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. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Muhammad Faheem vs Province of Punjab through Secretary S&Gad, Regulation Wing, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others2025 LHC 3708 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ejaz alias Mithoo Shah and others vs The State & others2025 LHC 3133 · Lahore High Court
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessmedical evidencemotiveweapon recoveryacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of delayed FIRs and medical reports, unproved motive, and the reliability of weapon recoveries that did not match crime empties. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unexplained delays, unreliable ocular testimony of chance witnesses who made dishonest improvements, unproved motive, and inconclusive forensic evidence regarding weapon recoveries. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of multiple doubts in the prosecution case must be extended to the accused, leading to their acquittal. Additionally, the appeal against co-accused acquittal was dismissed as time-barred under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses can be relied upon without a satisfactory explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting an autopsy and dispatching police papers create serious doubt regarding the promptness of the FIR?
  • What is the legal effect when the forensic science laboratory report establishes that crime empties do not match the weapons recovered from the accused?
  • Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to condone delay in filing an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal vs Appellate Election Tribunal and others2025 CLC 563 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh,etc vs Member (Consolidation) Punjab Board of Revenue Lahore, etc2025 LHC 4147 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs. & others vs Jiwan Hayat &2025 LHC 3636 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Babar Shah vs Muhammad Nadeem & others2025 LHC 4382 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam, Shahid Hussain, The State vs The State, etc, Muhammad Azam2025 LHC 4586 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam, The State, Bashir Ahmed vs The State & another, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Saeed, etc2025 LHC 3516 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Javed vs The State and others2025 YLR 1034 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-09
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycommon intentionbenefit of doubtpre-trial detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Muhammad Aslam Javed, who was charged under Sections 302, 324, 34, 337-D, 337-F(v), and 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was assigned the role of 'guarding' the scene of the crime without firing any shots or causing injuries, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry, as the prosecution failed to attribute any specific overt act of violence to him. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's continued detention served no useful purpose given the lack of progress in the trial. The key principles laid down are that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be considered, that the mere heinousness of an offence is insufficient to deny bail, and that bail should not be refused as a form of punishment, especially when the accused's guilt remains a matter for further probe.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused person entitled to bail when the only role assigned in the FIR is guarding the scene of the crime without causing injury?
  • Does the heinous nature of an offence alone justify the refusal of bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete and there is no progress in the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs Ch. Muhammad Hanif2025 LHC 1367, 2025 PLJ Lahore 565 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited Company and another2025 LHC 5512 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and others vs The State & others2025 LHC 4821 · Lahore High Court
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtacquittalocular evidencemedical evidenceforensic evidenceFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction and death sentence, a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence, and a petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of two co-accused. The appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial court's acquittal of the co-accused was justified. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts, including unexplained delays in FIR registration, the unreliability of eyewitnesses who failed to identify the body, and contradictions between medical and ocular evidence. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was deemed suspicious due to procedural lapses. The Court emphasized that medical evidence serves only as corroboration and cannot identify an assailant. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the petition against the acquitted co-accused, reiterating that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can medical evidence alone be used to connect an accused to the commission of a crime?
  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR, when unexplained, cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is the opinion of an investigating officer regarding the innocence of an accused entirely irrelevant in criminal proceedings?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a scintilla of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Haji Abdul Ghafoor2025 CLC 344 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arsal vs M/s. Sadiq Feeds Pvt. Ltd. etc2025 LHC 4509 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-03
  corporate mismanagementfamily business disputemediationAnnual General Meetingcorporate democracyCompanies Act 2017alternative dispute resolution
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under the Companies Act, 2017 involved a corporate and intra-family dispute among shareholders and directors of Sadiq Feeds Private Limited and related companies, concerning allegations of mismanagement and unlawful removal from the board. The core legal question centered on whether corporate disputes and deadlocks among family-owned businesses can be effectively resolved through court-facilitated mediation and the holding of a mandated Annual General Meeting (AGM). The Lahore High Court held that mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution are preferred and mandatory mechanisms in corporate disputes involving family members, serving to protect corporate democracy, preserve business interests, and safeguard the livelihoods of employees. The court established that holding a structured AGM under judicial supervision can successfully foster consensus, leading parties to amicably resolve disputes, withdraw pending litigation, and maintain institutional harmony.

  Questions settled

  • Whether courts can mandate mediation for resolving corporate and intra-family disputes under the Companies Act, 2017?
  • Can a court direct the holding of an Annual General Meeting to break deadlocks and facilitate settlement between conflicting shareholders?
  • What is the statutory duty of company members during general meetings under Section 215 of the Companies Act, 2017?
  • Does access to justice encompass the right to have commercial and corporate disputes resolved through mediation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif, Wali Muhammad vs The State and another2025 LHC 762 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-02
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtlast seen evidenceDNA reportsafe transmission of samplesmurderrapeweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 302(b), 376, and 338-C(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a connected criminal revision seeking sentence enhancement. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established its case based on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, medical evidence, a DNA report, a pointing-out memo, and weapon recovery, in an unwitnessed murder and rape case. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to link the circumstances in a continuous and unbroken chain, as the last-seen evidence suffered from material contradictions, safe custody and transmission of samples for DNA analysis were not proven, the medical evidence did not support the rape allegation, and weapon recoveries were legally flawed. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, acquitted him of the charges, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement. The key principle laid down is that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be conclusively proven, and any failure in safe custody of forensic samples or material contradictions in supporting testimony warrants the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for a capital charge can be sustained solely on circumstantial and expert evidence when the chain of circumstances is broken?
  • Does a failure to prove the safe transmission of forensic and DNA sample parcels to the forensic science laboratory render the DNA report unreliable?
  • Can last-seen evidence serve as a strong basis for conviction without independent corroboration and in the presence of material contradictions?
  • Whether the safe custody and recovery of an alleged weapon of offence become doubtful if official records reflect contradictory dates of deposit and recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif, The State vs The State, Muhammad Arif2025 LHC 4602 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-30
  murderqatl-e-amddeath sentence conversionmitigating circumstancesheat of passionocular accountmedical evidencepost-arrest appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 302(b), 324, 337F(iii), and 337F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to death amongst other punishments. The core legal question revolved around the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the sustainability of the conviction based on the testimonies of closely related eyewitnesses, and whether mitigating circumstances existed to alter the death sentence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent, confidence-inspiring ocular testimony that was corroborated by medical evidence. However, noting that the appellant was suffering from a respiratory ailment and that the sudden altercation arose in the heat of passion upon a domestic dispute over property division without premeditation, the court held that mitigating circumstances warranted a reduction in the sentence. Consequently, the court upheld the convictions but converted the death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to imprisonment for life, laying down that sudden provocation arising from a domestic dispute in the heat of passion, coupled with mitigating health factors, serves as a ground for withholding the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies and trivial inconsistencies in the statements of eyewitnesses can demolish the case of the prosecution?
  • Can an appellate court convert a death sentence to imprisonment for life when the crime is committed under the heat of passion due to a sudden domestic altercation?
  • Whether the testimony of related and natural eyewitnesses can be discarded merely due to their consanguinity with the deceased in the absence of any motive to falsely implicate?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a forensic report regarding weapon matching when the safe custody and integrity of the recovered parcel are compromised?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Sargodha and others2025 CLC 420 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anjum Sharif vs Nisar Ahmad2025 LHC 3253 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir alias Aneel, Salamat Ali vs The State, Muhammad Amir2025 LHC 2952 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameer vs Member (J-VII), Board of Revenue, etc2025 LHC 621, 2025 PLJ Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Yasir, Muhammad Ishtiaq vs The State, etc2025 LHC 1081, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 432 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-17
  murder trialbenefit of the doubtmedical evidence vs ocular evidencemotive as double-edged weaponabsconsioncriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected revision petition for enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence, the nature of motive as a double-edged sword, and the legal weight of absconsion and weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that numerous contradictions between the ocular and medical accounts, delayed reporting raising possibilities of deliberation, unproven motive, and uncorroborated weapon recovery rendered the prosecution case deeply doubtful. Consequently, the court laid down that where material dents and reasonable doubts permeate the prosecution's narrative, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right. The appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the revision petition for enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence can be grounds for disbelieving the prosecution?
  • Can absconsion alone serve as conclusive proof of guilt in the absence of sufficient connecting evidence?
  • Is motive considered a double-edged weapon that can equally suggest false implication?
  • Does the benefit of a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case accrue to the accused as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali alias Ali Hassan, The State vs The State, Muhammad Ali2025 LHC 3468 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs Deputy Commissioner, Khushab & 03 others2025 LHC 4708 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs District Judge, Pakpattan, etc2025 LHC 3687 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Zahid, Ex-Additional District & Sessions Judge vs Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar2025 LHC 123, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 669 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-17
  service appealjudicial misconductcompulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingsdouble jeopardyperformance evaluation reportproportionality of penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges the removal of an Additional District & Sessions Judge from service following allegations of corruption and misconduct. The core legal questions were whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by double jeopardy and whether the penalty of removal was proportionate to the proven misconduct. The Court found that while the specific charge of receiving illegal gratification was not conclusively proven, the appellant's reputation for corruption and poor integrity was established through unrebutted reports from the District & Sessions Judge and adverse entries in his Performance Evaluation Reports. The Court rejected the plea of double jeopardy, noting that the subsequent inquiry was based on distinct reports and administrative decisions. Holding that the penalty of removal was disproportionate given the circumstances, the Court converted the penalty to compulsory retirement, citing precedents emphasizing the need to maintain integrity in public service while ensuring proportionate disciplinary measures. The key principle laid down is that where specific evidence of corruption is insufficient for removal, but an officer's reputation for integrity is demonstrably compromised, compulsory retirement serves as a balanced measure to protect the public interest and maintain judicial discipline.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent inquiry into allegations of misconduct, following the withdrawal of a prior complaint, constitute double jeopardy?
  • Can a penalty of removal from service be converted to compulsory retirement if the misconduct is proven but the penalty is deemed disproportionate?
  • Is a judicial officer's reputation for corruption a valid basis for disciplinary action when specific allegations of bribery remain unproven?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State and others2025 YLR 941 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-29
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtchance witnessocular accountmedical evidenceadverse inferencedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account, the impact of significant delays in FIR registration and post-mortem examination, and the effect of withholding natural witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the eye-witnesses to be 'chance witnesses' whose presence was doubtful, noting their unnatural conduct during the incident and material contradictions in their testimonies. Furthermore, the court observed a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence, and noted the negative DNA results. Applying the principle that the prosecution must prove its case without gaps, the court drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order 1984 for the failure to produce natural witnesses. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR and the conduct of a post-mortem examination cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can the testimony of 'chance witnesses' be relied upon without independent corroboration of their presence at the crime scene?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to produce natural witnesses of an occurrence?
  • Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries on the deceased warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State & another2025 LHC 4795 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-11
  illegal dispossessioninterim reliefcommencement of trialframing of chargecriminal revisionpossessionproperty dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to hand over possession of one room in the disputed property to the complainant as an interim relief under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether an interim order for restoration of possession under Section 7 of the Act can be passed prior to the commencement of trial. The Lahore High Court held that the phrase "during the trial" in Section 7(1) of the Act is a condition precedent, and a trial in a criminal case commences strictly with the framing of the charge, not upon the taking of cognizance or issuance of summons. Since the impugned interim order was passed before the charge was framed, it suffered from material illegality and procedural irregularity. Furthermore, the court held that directing the handover of "one room" without specific identification or independent access was vague and improperly delegated judicial functions to the police. The revision was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • When does a trial commence in proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 for the purpose of granting interim relief under Section 7?
  • Can a court grant interim relief of restoration of possession under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the framing of a charge?
  • Does an order directing the handover of an unspecified portion of a property without clear identification constitute an improper delegation of judicial functions to the police?
  • What are the principal conditions for the invocation and application of Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Judge Family Court, etc2025 LHC 495 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adeel vs Province of Punjab & 03 others2025 LHC 2193 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muazzam Ali Goraya etc vs Member (Judicial-I) etc2025 LHC 323 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tasneem Kausar vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc2025 LHC 5211 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Altaf vs Mian Ghulam Dastgeer2025 LHC 293 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Akhtar vs The Chancellor, Women University Multan/Governor2025 LHC 3591 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Shehnaz Bibi vs Magistrate Ist Class, Sahiwal, and others2025 LHC 5492 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaista Hameed vs Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), District Mianwali and 4 others2025 YLR 720 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Khalid vs Tariq Bashir etc2025 LHC 4920 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rubina Kauser vs Addl. Sessions Judge etc2025 LHC 5248 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-18
  criminal revisionprivate complaintissuance of processcursory evidenceextraneous factsproposed accusedpreliminary inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, which dismissed her private complaint. The petitioner had produced witnesses and documentary evidence including a medico-legal certificate and postmortem report to substantiate her allegations regarding an occurrence on 24.04.2023. The trial court dismissed the complaint primarily by relying on extraneous facts from a connected case and FIR, and by hearing the counsel of an unsummoned proposed accused at the preliminary stage. The Lahore High Court observed that a court cannot consider facts from connected matters unless properly brought on record in accordance with law, nor should it allow unsummoned proposed accused to contest a private complaint at the preliminary stage. Finding that the cursory evidence established sufficient grounds under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to issue process against the proposed accused and proceed with the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court rely on facts of a connected case that are not brought on record in due course of law to decide a private complaint?
  • Can a proposed accused be allowed to contest a private complaint prior to the formal issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.?
  • What is the standard of evidence required at the preliminary stage to justify the issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi, etc vs Zulfiqar etc2025 LHC 2880 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasheedan vs Abdul Sattar (deceased) represented through LRs, etc2025 LHC 5127 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nosheen Ali Nasir vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2025 LHC 4430 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-29
  video link evidenceproclaimed offendercompetency of witnessconstitutional petitioncriminal procedurewitness testimonymedical grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from concurrent orders of the lower courts declining the petitioner's request to allow her injured brother, Husnain Ali Nasir, to record his evidence via video link in FIR No. 722/2022. The lower courts based their dismissal on the ground that Husnain was a proclaimed offender in two other criminal cases involving the same parties and had left the country. The core legal questions examined were whether a witness's testimony can be recorded via video link in criminal proceedings, and whether such testimony is permissible when the witness is a proclaimed offender in an unrelated case. The Lahore High Court held that modern technological advancements and statutory provisions permit video-conferencing for recording evidence where physical appearance is genuinely unfeasible due to medical reasons, subject to judicial discretion. Furthermore, the court held that competency to testify is governed exclusively by Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which does not disqualify a fugitive or proclaimed offender from testifying in another case. The petition was accepted and the impugned orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a witness may be recorded through a video link in criminal proceedings?
  • Whether such testimony may be recorded in one case even if the witness is a proclaimed offender in another?
  • Does the status of a proclaimed offender render a person incompetent to testify under Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Can courts introduce additional disqualifications for witnesses beyond those exhaustively provided in statutory law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nayyab Abbas vs Additional District Judge, etc2025 LHC 4155 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Fatima vs Muhammad Abbas Khan etc2025 LHC 3167 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Misbah Farooq etc vs M/s. Daewoo Pakistan Express Bus Service Ltd.2025 LHC 1065, 2025 PLJ Lahore 632 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Marayam vs The State, etc2025 LHC 3484 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-29
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirycriminal procedureevidentiary valueconstitutional right to libertybail bonds
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves consolidated petitions for post-arrest bail filed by Mst. Mariyam and Imtiaz Hussain, who are accused in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the case against the petitioners required further inquiry, falling within the purview of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. This conclusion was based on the absence of corroborative evidence, the lack of recovery of the alleged weapon of offense, and the medical officer's opinion that the cause and manner of death were undetermined. Furthermore, the investigation indicated that Mst. Mariyam did not participate in the act. The Court emphasized that bail is a procedural relief and not a punishment. Citing the principle that it is better to err in granting bail than in refusing it, the Court affirmed that liberty is a precious constitutional right, ultimately granting bail to both petitioners subject to furnishing bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case where the cause of death is undetermined and evidence is lacking require further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of advance punishment?
  • Is the identification of an accused through an identification parade sufficient to deny bail when other corroborative evidence is missing?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija Bibi, etc vs Judge Banking Court, etc2025 LHC 3264 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kausar Mai vs SHO, etc2025 LHC 1007 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-28
  habeas corpusillegal detentionstation diaryroznamchapolice encounterfundamental rightsPolice Order 2002Police Rules 1934
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the recovery of two alleged detenues from the illegal detention of a Station House Officer. During the proceedings, it was disclosed that one of the detenues had unfortunately died during a police encounter after being formally arrested, while issues regarding the non-maintenance of the manual station daily diary (roznamcha) and improper police record-keeping emerged. The core legal questions revolved around the mandatory statutory requirements for maintaining daily diaries under police laws, the legal implications of failing to maintain manual roznamcha alongside electronic records, and the supervisory powers of the judiciary over police stations to protect fundamental rights. The court held that maintaining both manual and electronic daily diaries is mandatory under the Police Rules 1934 and the Police Order 2002, and failure to do so compromises accountability and violates fundamental rights. Consequently, the court disposed of the habeas petition while issuing comprehensive guidelines regarding police record maintenance, directing the Inspector General of Police Punjab to provide online access to daily diaries for all District and Sessions Judges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the maintenance of a manual daily diary (roznamcha) is mandatory alongside electronic record-keeping in police stations?
  • What are the legal consequences when police authorities fail to incorporate arrests and movements in the station daily diary?
  • Can District and Sessions Judges be granted online access to police station daily diaries for inspection under the Police Order 2002?
  • Does the failure to properly maintain police station registers violate fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ilyas Akhtar and others vs Province of Punjab and others2025 CLC 452 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hafeezan Bibi etc vs Nazar Muhammad etc2025 LHC 2338, 2025 PLJ Lahore 413 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farhat Naseem vs District Petrol Pump Committee through Chairman2025 YLR 263 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bisma alias Sana vs The State2025 LHC 1029 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-17
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtsample bearerchain of custodycriminal appealacquittalSection 161 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(1)-6c of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the possession of 1100 grams of heroin. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution's failure to produce the sample bearer in the witness box and the omission to record the statement of a key witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rendered the conviction unsustainable. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to these procedural lapses and the failure to exhibit the recovery bag. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must produce the sample bearer in the witness box, as reliance on FIRs or duty officer statements is insufficient to prove the chain of custody. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace, if a single reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is the prosecution required to produce the sample bearer in the witness box to prove the chain of custody in narcotics cases?
  • Does the failure to record the statement of a key witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakhan, etc vs Pir Bakhsh, etc2025 LHC 4210 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aarzoo Meena Khalid vs Learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi and another2025 LHC 4628 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-02Read full judgment →
• Ms. Jahanara etc vs Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation2025 LHC 814, 2025 PLJ Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Farzana Nasir vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd2025 LHC 3584 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mr. Amir Sajjad vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Jhelum Zone and others2025 LHC 3156 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Lal Chaudhary vs Shaukat Ali2025 LHC 1238, 2025 PLJ Lahore 613 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mirza Imtiaz Baig vs Mirza Hamayun Ashraf Baig and another2025 LHC 4621 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-17Read full judgment →
• Miraj Zubair vs Rpo, etc2025 LHC 29, 2025 PLJ Lahore 262 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-08Read full judgment →
• Millat Tractors Ltd. Sheikhupura Road, Shahdra, Lahore and others vs Mst.2025 MLD 889 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-17Read full judgment →
• Mian Sohaib ul Rehman vs Muhammad Bashir through L.Rs2025 LHC 4075 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-12
  illegal dispossessionfunctus officiocriminal revisionrestoration of possessionfinality of judgmentacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the restoration of possession of a plot. The core legal question was whether a trial court, having acquitted the accused in a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, retains jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent application for the restoration of possession, and whether the court remains functus officio after signing its final judgment. The Lahore High Court held that once the trial court passed the judgment of acquittal on 20.07.2011, it became functus officio and lacked the authority to review or alter its order, except for correcting clerical errors. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to justify the legal basis for his application, which had been filed long after the complaint proceedings concluded. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming that a criminal court cannot review its own final judgment or entertain post-acquittal applications for possession, emphasizing the finality of judicial orders under criminal jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court become functus officio after signing a judgment of acquittal in a case under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a criminal court review or alter its own final judgment after it has been signed?
  • Is a party entitled to seek restoration of possession from a criminal court after the main complaint has been decided and the court has become functus officio?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Akram vs Federation of Pakistan etc2025 LHC 681 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mian Haseeb Madni vs The State & another2025 LHC 4767 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-07
  post-arrest bailcyber crimedefamationpublic moralitydiscretionary powerelectronic crimebail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Mian Haseeb Madni, in connection with F.I.R. No. 124/2024, involving allegations under the Prevention of Electronic Crime Act, 2016 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a YouTuber, was accused of disseminating false and defamatory video content on social media alleging that the complainant, a police official, committed Zina with a colleague. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly given that the alleged offences were outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that bail is not a right in every case, even where the prohibitory clause does not apply, particularly when the offence is heinous and impacts public morality. Finding that the petitioner's prima facie involvement was established by incriminating material and that the act caused severe public humiliation and mental shock, the Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms that courts may exercise discretion to refuse bail in non-prohibitory cases where exceptional circumstances and the nature of the offence warrant such denial.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be refused in offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the concession of bail an absolute right for offences carrying a penalty of imprisonment up to three years?
  • Does the dissemination of false and defamatory content on social media constitute grounds for refusing bail in the interest of public morality?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sitara Dildar Fuels (Private) Limited through Chief Executive Office2025 PTD 631 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Logistics Cell vs Assistant_Deputy Commissioner and others2025 PTD 614 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-12
  Alternative Dispute Resolutiontax liabilitystate-owned enterpriseinterim reliefcoercive measuresmediationtax dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a state-owned enterprise (SOE) seeking interim relief against tax-related coercive measures, citing the failure of the Federal Board of Revenue to establish an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) committee as mandated by law. The core legal question was whether the court could grant interim relief to an aggrieved party when the statutory ADR mechanism, specifically required for tax disputes involving SOEs under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, remains non-functional. The Court held that the establishment of an ADR committee is a mandatory statutory requirement under Section 134A(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Consequently, the Court directed the Federal Government to establish the necessary ADR committee on an immediate basis. Pending the formation of this committee, the Court granted interim relief, restraining the authorities from taking coercive measures against the Petitioner. The judgment reaffirms the principle that courts should exhibit a pro-mediation bias to alleviate the burden on the judicial system and facilitate the amicable settlement of tax disputes, consistent with established jurisprudence regarding the importance of ADR in tax litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for the Federal Board of Revenue to establish an Alternative Dispute Resolution committee under Section 134A(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can a court grant interim relief against coercive measures when the statutory Alternative Dispute Resolution forum is not yet functional?
  • Does the mandatory requirement to apply for Alternative Dispute Resolution apply to state-owned enterprises regardless of the tax liability threshold?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood-Ul-Haq vs Waqas Mehmood Maan and 21 others2025 MLD 169 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Gilani vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore & others2025 LHC 856 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Master Riaz Ahmad, etc, Yaseen Farooq, vs The State, etc, Master Riaz2025 LHC 3235 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Maryam Bibi vs The State and 08 others2025 LHC 5459 · Lahore High Court · 2025-08-26Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ali vs The State, etc2025 LHC 376 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-20
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoverypowers of Pakistan RangersControl of Narcotic Substances Actarrest by private individualheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this petition, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9 (1)-6c of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1060 grams of heroin by Pakistan Rangers. The core legal questions involved whether Pakistan Rangers had the authority to arrest and detain offenders under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and whether an arrest by a Sub-Inspector of Pakistan Rangers below the specified rank vitiated the proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that Pakistan Rangers officers are authorized under relevant statutory notifications and that, furthermore, the subsequent handing over of the accused to the local police—a power available even to private individuals under Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—regularized the proceedings. The court established the principle that recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics connected the accused prima facie to the crime, warranting the dismissal of the bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Pakistan Rangers have the authority to arrest and detain offenders under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does an arrest by a Pakistan Rangers officer below the prescribed rank vitiate the entire criminal proceedings?
  • Can a private individual arrest and hand over an accused to the local police under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the recovery of a huge quantity of heroin disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzur-ul-Haq vs The Federation of Pakistan and others2025 LHC 443, 2025 PLJ Lahore 465 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• Manzar Abbas vs Mian Muhammad Azam and 2 others2025 CLC 621 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-09Read full judgment →
• Malik Shoukat Ali Awan vs Ghulam Hussain (deceased) through LRs. etc2025 LHC 558 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-19Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Sarfraz Nazam Awan vs Federal Government, Ministry of Commerce through its Secretary, Islamabad and 3 others2025 LHC 1092, 2025 PLJ Lahore 568 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Imran & 3 others vs The State & others2025 LHC 3333 · Lahore High Court
  murder referenceocular evidenceinjured witnessdelayed FIRmedical evidence contradictioncriminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court for murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account, the impact of significant delays in FIR registration, and the effect of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay and appeared to be the result of deliberation. Furthermore, the court observed that the testimony of injured witnesses, while indicating their presence, did not automatically establish their truthfulness, especially when contradicted by medical evidence. The court emphasized that when primary ocular evidence is disbelieved, corroborative evidence like weapon recoveries and motive loses its significance. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing that a single doubt-creating circumstance in the prosecution's case warrants the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on an eyewitness automatically render their testimony truthful and reliable?
  • What is the legal effect of a significant, unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a glaring contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence?
  • Does the failure to prove the alleged motive weaken the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Akram Bhatti vs Nadeem Abbas etc2025 LHC 3460 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Mudassar Ali and others vs Secretary, Public Prosecution2025 LHC 1154 · Lahore High Court
  prosecutorial independencedisciplinary proceedingslegal opinionacquittal appealcriminal prosecution serviceconstitutional jurisdictionpublic servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by members of a District Appeal Committee challenging disciplinary proceedings and inquiry reports initiated against them for concurring with a trial prosecutor's opinion that a particular acquittal judgment was not fit to be appealed. The core legal question centered on whether departmental proceedings under the PEEDA Act, 2006 could be initiated against prosecutors for their legal opinions without a reference from the Prosecutor General under Section 10(2) of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006. The Lahore High Court held that the petition was maintainable notwithstanding Article 212 since it concerned statutory powers rather than service terms and conditions, and that disciplinary proceedings initiated without a formal reference from the Prosecutor General or District Public Prosecutor were illegal and without jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that prosecutors acting bona fide in rendering legal opinions are protected under the law, and departmental action against them for such opinions requires strict adherence to statutory prerequisites including a reference from the Prosecutor General.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a prosecutor for forming a legal opinion without a reference from the Prosecutor General?
  • Does the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar a constitutional petition challenging disciplinary action that does not touch upon the terms and conditions of service?
  • Are prosecutors protected under the law for rendering bona fide legal opinions regarding the fitness of a case for appeal?
  • What is the statutory role and hierarchical authority of the Prosecutor General under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Act, 2006?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Hamid Raza vs Additional District Judge, etc2025 LHC 4664 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-12Read full judgment →
• Malik Ameer Haider Sangha vs Federation of Pakistan and 05 others2025 LHC 3836 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-02Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Rauf vs Malik Abdul Razzaq (deceased) through L.Rs., etc2025 LHC 526 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
• Majid Javed alias Javed Ali vs The State, etc2025 LHC 4548 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-25
  Criminal RevisionSummoning of witnessCourt witnessProduction of documentsJust decision of the caseMaterial irregularityQatl-e-Amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, which dismissed the petitioner's application to summon a Control Room Wireless Operator as a court witness along with specific call records. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to exercise its powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon evidence deemed essential for the defense. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to summon the witness and the records. The court held that under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court is empowered and obligated to summon any witness whose evidence is essential for a just decision. Furthermore, under Section 265-F(7), the court must issue process for witnesses requested by the accused unless the application is vexatious or intended to delay proceedings. The court emphasized that relevant evidence, such as control room records, must be admitted to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is the trial court obligated to summon a witness if their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances can a trial court refuse an application by an accused to summon a witness for examination after entering their defence?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to provide cogent reasons for rejecting an application to summon a material witness constitute a material irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Majid Ali vs The State & another2025 LHC 4774 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-24
  post-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustcommercial transactioncivil liabilityfiduciary capacityentrustment of property
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of criminal breach of trust regarding the non-payment for stainless steel sheets purchased from the complainant. The core legal question was whether a commercial transaction involving the purchase of goods, where payment remains outstanding, constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the transaction was essentially a commercial sale rather than an entrustment of property. It emphasized that for Section 406 to apply, there must be a fiduciary relationship where property is entrusted to the accused to be retained or disposed of under specific conditions, not merely a failure to pay for purchased goods. The Court determined that the allegations, even if true, suggested a civil liability or potentially cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than criminal breach of trust. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, noting that the petitioner's continued incarceration was unnecessary given the nature of the dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to pay for goods purchased in a commercial transaction constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a mere assertion in an F.I.R. that goods were held as a 'trust' convert a commercial sale into a criminal breach of trust?
  • Is the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• LESCO through its Chief Executive Officer, Lahore etc vs M/s. Exporient2025 LHC 3958 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Lahore High Court Bar Association and others vs Province of Punjab and others2025 LHC 3893 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-02Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority through Director General vs Farah Inam2025 MLD 182 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
• Kiran Ehsan, Rehana Kauser vs The State, etc, Kiran Ehsan, etc2025 LHC 4162, 2025 LHC 4176 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-11Read full judgment →
• Kiran Bibi vs Addl. Sessions Judge, etc2025 LHC 987 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-06
  criminal revision petitionoutraging modestyAnti-Rape ActSpecial Courtalteration of chargejurisdictionscheduled offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/GBV/Special Court, which deleted the offence under Section 354 PPC from the charge and referred the file to the District and Sessions Judge for entrustment to a Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the remaining offences were not scheduled offences under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021. The core legal question concerned the propriety of deleting an offence during trial by making a tentative assessment of the material without recording evidence, and whether the Special Court correctly relinquished jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order contained no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional defect, as the Special Court possessed the prerogative under Section 16(3) of the Anti-Rape Act read with Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to alter or amend charges and determine if an offence is made out. The Court laid down that Special Courts must interpret the Anti-Rape Act purposively, and that a trial court is competent to alter charges or evaluate the applicability of scheduled offences based on the material on record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Court under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 can delete an offence and transfer the case if it finds that no scheduled offence is made out?
  • Can a criminal court alter or delete a charge during trial before recording evidence?
  • What constitutes the foundational requirement to establish an offence under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a Special Court have the power to try non-scheduled offences when they are inextricably linked with scheduled offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Khudadad, The State vs The State & another, Khudadad2025 LHC 3318 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-12
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidenceFIR delayweapon recoveryappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged evidentiary inconsistencies. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, answering the murder reference in the negative. The court held that the prosecution's case was undermined by an unexplained delay in FIR registration, material improvements in the statements of eyewitnesses, and a glaring contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the firing distance and weapon type. Additionally, the court found the alleged motive unproven and the recovery of the weapon suspicious, particularly as the inquest report failed to record the recovery of crime empties. The court reaffirmed the principle that any material loophole or inconsistency in the prosecution's evidence entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt, necessitating acquittal to avoid the risk of punishing an innocent person.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR, coupled with the non-production of a key police witness, create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a material contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the distance from which shots were fired?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive for a crime entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon reliable when the inquest report fails to mention the recovery of crime empties from the scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Kher Din (deceased) through LRs, etc vs Mst. Hayat Bibi, etc2025 PLJ Lahore 55 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-08Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hussain vs Manzoor Hussain,etc2025 LHC 3751 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain Sandhu vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and 2 others2025 LHC 4677 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-01Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain Chaudhry vs Punjab Cooking Oil Private Limited & others2025 LHC 568 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• Kaumedex vs Managing Director, Punjab Public Procurement Regulatory2025 LHC 3356 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kashif Jamal vs The State2024 LHC 3629, 2025 PCRLJ 109 · Lahore High Court · 2024-08-05
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of doubteyewitness credibilitydelayed FIRidentification in darkmotiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing the qatl-i-amd of the deceased. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitnesses, the implications of delayed lodging of the First Information Report and post-mortem examination, the reliability of identification in the dark without a proven source of light, improvements in ocular testimony, and the benefit of doubt. The Lahore High Court held that serious discrepancies in the time of occurrence, unexplained delays, lack of a reliable source of light, dishonest improvements by eyewitnesses, and the failure of the prosecution to prove motive or presence beyond a reasonable doubt entitled the appellant to acquittal. The key principle laid down is that even a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused entitles them to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination casts doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Does the failure of eyewitnesses to establish a source of light render the identification of the accused in the dark hours doubtful?
  • Can dishonest improvements in the statements of eyewitnesses shatter their credibility and negate their presence at the crime scene?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a reasonable doubt exists regarding their participation?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ali, The State vs The State, etc, Karamat Ali2025 LHC 3719 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-02
  criminal appealmurder referencechance witnessbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidenceFIR delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the murder of a woman and the attempted murder of an injured witness. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of the ocular account, the validity of the motive, and the reliability of the recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing significant unexplained delays in FIR registration, the status of the prosecution witnesses as "chance witnesses" who failed to justify their presence, and material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence. Furthermore, the court noted that the alleged motive was unsubstantiated and the recovery of the weapon was procedurally flawed due to a lack of blood-matching evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a single material doubt in the prosecution's case warrants acquittal, and that medical evidence cannot identify an assailant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR cast a fatal doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does medical evidence regarding the nature and timing of injuries serve to identify the perpetrator of a crime?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon sufficient to corroborate the prosecution's case if the blood-staining is not matched with the victim's blood group?
  Read full judgment →
• Kameer Khan vs The State, etc2025 LHC 2310 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-09
  surety bond forfeiturecriminal revisionbail bondsurety liabilityattendance of accusedSection 514 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the orders of the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, which forfeited the petitioner's surety bond and imposed a penalty of Rs. 100,000 due to the alleged absence of the accused. The core legal question was whether a surety remains liable for the penalty when the accused, while absent in the specific case, was simultaneously appearing before the same Magistrate in a different case. The High Court held that the lower court's orders were unsustainable. The Court observed that the Magistrate had marked the accused's attendance in a concurrent case while simultaneously penalizing the surety for the accused's absence in the subject case. The Court laid down the principle that a surety's liability is limited to ensuring the accused's attendance; once the accused is present before the court, the surety's obligation is discharged. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be interpreted to balance justice, avoiding undue punishment for sureties when the accused has effectively submitted to the court's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a surety's liability to produce an accused continue if the accused has already surrendered to the jurisdiction of the court?
  • Can a trial court forfeit a surety bond for non-appearance when the accused is simultaneously appearing before the same court in a different case?
  • What is the scope of a Magistrate's power under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the forfeiture of bail bonds?
  Read full judgment →
• Kakakhail Traders vs Province of Punjab and others2025 LHC 183 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
• Kainat vs Director General ACE and 03 others2025 LHC 5385 · Lahore High Court · 2025-08-28Read full judgment →
• Jhelum Homeopathic Medical College vs Federation Of Pakistan And Others2025 LHC 4022 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jannat Gull vs The State etc2025 LHC 368 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-20
  post-arrest bailcruelty to childchild protectionnarcotics transportationdestitute and neglected childprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an FIR registered under Section 328A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 38 of the Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act 2004, wherein the petitioner-father was accused of utilizing his minor son for the transportation of narcotics. The core legal questions involved the applicability of penal provisions regarding child neglect, cruelty, and exposing a child to narcotics, as well as whether bail ought to be granted when an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that sufficient material connected the petitioner to the alleged offenses, that bail is not a absolute right merely because an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause if exceptions apply, and that courts must robustly protect vulnerable minors from exploitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be refused for an offence outside the prohibitory clause when the accused is connected to heinous acts of child endangerment and exploitation?
  • What is the distinction between Section 328 and Section 328A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the age of the child and the nature of the act?
  • Does permitting a child to enter places where narcotics are sold attract penal consequences under the Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act 2004?
  • Which court has the primary jurisdiction to conduct trials for special offences relating to children under the Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act 2004?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Khan & 05 others vs Akbar Khan & 15 others2025 LHC 5297 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-18Read full judgment →