan. The appellant, along with co-accused, was convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. While the co-accused received sentences of transportation for life, the appellant was sentenced to death. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether there existed a valid legal basis to discriminate the appellant's sentence from that of his co-accused. Upon review, the Court held that the death penalty was appropriate. The evidence established that the appellant was the primary instigator of the conflict, stemming from a dispute over a 'watta' marriage, and acted with particular brutality by inflicting multiple knife blows upon the deceased. The Court affirmed that where an accused acts as the source of mischief and demonstrates heightened culpability, the imposition of the death penalty is justified, and there is no ground to interfere with the lower court's sentencing discretion. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the death penalty justified for an accused who is the primary instigator of a murder?
- Can an appellate court interfere with a death sentence where the trial court found the accused acted with particular brutality?
- Does the role of an accused as the 'source of mischief' in a dispute provide a valid basis for sentencing differentiation from co-accused?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus STATE1977 SCMR 109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave challenged the conviction of the appellant, an Accountant-cum-Cashier, for criminal breach of trust and corruption regarding alleged missing security deposits and lease monies. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the "entrustment" of funds to the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, given that departmental rules mandated such payments be made directly to the Post Office or State Bank, not to the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution's evidence was self-contradictory, unreliable, and failed to prove entrustment. The Court observed that the Sub-Divisional Officers involved had acted in violation of departmental procedures by accepting funds themselves. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the lower courts had erroneously shifted the burden of proof onto the accused based on disputed signatures. The key principle laid down is that in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the absolute burden of proving the essential element of entrustment, and conviction cannot rest on surmises or unreliable, contradictory witness testimony when the accused denies the receipt of funds.
Questions settled- Does the admission of a signature on an office note-sheet automatically establish the entrustment of funds in a criminal breach of trust case?
- Can a conviction for criminal breach of trust be sustained when the prosecution's evidence regarding the receipt of funds is self-contradictory and violates established departmental procedures?
- Is it permissible for a court to shift the burden of proof onto an accused person to prove their innocence in a corruption case?