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.

• Syed Hassan Murtaza vs Mariya Bano Khan and others2024 LHC 6486, 2025 PLD Lahore 207 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Faizan e Rasool vs The Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar2024 LHC 1791, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1114 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-25
  service appealforeign educationmaster degree in lawjudicial officerdiscretionary powersstudy leaveservice discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant service appeal challenges a letter issued by the respondent declining the appellant's representation for permission to apply for a Master's Degree in Law from a foreign university. The core legal question was whether the grant of permission for higher education abroad to a judicial officer can be claimed as a matter of right and whether the competent authority's refusal to exercise its discretion in this regard warrants interference. The court held that the grant of permission to pursue higher education from a foreign university is not a rule of thumb, but rather falls within the discretionary domain of the competent authority, which is to be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case, especially considering the scarcity of judicial officers and heavy pending caseloads. The key principle laid down is that higher education leave or permission cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and courts will not interfere with the discretionary refusal of such permission by the competent authority unless arbitrary or unlawful grounds are established.

  Questions settled

  • Can permission to apply for higher education from a foreign university be claimed as a matter of right by a judicial officer?
  • Is the competent authority bound to grant permission for pursuing higher studies abroad under service rules?
  • Does the refusal of a competent authority to grant permission for foreign higher education warrant interference when grounded on administrative exigencies and scarcity of judicial officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Faheem ul Hassan vs I.G. Punjab Police, etc.2024 LHC 1111, 2024 PLJ Lahore 404, 2024 YLR 1628 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Danish Hussain Shah vs Province of Punjab and others2024 PLC (C.S.) 448 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-04
  Assistant Superintendent Jailsvision requirementglassesfundamental rightsfreedom of professionconstitutional petitionservice rulesjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged Rule 1042(c) of the Pakistan Prisons Rules, 1978 and the Punjab Prisons Department Service Rules, 2010, which prescribed a vision standard of 6/6 without glasses for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jails (BS-16), arguing it was unconstitutional and discriminatory against candidates with corrected vision. The core legal question was whether the requirement of 6/6 eyesight without glasses for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jails violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution regarding the freedom of profession and trade. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the condition of 6/6 eyesight without glasses is violative of Article 18 of the Constitution as the nature of the job does not strictly require uncorrected vision given modern technological corrections like glasses. The court laid down the principle that statutory service criteria and qualifications infringing upon fundamental rights without a rational, modern nexus to the nature of duties can be subjected to judicial review and set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of 6/6 eyesight without glasses for the post of Assistant Superintendent Jails violates Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can the High Court review service criteria and qualification rules under constitutional jurisdiction when they conflict with fundamental rights?
  • Does the nature of duties of an Assistant Superintendent Jails strictly necessitate uncorrected vision without glasses?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Asif Hussain Shah, Rizwan Ahme vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 LHC 3078 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza Rizvi and 33 others vs Commissioner, D.G. Khan and 10 others2024 LHC 1042, 2025 CLC 866 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahsan Abbas, etc vs Government of the Punjab, etc2024 LHC 5390 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
• Sumaira vs The State etc.2023 LHC 4535, 2024 PCRLJ 1783 · Lahore High Court · 2023-08-31
  Anti-Rape Act 2021SSOIUsexual offences investigationremedial social statutepurposive interpretationmandatory provisionsquashing of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner instituted a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking to quash investigation proceedings in FIR No.1019/2022, wherein the police had substituted Section 375-A PPC with Section 371-B PPC. The petitioner contended that the entire investigation breached Section 9 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021, which requires investigations of scheduled offences to be carried out by Special Sexual Offences Investigation Units (SSOIUs). The core legal questions addressed were whether the provisions of Section 9 of the Anti-Rape Act 2021 are mandatory in nature and whether remedial social statutes should be construed liberally. The Lahore High Court held that the Anti-Rape Act 2021 is a special, remedial social statute aimed at combating sexual violence, requiring a broad and purposive interpretation. It ruled that Section 9 of the Act is mandatory, conferring exclusive investigative jurisdiction on trained SSOIUs. Upon receiving a report confirming that a compliant SSOIU was investigating the petitioner's case, the court disposed of the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 9 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021 are mandatory or directory?
  • How should courts interpret remedial social welfare statutes as opposed to penal statutes?
  • Whether an investigation of a scheduled sexual offence under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021 must be conducted exclusively by Special Sexual Offences Investigation Units?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mehmood Rana vs Naeem Ahmad, etc2024 LHC 989, 2024 PLJ Lahore 727 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan And Another vs Muhammad Nawaz (deceased) Through his2024 LHC 5569, 2025 MLD 428 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Asif Hussain Shah vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2024 LHC 2988, 2024 CLC 1648 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited vs Fazal Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs2024 LHC 6297 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-29Read full judgment →
• Strategic Plans Division and another vs Punjab Revenue Authority and others2024 LHC 2525 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• SpaceCom International, LLC vs Wateen Telecom Limited2024 LHC 5494, 2025 CLD 241 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-04Read full judgment →
• Soofi Muhammad Farrukh Amin and others vs Federation of Pakistan2024 PTD 406 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
• Sonia Sharief vs Addl. District & Session2024 LHC 381, 2024 CLC 1170 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-25Read full judgment →
• Sohail Nisar vs Nadeem Nisar & others2024 LHC 1435, 2025 MLD 105 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-05Read full judgment →
• Sohail Niaz Khan vs Bilal Rizwan etc.2024 LHC 2437, 2024 YLR 1981 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →
• SNGPL through G.M. vs Muhammad Awais SDO Highway2024 LHC 4220 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-01Read full judgment →
• Sirdar Muhammad Umer Khan Khosa vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad & others2024 LHC 1310, 2025 MLD 376 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sirdar Mohy Ud Din Khan Khosa vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad & others2024 LHC 1305 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat vs The State, etc2024 LHC 3567, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1154 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-26
  pre-arrest bailtax fraudfake invoicessales tax evasioncustodial investigationwhite-collar crimeinput tax adjustment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the proprietor of a registered trading concern accused of tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The petitioner was alleged to have issued flying or fake invoices without underlying taxable supplies, facilitating inadmissible input tax adjustments and causing significant financial loss to the exchequer. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence gathered. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The court reasoned that the evidence, including the adjudicatory process under section 11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, reasonably connected the petitioner to the alleged tax fraud. It emphasized that the petitioner, as a registered person, bore the burden of proving the lawfulness of transactions under section 2(37) of the Act. Furthermore, the court determined that custodial investigation was necessary to recover electronic evidence, and that no mala fide intent on the part of the department was established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of flying or fake invoices for tax fraud constitute sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail?
  • Is custodial interrogation permissible in cases of tax fraud involving electronic evidence?
  • Does the burden of proof under section 2(37) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 shift to the registered person to prove the lawfulness of transactions during bail proceedings?
  • Can a petitioner shift criminal liability to a third party to secure pre-arrest bail when they are the registered owner of the business entity?
  Read full judgment →
• Sibghat Elahi Chauhan vs The Defence Housing Authority and 02 others2024 LHC 4519, 2024 PLJ Lahore 903 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-23Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Ahmad and another vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 1098 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-31
  joint trialsame transactionhate speechcyber crimecriminal revisioncharge-sheetingPrevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which refused to exclude charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a trial involving offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016. The core legal question was whether offences under Section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 and offences under Sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the same transaction, could be tried together. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the offences were interlinked and constituted part of the same transaction. The Court affirmed that under Sections 235(1) and 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, offences committed in the course of the same transaction, even if governed by different statutes, must be tried together. This principle prevents conflicting judicial decisions, avoids the ordeal of multiple trials for the parties, and promotes judicial efficiency. The Court further noted that the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies to PECA 2016 offences to the extent they are not inconsistent.

  Questions settled

  • Can offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be tried together if they arise from the same transaction?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit a joint trial for offences falling under different statutory definitions if they constitute the same transaction?
  • Are the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable to offences prosecuted under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Azam Khan etc, Ghulam Farooq Khan vs The State etc2024 LHC 5656, 2025 YLR 930 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-28
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular and medical evidencechance witnessQatl-i-Amdrecovery proceedingsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants for the offences of Qatl-i-Amd and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, the status of eyewitnesses as chance witnesses, and the absence of independent corroboration. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness accounts regarding the specific injuries attributed to the accused, and the official records from the Rescue 1122 service negated the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the scene. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was found to be in violation of mandatory procedural requirements, and the prosecution failed to produce material witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused when reasonable doubt exists. The petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular and medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries shatter the credibility of eyewitnesses?
  • Is the failure to join independent witnesses during recovery proceedings a violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the presence of eyewitnesses through independent public documents?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when reasonable doubt exists regarding their participation in the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Afzal vs The State etc.2024 LHC 2860, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 973, 2024 LHC 3156, 2024 PCRLJ 2045 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-29
  concurrent sentencesimprisonment for lifebeneficial interpretationhardship casesinherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Sher Afzal, a convict seeking an order for his sentences of imprisonment awarded in two separate trials to run concurrently under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the court can exercise its discretion to order multiple sentences of imprisonment for life arising from different trials to run concurrently, particularly in cases of hardship. The Lahore High Court held that Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confers wide and unfettered discretion on courts to direct subsequent sentences to run concurrently with previous sentences to meet the ends of justice and avoid ruthless treatment of the convict. The court laid down the principle that beneficial provisions of law concerning the liberty of a convict must be interpreted compassionately in favor of the convict, and the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked in appropriate cases where previous courts remained silent on the concurrency of sentences, provided the superior court has not explicitly denied such benefit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court has the discretion to direct that sentences of imprisonment awarded in different trials shall run concurrently?
  • Can the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for concurrency of sentences when trial and appellate courts remain silent on the point?
  • Is Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to be construed liberally in favor of the convict's liberty?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed vs The State2024 LHC 5726, 2025 MLD 677 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-10
  acquittal applicationSection 265-K CrPCcriminal revisionprobability of convictionanti-terrorism courtinherent powers of trial courtfutile trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) dismissing the petitioner's application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioner, implicated in a case involving an attack on the General Headquarters based on a co-accused's statement, argued that the prosecution was politically motivated and that there was no probability of conviction. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to exercise its inherent power to acquit the accused at the initial stage of the proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the ATC’s refusal was legally sound. The court affirmed that while Section 265-K empowers a court to acquit an accused at any stage if there is no probability of conviction, this power must be exercised with caution and not in an omnibus or adventurous manner. Where there is even a slight probability of conviction, the court must proceed with the trial. The petitioner remains at liberty to re-apply for acquittal at a later stage if evidence warrants it.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court exercise its power under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at any stage of the trial?
  • Is the power of acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory when there is a slight probability of conviction?
  • Does the dismissal of an acquittal application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude an accused from filing a fresh application at a later stage of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Nadeem Anwar vs Learned Illaqa Magistrate, etc2024 LHC 5466, 2025 PLJ Lahore 210, 2025 PLD Lahore 496 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Hafeez vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 845, 2024 CLC 1012 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08
  public orderfreedom of movementright to assembleroad blockadecivil administrationpolice accountabilityfundamental rightssit-in
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the prolonged blockade of major roads and highways in Rawalpindi by political protestors, which paralyzed public life and hindered access to essential services. The core legal question concerned the extent of the fundamental right to assemble versus the rights of citizens to freedom of movement, trade, and business, and the corresponding duty of state functionaries to maintain public order. The Court held that the civil administration and police failed to discharge their statutory obligations under the Punjab Civil Administration Act 2017 and the Police Order 2002 by acting as silent spectators rather than enforcing the law. The Court affirmed that while the right to assemble is guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution, it is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions to protect the fundamental rights of others. Consequently, the Court directed the relevant authorities to initiate disciplinary inquiries against the delinquent officers for their dereliction of duty and mandated the development of standard operating procedures to prevent future unlawful road blockades, emphasizing that the State must act impartially and independently.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to assemble under Article 16 of the Constitution of Pakistan absolute?
  • Does the civil administration have a statutory duty to prevent the blockade of public roads during political protests?
  • Can state officials be held accountable for failing to maintain public order during political demonstrations?
  • Does the right to assemble justify the infringement of other citizens' fundamental rights to movement and trade?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Anwar and 04 Others vs Judge Banking Court and another2024 LHC 297, 2024 PLJ Lahore 192, 2024 CLD 724 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-02Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Khalid Javaid vs Shamas ud Din Chishti2024 LHC 1015, 2024 PLJ Lahore 351, 2025 CLC 513 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Kamran Shafi & others vs Sadaqat Shafi & others2024 LHC 1974 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-23Read full judgment →
• Shehzad vs The State etc.2023 LHC 4526, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 79, 2024 YLR 1675 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-20
  post-arrest baildelay in challanfurther inquiryfair trialnarcoticsprevious criminal recordpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail petition arose from a case registered under Section 9(1)3C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 1600 grams of 'Charas'. The petitioner contended that there was an inordinate and unjustified delay of approximately 190 days in submitting the challan (investigation report) to the trial court, which violated the statutory timeline. The High Court examined whether the failure of the police to submit the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 within the mandatory 14-day period, without any plausible explanation, constitutes a ground for bail. The Court held that the right to a speedy and fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution is infringed by such willful delay, which prima facie indicates mala fides and renders the case one of further inquiry. The Court further ruled that a petitioner's previous criminal record or prior convictions do not automatically disentitle them to bail when a case for further inquiry is otherwise established. Consequently, the petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate and unjustified delay in submitting the investigation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Can a petitioner be denied post-arrest bail solely on the basis of having a previous criminal record or prior convictions when a case for further inquiry is otherwise established?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to submit a timely challan violate the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Nawaz and others vs Mst. Raaj Begum and others2024 YLR 1238 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-10Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Abdul Ghaffar2024 LHC 651 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
• Shameem Omer and others vs Niaz Ahmad and others2024 LHC 975 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-08Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad and another vs StatePLJ 2024 Cr.C. 523 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-21
  narcotic substancessecondary evidencechain of custodyforensic reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealdeath sentenceprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants by the trial court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concern the admissibility of secondary evidence regarding a missing prosecution witness and the evidentiary value of a forensic report that lacked proper protocols and exhibition. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the non-availability of the Moharrar through cogent evidence, such as the testimony of a process-server, rendering the secondary evidence inadmissible. Furthermore, the Court found the forensic report defective because its critical pages were not properly exhibited in accordance with the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, nor did it contain the mandatory chemical test protocols required by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must strictly adhere to procedural requirements for evidence, and any failure to establish a safe chain of custody or provide valid forensic documentation creates reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution rely on secondary evidence of a missing witness without first proving their non-availability through a process-server?
  • Does a forensic report lacking chemical test protocols and proper exhibition in court hold evidentiary value?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the chain of custody for sample parcels in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Akbar vs Additional District Judge, etc2024 LHC 4844 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-17Read full judgment →
• Shahida Bibi vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, etc2024 LHC 2287, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 976, 2024 PCRLJ 1669 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13
  illegal detentionsuccessive arrestsabuse of powerhabeas corpusfundamental rightspost-arrest bailpolice brutality
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by Mst. Shahida Bibi alleging the illegal abduction and confinement of her husband, Muhammad Lateef, by local police officials shortly after his release on bail in previous cases. The core legal question concerned the legality of successive and repeated arrests of an accused in multiple cases and the police practice of withholding formal arrest in pending matters to re-arrest individuals upon their release from custody. The Lahore High Court held that the police practice of successive arrests is illegal, ruling that an accused person arrested in one criminal case is deemed to have been arrested in all other pending cases registered against them at that time. The Court laid down mandatory guidelines regulating the procedure for investigating officers seeking subsequent arrests, emphasizing that arrests must not be made in a mechanical manner or used as a tool of harassment. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the detenue under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and directed the registration of a criminal case against the delinquent police officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused arrested in one criminal case is deemed to have been simultaneously arrested in all other cases registered against him at that time?
  • Can the police carry out successive and repeated arrests of an accused person after the expiry of remand or release on bail in a previous case?
  • What are the mandatory legal requirements and procedures an investigating officer must follow before arresting a suspect already in custody for another offence?
  • Does the High Court have the power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail in habeas corpus proceedings when the detention is found to be mala fide and illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood & Company (Pvt.) Limited and 2 others vs Zahid2024 LHC 3655, 2025 CLD 408, 2025 PLJ Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-04Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs Abdul Jabbar Tassaduq2024 LHC 4970 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-22Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali alias Makhi vs The State2024 LHC 4501, 2024 LHC 4610, 2025 PCRLJ 555 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-01
  qatl shibh-i-amdvasovagal shockpost-mortem delayocular testimonydiyatmedical jurisprudenceculpable homicidecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, resulting from injuries sustained during a physical altercation involving kicks and fists. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of the ocular testimony, the effect of a delay in conducting the post-mortem examination, whether the death was homicidal or natural due to vasovagal shock, and whether the offence constituted intentional murder or qatl shibh-i-amd. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness accounts were natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence, and that the delay in the post-mortem did not vitiate the prosecution's case. However, the court modified the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, ruling that the assault using kicks and fists on the body and testis, resulting in fatal vasovagal shock, fell within the definition of qatl shibh-i-amd. The principle laid down is that causing death through a weapon or act not naturally likely to cause death, without intent to commit premeditated murder but resulting in fatal vasovagal inhibition, constitutes qatl shibh-i-amd punishable under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with liability for diyat.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in conducting the post-mortem examination alone destroy the prosecution's case in the presence of confidence-inspiring eyewitness testimony?
  • Whether death resulting from vasovagal shock or vagal inhibition caused by blunt trauma to the testis constitutes a natural death or a homicidal act?
  • Does an assault committed with kicks and fists that results in fatal vasovagal shock fall within the purview of qatl-i-amd or qatl shibh-i-amd?
  • What is the relevant time for determining the applicable rate of Diyat when a conviction is converted to qatl shibh-i-amd?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz vs The State and another2024 MLD 597 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-31
  post-arrest bailrape of minorblackmailingprohibitory clausemoral turpitudecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Shahbaz, in case F.I.R. No. 775/2022 registered under Sections 376(ii) and 293 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Mustafa Abad, District Kasur, concerning allegations of rape of a minor, making a compromising video, and subsequent blackmailing. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in a heinous crime involving the rape of a minor where substantial incriminating material exists on record. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that prima facie reasonable grounds connected the petitioner to the offence and the prohibition contained in Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was attracted. The key principle laid down is that persons involved in heinous offences of moral turpitude such as the rape of minors do not deserve leniency and must be dealt with firmly to eradicate such nefarious activities from society.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused facing allegations of rape of a minor when prima facie reasonable grounds connect him to the crime?
  • Does the offence of rape with a minor attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the effect of statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicating the accused in a bail matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State and another2024 LHC 5071, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 1 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-06
  Call Data RecordCDRSection 540 CrPCforensic voice transcriptadditional evidenceControl of Narcotic Substances Actelectronic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court CNSA, Sialkot, which dismissed the appellant's application under Section 540 Cr.P.C. seeking production of the Call Data Record (CDR) of a prosecution witness (PW-4). The appellant sought the CDR after the closure of prosecution evidence and the recording of the statement of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The High Court affirmed the trial court's order and dismissed the appeal. It held that CDR alone merely indicates the geographic range of a cellular tower where a SIM operated, but does not conclusively establish the presence or identity of a specific person at an exact location. In the absence of a forensically analyzed voice record transcript or end-to-end audio/video recording, CDR lacks evidentiary value to establish human presence. Consequently, summoning CDR at a late stage was not necessary for a just decision of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Is Call Data Record (CDR) alone sufficient to establish the exact physical presence or identity of a person at a specific location without forensically analyzed voice recordings?
  • Can an application under Section 540 Cr.P.C. for producing Call Data Records be allowed after the closure of prosecution evidence and recording of statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. without corroborative forensic evidence?
  • What mandatory legal requirements must be fulfilled before audio or video recordings can be relied upon as admissible evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Liaqat Ali and others vs Ghulam Akbar (deceased) through L.Rs. and others2024 YLR 201 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-22Read full judgment →
• Service Global Footwear Limited & another vs Federation of Pakistan2024 LHC 2738, 2024 PTD 1271 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-04Read full judgment →
• Sarmad Tanveer vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 32024 PLJ Lahore 428 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sarfraz Khan vs Province of Punjab & others2024 LHC 5170, 2025 CLC 434 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-05Read full judgment →
• Sardar Naveed Haider Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 MLD 1871 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-19Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Boota vs Jaffar Ali (deceased) through LRs and Others2024 LHC 5715 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Awais Nakai vs Rana Sikandar Hayat and another2024 MLD 1257 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-14Read full judgment →
• Sanam Javed vs Special Judge, Anti Terrorism Court, Gujranwala, etc.2024 LHC 3408, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1226, 2025 PCRLJ 148 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-10
  physical remandcriminal revisionmalicious prosecutionfundamental rightsdouble jeopardyAnti-Terrorism Courtaccomplice statementpolice highhandedness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of physical remand passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Gujranwala, against the petitioner, who was implicated in a case based on an accomplice's statement. The core legal questions concerned the court's revisional jurisdiction over expired remand orders, the legality of repeatedly implicating an accused in multiple jurisdictions for the same alleged act, and the validity of evidence procured through coercion. The Court held that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a corrective duty to prevent manifest illegality, regardless of whether the specific remand period has expired. It found the prosecution's repeated implication of the petitioner in multiple cases for the same incident malicious, violating fundamental rights under Articles 4, 9, 10, and 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the Court set aside the remand order and discharged the petitioner, establishing that remand must not be granted mechanically and that evidence obtained in violation of statutory procedures, such as Section 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is inadmissible.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the period of physical remand has already expired?
  • Does the repeated implication of an accused in multiple criminal cases for the same alleged act violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
  • Is an accomplice's statement admissible if it is recorded in violation of the proviso to Section 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be remanded to police custody in a mechanical manner without establishing a specific, important purpose for the investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanam Javaid Khan through attorney Rubina Javaid vs Returning Officer2024 LHC 1092 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah and others vs The State etc.2024 LHC 631, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 592, 2024 PCRLJ 1623 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-22
  criminal appealmurderidentification paradereasonable doubtchain of custodyforensic evidenceacquittalinquest report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for murder and house trespass under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the validity of the identification parade, and the integrity of the forensic evidence chain of custody. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court identified significant discrepancies, including an ante-timed FIR evidenced by the inquest report, a flawed joint identification parade, and a broken chain of custody regarding the recovered weapon and crime empties. Furthermore, medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness accounts, undermining their credibility. Reaffirming the principle that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence was consequently dismissed. This judgment emphasizes that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inconsistency between the time of the inquest report and the FIR registration create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's timeline?
  • Is a joint identification parade involving multiple accused persons legally valid?
  • Does a failure to maintain the chain of custody for crime scene evidence render forensic reports unreliable?
  • Can medical evidence alone be used to identify the culprits in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Hamid vs The State and another2024 LHC 3779, 2024 YLR 2359, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1141 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-02
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controladmissibility of confessionvicarious liabilityfurther inquiryright to tradecorroboration of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, who was implicated in a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, based solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The co-accused, apprehended with narcotics and a drone, alleged he purchased the drone from the petitioner's shop. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be denied bail based on the uncorroborated confessional statement of a co-accused and the mere sale of a lawful product (a drone) used by the co-accused for criminal activities. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the co-accused's statement to the police is inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and lacks independent corroboration. The Court emphasized that the sale of a lawful item does not establish criminal liability for the buyer's subsequent illegal acts, absent evidence of knowledge or connivance. The principle laid down is that at the bail stage, the prosecution must present independent incriminating material beyond a co-accused's statement to establish prima facie involvement, and lawful business activities are constitutionally protected.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of a co-accused's confessional statement made to the police?
  • Is the sale of a lawful item, subsequently used by the purchaser for criminal activity, sufficient to establish criminal liability for the seller?
  • Does the statutory prohibition on possession of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 extend to a person who has no conscious or active possession of the contraband?
  • At the bail stage, what is the evidentiary value of a co-accused's confession made during police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Akram Raja vs Returning Officer and others2024 CLC 1094 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• Salman Akram Raja vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief2024 LHC 2466, 2025 CLC 56 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Hussain vs Addl. District Judge, etc2024 LHC 5579, 2025 PLD Lahore 332, 2025 PLJ Lahore 244 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-27Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs The State2024 LHC 6159 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-27
  rapechild witnesscriminal appealDNA evidenceFIR delaysexual assaultconvictionQanun-e-Shahadat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for rape and kidnapping under sections 376 and 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the victim’s testimony as a child witness, the impact of delayed FIR registration in sexual assault cases, and the necessity of DNA evidence for a rape conviction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The Court held that a child witness is competent to testify if they pass the rationality test, and a conviction may rest on their sole testimony if it inspires confidence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that delay in reporting sexual assault is understandable given societal sensitivities and does not inherently weaken the prosecution's case. Finally, the Court established that DNA testing is not a mandatory legal requirement for proving rape when other corroborative evidence, such as medical reports and consistent ocular testimony, is sufficient to establish guilt. The judgment reaffirms that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not invalidate the core prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction for rape sustainable in the absence of DNA evidence?
  • Can a conviction be based on the sole testimony of a child witness?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR regarding sexual assault necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the acquittal of co-accused a ground for setting aside the conviction of the main accused when evidence is distinguishable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs The Returning Officer, Na-174, Rahim Yar Khan and 042024 LHC 69, 2024 PLJ Lahore 88 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain and others vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary2024 PLC (C.S.) 421 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20
  locus poenitentiaepast and closed transactionvested rightsaudi alteram partemprocedural fairnessdouble jeopardyselection grade
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order issued by the Secretary, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad, which withdrew the benefit of a presumptive selection scale previously granted to the petitioners and ordered the recovery of alleged excess payments. The core legal question was whether the respondent-Board could reopen and rescind a financial benefit that had already been implemented, audited, and settled as a past and closed transaction, particularly after the petitioners had already been penalized for the initial irregularity. The Court held that the impugned order was illegal and without lawful authority. Relying on the principle of locus poenitentiae, the Court determined that once an order has taken effect and created vested rights, it cannot be rescinded to the detriment of those rights. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the matter had attained finality after the Public Accounts Committee settled the audit objections, and double jeopardy principles prevented the authorities from penalizing the petitioners again for the same issue. The Court affirmed that administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily interfere with settled financial matters without procedural fairness and adherence to the principle of audi alteram partem.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative authority rescind an order that has already taken effect and created vested rights?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the reopening of a financial matter that has been settled as a past and closed transaction?
  • Can an authority impose a second penalty for the same irregularity after a previous penalty has attained finality?
  • Is an administrative order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing sustainable under the principles of procedural fairness?
  Read full judgment →
• Saira Fatima vs State etcPLJ 2024 Cr.C. 403, 2024 PCRLJ 1289 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-30
  joinder of chargesseparate trialdishonoured chequediscretionary powercriminal procedurefair trialinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the dismissal of the petitioner's application for the joinder of charges under Section 234, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in multiple cases involving dishonoured cheques. The core legal question was whether the provision for joinder of charges is mandatory or discretionary, and whether an accused can demand such joinder as a matter of right. The Court held that Section 234, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is permissive and discretionary, not mandatory. It serves as an exception to the general rule of separate trials for distinct offences under Section 233, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed that an accused cannot insist on the joinder of charges unless they can demonstrate that separate trials would cause prejudice or amount to an illegality. Finding that the lower courts correctly exercised their discretion and that no prejudice was shown, the Court dismissed the petition, noting that inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not to be used to substitute appellate or revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the joinder of charges under Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory or discretionary?
  • Can an accused demand the joinder of charges as a matter of right?
  • Does the failure to join charges for offences of the same kind committed within one year automatically render separate trials illegal?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order the joinder of charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Saima Batool vs Additional District Judge, etc.2024 LHC 2443 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• Saif Power Limited vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited etc2024 LHC 2172 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sahibzadi Saira Mehreen Abbasi, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2024 LHC 1403, 2024 PLJ Lahore 632 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-30Read full judgment →
• Sagheer Ahmad vs Sessions Judge, Kasur & others2024 LHC 5364 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-22Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Sidhu vs Election Commission of Pakistan etc2024 PLJ Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-11Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Poultry Farms (Private) Limited etc vs First Habib Modaraba2024 LHC 4053, 2025 PLD Lahore 161, 2025 CLD 277 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Hussain and another vs Deputy Director, Federal Investigation2024 LHC 6351, 2025 PLJ Lahore 300 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sadia Aziz vs DPO etc2024 LHC 2076, 2024 PLJ Lahore 413 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• Sadaqat & another, Habib Ullah, The State vs The State & another, Sadaqat2024 LHC 6372 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sabir Press Calendar vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Faisalabad &2024 LHC 5858, PTCL 2025 CL. 64 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs Additional District Judge etc.2024 LHC 621, 2025 CLC 785 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-30Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali vs Munawar & others2024 LHC 1827, 2024 PLJ Lahore 501, 2025 PLD Lahore 286 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
• Sabiha Bibi vs Abdul Wahab, etc2024 LHC 5093 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Saba Gul & 02 others vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad & 02 others2024 LHC 4177 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-09Read full judgment →
• Saasa Corporation (Pvt) Limited vs M/s Sefam Pvt Limited2024 LHC 4319 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
• Saadia Khalil vs Learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore and 2 Others2024 LHC 3901, 2024 PLJ Lahore 828, 2025 CLC 478 · Lahore High Court · 2024-08-15Read full judgment →
• Rukhsar Ahmad vs The State and others2024 LHC 4549, 2025 PCRLJ 700 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-16
  post-arrest bailDrugs Act 1976Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act 2012procedural safeguardsshow cause noticeFIR quashmentconstitutional jurisdictionDistrict Quality Control Board
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner sought post-arrest bail regarding an FIR registered for alleged violations of the Drugs Act, 1976 and the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012. The core legal question was whether the registration of the FIR was lawful despite the failure of the authorities to refer the matter to the District Quality Control Board and issue a mandatory show-cause notice as required by the Punjab Drugs Rules 2007. The Court held that the procedural requirements under Rule 5(3) of the Punjab Drugs Rules 2007 are mandatory, as they serve to protect individual rights and ensure due process. Consequently, the Court found the initiation of proceedings without these safeguards to be coram non judice and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that procedural safeguards in statutes, particularly those affecting individual rights, must be strictly followed; failure to do so invalidates the action. The Court quashed the FIR and directed the matter be remitted for de novo proceedings, emphasizing the High Court's constitutional authority to rectify such illegalities.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement to issue a show cause notice under Rule 5(3) of the Punjab Drugs Rules 2007 mandatory before initiating prosecution?
  • Does a High Court have the constitutional authority to quash an FIR registered without following the mandatory procedural requirements of the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Can the heading of a statutory section control or override its substantive provisions?
  • Is the registration of an FIR for drug-related offenses valid if the case was not referred to the District Quality Control Board as required by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Rozina Ahmed vs Province of Punjab, etc.2024 LHC 1233, 2024 PLJ Lahore 565 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-13
  constitutional petitionservice lawappointment withdrawalprovisional result cardcut-off datedoctrine of locus poenitentiaevested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the orders of the respondent authorities withdrawing the appointment of the petitioner as an Educator (ESE Sci-Math) on the ground that her Master of Computer Science (MCS) degree result card was incompatible with the cut-off date of the recruitment advertisement. The core legal question was whether a candidate who obtained a provisional result card prior to the cut-off date and subsequently secured a final transcript can be disqualified and removed from service after fulfilling all selection criteria and joining duty. The Lahore High Court held that the provisional result card conclusively established that the petitioner passed her examination before the cut-off date, and the subsequent issuance of the final transcript with minor score variations was a routine academic process by the university rather than a disqualifying defect. The court ruled that once an appointment has been made after fulfilling codal formalities and the employee has assumed duties, vested rights are created which cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn, invoking the well-established doctrine of locus poenitentiae.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appointment to a public post can be withdrawn on the ground that the provisional result card submitted before the cut-off date differs slightly from the final transcript subsequently issued?
  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae bar the executive authorities from cancelling an appointment letter issued after the completion of all codal formalities?
  • Whether a candidate who passes an examination prior to the cut-off date of an advertisement can be disqualified merely because the final academic transcript was issued after the cut-off date?
  Read full judgment →
• Robina Kausar vs Muhammad Latif2024 LHC 5640, 2025 CLC 911 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Sami Khan vs The State etc2024 LHC 5634, 2025 YLR 811, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 360 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-20
  rape convictionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealpotency testevidentiary gapschain of custodysexual offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Rizwan Sami Khan, for offences under Sections 376, 292, 500, and 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged incident of rape and the recording of illicit material. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidentiary gaps. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing the non-recovery of the weapon, the withholding of natural witnesses, the failure to produce the alleged incriminating memory card and photographs in court, and the absence of a chain of custody for the evidence. Furthermore, the court emphasized the critical failure to conduct a medico-legal examination of the victim and a potency test of the accused, which are essential in sexual offence cases. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of doubt. The judgment reaffirms that in criminal trials, the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, and failure to present essential forensic and medical evidence creates fatal doubts.

  Questions settled

  • Is the potency test of an accused mandatory in cases involving sexual offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the failure to produce material evidence in court, such as memory cards or photographs, entitle an accused to an acquittal?
  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce natural witnesses and medico-legal reports?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to establish the safe custody of case property?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ali vs Chairman Board of Director, FESCO and 4 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 695 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-21
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantservice disputesenioritystatutory rulesprivate limited company
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order dated 16.06.2014 passed by the Board of Directors of the Faisalabad Electric Supply Company (FESCO) regarding seniority fixation, alongside a subsequent 2023 agenda item. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable against a private limited company like FESCO regarding service disputes, specifically when the company's employment rules are non-statutory. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that FESCO, as a private limited company with its own Board of Directors, operates under the principle of 'master and servant' rather than being governed by statutory rules. Consequently, internal service disputes cannot be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the State-Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023 applied retrospectively to the 2014 decision. The key principle laid down is that where the conditions of service of employees of a corporate body are not regulated by statutory rules, the relationship is governed by the master-servant doctrine, rendering constitutional petitions for service disputes non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 maintainable against a private limited company regarding service disputes?
  • Does the principle of 'master and servant' apply to employees of a corporate body whose service conditions are not regulated by statutory rules?
  • Can the State-Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023 be applied retrospectively to decisions made prior to its enactment?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 CLC 1703 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-20Read full judgment →
• Rida Qazi etc vs Government of Punjab etc2024 LHC 6036 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan, etc.2024 LHC 193 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan, etc2024 LHC 193 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad etc vs Secretary to Govt. of the Punjab etc2024 LHC 4101, 2025 MLD 21 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-11Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs The State, etc.2024 LHC 2316, 2024 PLJ Lahore 527, 2024 PCRLJ 1511 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-16
  territorial jurisdictionElectricity Utilities CourtFederal Investigation Agencypost-arrest bailplace of occurrencecognizance of offencecriminal trialdoubt as to district
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a writ petition addressing a jurisdictional deadlock regarding the forum for taking cognizance, conducting trial, and adjudicating a post-arrest bail application for an offence under Section 462-J of the Pakistan Penal Code registered at the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) Circle, Gujrat, where the alleged crime occurred within District Mandi Bahauddin. The core legal question concerned whether registration of a case by the FIA dictates the venue of trial, and which court possesses territorial and special jurisdiction to entertain the bail and trial. The Lahore High Court held that the FIA is solely an investigating agency and its governing statute does not determine trial venues; thus, the parent statute of the offence governs jurisdiction. Under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the trial venue is determined by the place of occurrence, and offences relating to electricity under Chapter XVII-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are triable by a Court of Session designated as an Electricity Utilities Court under Section 462-G(a). The Court laid down that the court competent to conduct the trial also possesses jurisdiction to entertain bail, and resolved the doubt under Section 185(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by directing the designated Electricity Utilities Court within the territorial limits of the place of occurrence to proceed with the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of a case by the Federal Investigation Agency determine the venue of trial for scheduled offences?
  • Which court has the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance and conduct the trial for offences relating to electricity under Chapter XVII-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a court competent to conduct the trial of a case also competent to entertain and decide a petition for bail in that case?
  • How is jurisdiction determined by the High Court when a question arises as to which of two or more subordinate courts ought to inquire into or try an offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali Sahi vs Ijaz Ahmad and others2024 LHC 966 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-06Read full judgment →
• Reliance Weaving Mills Limited vs Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) through Chairman, etc2024 LHC 5453 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah vs The State and another2024 YLR 161 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-04
  post-arrest bailPunjab Food Authority Actsubstandard meatprohibitory clausecriminal recordtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving alleged violations of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, specifically regarding the possession of substandard meat. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case and the nature of the alleged offences. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to provide the necessary veterinary certificate or expert report substantiating the claim that the meat was injurious to human health, noting that a visual inspection by non-experts is insufficient. Furthermore, the court observed that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the petitioner had already been detained for approximately two months without any prior convictions in other registered cases. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that tentative assessment of the record revealed insufficient grounds for continued incarceration, particularly where the prosecution's evidence lacked scientific verification.

  Questions settled

  • Is a visual inspection by non-experts sufficient to establish that food items are injurious to human consumption?
  • Does the absence of a veterinary certificate or expert report in the police file constitute a ground for granting bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the existence of previous FIRs without convictions preclude the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehana Nazir vs District Police Officer, etc2024 LHC 3460, 2025 PCRLJ 1 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-19
  habeas corpusjuvenile justicechild protectiondestitute childrendiversion measuresjuvenile courtprobation officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the recovery of an eleven-year-old child from alleged illegal custody. The child was produced by the police, who revealed he was implicated in a theft case but released on surety under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018. Observing the child and his siblings to be in a pitiable, neglected condition, the High Court entrusted their custody to the Child Protection and Welfare Bureau under the Punjab Destitute and Neglected Children Act 2004. The Court noted a systemic failure by state functionaries to implement the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018. It held that the enforcement of statutory welfare laws is a mandatory constitutional duty of the state. Consequently, the Court issued comprehensive directives to the government, police, and prosecution to establish specialized juvenile courts, observation homes, and Juvenile Justice Committees, and to prioritize diversion measures over formal trials.

  Questions settled

  • What are the mandatory duties of state functionaries regarding the implementation of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018?
  • Under what circumstances can a juvenile offender be tried jointly with an adult offender?
  • What is the legal mechanism and purpose of disposing of juvenile cases through diversion under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018?
  • What protections are guaranteed to female juvenile offenders during arrest, investigation, and detention?
  Read full judgment →
• Reham Dad vs Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others2024 CLC 114 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• Razia Begum & 05 others vs Member (Judicial-III) B.O.R., & 12 others2024 LHC 3377, 2024 PLJ Lahore 698, 2024 CLC 1910 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →
• Rasikh Elahi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior2024 YLR 2616 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-08
  Exit Control Listfundamental right to travelright to fair hearingdue processnatural justiceadministrative discretionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions challenging the inclusion of the petitioners' names in the Exit Control List (ECL) by the Federal Government due to pending criminal cases. The core legal question was whether the mere pendency of criminal proceedings and the existence of administrative recommendations justify restricting a citizen's fundamental right to travel abroad. The Lahore High Court held that the respondents' action was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court affirmed that the right to travel is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed by administrative measures solely based on the registration of a criminal case or the pendency of litigation. The Court emphasized that the power to place a name on the ECL cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It held that, pursuant to the principles of natural justice and statutory interpretation, the authorities are mandated to provide notice and an opportunity for a fair hearing to the affected individual, and any order restricting travel must be supported by recorded, justiciable reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere pendency of a criminal case justify placing a citizen's name on the Exit Control List?
  • Is the Federal Government required to provide a hearing before placing a person's name on the Exit Control List?
  • Can the right to travel abroad be curtailed by administrative measures without recording reasons?
  • Does the registration of an FIR automatically disentitle a person from exercising their fundamental right to travel?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid and others vs The State and others2024 YLR 1686 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-03
  murder referencecapital punishmentchance witnessbenefit of the doubtdelay in post-mortemviolating section 103 Cr.P.C.appeal against acquittalevidentiary value of medical evidenceunproved motive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder and sentencing them to death, alongside a connected appeal challenging the acquittal of co-accused and a murder reference. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the reliability of unverified motive, compliance with mandatory search provisions under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the evidentiary value of delayed post-mortem examinations and forensic reports. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses, the availability of any light source during the night occurrence, the truth of the alleged motive, or the integrity of recoveries and forensic evidence. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, set aside their convictions and sentences, dismissed the appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and medical or forensic evidence cannot independently identify an offender when substantive ocular testimony is discarded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses who fail to provide a convincing reason for their presence at the crime scene can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delayed post-mortem examination without justifiable explanation create an inference that the initial report was fabricated and witnesses were procured later?
  • Can recoveries made in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as incriminating evidence?
  • Does medical evidence alone possess sufficient probative force to identify an accused person as the perpetrator of a crime when the ocular account is disbelieved?
  • What is the threshold of interference by an appellate court against an order of acquittal where the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad vs Azra Parveen (deceased) through L.Rs. and others2024 LHC 894, 2024 PLJ Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
• Rao Humayun Waqas vs The State, etc2024 LHC 1817, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 989, 2024 YLR 2546 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-18
  murderbenefit of doubtocular accountabscondenceweapon recoveryexamination-in-chiefcriminal 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 for qatl-i-amd arising out of an FIR registered at Police Station Sabzazar, Lahore. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony, the sufficiency of medical and recovery evidence, and the legal weight of abscondence in establishing guilt. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions, improvements, and the failure of eyewitnesses to provide consistent accounts—coupled with an unmatched weapon recovery and uncorroborated abscondence—rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Setting aside the conviction, the court laid down that when substantive ocular evidence fails and creates reasonable doubt, minor corroborative pieces like abscondence or medical evidence cannot sustain a conviction, and a single circumstance creating doubt is sufficient to entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of an eyewitness whose examination-in-chief suffers from major omissions and contradictions regarding the core facts of the crime?
  • Does mere abscondence of an accused person serve as conclusive proof of guilt in the absence of cogent and reliable substantive evidence?
  • Is medical evidence alone sufficient to establish the identity of the perpetrator of a crime when ocular testimony has failed?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the recovered firearm does not match the spent shells collected from the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon vs Election Commission of Pakistan, etc2024 LHC 1745 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-05Read full judgment →