100 JUDGMENTS INDEX

J. Title Description
no
1 PLD 2019 SC 461 Heir of an heir of victim had a devolved right of Qisas but this principle is not
Muhammad applicable in tazir cases.
Yousaf Vs The
State
2 PLD 2019 SC 527 Falsus in Uno falsus in omnibus
Notice to
constable Khizar
Hayat
3 PLD 2019 SC 577 Retracted confession could find basis for conviction if found voluntary and
Shaukat Ali vs truthful
State
4 PLD 2019 SC 592 Husband accused of murdering his wife in matrimonial house-silence by
M Pervaiz Vs State accused –could not be equated with failure within the contemplation of Article
121 of QSO
5 PLD 2019 SC 43 345 (6) Compounding of an offence—acquittal –PLD 2018 SC 703
Shafqat Alias
Shafaat vs State
6 PLD 2019 SC 196 Use of audio video recording in 161 statement
Hussain Nawaz
Sharif application
7 PLD 2019 SC 449 Article 128 QSO—Request to DNA declined…Legitimacy
Laila Qayum vs
Fawad Qayum
8 PLD 2019 SC 32 Federal Shariat Court does not hold power to issue writ & enforce
GOP vs Dr Zahoor fundamental rights
Ahmad Azhar
9 PLD 2019 SC 64 295-B, sole witness deaf and dumb is not incompetent to testify—sec 543
M Mansha vs The CrPC & Article 59 QSO discussed
State
10 2019 SCMR 516 337 N-2, Normal sentence is Arsh and Diyat and senetence of imprisonment
Abdul Wahab Vs cannot be passed unless previously convicted………
The State
11 2019 SCMR 956 Joint Identification Parade inadmissible—Estimator variables discussed+
Suhail Ahmad Vs Kanwar Anwar Ali PLD 2019 SC 488 Discussed
The State
12 2019 SCMR 1008 Person recording Dying Declaration not produced –DD in legislative wisdom
Somaid Vs Ali was an exception to the general rule of direct evidence.
Gohar
13 2019 SCMR 537 Magistrate sec 30 can be empowered u/s 34 by the govt. to try the offences
Azhar Hussain which are originally triable by the court of sessions
shah vs The State
14 2019 SCMR 1068 Safe transmission of dead body for which postmortem conducted
M Rafique Alias
Feeqa case
15 PLD 2018 SC 819 Principle of Order 41 Rule 33 CPC would apply to family court
M Asim Vs Mst.
Samro Beghum
16 PLD 2018 SC 813 Theory of Last Seen
M Abid Vs State
17 2018 SCMR 141 Vires of Magistrate regarding examination of medical expert before
M Ajmal Vs State commencement of trial
18 2018 SCMR 71 Sec, 87, 88, 512 CrPC & 5 A(4) ATA—ATA empowers court to conduct full
M Sadique Vs The fledge trial in the absence of accused
State
19 2018 SCMR 354 Medical evidence supportive –Motive not proved + who caused fatal injury
Ali Bukhsh vs not clear--mitigating circumstance
State
20 2018 SCMR 344 Benefit given to non-appealing co-convict—Shabir Ahmad case (2011
Imtiaz Alias Taj Vs SCMR 1142)—Piece of evidence not put to accused in 342 statement cannot
State be considered against him
21 2018 SCMR 372 Dummies remained unchanged while all the accused were put to ID Parade—
although not itself vitiate the parade but had put the court to caution.
 Ata ur Rahman Vs
State
22 2018 SCMR 733 Disciplinary and criminal proceedings may proceed simultaneously—no
State Vs Jahangir double jeopardy
Akhtar
23 2018 SCMR 756 Compromise amounts to acquittal according to sec 345 (6) CrPC—Minority
Mureed Sulatn Vs view =sentence brought to an end but not the conviction
State
24 2018 SCMR 772 Dishonest improvements in statements of witnesses ; it is not safe to place
M Mansha vs State reliance. Medical evidence can never be corroborative but only supportive
piece of evidence. Recovery is not corroborative until supported by positive
report of PFSL. Benefit of reasonable doubt, accused is entitled to its benefit
not as a matter of grace or concession but a matter of right.
25 2018 SCMR 911 Woman accused of killing an-other woman—Motive not proved--
Nazia Anwar Vs
The State
26 2018 SCMR 1177 Order of remand that was facially perverse or without jurisdiction or
Allah Ditta Vs otherwise void could be interfered with under Constitutional jurisdiction like
Memebr BOR any other order.
27 2018 SCMR 791 Defamation and malicious prosecution- No proceeding for defamation could
Ayesha Bibi Vs ADJ be conducted which may undermine the rule of immunity.
28 2018 Scmr 1385 Appeal is a continuation of original proceedings…party cannot set up a new
Ch Iftikhar Ahmad case altogether in the appeal….Article 204 Contempt…acceptance or
IG Islamad case rejection of apology
29 2018 SCMR 1586 Novation of agreement discussed..tenant could not have sought specific
Haji Baz performance of the oral agreement that stood novated in terms reflected in
Muhammad Khan the arbitrator award signed and acknowledged by both parties
Vs Noor Ali
30 2018 SCMR 1199 Mere usage of a common pathway did not amount to possession
M Irfan Vs Mst. Gul
Afroz jan
31 2018 SCMR 1991 Comprehensive plan with regard to custody, visitation rights and
Madiha Younas vs maintenance of minors, and obligations of both parents
Imran Ahmad
32 2018 SCMR 1885 Appeal u/s 14 (2) Family Court Act could be preferred for enhancement of
Saifur Rahman vs amount of maintenance /dowery articles; although original decree is for
ADJ amount lesser than Rs.100,000/- etc
33 2018 SCMR 2039 Rule 5 & 6 report of Analyst in CNSA—safe custody—Rule 5 directory—rule
Imam Bakhsh case 6 mandatory---protocols to be mentioned in report
34 2018 SCMR 2118 Free Fight without pre-meditation—no motive--the alleged recovery of a
Harron Shafique pistol from the accused's custody during the investigation was legally
vs The State inconsequential because the crime-empties had been sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory after the alleged recovery of a pistol from the accused's
possession
35 PLD 2017 SC 18 Schizophrenia, therefore, was a recoverable disease, which, in all the cases,
Safia Bano Vs did not fall within the definition of "mental disorder" as defined in the Mental
Home Department Health Ordinance, 2001
36 PLD 2017 SC 95 Execution of decree passed by court in UAE as a reciprocating state in context
Nadeem Farooq vs of sec 44-A CPC—Respondent was at liberty to institute a suit under sec 13
New Zealand CPC.
37 PLD 2017 SC 152 Age of accused ….Youthful tendency towards excitement and impulsiveness
Amjad Shah Vs were treated by the law as a mitigating circumstance
State
38 PLD 2017 SC 158 Cultivation rights could be sold and therefore pre-emptible ---Question of
Jaan Muhammad law can for the first time be raised before Supreme Court
Vs Sakina Bibi
39 2017 SCMR 98 Agreement not signed by one of the parties..absence of formal signature did
Muhammad Sattar not affect the validity or enforceability of the contract
Vs Tariq Javed
40 2017 SCMR 674 Time not given by the court for depositing Zar-e-Som ..An act of court shall
Malik Tariq prejudice no man
Mahmood Vs
Ghulam Ahmad
41 2017 SCMR 316 Sec 53 TPA –Full consideration received …Possession delivered….merely ban
Syed Hakim Shah on execution of registration of document cannot deprive the plaintiff from
Vs M Idrees seeking execution of registered sale deed
42 2017 SCMR 321 Alternate price of the gold ornaments was not static…would have to pay the
Haji M Nawaz Vs alternate price at the prevailing rate
Samina Kanwal
43 2017 SCMR 376 S. 21---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Schd., Art. 10---Suit for pre-emption
Miraj Din Vs M filed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913---Limitation period---Period
Sharif of limitation of one year started from the date of execution of the sale deed
and not from the date of its registration.
44 2017 SCMR 713 Arts. 30, 42 & 43 QSO-- S. 364 CrPC…Confession at later stage of trial..rules
Muhammad Ismail to be followed.. Admission of the accused could not be a substitute for a true
Vs The State and voluntary confession, and it could not be made the sole basis of conviction
on a capital charge.
45 2017 SCMR 902 Time essence of contract Sec 55 Contract Act…Specific Performance of
Malik Bahadar
Sher Khan Vs Haji
Shah Alam
46 2017 SCMR 1213 Any order whether of acquittal or conviction by court would be appealable u/s
State Vs Abdul 48 CNSA
Jabbar Alias jabara
47 2017 SCMR 1696 Specific performance was essentially an equitable relief which could lawfully
M Abdul Rahman be declined if the Court came to the conclusion that it was unjust and
Qureshi Vs Saghir inequitable to do so
Ahmad
48 2017 SCMR 1787 S. 54 TPA---Sale of immoveable property---Essential elements---Essential
M Moez ul Din Vs elements of sale were, first, the parties; second, the subject matter; third, the
Mansoor Khalil transfer or conveyance, and, fourth, price or consideration.
49 2017 SCMR 2005 ----O. II, R. 2 & O. XXIII, R. 1(3)---Relinquishment of part of claim---
Shahbaz Khan Vs Withdrawal of suit without permission to file a fresh suit
ADJ
50 2017 SCMR 2026 Nine guiding principles about Last Seen evidence discussed
Fiaz Ahmad Vs The
State
51 2017 SCMR 2036 Right of private defence of the body and property extending to causing death
Mazhar Iqbal vs of trespasser---Scope---Law gave right to the occupant of any property to
State expel any intruder/trespasser and if the trespasser had made a trespass for
illicit matters then, the right of self-defence of property and person was
further fortified even to the extent of causing death of trespasser if he did not
retreat after having been told or warned to retreat.--- in many cases of such
nature the police deliberately avoid requesting the Medico-legal Officer to
examine the private parts and clothes of the deceased/injured or the accused
connected with the crime after getting swabs from their private parts for
chemical examination; that such an opinion was important to facilitate the
courts in reaching a just and proper conclusion.
52 PLD 2016 SC 17 the real question involved was as to whether or not a person could be said to
Mumtaz Qadri be justified in killing another person on his own on the basis of an unverified
Case impression or an unestablished perception that such other person had
committed blasphemy…----Extra-judicial actions---Law did not permit an
individual to arrogate unto himself the roles of a complainant, prosecutor,
judge and executioner
53 PLD 2016 SC 613 S. 5, Sched.---Family Court, jurisdiction of---Undertaking given in the "Nikah
Yasmeen Bibi Vs m Nama" that certain property/land shall be transferred in the name of the wife
Ghzanfar Khan and she would be exclusive owner of the same---Such an undertaking could be
construed as a part of dower or a gift to wife in consideration of marriage
therefore, it would fall within the exclusive domain of the Family Court to pass
a decree in relation to such property/land.
54 PLD 2016 SC 55 Orders passed either under S.203, Cr.P.C. whereby a direct complaint was
M Farooq Vs dismissed or under S.204, Cr.P.C. whereby the Court had taken cognizance of
Ahmad Nawaz an offence complained of and issued warrants or summons for causing the
Gigrani accused to be brought or produced before the Court were judicial orders….
Exercise of jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. by the High Court was akin to
the exercise of jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution… Remedy under
S.561-A, Cr.P.C was not an alternate and or substitute for an express remedy
as provided under the law in terms of S.435 to 439, Cr.P.C and or Ss.249-A or
265-K, Cr.P.C, as the case may be… Two courts having co-extensive or
concurrent jurisdiction---Propriety demanded that jurisdiction of court of the
lower grade was to be invoked in the first instance
55 PLD 2016 SC 174 S. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 CPC discussed---Suit for administration with regards to
M Ramzan Vs the property situated outside Pakistan…Defendants residing, carrying
nasreen Firdous business or working outside Pakistan---Jurisdiction of courts in Pakistan
disputed by defendants---Cause of action not wholly or partly arising in
Pakistan---Effect---Section 20, C.P.C was not applicable in such circumstances
and thus jurisdiction of courts in Pakistan over the property situated outside
Pakistan would be barred.
Principles---'Lex domicilii' and 'lex situs'---Moveable/immoveable property
of deceased situated in foreign country (outside Pakistan)---Deceased
possessing nationality and domicile of foreign country---Since disputed
property was situated in a foreign country and the deceased was also
domiciled and a national of the said foreign country, thus, following the rules
of lex domicilii' and lex situs, the laws of foreign country would apply and
courts of foreign country would have jurisdiction over such property
56 PLD 2016 SC 214 Unregistered partnership firm---Bar on filing of suit by an existing
Nazir Ahmad Vs unregistered partnership firm or its partners for enforcement of rights---
Ali Ahmad Principles and exceptions..Sec 69 Partnership Act discussed.
57 PLD 2016 SC 409 Suit valuation—court fee discussed -- ----S. 151---Inherent powers of Trial
Zahid Zaman Khan Court---Consolidation of suits---Court had the inherent power to consolidate
Vs Khan Officer suits and the purpose behind it was to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to
prevent abuse of the process of law and court and to avoid conflicting
judgments…… S. 33 & O. XX, R. 6---Consolidated suits---Separate decrees---No
provision existed in the C.P.C. where the court was obliged to prepare separate
decrees for each of the consolidated suits, however it would be more
appropriate if separate decrees were drawn up---Supreme Court directed that
where two or more suits had been consolidated and disposed of through a
common judgment, all Trial Courts must draw up separate decree sheets with
all the material particulars as per the requirements of O. XX,
C.P.C….Consolidated appeal against a consolidated judgment ---
Permissible, provided that appellate forum had the pecuniary jurisdiction to
hear the appeal against the decrees according to their valuation i.e. the
valuation of the original suit
58 PLD 2016 SC 478 Malicious prosecution was a tort which provided redress to those who had
M Yousaf Vs Abdul been prosecuted "without reasonable cause" and with "malice"...Plaintiff must
Qayum prove that there was a prosecution without reasonable and probable cause,
initiated by malice and the case was resolved in plaintiff's favour---Plaintiff
also necessarily had to prove that damage was suffered as a result of the
prosecution
59 PLD 2016 SC 712 Appeal was not merely a matter of procedure but a substantive right; it was
Ghulam Qadir Vs the continuation of a suit and during appellate proceedings the entire matter
Abdul Wadood stood reopened-- Matter of revision was not a mere privilege afforded to the
aggrieved person but also a right, however revisional power remained
discretionary… Dismissal for non-prosecution---Legality---Maxim
'vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt'---Civil revision once
admitted to regular hearing could be dismissed for non-prosecution ---Where
the revisional court had taken up the matter at the behest of a petitioner, the
court had the power to dismiss the civil revision for non-prosecution even
after it has been admitted to regular hearing, and was not bound to decide the
same on merits---However, the revisional court was not to dismiss a revision
petition for non-prosecution but to decide it on merits only where the court
had taken cognizance of the matter of its own suo motu powers…. Application
seeking restoration of revision petition in exercise of inherent powers of the
court---Limitation---Limitation Act, 1908 did not contain any specific Article
which would prescribe the limitation period for the exercise of such inherent
power of the court, therefore the residuary Art.181 of the Limitation Act, 1908
shall be attracted---For allowing or refusing such an application the rule of
"sufficient cause" as envisaged by S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and its
principles shall be attracted, regardless of whether such section was
applicable or not.
60 PLD 2016 Sc 872 The law of limitation was a statute of repose, designed to quieten title and to
Khushi bar stale and water-logged disputes and was to be strictly complied with.
Muhammad Vs Statutes of limitation by their very nature were strict and inflexible. Law of
Mst. Fazal Bibi limitation does not confer a right; it only regulates the rights of the parties.
Such a regulatory enactment could not be allowed to extinguish vested rights
or curtail remedies, unless all the conditions for extinguishment of rights and
curtailment of remedies were fully complied with in letter and spirit. There
 was no scope in law of limitation for any equitable or ethical construction.
Justice, equity and good conscience did not override the law of limitation.
Object of law of limitation was to prevent stale demands and so it ought to be
construed strictly; Principles discussed

61 2016 SCMR 116 Partial compromise may not have any bearing upon conviction of an
Amin Vs State accused person in a case of Ta'zir but it may have, in the circumstances
of a given case, some relevance to the question of sentence in such a
case
62 2016 SCMR 24 Revision petition against concurrent findings of fact by courts below---
Nazmudin vs Ordinarily the revisional court would not interfere in the concurrent findings
Sheikh Zia ul of fact recorded by the first two courts of fact but where there was misreading
Qamar and non-reading of evidence on the record which was conspicuous, or where
there was an error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts below and/or
where the courts had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with
material irregularity, the revisional court shall interfere and could upset
the concurrent findings.
63 2016 SCMR 179 Admittedly, the plaintiff had made the application for extension of time for
M Wahid Vs depositing of balance sale consideration after a lapse of more than 40 days-
Nasrullah --Such application, in the given circumstances, could not have been accepted
by the Trial Court in exercise of its powers under S. 148, C.P.C., as on the date
of filing of such application the Trial Court had become functus officio by
virtue of the decree passed by it---Decree passed by Trial Court could only
have been challenged by the plaintiff in appeal and the Appellate Court was
competent to allow an application seeking extension of time for deposit of
balance sale consideration if justifiable grounds were found---Jurisdiction
with the Trial Court was available only within the stipulated period of 40 days,
and the moment such period of 40 days was over, it ceased to have jurisdiction
and became functus officio, in view of the condition incorporated in the
decree-
64 2016 SCMR 274 Confession was recorded by magistrate on oath---violated the law and
Azeem Khan Vs rendered it in-admissible--
Mujahid Khan
65 2016 SCMR 291 Art. 185(3)---Leave granting order by Supreme Court---Such order had no
Kareem Nawaz binding effect against the settled propositions on an issue.. Waiver or
Khan vs The State compounding of offence---Scope---Conviction and death sentence recorded
under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and S. 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Offence
under S. 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was an independent one,
which was non-compoundable, thus the sentence awarded under said
provision of law was independent to other sentences under S. 302(b), P.P.C.
etc., which may be compoundable in nature---In view of the bar contained in
S. 345(7), Cr.P.C., conviction of an accused under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
would remain intact despite compromise in other sentences in compoundable
offence.
66 2016 SCMR 467 Sentences passed against accused in more than one trial---Power of court
Sajjad Ikram Vs to order concurrent running of such sentences---Court, while analyzing the
Sikandar Hayat facts and circumstances of every case, was competent to direct that sentences
in two different trials (of an accused) would run concurrently---Provision of S.
397, Cr.P.C. conferred wide discretion on the Court to extend such benefit to
the accused in a case of peculiar nature.
67 2016 SCMR 834 Accordingly the District Judge, in the present case, had issued a notification
M Ijaz Vs M Shafi [notification authorizing Tehsildars to receive plaints in absence of Civil
Judges in the area… pre-emptors filed their plaints before the Tehsildar as
admittedly Civil Judge was absent-- Fault in such cases did lie with the court
and not with the litigants and no litigant should suffer on such account unless
he/they were contumaciously negligent and had deliberately not complied
with a mandatory provision of law.
67 2016 SCMR 787 Section 196 of Cr.P.C barred the Court from taking cognizance of an offence
Javed Iqbal vs under section 295-A of P.P.C., without requisite
State sanction/approval/permission (of the Government) and failure to obtain such
mandatory permission rendered the proceedings to that extent a nullity in
law. However, bar of taking cognizance provided under section 196, Cr.P.C
would not apply to the proceedings before the Anti-Terrorism Courts in
view of the combined effect of sections 12, 19, 30 and 32 and the overriding
effect of section 32 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, being proceedings under
 a special statute, which provided exclusion of those provisions of Cr.P.C. and
other laws which were inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act.
68 2016 SCMR 1144 Extra-judicial confession, reliance upon---Scope---Such confession could be
Nasir Javed Vs concocted easily therefore, it was always looked at with doubt and suspicion-
State --Extra-judicial confession could be taken as corroborative of the charge if
it, in the first instance, rang true and then found support from other evidence
of unimpeachable character---If the other evidence lacked such attribute, such
confession had to be excluded from consideration… Recovery evidence,
reliance upon---Scope---Recovery evidence at its best could be taken as
corroborative rather than evidence of the charge---Such evidence per se did
not name or nominate any accused, nor did it prove or point to his guilt; it
simply supplemented the other evidence on the record, if it in its own right,
inspired confidence…---Circumstantial evidence could form basis of
conviction if it was incompatible with the innocence of the accused and
incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of
his guilt.

69 2016 SCMR 1248 S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Escalation in price
M Ashiq Khan Vs of suit property during pendency of litigation---Whether such escalation
M Sharif should be considered as a factor to deny the plaintiff a decree of specific
performance---Rise in the price of immovable property by itself was not a
ground for refusal to enforce a lawful agreement to sell---Court should
consider as to who was the defaulting party and whether a party was trying to
take undue advantage over the other and also the hardship that may be caused
to the defendant---Totality of the circumstances was required to be seen in
this regard---Principles.
70 2016 SCMR 1190 Ss. 345, 367(2) & (3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 34 & 404---Anti-
Irfan Vs M Yousaf Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(a)---Accused charged with both
compoundable and non-compoundable offences---Legal error committed by
Trial Court in not recording separate conviction and sentence for the non-
compoundable offence---High Court also failing to notice such error---
Compromise between parties for the compoundable offence---Effect---
Conviction and sentence for the non-compoundable offence had to be
recorded separately and could not be implied---Matter of conviction and
sentence for the non-compoundable offence had become a past and closed
transaction---Compromise between the parties for the compoundable offence
should not have been rejected in such circumstances.
71 2016 SCMR 2057 Jurisdiction of the High Court was barred under Art. 212(3) of the
Imdad Ali Constitution in relation to the terms and conditions of a civil servant---While
Khawaja Vs The hearing a criminal appeal, the High Court did not have jurisdiction to order
State suspension of a police official in collateral proceedings and or direct
suspension of the police official to the competent authority during a proposed
enquiry---High Court could however always recommend for enquiry against a
police official if his conduct during the course of hearing appeared to be
unbecoming of a police officer.

72 2016 SCMR 1831 Unless expressly agreed otherwise in the contract, the non-cooperation or
Abid Mahmood Vs opposition of other joint-promisees for the enforcement of the contract
Noor Muhammad could not prejudice enforceability of the contract between the parties so long
as its terms were fully performed---Accordingly, the agreement to sell would
not stand frustrated by the opposition of the non-signatory and disinterested
co-vendees.

73 2016 SCMR 2084 S. 539-B---Power of local inspection---Scope---Section 539-B, Cr.P.C. gave

Asfand Yar vs power to a trial Judge or a Magistrate to visit and inspect the place of
Kamran occurrence or any other place after due notice to the parties, if necessary for
properly appreciating the evidence given during the trial---Such power could
not be delegated by the trial Judge to any other subordinate or even a
subordinate judicial officer to visit the place of occurrence as a Commission.
Power under section 539-B, Cr.P.C. could not be a substitute for collection of
evidence. Power of inspection under section 539-B, Cr.P.C could not be
interchanged for investigation… Art. 164---Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV)
footage---Evidentiary value---Mere producing of CCTV footage as a piece of
evidence in court was not sufficient to rely upon the same unless and until it
was proved to be genuine---In order to prove the genuineness of such footage
 it was incumbent upon the defence or prosecution to examine the person who
prepared such footage from the CCTV system.

74 2016 SCMR 2186 Where the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the
Umar Ikra ul haq respondent of an eviction application, the Rent Tribunal would lack
vs Dr Shahid jurisdiction, on account of the doctrine of jurisdictional fact, to pass an order
Husnain for payment of rent due under section 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act,
2009 until and unless the Tribunal positively ascertained the relationship of
tenancy and established that the respondent to the eviction application was in
fact a 'tenant' in terms of section 2(l) of the said Act…. S. 10---Agreement to
sell entered into between the landlord and the tenant after the execution of
the tenancy agreement---Scope---Words 'landlord' and 'tenant' used in S. 10
of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 ("the Act") presupposed the
existence of the relationship of tenancy between the parties---Agreements to
sell that S. 10 of the Act referred to were, therefore, the ones entered into
between existing landlords and tenants subsequent to their tenancy
agreement and during the subsistence thereof, which was entirely different
from those cases where there was no relationship of landlord and tenant from
the very beginning.

75 PLD 2015 SC 50 Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 185(3) & 188-Qatl-i-amd-Conviction-Death

Khalid Iqbal Vs sentence---Delay in carrying out death sentence-Not a mitigating
Mirza Khna factor to reduce death sentence to imprisonment for life-Convict sentenced
to death undergoing a period of custody equal to or more than a full term of
imprisonment for life having exhausted/lost all legal remedies against his death
sentence-Delay caused by the executive in executing death sentence of
convict was not a ground to invoke the principle of expectancy of life to
reduce his death sentence to imprisonment for life…--Autrefois acquit and
autrefois convict, principle of---Scope---Question of quantum of sentence-
-- Principle of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict contained in S.403(1)
Cr.P.C. had no relevance to a case wherein the question under
consideration in an appeal was not as to whether a new trial of the convict
should be held or not, but as to the quantum of sentence for a con vict---
Reduction of sentence from death to imprisonment for life of a convict,
who had served out the sentence of 25 years during the pendency of the
legal remedy, could not seek refuge under the doctrine of autrefois acquit
and autrefois convict contained in Art. 13(a) of the Constitution.

76 PLD 2015 SC 77 Land Mark Judgment on Compromise in Qisas as well as Tazir cases
Zahid Rahman
Case
77 PLD 2015 SC 66 Ss. 497 & 200 ---Bail, grant of---Scope---Private complaint and challan case-
Ghulam Qammber --Accused was granted bail by High Court on the ground that a private
Shah vs Mukhtiar complaint had already been filed by the complainant against accused
Hussain regarding the same incident and, thus, further detention of accused in the
challan case had become illegal---Legality---High Court had referred to no
provision of law for declaring continued custody of accused in jail in
connection with the challan case as "illegal"---Bail granted to accused was set
aside in circumstances.
78 PLD 2015 SC 137 Restoration of revision---Article 181 would apply—3 years
Mandi Hassan
alias mehdi
Hussain Vs M arif
79 PLD 2015 SC 212 Void and voidable transaction, setting aside of---Scope---When a transaction
Dr m Javed Shafi was voidable it was essential that it was set aside but if it was void the question
vs Syed Rashi of setting it aside would not arise… S. 17---Limitation could not shield a
Arshad transaction having no effect and existence on account of fraud and
forgery…Multiple remedies/relief sought---Limitation---Scope---Plaintiff
joining several causes of action and seeking multiple remedies/relief in
the suit---Primary remedy/relief---Ancillary, incidental and consequential
remedies/relief… Where the main/basic/foundational relief being sought was
time barred and the bar was not surmounted by the plaintiff, the incidental
and consequential relief had to go away along with it and the suit was liable to
be dismissed on account of being time barred.
80 PLD 2015 SC 307 S. 537---Sentence when reversible by reason of error or omission in
Zafar Iqbal Vs The charge or other proceedings---Scope---Sentence could be reversed and altered
State provided it had occasioned a failure of justice.
81 PLD 2015 SC 327 Art 128 QSO--Declaratory suit was filed by the father in the present case,
Ghazala Thaseen seeking a declaration to the effect that he was not the natural/biological father
Zohra case of the children born during subsistence of his marriage…Children, in the
present case, were not only conceived but were also born during the
subsistence of the marriage.. Muslim Personal Law was clear and well settled
on such subject as it provided that legitimacy/paternity must be denied by
the father immediately after birth of the child (as per Imam Abu Hanifa) and
within the post natal period (maximum of 40 days) after birth of the child (as
per Imam Muhammad and Imam Yousaf)---No lawful denial of paternity could
be made after said stipulated period.
82 2015 SCMR 258 ----Arts. 13 & 185---Double jeopardy---Death sentence, award of---Convict awarded
M Arshad Vs The death sentence undergoing a period of custody equal to more than a full term
State imprisonment for life during pendency of his legal remedy against his death sentence-
--Question was as to whether maintaining of death sentence by the Supreme Court
would amount to double punishment---Held, when the conviction or acquittal of a
person was under challenge in appeal or revision, the proceedings were neither fresh
prosecution nor there was any question of second conviction or double jeopardy
83 2015 SCMR 423 ----Ss. 164 & 342---Statements made by accused under Ss. 164 & 342, Cr.P.C.--
Nasir Mahmood -Statement of an accused recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C. was more reliable,
Vs the state compared to the statement recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C... Sentencing---
Scope---Convict remaining in death cell for a long duration---Effect---Such
convict deserved lenient treatment in the matter of his sentencing…Motive---
When the court was confronted with a choice to believe the motive set up by
the prosecution or the one given by the defence, then in such circumstances,
benefit of doubt shall go to the accused
84 2015 SCMR 1691 S. 18---Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), Preamble---Partition Act (IV of
Zafeer Gul Vs Dr 1893), S.4---Suit for partition---Valuation of suit property---Appeal against
Riaz Ali order of civil judge---Pecuniary jurisdiction of the Appellate Court---Scope---
Suit for partition in respect of disputed property, instituted before the Trial
Court was valued at Rs.230 for purpose of jurisdiction and Rs.15 for the
purpose of court fee, therefore in terms of S.18 of the West Pakistan Civil
Courts Ordinance, 1962, such valuation disclosed in the plaint was to be
considered the value of the suit property for determining the forum of appeal
qua pecuniary jurisdiction of the Appellate Court
85 2015 SCMR 1398 S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Production of additional evidence at
Resham Bibi vs Ali revisional stage---Permissibility---Production of additional evidence was
Muhammad normally not encouraged at revisional stage---However, when any official
record sought to be relied upon had direct bearing on the merits of the case,
the court may examine the implication of such official record to arrive at a just
and proper conclusion
85 PLD 2014 SC 89 M O. XVIII, R. 17---Recalling of a witness by court for re-examination---
Asghar Vs Hussain Procedural law---Scope---Order XVIII, Rule 17, C.P.C. was one of the most
Ahmad important stipulation in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and could not be
termed as simply procedural in nature and thus a mere technicality…
Procedural law, adherence to---Scope---In the process of administration of
justice, the litigants should not be knocked out on technical grounds,
however certain provisions of law were of vital procedural significance and
if they were not followed in letter and spirit, there would be wee (li ttle)
possibility of a conclusive trial of a civil case and the process might suffer
on account of unbridled exercise of discretionary empowerment of the
courts---
86 PLD 2014 SC 779 Shares In Inheritance According To Sharia
Waris Ali Vs
Rasoolan Bibi
87 PLD 2014 SC 753 Ss. 156 & 561-A---Investigation of a criminal case---Interference by the High
M Ali vs AAIG Court---High Court while seized of a petition filed under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. had
no jurisdiction to interfere in the investigation of criminal case…-Jurisdiction
of High Court under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. could be exercised only in respect of
orders or proceedings of a court---Provisions of S.561-A, Cr.P.C. had no
application vis-à-vis executive or administrative orders or proceedings of
any non-judicial forum or authority.

88 2014 SCMR 33 Ss. 52, 41 & 53 TPA---Lis pendens, principle of---Applicability and exception--
- Consent decree obtained by collusion---Fraudulent transfer.. Ss. 41 & 52---
 M Iqbal Vs Khair Lis pendens, principle of---Exception to the principle of lis pendens---
Din Essential ingredients---Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
provided an exception to the principle of lis pendens---Essential ingredients
for invoking said exception were that transferor was the ostensible owner (of
the property); that such transfer was made by consent of the real owner; that
such transfer was for a consideration, and that the transferee while acting in
good faith had taken reasonable care before entering into the transaction.
89 2014 SCMR 343 Mere second marriage by father would not disentitle him from getting custody
Shabana Naaz Vs of his minor daughter---Mother, according to Islamic Law, despite being
M Salim entitled to custody of her minor daughter would become disentitled, if she
took second husband not related to minor within prohibited degree, thus,
custody of minor in such case would belong to her real father.
90 2014 SCMR 338 Double jeopardy, principle of--- Applicability--- Custody exceeding life
M Anwar vs State imprisonment---Accused was convicted and awarded death sentence by Trial
Court which was maintained by High Court---Plea raised by accused was that
he had already undergone more than life imprisonment---Validity---Accused
had been in death cell for more than 16 years, regarding which due
verification had also been obtained from jail authorities---Accused was
substantially entitled to reduction in quantum of his sentence---Supreme
Court maintained conviction but converted death sentence into imprisonment
for life with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C
91 2014 SCMR 669 Without the compromise judgment and decree being set aside under S. 12(2),
Khadim Hussain C.P.C., no order could be passed on merits---Impugned judgment of High Court
vs POP whereby it decided the civil revision on merits was set aside in circumstances
and Supreme Court directed that application filed by respondent under S.
12(2), C.P.C., shall remain pending with the High Court and shall be decided
at the earliest.
92 2014 SCMR 474 S. 173---Police Order (22 of 2002), Art. 18---Re-investigation of
Raja Khurshid case by police after filing of final Challan in Trial Court---Not barred---
Ahmad Vs M Bilal Exception stated..There is no bar to the reinvestigation of a criminal case, and
the police authorities are at liberty to file a supplementary Challan even
after submission of the final report under section 173, Cr.P.C. However, this
cannot be done after the case has been disposed by the Trial Court…Police
Order (22 of 2002), Art. 18(6)---Re-investigation of case after Trial Court
upheld deletion of S. 308, P.P.C. from F.I.R. by Investigation Officer---Scope---
Charge under S. 308, P.P.C. could be framed against accused in case sufficient
material was brought on record to prove commission of such offence and
convinced Trial Court to do so
93 2014 SCMR 749 ----S. 154---F.I.R.---Evidentiary value and relevance---F.I.R. was not a
M Zaman vs State substantive piece of evidence, but simply an information about the occurrence
laid before the law enforcing agency to set the law into motion for the purpose
of investigation---F.I.R. could not be given weight as substantive piece of
evidence for the simple reason that its contents were neither recorded on oath
nor it could be subjected to the test of cross-examination through some other
prosecution witness, so as to be considered a substantive piece of evidence
worth any credence---Narration of facts in the F.I.R. could not be made basis
for getting contradictions in the prosecution case or discarding ocular
testimony on such premise--- At best F.I.R. could be considered as a piece of
document to which the complainant, when he appeared in the witness box,
could be confronted with its contents. [Minority View]
94 2014 SCMR 914 O. VI, Rr. 1 & 7---Pleadings---Scope---Secundum allegata et probata, rule of-
M Nawaz Alias --Scope---Rule of secundum allegata et probata precluded a party from
Nawaza case proving what had not been alleged or pleaded---No party could be allowed to
lead evidence on a fact which had not been specifically pleaded nor could any
evidence be looked into which was outside the scope of the pleadings.
95 2014 SCMR 1034 ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Sentence---Death sentence or imprisonment for
Ghulam life---Single mitigating circumstance---Sufficient to award life
Mohyuddin alias imprisonment instead of death penalty--- S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Sentence--
Haji Baboo Case -Prisoner on death row---Reduction of death sentence to life imprisonment---
Scope---Accused remained in jail as under-trial prisoner for about two years
and also spent almost 16 years in death cell---Effect---Highly desirable and
legally appropriate to reduce sentence of such accused from death to life
imprisonment--
96 2014 SCMR 1464 --- Sentence, reduction in---Death sentence reduced to imprisonment for life-
Naveed Alias --Motive not proved--Failure of prosecution to prove the motive set up may
Needu Case have a bearing upon the question of sentence and in an appropriate case such
 failure may result in reduction of a death sentence to that of imprisonment for
life for safe administration of justice.
97 2014 SCMR 1155 High Court convicted the accused under S.311, P.P.C. despite the
Iqrar Hussain Vs compromise effected between the parties---Validity---Section 311, P.P.C. was
State attracted in cases punishable with "Qisas" and not to cases punishable under
"Ta'azir" No clear evidence was available to constitute the offence involving
the element/mischief of fasad-fil-arz, thus the High Court was not justified in
law to convert the punishment of the accused to one under S. 311, P.P.C
instead of acquitting them on the basis of compromise---High Court had
committed a legal error in convicting and sentencing the accused for crime
under S. 311, P.P.C., which caused serious miscarriage of justice-
98 2014 SCMR 1469 S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Concurrent findings
Zaitoon Beghum of courts below---Such findings were not open to interference in limited
Vs Nazar Hussain revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, albeit, it may be, to some extent,
erroneous on both points of fact and law.
99 2014 SCMR 1762 Supreme Court formulated the principles in relation to furnishing a bond
Sarwar Case under section 91, Cr.P.C, when an accused had been summoned by the Trial
Court under section 204, Cr.P.C. to face trial in connection with a private
complaint…)---Police Rules (1934), Rr. 24.1, 24.4, 24.7, 25.2(1), 25.2(2),
25.2(3), 26.1, 26.2 & 26.9---Arrest of accused during investigation---Not
necessary---Even in cases of the most heinous offences the police was under
no statutory obligation to necessarily and straightaway arrest an accused
person during an investigation as long as he was joining the investigation and
was cooperating with the same.
100 2014 SCMR 1741 S. 200---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Dispute regarding property---
Sajjad Hussain Civil proceedings, initiation of--- Stay of criminal proceedings---Scope---
Mukhi Vs The Where both parties had filed suits regarding disputed property, and the same
State were pending, the criminal court would obviously stay its hands in entering
upon the dispute, as deciding the
dispute with regard to properties squarely fell within the domain of the
civil court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.