Pakistan Case LawLatest 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 Aslam vs Judge Family Court, Ferozewala, etc.2024 LHC 438, 2024 PLD Lahore 300, 2024 PLJ Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Judl. Magistrate, etc2024 LHC 3190, 2024 MLD 1796, 2025 PLJ Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Asif vs The State2024 LHC 1184, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 893, 2024 PCRLJ 1691 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Asif, for the murder of Mst. Robina Shoaib, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding the timing of the First Information Report (FIR), the safe custody of recovered case property, and the credibility of interested eye-witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in the timing of the FIR, the lack of evidence regarding the safe custody of the alleged murder weapon and crime empties, and the failure to establish a credible motive. The court emphasized that absconsion is merely corroborative and not substantive evidence of guilt. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Can a witness refresh their memory during examination using notes without complying with the specific requirements of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the safe custody of recovered case property entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Is absconsion by an accused sufficient, by itself, to prove guilt in a criminal trial?
- What is the legal effect of significant contradictions in the timing of the registration of an FIR on the prosecution's case?
- Muhammad Asif vs The State, etc.2024 LHC 866, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 543, 2024 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby a co-accused was tendered a pardon under section 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to become an approver. The core legal questions involved whether a court can unilaterally tender a pardon without the consent of the accused, without taking the prosecution agency on board, and without the permission of the victim's legal heirs in a murder case. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was illegal, as the accused did not volunteer or consent to become an approver, the prosecution was not consulted, mandatory reasons were not recorded, the consent of the legal heirs of the victim was not obtained despite the charge of qatl, and the accused was not taken into custody as mandated by law. The court set aside the order, laying down that tendering a pardon requires strict compliance with statutory procedural safeguards, prosecutorial involvement, and the recording of cogent reasons.
Questions settled- Can a court tender a pardon to an accused under Section 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without taking the prosecution agency on board?
- Whether the consent of an accused to become an approver is mandatory before a court or officer can tender a pardon?
- Is the permission of the victim's legal heirs required before tendering a pardon to an accused involved in an offence relating to hurt or qatl?
- Does the law require an accused who has accepted a tender of pardon to be detained in custody until the termination of the trial?
- Muhammad Asif and another vs The State2024 YLR 1149 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The criminal appeals were filed by the appellants challenging their convictions and sentences under sections 302, 392, 411 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, handed down by the trial court in a private complaint and state case. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had established the identity of the culprits and its case beyond reasonable doubt through the identification parade, medical evidence, and corroboratory recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the identification parade suffered from fatal legal flaws including being joint and held long after the crime without prior descriptive features in the FIR, the medical evidence was inconsistent with the ocular account, and the recoveries were inconsequential. The court laid down the principle that joint identification parades and those conducted without initial descriptive benchmarks in the FIR possess no evidentiary value, and that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, extending the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the accused.
Questions settled- Does a joint identification parade of multiple accused persons carry evidentiary value under criminal law?
- What is the legal effect on an identification parade when the eyewitnesses fail to mention any specific descriptive features of the assailants in the initial crime report?
- Can corroboratory evidence such as weapon and cash recoveries sustain a capital conviction when the primary ocular and identification evidence has been discarded?
- Whether inconsistencies between the ocular account and the medical post-mortem report regarding entry and exit wounds can be cured through a belated private complaint?
- Muhammad Ashraf vs The State and another2024 YLR 1182 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail for an offence under Section 22(1) of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, involving the sale of adulterated milk. The core legal question was whether Rule 52 of the Punjab Pure Food Rules, 2011, which prescribes minimum sample quantities for analysis, is mandatory or directory, and whether its non-compliance vitiates the prosecution's case. The Court held that Rule 52 is mandatory, as sampling and credible laboratory analysis are essential for ensuring a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the failure to collect the requisite quantity of milk made the Public Analyst's report unreliable, creating a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Given that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, the Court granted post-arrest bail, reaffirming that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception for non-prohibitory offences.
Questions settled- Is Rule 52 of the Punjab Pure Food Rules, 2011, regarding the quantity of food samples, mandatory or directory?
- Does the failure to comply with the prescribed sampling quantity in the Punjab Pure Food Rules, 2011, render a Public Analyst's report unreliable?
- Does an offence under Section 22(1) of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muhammad Ashraf vs Judge Executing Court, etc2024 LHC 5284, 2025 PLJ Lahore 343 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf and others vs Azhar Ahmad and others2024 LHC 1252 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State etc.2024 LHC 1431, 2024 MLD 1305 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Muhammad Ashfaq, sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with Section 449 subsequently added, at Police Station Saddar Gojra. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's role of holding the deceased, raising a lalkara, and locking a room—without being armed or causing any firearm injuries—warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since co-accused with similar roles had been declared innocent during investigation, nothing was recovered from the petitioner, and his act of clasping the victim required further probe, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The court laid down the principle that bail should not be withheld as an advance punishment, and it is better to err in granting bail than in refusing it, as unjustified imprisonment cannot be adequately compensated upon acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the role of clasping the deceased and raising a lalkara by an unarmed accused without causing injuries makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of advance punishment pending trial?
- What is the governing principle regarding the preference of granting bail versus refusing bail in debatable cases?
- Muhammad Ashfaq & others vs Civil Judge, Samundari & others2024 LHC 5176, 2025 YLR 830 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Asad Mehmood vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2024 LHC 3609, 2024 PLJ Lahore 692 · Lahore High Court · 2024-08-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Arslan vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 463 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the qatl-i-amd of his wife and isqat-i-janin under sections 302(b) and 338C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular accounts, medical evidence, and recoveries, particularly given the status of the primary witnesses as chance witnesses and the delayed post-mortem examination. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene, rendering their testimonies unreliable, and that recoveries and motive lacked independent corroboration. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt, holding that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is sufficient for acquittal, and answered the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of chance witnesses can be relied upon without convincing reasons and physical proof of their presence at the scene?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its initial case shift the burden of proof to the accused under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
- Can medical evidence alone be used to identify the culprit or corroborate an unobserved occurrence?
- What is the effect of an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
- Muhammad Arshad alias Achhi vs The State and aother2024 YLR 2088 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Through this petition, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 2957/2023 registered under sections 302, 34, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Sheikhupura. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in recording the supplementary statement, the general role attributed to him, the introduction of delayed motive without substantiation, and the police investigation indicating his mere presence empty-handed at the scene. The Lahore High Court accepted the bail petition and held that the prosecution case against the petitioner required further probe and inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is implicated through a belated supplementary statement with general allegations, unverified motive, and an investigative finding of mere presence without overt acts or weapon recovery, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the initial FIR and is implicated through a delayed supplementary statement?
- Does a general role of inflicting blows without specific attribution to an accused warrant further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Whether the introduction of an unverified motive after a delay constitutes sufficient ground to deny post-arrest bail?
- Muhammad Arshad & others vs The State2024 LHC 2955 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants recorded by the trial court under sections 302 and 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a private complaint. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account, the presence of chance witnesses, the consistency between medical and oral evidence, and the benefit of reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies, unnatural conduct of the eyewitnesses, delayed reporting indicating consultation, and contradictions between medical evidence and the manner of strangulation narrated in the ocular account. The court laid down the principle that unexplained delay in post-mortem and lodging of FIR creates a presumption of prior deliberation, that inconsistent medical evidence discredits eyewitness accounts, and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution case is replete with doubt. The appeal was allowed and the appellants were acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether the ocular account can be relied upon when the presence of the eyewitnesses at the spot is doubtful and they are categorized as chance witnesses?
- Does a contradiction between medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries and the oral testimony of eyewitnesses render the prosecution's case doubtful?
- What is the evidentiary value of motive when the direct ocular testimony has been completely disbelieved by the court?
- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination gives rise to a presumption of preliminary investigation and prior consultation?
- Muhammad Arshad & 28 others vs Province of the Punjab & 02 others2024 LHC 4677 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Arif Zaman and another vs The State and another2024 LHC 4401, 2025 MLD 245, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 83 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the convictions of two appellants for fraud, forgery, and corruption regarding land transactions. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the appellants' criminal intent and acts in fabricating land records to misappropriate funds. The court acquitted Zulfiqar Ali, holding that the prosecution failed to prove his criminal liability, as the underlying dispute regarding the agreement to sell was essentially a civil matter for specific performance. Conversely, the court upheld the conviction of Muhammad Arif Zaman, a Patwari, finding he knowingly utilized dubious and incomplete revenue entries to facilitate fraudulent mutations. The judgment establishes that in cases involving forgery and cheating by public officials, courts must adopt an inquisitorial approach, giving due weight to documentary evidence and the principle of res ipsa loquitur rather than relying solely on oral testimony. Additionally, it reaffirmed that an unattested mutation entered by a Patwari lacks legal significance or value.
Questions settled- Does an unattested mutation entered by a Patwari carry any legal value or presumption of truth?
- Should courts adopt an inquisitorial approach in cases of forgery and cheating by public officials?
- Is a dispute regarding an agreement to sell land, where no criminal intent is proven, a matter for criminal prosecution or civil litigation?
- Muhammad Arif vs The State2024 YLR 2019 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, along with a connected murder reference and a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal, arose from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and sentencing him to death, while acquitting co-accused. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of delayed weapon recoveries violating Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the impact of material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence regarding rigor mortis and injury locations, and the double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution witnesses were unverified chance witnesses who made dishonest improvements to align with medical evidence, that mandatory search provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were violated, and that the medical findings regarding rigor mortis cast grave doubt on the time of occurrence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, acquitted him, and dismissed the petition against the acquittal of the co-accused.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of chance witnesses who fail to provide a convincing and physically corroborated reason for their presence at the crime scene can be relied upon to maintain a capital conviction?
- Does a contradiction between the development of rigor mortis in medical evidence and the prosecution's stated time of occurrence create a fatal doubt in the state's case?
- Whether a positive forensic report matching spent empty shells with an alleged recovered weapon loses its evidentiary value if the empty shells are inexplicably retained at the police station prior to the suspect's arrest?
- What is the standard of interference by an appellate court against an order of acquittal where the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence?
- Muhammad Arif vs Javaid Khan2024 LHC 4023, 2025 MLD 323 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Arif Malik vs Additional District Judge & two others2024 LHC 2933, 2025 CLC 832 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Arif and another vs Haji Khalid Mahmood (deceased) through L.Rs2024 LHC 6286 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Anayet Gondal vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore2024 LHC 1795, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1130 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal assails the orders whereby the appellant's representations for treating the intervening period from dismissal to reinstatement as on duty and for the grant of back benefits were declined. The core legal questions are whether an employee reinstated into service is entitled to back benefits for the intervening period, and whether denial of such benefits without proof of gainful employment is sustainable. The Lahore High Court held that the grant of back benefits is the rule and denial is an exception applicable only upon proof that the employee remained gainfully employed during the intervening period, and that subjecting the appellant to differential treatment violates the equality clause. The key principle laid down is that where an illegal dismissal is struck down and a civil servant is treated as remaining in service, the consequential relief of back benefits must follow unless gainful employment elsewhere is established, and limitation cannot bar a valid and established recurring financial entitlement.
Questions settled- Whether an employee reinstated into service after setting aside of dismissal is entitled to back benefits for the intervening period?
- Is the grant of back benefits considered a rule and its denial an exception dependent on proof of gainful employment?
- Does the denial of back benefits to a reinstated employee while granting them to similarly placed colleagues constitute unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25?
- Can the plea of limitation be used to defeat a well-established and valid claim for service back benefits?
- Muhammad Ammar Shafi & 02 others, Wajid Hussain vs The State &2024 LHC 6125 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Altaf vs Rana Shakeel Ahmad2024 LHC 3518, 2024 CLD 1247, 2024 MLD 1761 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ali vs Iftikhar Hussain etc2024 LHC 5600, 2025 YLR 663 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram vs The State and another2024 YLR 2469 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a murder case registered at Police Station Kameer, District Sahiwal. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the gross unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of a specified light source at the time of the nocturnal occurrence, material improvements in ocular testimony, and an unproven motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to suspicious delays in reporting, lack of credible identification in the dark, dishonest improvements by eyewitnesses, and a weak, contradictory motive where the actual party to the land dispute remained unharmed while another was killed. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant and acquitting him of the charges. The key principle laid down is that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and corroborative pieces of evidence like recoveries cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable substantive evidence.
Questions settled- Whether a gross, unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report creates a fatal doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution story?
- Does the failure to mention a source of light in the FIR render the identification of the accused in the darkness of night doubtful?
- Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of a corroborative piece of evidence like a weapon recovery when the substantive ocular and motive evidence has been disbelieved?
- Whether material and dishonest improvements made by eyewitnesses during trial destroy their credibility?
- Muhammad Akram vs Province of Punjab through Collector and others2024 LHC 551 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram vs Haji Ilam Din (deceased) through L.Rs and others2024 LHC 850, 2024 PLJ Lahore 302 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram vs Additional Sessions Judge and another2024 LHC 2375 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed an application for the restoration of a vehicle confiscated during a narcotics trial. The appellant, previously convicted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was subsequently acquitted by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court, or a subordinate court, retains jurisdiction to order the disposal or restoration of seized property under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the main criminal proceedings have concluded. The Court held that Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confers a unique, independent, and supervisory jurisdiction upon designated courts to pass necessary orders regarding property disposal, regardless of the pendency of an appeal or revision. Consequently, the Court treated the appeal as an application under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and ordered the restoration of the vehicle to the appellant, finding no evidence of his involvement in the offence. The judgment establishes that acquittal generally entitles an accused to the return of seized property, provided no competing claims of title exist.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order the restoration of property after the main appeal has been decided?
- Is the power to order the disposal of property under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contingent upon the pendency of the main criminal trial?
- Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically entitle the accused to the return of property seized during the investigation?
- Can a trial court order the confiscation of a vehicle under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 if the owner is acquitted of the charges?
- Muhammad Akram Sohail vs Govt. of the Punjab through Secretary Forest2024 LHC 1923 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram Rahi vs The Copyright Board and three others2024 LHC 3351, 2024 CLD 1277 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram (Deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Allied Bank Limited2024 CLD 1444 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akhtar Shah vs Judge Family Court, Kot Addu & others2024 LHC 4377, 2025 MLD 114, 2025 PLJ Lahore 33 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ajmal vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace /Additional Sessions2024 PLJ Lahore 764 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal vs Binyameen Sajid2024 LHC 2511, 2024 CLD 1184, 2024 CLC 1643 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal and others vs Abdul Hameed and others2024 LHC 2501, 2024 MLD 1810 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Adil Nawaz Bhatti vs Chairman Union Council and others2024 LHC 538, 2024 PLJ Lahore 214, 2025 PLD Lahore 340 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Adil and others vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar (deceased) through L.Rs2024 LHC 1258 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Abdullah Abrar Syed, etc. vs Pakistan Medical and Dental2024 LHC 1424 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Aamir Karim vs The State, etc2024 LHC 4485 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Ahmadpur East, for an offence under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on chance witnesses, a delayed identification parade, and inconsistencies in the medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the eye-witnesses were 'chance witnesses' who failed to justify their presence at the scene, and that the identification parade was unreliable due to significant delays and procedural flaws. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution withheld the best evidence by failing to produce a key witness, and that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's timeline. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any single loophole or lacuna in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favour of the accused.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of witnesses who fail to justify their presence at the scene of a crime be relied upon for conviction?
- Does a significant delay in conducting an identification parade render it unreliable?
- What is the legal consequence of the prosecution withholding the best available evidence in a criminal trial?
- Does a noticeable delay in the post-mortem examination of a deceased create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's timeline?
- Mubashar Ali Shah vs Muhammad Sharif and others2024 LHC 2492, 2024 MLD 1508 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zumarad Siddique and others vs Province of Punjab through Chief2024 PTD 644 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ali Khan vs Additional District Judge etc.2024 LHC 795 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zubaida Bibi vs Addl. District Judge, etc2024 LHC 2104 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zaib un Nisa, etc vs Additional District Judge, etc2024 LHC 5824 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Yasmeen vs Dr. Fahad Ahmad and others2024 PCRLJ 1881 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an order transferring the investigation of an FIR involving offences under sections 376(1), 384, and 341 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to a single female sub-inspector. She contended that under section 9 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021, cases must be investigated collectively by the entire Special Sexual Offences Investigation Unit (SSOIU) rather than an individual officer. The core legal question was whether section 9 mandates collective investigation by the entire SSOIU or permits an individual trained member of the unit to investigate independently. The Lahore High Court held that individual police officers who are members of the SSOIU can conduct investigations autonomously, as mandating the entire unit to investigate every case collectively would be impracticable and frustrate the Act's objective of speedy trials. The court laid down the principle that while the Anti-Rape Act establishes SSOIUs for specialized handling of sexual violence cases, a single qualified officer—preferably a female officer in cases involving women or children—is legally competent to independently investigate scheduled offences.
Questions settled- Whether section 9 of the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021 requires an entire Special Sexual Offences Investigation Unit to collectively investigate a scheduled offence or permits an individual member of the unit to conduct the investigation independently?
- Can a single trained police officer who is a member of the Special Sexual Offences Investigation Unit lawfully investigate sexual and gender-based violence offences under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021?
- What is the distinction between an investigation unit and a joint investigation team in the context of criminal jurisprudence under Pakistani law?
- Mst. Shumaila Sharif vs The Secretary, Union Council and 5 others2024 PLD Lahore 443 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamim Bibi alias Seema Bibi and 6 others vs Zakir Hussain and others2024 LHC 3718 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretary Ministry2024 LHC 5593, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 738 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the mother of a martyred military officer seeking full special family pension after the death of the officer's widow, who was the initial recipient. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of the Pension Regulations, Volume-I (Armed Forces) 2010 regarding whether the mother of a commissioned officer is entitled to the full special family pension previously received by the deceased widow or a second life dependent pension under different provisions. The Lahore High Court held that where a widow is the first recipient at the time of the casualty, the mother's claim is governed by Clause b(1) of Regulation 49, restricting her to a second life dependent pension, whereas Clause b(2) applies only when parents are the first recipients in the absence of a widow. The court laid down the principle that the regulatory framework creates a valid classification between initial recipients and subsequent dependents, and that equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan does not prohibit reasonable classifications based on distinct service structures and rules governing commissioned versus junior commissioned officers.
Questions settled- Whether the mother of a martyred army officer is entitled to the full special family pension after the death of the officer's widow under the Pension Regulations, Volume-I (Armed Forces) 2010?
- Does the distinction in pension entitlements between commissioned officers and junior commissioned officers violate the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether Regulation 63 of the Pension Regulations, Volume-I (Armed Forces) 2010 applies to special family pensions or is restricted to normal pensions?
- Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Additional District Judge Rawalpindi & others2024 LHC 4494, 2024 PLJ Lahore 891, 2025 MLD 523 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamim Akhtar (deceased) through Legal Heirs and others vs Abdul2024 LHC 5313 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Shahnaz Bibi and others vs Ombudsperson (Mohtasib) Punjab and others2024 YLR 716 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shahidah Bibi vs The State, etc2024 LHC 5214, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 35, 2025 YLR 867 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(1)(3)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing her to nine years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the unbroken chain of safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered contraband and its sample to the forensic laboratory. The Lahore High Court held that discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery, handling, and transmission of the sample parcels, coupled with the failure to put vital incriminating material to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that an unbroken, unsuspicious, and indubitable chain of safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered narcotics and its representative sample is mandatory to sustain a conviction under narcotics laws, and any failure therein entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether an unbroken chain of safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics and sample parcels is mandatory for proving an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Does a failure by the prosecution to prove the safe transmission of a sample parcel to the forensic laboratory vitiate the chemical examiner's report and lead to acquittal?
- What is the legal effect of omitting material incriminating evidence from the examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Can a conviction be sustained when material contradictions exist between the statements of the complainant and recovery witnesses regarding the apprehension and seizure?
- Mst. Sarriya Bibi vs Rpo Sheikhupura, etc.2024 LHC 2550, 2024 PLJ Lahore 789 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Safia Bibi vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/ASJ, Narowal and 3 others2024 MLD 1780 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sadia Ishfaq vs Chief Commissioner and 6 others2024 PTD 869 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Robina Iqbal vs Additional District Judge etc2024 LHC 5708 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rehmat Bibi (through L.Rs.) etc. vs Additional District Judge, Gujranwala etc2024 LHC 1273, 2025 PLJ Lahore 232 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Begum vs Public at Large, etc2024 LHC 4198, 2025 PLD Lahore 40, 2025 PLJ Lahore 42, 2025 CLD 122 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Qamar Bibi (Late) through her Legal Heirs vs Shahab-ud-Din &2024 LHC 802, 2024 PLJ Lahore 293, 2025 CLC 352 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Qaisra Ellahi and another vs Returning Officer etc2024 LHC 119, 2024 CLC 437 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nishat Mummunka vs Safdar Raza2024 LHC 1942 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nimra Sheikh vs Muhammad Umair Siddiqui and another2024 LHC 2809, 2025 CLC 937 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Najma Bibi vs S.H.O., etc2024 LHC 2299, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 964, 2024 MLD 1693 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the recovery of the petitioner’s daughter-in-law from alleged illegal police confinement. The police contended the detenue was lawfully arrested in connection with a robbery case under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon review, the Court found the detention was a retaliatory measure following the petitioner’s previous harassment complaint against the Station House Officer. The Court held that the evidence relied upon by the police—specifically a co-accused's disclosure and a supplementary statement lacking source of information—was insufficient to justify the deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, the Magistrate had mechanically granted judicial remand without prosecutor input. Declaring the detention illegal and a misuse of authority, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant post-arrest bail. The Court established principles requiring magistrates to verify the prosecutor's opinion before granting remand and mandated that investigating officers must substantiate supplementary statements with independent evidence before effecting arrests.
Questions settled- Can a court exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail in a habeas corpus petition?
- Is a supplementary statement recorded by the police without disclosing the source of information sufficient to justify an arrest?
- Can a Magistrate grant physical or judicial remand without the opinion of the concerned Prosecutor regarding the sufficiency of material?
- Does the disclosure of a co-accused before the police constitute admissible evidence against another accused?
- Mst. Nadia alias Nadu Mai vs The State2024 LHC 6207 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the Qatl-i-Amd of her daughter-in-law. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on chance witnesses, delayed recording of statements, and inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court found that the alleged eye-witnesses were 'chance witnesses' who failed to provide a credible reason for their presence at the scene, and their statements were recorded with significant, unexplained delays. Furthermore, the court noted a critical contradiction between the ocular account of manual strangulation and the medical report, which showed no external signs of violence on the neck. The court applied the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, rejecting the testimony of witnesses who had been disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused. The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the accused merely because a death occurred in their home. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of witnesses who have been disbelieved regarding other co-accused in the same case?
- Does the death of a person within a house automatically shift the burden of proof to the residents to explain the circumstances of the death?
- Can the testimony of 'chance witnesses' be relied upon without independent corroboration of their presence at the scene of the crime?
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in recording a witness's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the statement unreliable?
- Mst. Munawar Jan and 6 Others vs Mst. Safaidan and 4 Others2024 LHC 138, 2024 PLJ Lahore 340, 2025 MLD 87 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Misbah Iftikhar and others vs Mst. Aleesa and 3 others2024 LHC 4133, 2024 LHC 5139, 2025 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kubra Bibi vs Public at Large, etc2024 LHC 4839 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kiran Saba vs Judge Family Court etc2024 LHC 4834 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khair-Un-Nisa, etc vs Chairman, Federal Land Commission, etc2024 LHC 2215 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kausar Khatoon and others vs Inspector General of Police and 42024 PLC (C.S.) 529 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the widows of a deceased police official challenging the withholding of his pensionary benefits and the recovery of alleged embezzled funds. The core legal question was whether departmental disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of penalties could be finalized after the death of a civil servant. The Lahore High Court held that disciplinary proceedings are intended to impose penalties on active employees and necessarily abate upon the death of the civil servant. Consequently, the inquiry finalized after the official's death, which held him responsible for embezzlement, was declared illegal and unsustainable. The court ruled that the respondents could not withhold pensionary benefits based on such post-mortem proceedings. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant stand abated immediately upon their death, rendering any subsequent penalty or recovery order void. The court directed the authorities to release all pensionary benefits to the petitioners, setting aside the impugned orders.
Questions settled- Can departmental disciplinary proceedings continue against a civil servant after their death?
- Does an inquiry finalized after the death of a civil servant provide a legal basis for recovering alleged embezzled funds from pensionary benefits?
- Do disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant abate upon their death?
- Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and another vs Saif Ullah2024 YLR 1731 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Haleema, etc. vs Executive Director, C & C Department Securities &2024 LHC 823, 2024 PLJ Lahore 236, 2025 CLD 324 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Haleema and three others vs Executive Director (C & CD), Securities2024 LHC 1507 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others vs Pahar Khan and others2024 CLC 1538 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was preferred against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which simultaneously dismissed the petitioners' appeal and their application for producing additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question before the High Court was whether an appellate court is legally required to decide a miscellaneous application for additional evidence in the first instance before deciding the main appeal on its merits. The High Court held that whenever a miscellaneous application is pending, the court is obligated to adjudicate upon it first before proceeding to the final disposal of the case; failing to do so vitiates the final decision. Deciding both simultaneously prejudices the matter and improperly disfavors the application, particularly since a joint decision is impossible if additional evidence is permitted. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the appellate judgment, and remanded the matter to decide the miscellaneous application first.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court required to decide an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 prior to deciding the main appeal?
- Does the simultaneous dismissal of a pending miscellaneous application and the main appeal render the final appellate judgment and decree defective in law?
- Can a party to an appeal file an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or is that power strictly exercisable suo motu by the appellate court?
- Mst. Farzana Bibi vs Capital City Police Officer, etc2024 LHC 3047, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1211, 2025 PCRLJ 726 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 seeking the recovery of two alleged detenus who were subsequently reported killed in an alleged police encounter. The Lahore High Court addressed the grave constitutional and legal implications of extrajudicial killings, examining whether fake police encounters violate fundamental rights such as the right to life, due process, and human dignity. The court held that extrajudicial killings and fake police encounters are egregious violations of fundamental rights under the Constitution and international law, lacking any legal foundation. The court emphasized that the right of self-defence for law enforcement must be strictly proportional, immediate, and credible, and cannot be used as a guise for unlawful summary executions. Finally, the petition was disposed of with directives ensuring proper investigation through relevant agencies under the applicable legal framework.
Questions settled- Whether extrajudicial killings by law enforcement agencies violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can a fake police encounter be justified under the legal right of self-defence?
- What are the legal requirements and oversight mechanisms required when lethal force is used by police officials?
- Mst. Badami and others vs Mst. Budhee and others2024 MLD 534 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ayesha vs Mst. Shama, etc2024 LHC 4778 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Arzu vs District Police Officer, Khanewal and 3 others2024 YLR 1073 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Anayat Bibi vs Muhammad Saleem (deceased) through L.Rs.2024 LHC 1683 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Alia Sehr vs Mushtaq Ahmed and others2024 CLC 2057 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Afia Ambrine vs Addl. District Judge, Sialkot and 14 Others2024 LHC 3672, 2025 PLD Lahore 124 · Lahore High Court · 2024-08-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Abida Rafique Ghouri through her legal heir Mst. Ambreena Azeem vs Syed Amjad Hussain Gillani and 03 others2024 LHC 1927, 2025 MLD 355 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Shehla Tariq Saigol vs Federation of Pakistan and 03 Others2024 LHC 3528, 2025 PTD 313 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-21Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Rizwana Nawaz vs The Returning Officer Na-163 and 03 others2024 LHC 57 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-05Read full judgment →
- Moonis Elahi vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2024 LHC 160 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
- Miss Shabnam Riaz vs Naila Karim and another2024 LHC 6096, 2025 MLD 707 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This transfer application was filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the transfer of a private criminal complaint for defamation from the trial court to another court of competent jurisdiction based on alleged judicial bias and prejudice. The High Court examined whether the applicant established a reasonable apprehension of being denied a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that transfer of a case on grounds of bias requires clear, credible evidence rather than bald assertions, conjectures, or unsubstantiated allegations. An apprehension of bias must be reasonable and grounded in established facts demonstrating a real likelihood of personal prejudice that impairs judicial impartiality. Finding no material on record to substantiate the allegations against the trial judge, the High Court dismissed the application in limine while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months.
Questions settled- What standard of proof is required to justify the transfer of a criminal case on grounds of judicial bias?
- Can a criminal case be transferred from a trial court under Section 526 Cr.P.C. based on bald allegations of prejudice without supporting evidence?
- How does Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to applications seeking the transfer of a pending trial?
- Millat Tractors Limited vs Federal Board of Revenue & others2023 LHC 1332, 2024 PTD 670 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
- Millat Law College and others vs The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, etc2024 LHC 3476, 2024 PLJ Lahore 719 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-15Read full judgment →
- Mian Zaheer Abbas Rabbani vs The State, etc2024 LHC 5077, 2025 PLD Lahore 98, 2025 PLJ Lahore 271 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
- Mian Shabir Asmail vs Federation of Pakistan through Chief Secretary and others2024 LHC 1242 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mian Shabbir Asmail vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary2024 LHC 236 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian Sadiq Hussain and another vs Allied Bank Pakistan Limited and another2024 CLD 883 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →
- Mian Raza Jillani and others vs Province of Punjab through its Chief2024 LHC 786, 2024 PLJ Lahore 279 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian Abdul Ghaffar vs Mst. Kishwar Iqbal and 5 Others2022 LHC 4202, 2024 CLC 301 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 PTD 858 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-20Read full judgment →
- Mehwish Mughal and another vs Amira Bukhari etc.2024 LHC 726 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mehmood vs The State, etc2024 LHC 1980, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1061, 2024 PLD Lahore 684 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition filed under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the transfer of a criminal trial from the court of a Magistrate to another jurisdiction, on the grounds of perceived bias because the Magistrate and the complainant's counsel belonged to the same caste and because the Magistrate was expediting the trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that mere apprehensions, oral allegations, or the fact that a judge and counsel are caste fellows do not constitute valid grounds for transferring a case or establishing judicial bias. The Court emphasized that a reasonable apprehension of bias must be substantiated by clear, cogent material and facts, rather than presumptions or the normal expeditious conduct of proceedings, and that judges are presumed to act fairly and impartially according to the evidence on record.
Questions settled- Does a mere apprehension in the mind of a party about injustice at the hands of a presiding officer constitute a sufficient ground for the transfer of a criminal case?
- Whether sharing the same caste or brotherhood between a counsel and a judicial officer creates a legal presumption of bias or justifies the transfer of a trial?
- What constitutes a reasonable apprehension of judicial bias under criminal law requiring the recusal or transfer of a judge?
- When does a judge or magistrate become legally disqualified from trying a case due to personal interest under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mehmood Ali vs Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board and others2024 LHC 1129, 2024 CLC 1126, 2024 PLJ Lahore 367 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-26Read full judgment →
- Meezan Beverages (Pvt.) Limited vs Competition Commission of Pakistan2024 LHC 3218, 2024 CLD 1107, 2024 PLD Lahore 615 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-26Read full judgment →
- MCB Bank Limited through Authorized Officer vs Messrs City Steel UAE Mills2024 CLD 387 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →