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.
- THE STATE Versus KHALID MASOOD1996 PLD 42 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Suo motu proceedings for contempt of court were initiated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a speaker who delivered a speech at a public event alleging that judges were on the payroll of a drug mafia, as well as against the editor, printer, and reporter of the newspaper that published the report. The speaker claimed his remarks pertained to foreign jurisdictions, while the editor and publisher raised defenses of oversight and absence. The core legal questions pertained to whether oral scandalization of superior courts in a public gathering and its subsequent publication constitute contempt, the standard of liability for editors and publishers, and whether standard criminal principles apply to contempt proceedings. The Supreme Court held that scandalizing superior judiciary undermines public confidence in the administration of justice and constitutes contempt under Article 204 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Court Act 1976. The speaker, editor, and printer were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine, while the reporter was discharged. The Court affirmed that editors and publishers bear strict responsibility for published material and that contempt proceedings are sui generis rather than strictly criminal.
Questions settled- Whether oral utterances scandalizing the superior judiciary in a public gathering constitute contempt of court?
- Does the printing and publication of a defamatory or scandalizing report in a newspaper render the editor, printer, and publisher liable for contempt regardless of absence or lack of intent?
- Are contempt of court proceedings strictly criminal proceedings or are they sui generis in nature?
- Can a news reporter be held liable for contempt of court if their report was submitted solely for internal editorial review and policy scrutiny?
- AL-JEHAD TRUST Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1996 PLD 324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional matter arose under Article 184(3) and appellate jurisdiction, challenging various appointments, transfers, non-confirmations, and acting assignments in the superior judiciary. The core legal questions pertained to the constitutional scope of 'consultation' under Articles 177 and 193 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the legitimacy of appointing Acting Chief Justices and ad hoc Judges against permanent vacancies, the legitimate expectation of Additional Judges for permanent appointment, and the transfer of High Court Judges to the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-C without consent. The Supreme Court held that 'consultation' is mandatory, consensus-oriented, and effective, giving primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and Chief Justices of High Courts, which can only be rejected for sound, recorded, and justiciable reasons. The Court declared that permanent vacancies must generally be filled within 30 to 90 days; Acting Chief Justices are not valid consultees; ad hoc appointments cannot be made against permanent vacancies; senior-most High Court Judges have a legitimate expectation to be appointed Chief Justice; and transferring High Court Judges to the Federal Shariat Court without consent violates tenure protections under Article 209.
Questions settled- What is the true constitutional import and legal effect of the words 'after consultation' in Articles 177 and 193 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding the appointment of superior court judges?
- Can an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court or the Supreme Court serve as a valid consultee under Articles 177 and 193 of the Constitution?
- Does the senior-most Judge of a High Court have a legitimate expectancy to be appointed as the permanent Chief Justice in the absence of recorded valid reasons?
- Can ad hoc Judges be appointed to the Supreme Court under Article 182 when permanent vacancies exist within the sanctioned strength?
- Is the transfer of a sitting High Court Judge or Chief Justice to the Federal Shariat Court without their consent under Article 203-C violative of the tenure protections guaranteed under Article 209 of the Constitution?
- ALI MUHAMMAD Versus ALI MUHAMMAD1996 PLD 274 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a Lahore High Court judgment acquitting an accused convicted under the repealed Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for killing a man found in his home at midnight on the same bed as his wife in an objectionable position. The trial court had relied on the defence of grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to the former Section 300, which had since been repealed and replaced under Islamic penal laws. The High Court acquitted the accused, holding that he had an absolute right under Islamic injunctions to defend the privacy and honour of his home and wife without incurring Qisas, Tazir, or Diyat. The Supreme Court reviewed the legal status of grave and sudden provocation and self-defence under the amended Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that while an individual possesses a right to defend honour and privacy under Islamic jurisprudence, exceeding that right by strangulating an overpowered intruder constitutes Qatl-i-Amd under Section 302(c), P.P.C. The High Court's absolute acquittal was set aside, the accused was convicted under Section 302(c), and his sentence was reduced to the period already served.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of Exception 1 to former Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 eliminate grave and sudden provocation as a mitigating factor in Qatl-i-Amd cases?
- Whether an offender who kills an intruder caught committing an illicit act with his wife is completely immune from criminal liability including Tazir or Diyat under Islamic law?
- Is Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 exclusively restricted to the specific categories enumerated in Section 306 of the same Code?
- What offence is committed under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a husband exceeds his right of self-defence while protecting the honour of his wife against an intruder?
- MUHAMMAD AMIR Versus KHAN BAHADUR1996 PLD 267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE1996 PLD 263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH SHAH Versus THE STATE1996 PLD 241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus SAKHI MUHAMMAD1996 PLD 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus THE STATE1996 PLD 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus SECRETARY GOVT. OF PAKISTAN1996 PLD 197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASGHAR Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL1996 PLD 195 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
- IFTIKHAR AHMED Versus SECRETARY, HEALTH DIVISION1996 PLD 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1905-12-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL LATIF Versus BAGGA KHAN1996 PLD 152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus THE STATE1996 PLD 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
- JOINT VENTURE KG/RIST Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1996 PLD 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAQUE Versus THE STATE1996 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-04Read full judgment →
- PIR SABIR SHAH Versus SHAD MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY, N.W.F.P AND ANOTHER1995 PLD 66 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from direct appeals filed under Section 8-B of the Political Parties Act, 1962, challenging the Election Commission of Pakistan's dismissal of references seeking the disqualification of two provincial assembly members on the ground of party defection. The core legal question was whether the adjudicatory forums prescribed under Section 8-B of the Act—namely, the Election Commission for initial determination and the Supreme Court for appeal—were ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, in light of Article 63(2), which designates the Chief Election Commissioner as the forum for deciding member disqualifications. The Supreme Court, by a majority decision, dismissed the appeals as incompetent. The Court held that Section 8-B of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution to the extent of the forums it establishes, as Article 63(2) exclusively vests the jurisdiction to determine member disqualifications in the Chief Election Commissioner, whose decision is final. The key principle laid down is that sub-constitutional legislation cannot alter, bypass, or duplicate a constitutionally mandated forum, and where a conflict exists between the Constitution and subordinate law, the Constitution must prevail.
Questions settled- Whether Section 8-B of the Political Parties Act, 1962, is ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to the extent of the forums it prescribes?
- Whether Article 63(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Chief Election Commissioner to determine all questions of member disqualification?
- Can a sub-constitutional statute create an appellate forum in the Supreme Court against a disqualification decision if no such appeal is provided in the Constitution?
- Does the Supreme Court have the power to declare a statutory provision ultra vires while hearing an appeal brought under that very statutory provision?
- NEK MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE1995 PLD 516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. The prosecution alleged that heroin was recovered from a bolted cavity under the main gate of a bus in which the appellants were present. The core legal question was whether the mere presence of the appellants in the vehicle, without proof of ownership, driving capacity, or knowledge of the hidden compartment, was sufficient to establish 'conscious possession' of the contraband. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any connection between the appellants and the vehicle or the concealed heroin. The Court laid down the principle that where contraband is hidden in a vehicle in a manner not discoverable by mere inspection, the prosecution must prove the accused had actual knowledge of its presence or a connection to the vehicle that establishes conscious possession.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of a person in a vehicle from which concealed contraband is recovered automatically establish conscious possession?
- Is the prosecution required to prove an accused's connection to a vehicle, as owner, driver, or cleaner, to attribute possession of contraband hidden in a secret cavity of that vehicle?
- Can a conviction for possession of contraband be sustained when the recovery is made from a bolted cavity requiring special knowledge to access, without proof of the accused's knowledge of its existence?
- LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE1995 PLD 485 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, filed with the leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenged the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which maintained the appellant's conviction and sentences under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Article 22 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. At the hearing, the appellant's counsel did not contest the conviction on merits but confined the arguments to the trial court and the Federal Shariat Court's failure to grant the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found the conviction to be established beyond reasonable doubt. However, noting that neither of the lower courts had addressed the statutory concession under Section 382-B, and finding no circumstances justifying its denial, the Court held that the provision is mandatory and also applies to cases of life imprisonment. Consequently, the Supreme Court maintained the conviction but directed that the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, be extended to the appellant.
Questions settled- Is a court bound to take into consideration the period of pre-trial detention under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when passing a sentence of imprisonment?
- Does the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases where the accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life?
- Can the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended by an appellate court if the trial court omitted to do so without justifying circumstances?
- SALIMA BEGUM Versus MST. SARDARAN BIBI1995 PLD 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
- GOVT. OF THE PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM1995 PLD 396 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a regular second appeal dismissed by the Lahore High Court, which had affirmed concurrent judgments of the lower courts decreeing a suit for possession through specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question concerned the genuineness and valid execution of the disputed agreement to sell and receipt, particularly whether the signatures thereon belonged to the deceased predecessor-in-interest of the appellants or were forged, and the weight to be attached to conflicting handwriting experts' evidence and the medical condition of the executant. Following a difference of opinion between two judges of the Supreme Court, the matter was referred to a third judge for an opinion. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the due execution of the documents and the genuineness of the signatures were well-supported by direct and corroborative evidence, and that visual dissimilarities without microscopic or general characteristic comparison did not outweigh established expert and direct testimony. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that a court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact absent perversity or misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of a disputed agreement to sell can be interfered with by the Supreme Court without proof of misreading or perversity?
- How is the handwriting or signature of a deceased executant to be legally proved under the Qanun-e-Shahadat and Evidence Act?
- Whether the opinion of a handwriting expert who fails to provide reasons for his conclusions carries more weight than an expert who gives detailed reasons supported by direct evidence?
- Does a general medical condition of an executant at an advanced age necessarily negate his physical capability to execute a sale agreement in the absence of specific evidence proving immobility on the exact date of execution?
- IQBAL MAHMOOD BANDAY Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ1995 PLD 351 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from a suit for damages filed by a landlord (the appellant) against his tenant (the respondent) following a fire that damaged a leased flour mill. The appellant alleged that the respondent maliciously or negligently caused the fire, while the respondent contended the fire was an act of God. The trial court decreed the suit, but the High Court reversed this decision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, a lessee is not liable for damages caused by fire unless the fire was occasioned by the lessee's wrongful act, default, or negligence. The Court ruled that the initial burden of proving negligence or breach of contract rests on the plaintiff-landlord, which the appellant failed to discharge. Furthermore, the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' was held inapplicable as the fire occurred at night in the respondent's absence, and the statutory provisions of the Act governed the parties' liabilities.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant is liable for damages caused by a fire on leased premises in the absence of proof of negligence or a specific covenant to the contrary?
- Does the failure of a defendant to prove that a fire was an 'act of God' relieve the plaintiff of the initial burden of proving the defendant's negligence?
- Is the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur' applicable to a fire accident on leased premises when the tenant was not present and had no exclusive knowledge of the cause?
- INAM NAQSHBAND Versus HAJI SHAIKH IJAZ AHMAD1995 PLD 314 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment regarding a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of property. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908, given that the vendor's title was subject to a pending third-party claim by his father shortly after the agreement. The Supreme Court held that the suit was within time, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court reasoned that the 'date fixed' for performance in Article 113 requires an express date, which was absent here. Furthermore, the Court established that the cause of action for specific performance remains inchoate and suspended while the vendor's title is under a cloud of litigation initiated by a third party, as the vendee cannot effectively perform their part of the contract until that title is cleared. Consequently, the limitation period does not commence until the vendee is in a position to enforce the contract effectively, and the defendant must prove an unequivocal refusal to perform to invoke the bar of limitation.
Questions settled- Does a contractual stipulation to perform an agreement within a week constitute a 'date fixed' for the purposes of Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is a suit for specific performance barred by limitation if the vendor's title to the property is subject to a pending third-party claim?
- Does the limitation period for a suit for specific performance commence when the vendor's title is under a cloud of litigation?
- Can a defendant successfully invoke the bar of limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908 without proving an unequivocal refusal to perform the contract?
- GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER Versus MUHAMMAD IRSHAD AND THREE OTHERS1995 PLD 282 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) Regulations (Nos. 1 and 2 of 1975), which established a parallel judicial system (Jirgas) in Swat and Dir, effectively replacing the ordinary courts. The core legal question was whether these Regulations, promulgated by the Governor under Article 247 of the Constitution, were ultra vires for violating Fundamental Rights—specifically the right to equality before the law—and for failing the constitutional mandate of 'peace and good Government.' The Court held that the Regulations were void. It reasoned that while Article 247 grants special legislative powers for Tribal Areas, this authority is not absolute and must be exercised to facilitate the introduction of representative administration and the rule of law, rather than creating arbitrary, retrograde judicial forums. The key principle laid down is that legislative measures for Tribal Areas must be reasonable and justifiable; legislation that unnecessarily curtails judicial access and ignores the constitutional mandate to separate the judiciary from the executive, without valid cause, constitutes an invalid exercise of power.
Questions settled- Can a Regulation made under Article 247 of the Constitution be challenged on the touchstone of Fundamental Rights?
- Does the term 'State' in Article 7 of the Constitution include the President and the Governor when exercising powers under Article 247?
- Are the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) Regulations of 1975 ultra vires for failing the constitutional requirement of 'peace and good Government'?
- Does the establishment of a parallel judicial system excluding ordinary courts in Tribal Areas violate the constitutional mandate for the separation of the judiciary from the executive?
- FOZAIL MERCHANT Versus THE STATE1994 PLD 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal review petition arises from an order dismissing a criminal appeal for non-prosecution due to the absence of the appellant's counsel and Advocate-on-Record on the date of hearing, followed by the dismissal of a restoration application. The core legal question was whether a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court, in which leave to appeal had been granted, could be dismissed for non-prosecution solely on account of the counsel's absence, and whether sufficient grounds existed to recall the dismissal order. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal order should be recalled and the appeal re-admitted to its original number, noting both that the counsel's absence was due to circumstances beyond his control and that the Supreme Court Rules do not contain any provision for dismissing a criminal appeal for non-prosecution for default of appearance. The key principle laid down is that criminal appeals in which leave has been granted by the Supreme Court must be heard on merits and cannot be dismissed merely for non-prosecution due to the absence of the appellant or counsel.
Questions settled- Can a criminal appeal in which leave to appeal has been granted by the Supreme Court be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the appellant or counsel?
- Do the Supreme Court Rules provide for the dismissal of a criminal appeal for non-prosecution on account of the absence of a counsel on the date of hearing?
- Whether an order dismissing a criminal appeal for non-prosecution can be recalled on a review application when the counsel's absence was due to circumstances beyond his control?
- GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P Versus I.A.SHERWANI1994 PLD 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two appeals were directed against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which declared Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules (and parallel provincial rules) repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The core legal question was whether a Government servant suspended during an inquiry can be deprived of their full salary and benefits, receiving only a 'subsistence grant' instead. The Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a suspended employee remains a full-fledged Government servant who is prohibited from leaving the station, taking leave, or seeking alternative employment. The Court ruled that a contract of service allowing unilateral and arbitrary reduction of salary without any fault being proved is exploitative and constitutes 'Gharar' (uncertainty/exploitation) and 'Tatfif' (giving short measure), both of which are prohibited under Islamic law. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, declaring Rule 53 and related rules repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam to the extent that they deprive suspended servants of full salary and benefits.
Questions settled- Whether a Government servant under suspension is entitled to receive full salary and benefits during the period of suspension?
- Does a contract of service allowing unilateral reduction of salary during suspension without proven guilt violate the Islamic principles of contract?
- Whether the restriction on a suspended employee from leaving the station or taking other employment makes the deprivation of full salary a form of prohibited 'Tatfif'?
- SHEHLA ZIA Versus WAPDA1994 PLD 693 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This public interest litigation arose from a challenge by residents against the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) regarding the construction of a grid station in a residential area of Islamabad. The petitioners alleged that electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines posed serious health hazards, violating their fundamental rights. The core legal questions concerned whether government agencies could endanger citizens' lives without consent and whether the constitutional right to "life" encompassed the right to a clean, healthy environment. The Court held that the constitutional right to "life" is broad, extending beyond mere existence to include the quality of life, dignity, and a healthy environment. Applying the "precautionary principle," the Court ruled that in the face of scientific uncertainty regarding potential health hazards, authorities must prioritize public safety and sustainable development. Consequently, the Court appointed an expert commission to evaluate the project's risks and mandated that WAPDA implement a public notice and hearing procedure for all future infrastructure projects to ensure transparency and citizen participation.
Questions settled- Does the constitutional right to life include the right to a clean and healthy environment?
- Can the Supreme Court intervene under Article 184(3) in cases involving potential environmental health hazards?
- Is a government agency required to provide public notice and a hearing before constructing infrastructure that may affect the health of residents?
- Should the precautionary principle be applied when scientific evidence regarding health risks is inconclusive?
- ISRAR ALI CHISTI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1994 PLD 567 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal concerns a service dispute regarding seniority and promotion rights within the Directorate-General of Immigration and Passport. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, an Assistant who voluntarily opted for the post of Examiner (BPS-12), was entitled to promotion as Superintendent (BPS-16) based on his original seniority as an Assistant, despite declining subsequent promotion to Assistant Incharge (BPS-15) and moving to a different cadre. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Service Tribunal's decision. The Court held that the petitioner, by opting for the Examiner cadre, had effectively changed his career path and could not claim seniority or promotion rights based on his former cadre. The Court affirmed that promotion is not an automatic right but requires consideration of comparative suitability by the competent authority. The judgment establishes that an employee who voluntarily opts for a different cadre cannot maintain seniority claims based on their previous cadre, and that promotion to higher grades involves a selection process based on merit and suitability rather than automatic entitlement.
Questions settled- Can an employee who voluntarily opts for a different cadre claim seniority based on their previous cadre?
- Is promotion to a higher grade an automatic right or a selection process based on suitability?
- Does an employee who declines a promotion to a higher post lose the right to claim seniority for future promotions in that department?
- LIAQAT ALI Versus THE STATE1994 PLD 172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus AMIN JAN NASEEM1994 PLD 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves appeals under Article 203-F(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a Federal Shariat Court judgment that declared specific provisions of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The core legal questions concerned the State's authority to compulsorily requisition private property for government officers, the adequacy of compensation mechanisms, and the validity of statutory clauses ousting judicial review. The Supreme Court held that the power to requisition property for government officers is not a necessity and thus violates Islamic principles. The Court affirmed that compensation must be based on current market rates, prohibited the imposition of interest (Riba) on delayed payments, and ruled that statutory provisions barring judicial intervention are unconstitutional. The key principles established are that private property ownership is protected under Shariah, compulsory requisition is restricted to cases of extreme necessity, and the judiciary cannot be deprived of its jurisdiction to provide remedies to aggrieved citizens against state actions.
Questions settled- Can the government compulsorily requisition private property for the use of its officers?
- Is the payment of interest on delayed compensation for requisitioned property permissible under Islamic law?
- Can a statute validly oust the jurisdiction of the courts to review actions taken under the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956?
- Must compensation for requisitioned property be based on current market rates?
- MUHAMMAD HANI Versus THE STATE1993 PLD 895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-06-22Read full judgment →
- SAFYYA Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE1993 PLD 62 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
- NAWAZ SHARIF Versus PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN1993 PLD 473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
- IRSHAD AHMAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1993 PLD 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus SAEED AHMAD1993 PLD 455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE1993 PLD 38 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, convicted under Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment along with whipping, sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The prosecution's case rested on a sting operation where an officer of the Pakistan Narcotics Control Board acted as a buyer to recover five kilograms of heroin from the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the conviction on the grounds of minor evidentiary discrepancies, the lack of public witnesses, and defects in the raid's organization. The Supreme Court declined to interfere, holding that the appreciation of evidence by the lower courts was sound and free from legal infirmity. The Court observed that minor discrepancies depend on the facts of each case and do not automatically warrant a reappraisal of evidence. Furthermore, the Court endorsed the use of structured raid mechanisms and decoy witnesses in narcotics cases, noting that such methods reduce false implications and enhance conviction rates of actual offenders.
Questions settled- Whether minor evidentiary discrepancies and the absence of public recovery witnesses are sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to reappraise evidence in a narcotics conviction?
- What is the legal significance and utility of employing structured raid mechanisms and decoy witnesses in the detection of narcotics offenses?
- Can a conviction for possession of narcotics be sustained based primarily on the testimony of official witnesses from a designated investigation agency?
- CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST GENERAL RTD. MIRZA ASLAM BEG Versus CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST GENERAL RTD. MIRZA ASLAM BEG1993 PLD 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
- AMAN ENTERPRISES0 Versus RAHIM INDUSTRIES PAKISTAN LTD.1993 PLD 292 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus THE STATE1993 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
- BISVIL SPINNER (PVT.) LTD. Versus PAKISTAN1992 PLD 96 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an excise duty matter arising from the dismissal of the petitioner's constitutional petition by the High Court. The Deputy Collector Customs found the petitioner liable for duty evasion, but the appellate authority remanded the case for de novo consideration. The petitioner challenged this remand via a revision petition, seeking to set aside both the appellate and original orders. The revisional authority dismissed the revision and restored the original order of the Deputy Collector. The High Court declined to interfere, leading to the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved the scope of revisional jurisdiction to restore an original order, the necessity of a fresh show-cause notice, and the admissibility of evidence allegedly obtained through procedural irregularities. The Supreme Court held that a revisional authority petitioned to examine the entire case on merits has the power to affirm and restore the original order without a separate show-cause notice, and that relevant and genuine evidence cannot be excluded merely due to procedural irregularities in its collection. The Court further observed that under Islamic jurisprudence, a party cannot retain a wrongful gain or evade liability due to procedural defects.
Questions settled- Does a revisional authority have the power to restore an original order when the petitioner has invoked revision against both the appellate and original orders?
- Is a separate show-cause notice mandatory before a revisional authority affirms and restores an original order requested to be set aside?
- Can relevant and reliable evidence be excluded from consideration solely because of procedural irregularities committed during its collection?
- Does Islamic jurisprudence permit a party to retain a wrongful gain due to procedural defects by administrative functionaries?
- FAZAL JAN Versus ROSHAN DIN1992 PLD 811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the Court arose from a land inheritance dispute where the plaintiff, a female litigant appearing in person, had her declaration suit and subsequent appeal and revision dismissed by the lower forums. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted gross mismanagement of the trial and failure of the courts below to properly summon revenue records or exercise powers under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Emphasizing the constitutional duty of the State under Article 25(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to protect women's property rights, the Court appointed counsel at State expense. On merits, the Court found that the original owner held an occupancy tenancy under section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887, which converted into ownership in 1952, and that the widow only inherited a limited 1/4th share while the remaining 3/4th devolved upon the plaintiff as the legal heir of the nephew of the original owner. The Court held that the suit was within limitation and decreed the claim to the extent of 3/4th of the suit property.
Questions settled- Does the constitutional mandate under Article 25(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 requiring the State to protect the rights of women extend to judicial functionaries providing legal assistance?
- What is the extent of a widow's share when an occupancy tenancy is converted into ownership estate under statutory dispensation?
- Whether failure of lower courts to summon necessary revenue records and exercise powers for additional evidence warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Is a suit for inheritance barred by limitation when challenged within twelve years of the initial disposal of property by a limited owner?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus ZAFAR AWAN ADVOCATE HIGH COURT1992 PLD 72 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federation of Pakistan appealed against a Federal Shariat Court judgment declaring Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. These provisions mandated prior government sanction for the prosecution of public servants for acts committed in the discharge of official duties. The core legal question was whether such executive discretion to grant or withhold sanction violated Islamic principles of equality and judicial access. The Supreme Court held that the impugned provisions were indeed repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam because they created an unguided, arbitrary clog on an aggrieved citizen's right to seek redress in an independent forum. The Court affirmed that public power is a trust and that all functionaries must be accountable. The principle laid down is that while the legislature may establish specific forums for administrative accountability, it cannot deny or restrict the right to judicial remedy through arbitrary executive barriers. The appeals were dismissed, with a deadline for legislative amendment.
Questions settled- Are the provisions requiring prior government sanction for the prosecution of public servants repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Does the requirement of executive sanction for prosecuting public servants constitute an unconstitutional clog on the right of an aggrieved person to seek judicial redress?
- Can the legislature establish specific forums for the adjudication of wrongful acts by public functionaries without violating the principle of judicial independence?
- HAKIM KHAN Versus GOVT. OF PAKISTAN1992 PLD 595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals challenge a Lahore High Court judgment which held that Article 2A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, rendered the President's power to commute death sentences under Article 45 ineffective in cases involving Qisas and Diyat. The core legal question was whether Article 2A, by incorporating the Objectives Resolution as a substantive part of the Constitution, created a supra-constitutional standard allowing courts to strike down existing constitutional provisions deemed repugnant to Islamic Injunctions. The Supreme Court held that Article 2A does not authorize courts to invalidate other constitutional provisions. The Court emphasized that it is a creature of the Constitution and cannot declare any part of the Constitution ultra vires. The Objectives Resolution serves as a guiding principle but does not override the Constitution's express provisions. Consequently, the President's power under Article 45 remains intact. The Court established that if a constitutional provision is alleged to contravene Islamic Injunctions, the remedy lies with the Parliament, not the judiciary. The appeals were allowed, and the cases remanded for consideration of other relevant pleas regarding the scope of the commutation order.
Questions settled- Does Article 2A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 render the Objectives Resolution a supra-constitutional document that empowers courts to strike down other provisions of the Constitution?
- Can the judiciary declare a provision of the Constitution ultra vires on the ground that it is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Does the President of Pakistan possess the power under Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to commute death sentences in cases involving Qisas and Diyat?
- Is the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution subject to judicial review under Article 2A?
- MOHTRAMA BENAZIR BHUTTO Versus PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN1992 PLD 492 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed under Article 7 of the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification for Membership) Order, 1977 against an order of a Special Court allowing a claim of privilege preferred by the Director of the Intelligence Bureau over unpublished records concerning the Secret Service Fund. The primary legal questions were whether the Director was competent to claim privilege under Article 6 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, whether the court has the authority to inspect state documents, and how state privilege operates when claimed in a quasi-criminal proceeding affecting an accused's defence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Special Court's order, directing it to reconsider the privilege claim by inspecting the documents itself. The Court held that the judiciary has the ultimate responsibility to determine the validity of privilege claims by balancing public interest in non-disclosure against the public interest in the fair administration of justice. In criminal or quasi-criminal trials, privilege cannot be routinely sustained where withholding material would impede the accused's constitutional right to present a full defence.
Questions settled- Whether the head of a department is competent to claim privilege over unpublished official records under Article 6 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
- Does the court have the authority to inspect unpublished official documents relating to state affairs in order to determine the validity of a claim of privilege?
- How should a court balance the competing public interests of national security and the fair administration of justice when privilege is claimed in a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding?
- KHALIL-UR-REHMAN Versus TALIZAR KHAN1992 PLD 442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a pre-emption dispute in Swat, where the defendant/vendee challenged the High Court's acceptance of the respondent/plaintiff's constitutional petition. The core legal question involved the interpretation of section 4(2) of the PATA Special Provisions (Amendment) Regulation IV of 1976, particularly whether it excluded the limitation provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 and the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act in favour of the limitation period prescribed under Para 255 of the Riwaj Nama / Dastoor-ul-Amal of Swat. The Supreme Court held that section 4(2) of Regulation II of 1975, as amended by Regulation IV of 1976, excludes the application of the statutory limitation provisions of both the Limitation Act and the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act regarding pre-emption suits, leaving the limitation period under the local custom (Rewaj) to govern. Furthermore, adopting an interpretation in accord with Islamic principles, the Court held that the pre-emptor was bound by the shorter limitation period applicable to persons residing within the village, rendering his suit time-barred. The appeal was consequently allowed and the plaintiff's suit dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether section 4(2) of PATA Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation II of 1975 excludes the application of the limitation provisions contained in the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act?
- Does the limitation period prescribed under the local Rewaj, custom or usage override statutory limitation acts in pre-emption cases arising in Swat under the PATA regulations?
- When two interpretations of a law are possible, should the interpretation in accord with Islamic principles be preferred?
- HAQ NAWAZ Versus FALEK SHER1992 PLD 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a murder case where the trial court convicted the respondents under various sections including section 302/149 and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code, awarding death sentences to two accused. The High Court altered the convictions, finding no pre-concert, and reduced the death sentence of Falak Sher to imprisonment for life on the ground that his case was at par with a co-accused woman, Mst. Bakhan. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the reduction of sentence based on parity with a female co-accused whose leniency was grounded on sex was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in extending the benefit of sex-based mitigation to a male accused. However, instead of enhancing the sentence of Falak Sher back to death, the Court partly allowed the appeal by enhancing the sentence of fine to Rs. 85,000 to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased, with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that mitigation grounds personal to one accused, such as sex, cannot be automatically extended to co-accused of a different gender.
Questions settled- Whether the ground of leniency based on the sex of one co-accused can be validly extended to another co-accused of a different gender for reducing a sentence?
- Can an appellate court enhance a sentence of life imprisonment to death when the High Court reduced it on an erroneous reasoning concerning parity?
- Whether the imposition of enhanced fine and compensation can be utilized as a substitute for enhancing a sentence of imprisonment in view of established precedents?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE1992 PLD 376 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, on a charge of Zina-bil-jabr brought by his daughter. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, keeping in mind the necessity of exercising extreme caution in cases where such heinous charges are levelled by children against a parent, alongside evidentiary discrepancies and issues regarding the safe transmission of medical evidence. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal, holding that the testimony of the complainant was full of exaggerations, highly improbable, and likely the result of tutoring by disgruntled family members and third parties harboring enmity against the appellant. Furthermore, material contradictions regarding the seals on the vaginal swabs rendered the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable, creating a serious benefit of the doubt in favor of the accused. The key principle laid down is that where serious allegations of a domestic nature are marred by inherent improbabilities, material contradictions, and compromised chain of custody in medical evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether a charge of Zina-bil-jabr levelled by a daughter against her father requires evaluation with exceptional caution?
- Does a contradiction in the number of seals on a parcel of vaginal swabs compromise the reliability of the Chemical Examiner's report?
- Can an accused be granted the benefit of the doubt when prosecution witnesses exhibit material contradictions and potential tutoring?
- FAIZA MALIK Versus CHAIRMAN B.I.S.E1992 PLD 324 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave was directed against the High Court's dismissal of a constitutional writ petition filed by a student who was severely punished by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education for forging marks in one examination paper. The appellant argued that since she had passed seven out of eight subjects, the cancellation of her overall result was harsh, illegal, and rendered moot by her subsequent passage of higher examinations through the lapse of time. The Supreme Court examined whether subsequent educational advancement or passage of time sanctifies an act of fraud or misrepresentation, and whether standard rules regarding passing after failing a single paper apply to cases involving forgery. Relying on its binding precedent in Samar Parvaiz v. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, the Supreme Court held that lapse of time does not validate actions based on fraud and misrepresentation. The Court affirmed that severe punishment was warranted for committing fraud rather than mere academic failure, and leniency could not be claimed.
Questions settled- Does the lapse of time or subsequent educational advancement validate an academic result obtained through fraud and misrepresentation?
- Can a student who passed a majority of subjects claim standard pass rules when one subject's result involves proven forgery and fraud?
- Does the court have grounds to grant leniency or mitigate severe administrative punishment imposed on a student for committing forgery in examination marks?
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus PIARA KHAN1992 PLD 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition filed against the impugned judgment reported as Piara Khan v. Bashir Ahmad 1991 SCMR 2107. The core legal question was whether a conflict of views expressed by another Bench of the Court in a separate case constitutes a valid ground for review. The Supreme Court held that the fact that another view has been expressed in another case is not a ground for review, as the petitioner was essentially seeking an impermissible re-hearing of the case. The key principle laid down is that divergent judicial opinions in separate cases do not fall within the narrow scope of review jurisdiction and cannot be entertained to reopen fully adjudicated matters.
Questions settled- Whether a conflict of views expressed by another Bench in a separate case constitutes a valid ground for review?
- Can a review jurisdiction be invoked for seeking a re-hearing of a settled controversy?
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE Versus THE STATE1992 PLD 248 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by the appellant, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the two key eye-witnesses, who were the sons of the deceased residing in another province, had fortuitously arrived in the village on the evening preceding the occurrence or were trumped-up witnesses. The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the testimonies, noting that the witnesses underwent detailed cross-examination regarding their journey and arrival, providing consistent and convincing accounts. Furthermore, the eye-witnesses were related to both the deceased and the appellant, and their ocular testimony was corroborated by the recovery of a blood-stained weapon (datter) from the appellant. The court held that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene of the crime was established beyond reasonable doubt and that the ocular evidence, supported by recovery, fully proved the guilt of the appellant. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of chance witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased be relied upon if their cross-examination demonstrates a consistent and convincing account of their presence?
- Whether the recovery of a blood-stained weapon provides sufficient corroboration to support the ocular testimony of related eye-witnesses in a murder case?
- ZULFIQAR HAIDER Versus RIAZ MAHMUD1992 PLD 238 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute over the specific performance of an oral agreement for the sale of land. The appellant challenged a High Court decree that ordered the specific performance of the agreement for a portion of the land, despite a prior sale of a part of the property to a third party. The appellant contended that the decree was inconsistent with the original agreement and could not be specifically performed. The Supreme Court observed that this specific legal argument was not raised before the High Court, where the defense had focused solely on the respondent's failure to pay the balance price within the stipulated time, which the High Court had already found was not of the essence of the contract. The Court held that while a pure question of law may be raised for the first time on appeal, it is subject to the Court's discretion to grant leave. Given the appellant's attempt to resile from a solemn agreement, the Court declined to grant leave to raise this new point, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Can a pure question of law be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court without prior leave?
- Is time considered of the essence in an oral agreement for the sale of land where the contract does not explicitly state so?
- Does the Supreme Court have the discretion to refuse the raising of a new legal point on appeal if the party is acting in bad faith?
- ENGINEER- IN- CHIEF BRANCH Versus JALALUDDIN1992 PLD 207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had allowed the respondent employee's appeal regarding pay fixation. The core legal question involved whether an illegal pay fixation order could be indefinitely protected under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae and whether recovery of overpayments could be made. The Supreme Court held that the principle of locus poenitentiae does not apply to perpetuate an illegal order lacking sanction of law, as perpetual rights cannot be gained on the basis of such orders. However, the Court ruled that the already disbursed amounts received under a bona fide belief should not be recovered from the employee. The key principle laid down is that while public authorities retain the power to rescind illegal orders under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, recovery of past payments made under a bona fide belief of entitlement may be barred on equitable grounds.
Questions settled- Whether an illegal pay fixation order can create perpetual rights under the principle of locus poenitentiae?
- Can a public authority rescind an order that has been given effect to when the original order lacks sanction of law?
- Whether recovery of overpayments made under a bona fide belief can be enforced against an employee after the withdrawal of an incorrect pay scale?
- GHULAM SARWAR Versus CHARIMAN C.B.R1992 PLD 190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding the appellant's removal from service for misconduct, indiscipline, and corruption. The appellant had filed complaints against his superiors, which were investigated and found unsubstantiated, leading to disciplinary action against him. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant had a right to be associated with the inquiry against his superiors and whether the Tribunal erred in sustaining the removal based on an unsubstantiated corruption charge. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had no absolute right to be associated with the inquiry against others. However, the Court found that the Tribunal erred in relying on the corruption charge, as there was no supporting material to substantiate it. While upholding the findings of guilt regarding indiscipline and misconduct, the Court determined that the punishment of removal was excessive. Consequently, the Court modified the penalty to compulsory retirement, balancing the established misconduct with the lack of evidence regarding corruption. The judgment affirms that disciplinary authorities have discretion in selecting inquiry procedures, provided the findings are supported by evidence.
Questions settled- Does a complainant have an absolute right to be associated with an inquiry conducted against the persons they have complained about?
- Can a disciplinary authority dispense with a detailed inquiry in favor of a show-cause notice procedure under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Is a service tribunal justified in upholding a removal order based on a charge of corruption when there is no supporting material on record?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to modify the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement in a service matter?
- FEDERAITON OF PAKISTAN Versus MUSHTAQ ALI ADVOCATE1992 PLD 153 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Federal Shariat Court judgment that declared sections 294-A and 294-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the National Prize Bonds Scheme, repugnant to Islamic injunctions. The primary legal question concerned whether the Federal Shariat Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Prize Bonds Scheme, a fiscal statutory instrument, given the constitutional immunity provided to fiscal laws under Article 203-B(c) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 during the relevant period. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Shariat Court lacked jurisdiction to examine the Prize Bonds Scheme at the time of its proceedings due to the statutory bar on fiscal laws. Consequently, the findings regarding the Prize Bonds Scheme were set aside. However, the Court upheld the findings regarding sections 294-A and 294-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, ruling that lottery systems involving chance and loss to some for the benefit of others are prohibited. The Court directed the President to amend these provisions by June 30, 1992, failing which they would cease to have effect.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Shariat Court have jurisdiction to examine fiscal laws for repugnancy to Islamic injunctions during the period of constitutional immunity?
- Are lottery schemes involving chance and loss to participants prohibited under Islamic injunctions?
- Does the exemption of state-authorized lotteries in Section 294-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 violate Islamic injunctions?
- What is the legal status of the National Prize Bonds Scheme regarding its repugnancy to Islamic injunctions under the constitutional bar?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus MUHAMMAD ZAFAR1992 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court which had set aside the conviction of the respondents under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and acquitted them by giving them the benefit of the doubt. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in discarding the testimony of a police constable who apprehended one of the accused immediately after the crime with the firearm and an empty cartridge, and whether vicarious liability could be sustained upon the acquittal of the principal accused. By a majority view, the Supreme Court held that the testimony of the police constable was truthful and provided strong corroboration establishing the active participation of the accused, and that the acquittal of the co-accused did not preclude the conviction of the remaining accused where common intention and participation were otherwise proved. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of an immediate arresting witness, corroborated by surrounding circumstances, can safely be relied upon despite minor omissions in police documents, and that an appellate court should not lightly discard such reliable evidence in criminal trials.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an arresting police constable can be discarded merely due to the omission of the investigating officer to mention the arrest in the inquest report?
- Can an accused be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the co-accused charged as the principal offender has been acquitted?
- What is the test for interfering with an acquittal judgment rendered by the High Court in criminal cases?
- Whether circumstantial evidence and immediate apprehension with a weapon are sufficient to prove active participation in a murder charge?
- CHIEF SECREAR Versus SHER MUHAMMAD MAKHDOOM1991 PLD 973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
- CONSOLIDATE SUGAR MILLS LTD Versus SINDH EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTIO1991 PLD 862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- AMIR KHATOON Versus FAIZ AHMAD1991 PLD 787 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-17Read full judgment →
- SULTAN BIBI Versus IBRAHIM1991 PLD 705 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the court challenged the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which had set aside the respondents' conviction under sections 11 and 18 of the Hudood Ordinance and convicted them under section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code instead. The core legal question was whether the acts committed by the respondents constituted an attempt to commit rape punishable under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 or merely an offence of outraging the modesty of a woman under section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that the series of overt acts—including apprehending the victim, dragging her to sand dunes, removing her shalwar, and being interrupted only by the timely arrival of prosecution witnesses—constituted an attempt to commit rape. The court laid down the principle that an accused who performs overt acts towards completing a criminal design of rape but fails to consummate the offence solely due to external intervention by witnesses is guilty of an attempt under section 18 of the Hudood Ordinance rather than a lesser offence under section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Questions settled- What constitutes an attempt to commit rape under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Is the actual intention of committing rape contemplated by section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the timely arrival of witnesses frustrating a criminal design support a conviction for an attempt under section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- What are the essential legal ingredients necessary to establish an attempt to commit a crime?
- CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF Versus KOURA1991 PLD 596 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- LA Versus REHMAT BIBI1991 PLD 582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute over the inheritance of agricultural land originally held by Allah Ditta, who died issueless in 1940. The appellants, claiming as collaterals, challenged a 1957 gift made by Allah Ditta's sister, Mst. Taleh Bibi, in favour of her daughter. The lower courts dismissed the suit on the ground of res judicata, citing a previous unsuccessful challenge by another collateral, Sardar, under customary law. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the suit was barred by res judicata and considered the impact of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983. The Court held that Section 2-A of the 1983 Ordinance has retrospective effect, meaning that Allah Ditta must be deemed to have acquired the land as an absolute owner under Muslim Personal Law rather than custom. Consequently, the devolution of the property must be governed by Islamic law, rendering the previous customary law-based suit irrelevant for res judicata. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment set aside, and the property ordered to be distributed among the heirs and residuaries in accordance with Muslim law.
Questions settled- Whether a suit brought by collaterals under Muslim law is barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissed suit brought by a different collateral under customary law?
- Does Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 operate retrospectively on acquisitions of land that occurred prior to its enactment?
- What is the legal effect of the deeming provision in Section 2-A(a) of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Act (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 on a male heir who acquired agricultural land under custom from a Muslim predecessor?
- HASHIM KHAN Versus THE STATE1991 PLD 567 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for abduction and Zina. The core legal questions were whether the appellant’s actions constituted abduction under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, as opposed to enticement under Section 16, and whether the mandatory life imprisonment prescribed by Section 11 was a legislative drafting error. The Supreme Court held that the evidence established the victim was abducted by force, confirming the conviction under Section 11. Regarding the sentencing, the Court determined that the legislature inadvertently omitted the word 'extending' in Section 11, which rendered the punishment mandatory life imprisonment. Invoking its authority to avoid injustice and give effect to the true legislative intent, the Court supplied the omission, interpreting the provision to mean 'imprisonment which may extend to life.' Consequently, the Court reduced the appellant’s sentence from life imprisonment to ten years, establishing that courts may supply statutory omissions to align with the patent intention of the lawmaker.
Questions settled- Does the use of force to take a woman against her will constitute an offence under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can a court supply an omission in a statute to avoid injustice and give effect to the true intention of the lawmaker?
- Is the punishment of life imprisonment under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 mandatory or discretionary?
- NUSRATE BEG MIRZA Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1991 PLD 509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged an Office Memorandum and Sindh Civil Servants rules prescribing a quota system for government service appointments before the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-D of the Constitution, alleging repugnancy to Islamic Injunctions. The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petition, holding that the memorandum was protected under Article 27(1) of the Constitution and therefore fell outside its jurisdiction. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether laws framed under or protected by constitutional provisions enjoy immunity from scrutiny by the Federal Shariat Court. Holding that only the provisions of the Constitution itself—and not subordinate laws made or protected thereunder—are immune from such scrutiny, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Federal Shariat Court for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Shariat Court have jurisdiction to examine laws made under the authority of a constitutional provision?
- Are laws protected under Article 27 of the Constitution immune from scrutiny by the Federal Shariat Court?
- Does examining a law protected under the Constitution amount to examining a provision of the Constitution itself?
- FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1991 PLD 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federal Government appealed against a Federal Shariat Court judgment declaring the proviso to Section 8(2) of the Passports Act, 1974, repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam insofar as it permitted impounding a passport for up to four months without providing a prior show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court examined Islamic principles, including the fundamental right to freedom of movement recognized by the Quran and Sunnah, and confirmed that a person's rights cannot be adversely affected without due notice and hearing. The Court held that while prior notice may be dispensed with in cases of urgent emergency, post-impoundment opportunity of show-cause and hearing must be provided as soon as possible thereafter. The Court modified the Federal Shariat Court's 24-hour timeline and held that such opportunity must be afforded within a maximum period of 14 days. The appeal was largely dismissed subject to this modification.
Questions settled- Whether the proviso to Section 8(2) of the Passports Act 1974, allowing impoundment of a passport for up to four months without a show-cause notice, is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Whether prior show-cause notice can be dispensed with when impounding a passport as an emergent measure under Islamic jurisprudence?
- What is the maximum permissible time frame within which a post-action hearing must be afforded after a passport is impounded in an emergency?
- KANIZ BIBI Versus SHER MUHAMMAD1991 PLD 466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus PUBLIC AT LARGE1991 PLD 459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
- NASREEN Versus FAYYAZ KHAN1991 PLD 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-08Read full judgment →
- Z.Z. AHMAD Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKSITAN1991 PLD 363 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
- M. IMAM UD DIN Versus SURIYA KHANUM1991 PLD 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-11-01Read full judgment →
- REHMAT KHAN Versus REHMAT KHAN1991 PLD 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
- IQBA Versus RABIA BIBI1991 PLD 242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
- SULTAN MUHAMMAD Versus NAWAB KHAN1991 PLD 130 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- BASHIR Versus THE STATE1991 PLD 1145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-29Read full judgment →
- BADSHAH BEGUM Versus GHULAM RASOOL1991 PLD 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-24Read full judgment →
- SOHNA Versus SENIOR MEMBER FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION1991 PLD 1114 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-18Read full judgment →
- SHAFAULLAH Versus SAIFUR REHMAN1991 PLD 1106 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed a civil revision regarding a land dispute. The petitioners sought a declaration of title to evacuee land based on alleged adverse possession maturing in 1943. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the adverse possession claim and whether a prior adverse judgment against the petitioners' predecessor operated as res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, holding that the claim was meritless. The Court emphasized that the land in question vested in the Central Government, thereby precluding any claim of adverse possession. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the previous decision by the Custodian authorities, which had been incorporated into a Civil Court decree, was final and operated as res judicata against the petitioners. The Court also clarified that the statutory definition of "Custodian" under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, encompasses Deputy Custodians. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish hostile, open, and continuous possession, and refused leave to appeal, finding the High Court's approach legally sound and unexceptionable.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'Custodian' under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 include a Deputy Custodian?
- Can a claim of adverse possession be maintained against land vested in the Central Government as evacuee property?
- Does a previous decision by Custodian authorities, when incorporated into a Civil Court decree, operate as res judicata in subsequent litigation?
- MCDONALD LAYTON CONSTAIN LTD. Versus PB. EMPL. S.S.I1991 PLD 1055 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-06-25Read full judgment →
- HONG LEONG FINANCE LTD. Versus ASIAN QUEEN1991 PLD 1022 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a mortgagee of the vessel m.v. Asian Queen, filed an admiralty suit in the High Court of Sindh for the arrest and sale of the vessel to satisfy its mortgage claim. Several other claims were subsequently filed by the crew members, Master, and suppliers of necessaries and repairs. The vessel was sold, and the sale proceeds were deposited in a bank, earning interest. The High Court determined priorities, holding that the claims for wages of the crew and Master had priority over the mortgage claim, and ordered that the interest earned on the decretal amounts of the crew and Master also be paid to them, despite interest not being awarded in their original decrees. The appellant challenged this via appeal. The core legal question was whether crew members and the Master, whose claims for wages hold a maritime lien and take priority over a mortgagee, are entitled to claim interest accrued on the sale proceeds deposited in court when interest was not awarded in their decrees. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while crew members and the Master possess a maritime lien constituting a proprietary-like interest in the res and its sale proceeds, their right is strictly limited to the satisfaction of the actual amount awarded in their decrees. Since interest was expressly refused by the court when passing their decrees and no statutory provision or agreement entitled them to it, they could not claim the accrued interest on equitable grounds once their principal decretal amounts were fully satisfied. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Questions settled- Whether crew members and the Master are entitled to claim interest accrued on their share of sale proceeds deposited in court when interest was not awarded in their original decrees?
- Does a maritime lien confer a proprietary interest in the res and its sale proceeds extending beyond the actual amount of the claim or decree?
- Can a claimant claim interest from the date of the institution of the suit till realisation as a matter of right in the absence of an agreement, law, or court decree?
- CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1991 PLD 102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE1991 PLD 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
- QAZALBASH WAQF Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER1990 PLD 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-08-10Read full judgment →
- AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ATTAULLAH KHAN1990 PLD 972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-21Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus ZOHRA BIBI1990 PLD 924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed seeking the review of the Supreme Court of Pakistan's order dated 4-4-1990, which had dismissed the petitioner's Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1982. The petitioner's counsel contended that a specific sentence in the Supreme Court's judgment, describing the case as a 'classic case of sacrifice of reason at the altar of good language', did not correctly represent the exact wording of the High Court's judgment under appeal. The Supreme Court held that even if the phrase was not an exact textual reproduction, it accurately represented the substance and effect of the High Court's findings regarding the defects in the lower appellate court's judgment. The Court further observed that the petitioner's argument was hypertechnical. Finding that the remaining arguments were merely a repetition of those already advanced and considered during the hearing of the main appeal, the Court reiterated that a review cannot be granted for the mere re-examination of the same arguments. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be granted for the sole purpose of re-examining arguments that were already considered and rejected in the main appeal?
- Does a descriptive characterization of a lower court's findings by the Supreme Court constitute a ground for review if it does not use the exact literal words of the lower court's judgment?
- SUO MOTU SHARIAT REVIEW PETITION Versus SUO MOTU SHARIAT REVIEW PETITION1990 PLD 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM1990 PLD 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
- FAZAL JAN Versus ROSHAN DIN1990 PLD 661 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- DARSHAN MASIH Versus THE STATE1990 PLD 513 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a telegram received by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan alleging illegal detention, abduction, and bonded labour conditions faced by brick-kiln workers (primarily Christian labourers) in the Punjab province. The Supreme Court took direct cognizance of the matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 as a case of public interest litigation concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights. The core legal questions involved the legality of the 'peshgi' (advance) and 'jamadar' systems in the brick-kiln industry, the protection of labourers from forced labour, and the scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to issue appropriate orders for enforcing fundamental rights. The Court held extensive proceedings, engaged the Bar associations, law officers, trade unions, and kiln owners, and ultimately recorded agreed interim and final settlements. The ratio laid down is that while past unreturned advances are legally recoverable through civil means without coercion or police intervention, the oppressive 'jamadar' system, child labour, and coercive practices are unlawful. Furthermore, the Supreme Court possesses wide constitutional powers under Articles 184(3), 187, 189, and 190 to issue necessary directions for the complete enforcement of fundamental rights.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court take direct cognizance of a matter concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights upon receiving a telegram under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether past unreturned monetary advances taken by brick-kiln labourers can be recovered through coercive measures or police intervention?
- What is the extent of the Supreme Court's power under Articles 184(3), 187, 189, and 190 to issue appropriate orders and directions for the complete enforcement of fundamental rights?
- Are brick-kiln owners permitted to utilize the 'jamadar' and 'jamadarni' system for engaging and controlling labour under the law?
- ALI SHAH Versus ABDUL SAGHIR SHERWANI1990 PLD 505 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus THE STATE1990 PLD 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a six-year-old girl. The prosecution's case rested primarily on a retracted judicial confession and statements made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by witnesses who subsequently turned hostile at trial, claiming police coercion. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime, and no incriminating recoveries were made from the appellant. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be safely sustained based solely on retracted confessional statements and resiled testimony in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court held that while a conviction can legally be based on a retracted statement, it is unsafe to do so without independent, untarnished evidence connecting the accused to the crime. Finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient and unreliable, the Court granted the appellant the benefit of the doubt, set aside the convictions and sentences, and ordered his immediate release.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroboration?
- What is the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the witnesses resile from them at trial?
- Is it safe to uphold a conviction based on evidence that the accused claims was procured through police coercion and torture?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus FARMAN BI1990 PLD 28 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
- JINDWADD Versus ABDUL HAMID1990 PLD 1192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of the appellants' civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the lower courts' orders closing the plaintiffs' evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether the trial court was justified in closing the appellants' evidence under the said provision given the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly where the adjournment was a court act following the transfer of the case rather than at the request of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court held that the trial court and the High Court had misread the record and erroneously applied Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., as the adjournment in question was not granted at the request of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and decrees, remanded the matter to the trial court to proceed afresh from the stage of the erroneous order, and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
Questions settled- Whether the trial court can close evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an adjournment is necessitated by the transfer of the case rather than at the request of a party?
- Does an appellate or revisional court's misreading of the trial record vitiate an order upholding the closure of evidence?
- ZAID ULLAH Versus THE STATE1990 PLD 1186 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a Constitutional Petition arising from pending agricultural ejectment proceedings. The petitioner contended that Paragraph 25(1) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR 115) had been declared repugnant to Islam by the Shariat Appellate Bench in the Qazilbash Wakf case, thereby rendering the eviction suit ineffective. The High Court dismissed the petition, observing that the Shariat Appellate Bench had not struck down Paragraph 25(1) in its entirety, but only to the extent that it failed to protect grounds of ejectment in valid contracts. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing that the petitioner had prematurely approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction without exhausting the statutory remedies available within the hierarchy of the Revenue Courts. The Court laid down that special tribunals must first be allowed to resolve such disputes and develop Islamic jurisprudence before constitutional remedies are invoked.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional writ petition can be filed in the High Court without first exhausting the alternative remedies provided in the hierarchy of special tribunals?
- To what extent was Paragraph 25(1) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 declared repugnant to the injunctions of Islam in the Qazilbash Wakf case?
- Whether an arbitration award signed by the arbitrator can be discarded merely because it is a carbon copy rather than the original typed document?
- SHABU Versus THE STATE1990 PLD 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Federal Shariat Court's judgment, which upheld the petitioner's conviction for drug trafficking under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and exercised revisional jurisdiction to enhance the sentence by adding a mandatory punishment of ten stripes. The core legal questions were whether the conviction was sustainable despite alleged procedural irregularities regarding search and the lack of independent witnesses, and whether the appellate court could lawfully enhance the sentence by imposing whipping on a female convict. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, dismissing arguments regarding the absence of a female search officer and the lack of independent witnesses as insufficient to vitiate the trial. Regarding the sentence, the Court affirmed that whipping is a mandatory statutory requirement for the offense, and while criminal law generally approaches female offenders with compassion, such leniency is discretionary and depends on the circumstances. Given the petitioner's active role in the drug trade, the Court refused to interfere with the deterrent sentence, establishing that harsh punishment is appropriate for serious societal offenses regardless of gender.
Questions settled- Does the failure to have a female police official conduct a search of a female accused vitiate the trial?
- Can the Federal Shariat Court enhance a sentence by adding whipping in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
- Is the sentence of whipping mandatory for a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, regardless of the gender of the convict?
- Does the absence of independent witnesses from the locality invalidate a recovery made by police officials?
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus THE STATE1990 PLD 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Federal Shariat Court's judgment, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for Zina-bil-Jabr, and enhanced the sentence of stripes from 10 to 30. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, the validity of the medical evidence regarding the victim's virginity and age, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court found the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's guilt to be unexceptionable, noting that the medical evidence confirmed the victim was not habituated to sexual intercourse and was of tender age. The Court held that the petitioner's conviction was justified and refused to interfere with the sentence, despite noting the sentence was lenient. The judgment emphasizes that courts must decide cases based on their specific facts, rejecting arguments that social status or poverty should diminish the credibility of victims or the gravity of sexual crimes committed against them.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for Zina-bil-Jabr be sustained based on concurrent findings of fact by lower courts despite defense allegations of false implication?
- Does the social or economic status of a victim's family affect the credibility of their testimony in sexual assault cases?
- Is the physical appearance of an accused a valid ground for leniency in sentencing for sexual offences?
- AMIR ALI Versus DAD1990 PLD 1078 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit against the High Court's decision to accept the respondents' Regular Second Appeal. The petitioner's suit had originally been decreed on appeal through a compromise, but during the second appeal, the petitioner's counsel conceded that the petitioner was not entitled to a pre-emption decree under the circumstances. The petitioner sought to challenge this concession on the ground that it was made on a point of law and was therefore not binding. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the primary purpose of granting leave to appeal is to correct errors committed by the High Court, and since the High Court committed no error in acting upon the counsel's concession, there was no prima facie justification for interference. The Court emphasized that the grant of leave to appeal is highly discretionary and depends on the circumstances of each case. Given that the land had already been surrendered under land reforms and transferred to tenants, granting leave would cause undue hardship and prejudice to third parties. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether a concession made by a party's counsel on a point of law in the High Court automatically entitles that party to the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
- What is the primary purpose of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction when considering a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order?
- Can the Supreme Court refuse leave to appeal on discretionary grounds if granting it would cause hardship and prejudice to third-party beneficiaries such as tenants under land reforms?
- GHULAM ALI Versus GHULAM SARWAR NAQVI1990 PLD 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
- TAJAMMAL HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE1989 PLD 747 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a conviction under Section 377/511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an attempt to commit sodomy. The petitioner argued that the conviction was based on false implication arising from family enmity and police influence, citing delays in the FIR and medical examination. The Supreme Court carefully scrutinized the evidence, acknowledging the potential for false implication due to the complainant's police connections and existing animosity. However, the Court found the victim's testimony credible and supported by circumstantial evidence, including physical injuries and forensic findings on the victim's clothing. The Court noted that the medical evidence of physical trauma suggested a completed offense rather than a mere attempt, though it declined to interfere as there was no appeal against acquittal or for sentence enhancement. The Court held that the physical evidence and the victim's testimony sufficiently corroborated the prosecution's case, negating the defense of false implication. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for attempt to commit sodomy be sustained where medical evidence suggests physical trauma consistent with a completed act?
- Does the existence of family enmity and police influence automatically necessitate the acquittal of an accused in a criminal case?
- Is the testimony of a minor victim sufficient to support a conviction if corroborated by circumstantial evidence?
- ALLAH DITTA Versus THE STATE1989 PLD 744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the appellants' conviction under sections 11 and 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the appellants, having raised a bona fide plea of valid Nikah (marriage) as a defense to the charge of Zina, were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The Supreme Court found that the defense plea was not frivolous, as it was supported by credible witnesses, including the Nikah Khawan and a Chairman of the Union Council. The Court held that because the defense established a reasonably plausible version of a valid marriage, the prosecution failed to prove the act was 'wilful' as required by Section 4 of the Ordinance, and thus failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. It clarified that this acquittal, based on the possibility of a valid marriage, does not determine the parties' matrimonial status in other civil litigation.
Questions settled- Can a bona fide plea of valid Nikah negate the element of 'wilful' conduct required for a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Does an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt regarding the existence of a marriage determine the matrimonial status of the parties in civil proceedings?
- When a defense plea of marriage is supported by credible evidence, does the prosecution's failure to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE1989 PLD 742 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the partial acceptance by the Federal Shariat Court of the appellant's conviction and sentence, which was altered from an offence under section 10(3) to section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII, 1979. The appellant contended that the prosecutrix's testimony was unreliable due to discrepancies regarding her age and alleged moral depravity, suggesting she was accustomed to sexual intercourse. The Supreme Court examined whether these factors necessitated further corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony. The Court held that even if the prosecutrix were accustomed to sexual intercourse, the conviction under section 10(2) remained appropriate, as the benefit of possible consent had already been extended to the appellant. Furthermore, the Court ruled that medical evidence regarding the condition of a prosecutrix's genitals does not automatically weaken her testimony or necessitate corroboration if she is otherwise found reliable and credible. Finding no infirmity in the appraisal of evidence by the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Questions settled- Does medical evidence of a prosecutrix's prior sexual experience automatically require corroboration of her testimony to sustain a conviction?
- Can a conviction under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII, 1979 be sustained if the prosecutrix is found to be reliable despite arguments regarding her moral character?
- Does the mere opinion of a doctor regarding the condition of a prosecutrix's genitals necessarily weaken her testimony in a Zina case?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus GUL HASAN KHAN1989 PLD 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the Islamic compatibility of statutory provisions governing accomplice testimony, evidentiary standards in Ta'zir matters, and the compoundability of offences against the human body. The primary legal questions evaluated were whether Section 133 of the Evidence Act could be declared repugnant after its repeal, whether rigid Quranic evidentiary standards apply to Ta'zir offences, and whether victims or their heirs possess exclusive rights to compromise or pardon offenders under Islamic law. The court observed that Section 133 of the Evidence Act had been repealed and replaced by Article 16 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, making it unassailable without following proper constitutional procedure against the new Order. The court held that while strict evidentiary rules apply to Hadd, rules of evidence for Ta'zir offences can be statutory and adjusted to social conditions. Crucially, the court held that in offences against person, victims or their legal heirs retain full control over prosecution, compromise, Qisas, and pardon, making Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 repugnant to Islam to the extent they restrict these rights.
Questions settled- Can a statutory provision that has already been repealed by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 be struck down for repugnancy to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Do the strict evidentiary requirements prescribed for Hadd offences apply equally to offences punishable under Ta'zir?
- Are statutory provisions that prevent victims or their legal heirs from pardoning or compromising offences against person repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- FEROZ DIN Versus SARDAR ALI1989 PLD 630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →