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.

• MCB Bank Limited and others vs Province of Punjab and others2024 CLD 418 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-20Read full judgment →
• Masood-ul-Hassan vs Additional District Judge, etc2024 LHC 3367, 2024 PLJ Lahore 683, 2024 CLC 1744 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mariam Sajjad vs Prof. Dr. Rasool Ahmed Chaudhary2024 LHC 205 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, etc2024 LHC 2947, 2024 CLC 1712 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs Addl. District Judge and others2024 LHC 6308 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-24Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Elahi vs Rehmat Ali2024 LHC 4854, 2025 CLC 306 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-18Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Muhammad Umar Farooq etc2024 LHC 2159, 2024 PLD Lahore 702 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-01
  juvenile justicepre-arrest bailbail cancellationstatutory interpretationbeneficial legislationbest interests of the childmajor offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to a juvenile respondent accused of an offence under section 337-F(vi) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that section 6(3) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, which deems major and minor offences bailable for juveniles, only applies when a juvenile is already arrested or detained, thus precluding its use for pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 is remedial and beneficial legislation that must be interpreted purposively to advance the best interests of the child. It ruled that the eligibility for bail should not depend on the procedural mechanism—whether post-arrest or pre-arrest—but on the nature of the offence and the juvenile's status. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the benefit of section 6(3) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 extends to pre-arrest bail applications, dismissing the petition for cancellation.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 6(3) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 apply to applications for pre-arrest bail?
  • Is the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 considered remedial and beneficial legislation requiring a purposive interpretation?
  • Can a juvenile seek pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 not explicitly mentioning it?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Chiragh Khan (deceased) through LRs2024 LHC 4112, 2025 MLD 573 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Azam Ali2024 MLD 603 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ali vs Mst. Anam Hussain, etc2024 LHC 6335 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-24Read full judgment →
• Malik Zaheer Abbas vs Returning Officer and others2024 LHC 47 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Pervaiz Majeed Shahzada vs Rizwan Malik2024 LHC 4388 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-07Read full judgment →
• Malik Nazar Hussain vs Multan Development Authority, etc2024 LHC 5396 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Asif, etc2024 LHC 998, 2024 PLJ Lahore 310 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-23Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Altaf vs Muhammad Ashraf (Deceased) through Legal2021 LHC 7914, 2024 CLC 205 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-10Read full judgment →
• Malik Imtiaz Ahmad vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Irrigation2024 LHC 4669 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-29
  ban on transfersexecutive authoritycivil servantsdelegated legislationultra viresconstitutional petitionChief Minister PunjabRules of Business
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged administrative orders regarding the transfer and cancellation of transfer of civil servants, which derived their authority from Notification No.PS/SCM/CMO/24/OT47/ dated 01.03.2024 issued by the Chief Minister Punjab imposing a complete ban on all postings and transfers. The core legal question was whether the executive authority of the Chief Minister includes the power to impose a blanket ban on transfers and postings of civil servants without express statutory authorization. The Lahore High Court allowed the petitions in part, declaring the Notification to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court held that executive powers are strictly circumscribed by law, and the Chief Minister cannot arrogate legislative power or centralize posting/transfer powers in the absence of enabling legislation. The Court relied on established principles that executive action must derive directly from a valid law and cannot undermine statutory administrative frameworks or civil service independence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the executive authority of the Chief Minister empower the imposition of a blanket ban on postings and transfers of civil servants without statutory authorization?
  • Can executive notifications centralize posting and transfer powers contrary to statutory provisions and service rules?
  • Does Article 202A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply automatically to provincial High Courts without a resolution passed by the respective Provincial Assembly?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Amanat Rasul vs Federation of Pakistan etc2024 LHC 5274, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 262 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-11
  constitutional jurisdictionallotment of residential plotservice lienretrospective applicationlacheswrit petitioneligibility conditions
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner challenged a quasi-judicial order passed pursuant to court directions, which had rejected his claim for the allotment of a residential plot in the Officers Colony, POF Society, Wah Cantt. The Petitioner had previously served the POF Board for nearly 14 years before moving to another government ministry, retaining his lien temporarily, and eventually regularizing his service elsewhere. The core legal questions involved whether the Petitioner met the minimum length of service and eligibility criteria under the POF Rules for Allotment of Residential Plots to Officers, 2002, and whether the petition was barred by laches. The Lahore High Court held that the POF Rules of 2002 have no retrospective application to reverse an action from 1999, that the Petitioner was not an employee of the POF at the time of the promulgation of the rules, and that the petition was afflicted with inordinate delay. The Court established that subsidiary rules cannot apply retrospectively to create rights prior to their commencement, that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked after gross laches, and that constitutional petitions enforce existing rather than establish new rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether rules promulgated for the allotment of residential plots can be applied retrospectively to an employee who left the organization prior to their enactment?
  • Does the retention of a lien in a parent department entitle an employee to benefits under rules enacted after their departure?
  • What is the effect of inordinate delay and laches on the invocation of the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be utilized for the establishment of a new legal right rather than the enforcement of an existing one?
  Read full judgment →
• M.L. Traders, etc vs Habib Bank Ltd, etc2024 LHC 3270, 2024 CLD 1137 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-06Read full judgment →
• M. Ihsan @ Malkoo etc. vs The State etc.2024 LHC 2091, 2025 PCRLJ 334 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-08
  murdercommon intentionvicarious liabilityinjured witnessmitigating circumstancessentence commutationrelated witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the conviction and sentences of two appellants under Sections 302, 324, 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, acting in furtherance of a common intention, shot and killed the deceased and injured another witness. The High Court analyzed the applicability of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding vicarious liability, noting that mere presence at the scene without proof of a pre-arranged plan or prior concert is insufficient to establish common intention. Consequently, the co-accused, to whom no overt act was attributed and whose knowledge of the principal's design was unproven, was acquitted. Regarding the principal accused, the ocular account of closely related and injured witnesses was found consistent and supported by medical evidence and motive. However, due to mitigating circumstances, including the negative forensic report on the recovered weapon, his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be held vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 merely for being present with the principal offender without proof of a pre-arranged plan?
  • Can the testimony of a prosecution witness be recorded and relied upon at trial if their statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was not recorded by the police?
  • Is the testimony of eye-witnesses liable to be discarded solely on the ground of their close relationship with the deceased?
  • What quantum of mitigating evidence is required to justify the alternative lesser sentence of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• M / S Nwepdi-Tepc-Ucc (JV) vs National Transmission & Dispatch Co. Ltd.2024 LHC 942 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs Noor Ahmad2024 LHC 3063, 2024 PLJ Lahore 749 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali alias Jajji and another vs The State and others2024 YLR 1949 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-10
  murder convictionocular evidencerelated witnessesmotiveappreciation of evidencecriminal appealenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder, while a connected revision petition seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable based on the ocular account and medical evidence, notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive and the fact that the eye-witnesses were related to the deceased. The Lahore High Court dismissed both the appeal and the revision petition, upholding the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the conviction was sound, as the ocular account provided by the eye-witnesses was consistent, straightforward, and corroborated by medical evidence. The Court affirmed the principle that the testimony of witnesses related to the deceased cannot be discarded solely on the basis of their relationship, provided their evidence is truthful and free from inherent infirmities. Furthermore, the Court established that a conviction can be sustained based on sufficient ocular and medical evidence even if the prosecution fails to prove the motive behind the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the motive?
  • Does the relationship between eye-witnesses and the deceased render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is a conviction based on ocular and medical evidence sufficient to uphold a sentence despite minor discrepancies in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority through its Director General and another vs Chaudhary Hamayun Mahmood and another2024 LHC 2971 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Lahore College for Women University through its Vice Chancellor etc. vs Dr.2024 LHC 4010, 2024 PLJ Lahore 897, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1444 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-12
  Intra Court AppealService StatutesSelection BoardJudicial OverreachConstitutional JurisdictionRecruitment ProcessChancellor's Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's order directing the Lahore College for Women University to issue an appointment letter to the respondent for the post of Professor (BS-21). The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could substitute its opinion for the Selection Board’s assessment and direct an appointment, particularly when the Chancellor had ordered the post to be re-advertised due to procedural irregularities and conflicting recommendations between the Selection Board and the Syndicate. The Court held that the Single Judge exceeded its jurisdiction by arrogating the role of the appointing authority. It affirmed that evaluating candidate suitability is the exclusive domain of the institution's selection bodies, not the judiciary. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Chancellor’s decision, rendered under the relevant Service Statutes, was final and binding. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and dismissed the writ petition, establishing that judicial interference in recruitment processes is unwarranted absent a clear legal mandate to override the final authority of the Chancellor.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, direct an appointing authority to issue an appointment letter to a candidate?
  • Is the decision of the Chancellor, made under the Service Statutes of the Lahore College for Women University, final and binding regarding recruitment disputes?
  • Does the judiciary have the authority to substitute its opinion for that of a Selection Board regarding the suitability of a candidate for a teaching post?
  Read full judgment →
• Kousar Bibi vs The State and another2024 LHC 1103, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 736 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-05
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlfalse implicationvideography of police operationsfurther inquirytwo versionsdue processpolice accountability
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(1)-3(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, alleging false implication by police officials due to a prior grudge. The core legal question concerned whether the Petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting inquiry reports regarding the police's conduct and the alleged fabrication of the case. The Court held that the existence of two contradictory inquiry reports regarding the police's conduct created a case of two versions, necessitating further inquiry into the Petitioner's guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The judgment lays down the principle that in narcotics cases, law enforcement must utilize modern technology, specifically videography, to record search, seizure, and arrest operations to ensure transparency and prevent false implication. It further mandates that police teams must videograph operations or document reasons for failure to do so, and directs Special Courts to strictly enforce statutory provisions regarding the production of seized narcotics before the court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of conflicting inquiry reports regarding police conduct constitute a case of two versions under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely based on the criminal record of their family members?
  • Are police officers required to videograph narcotics recovery operations in the absence of a specific statutory mandate?
  • What are the obligations of Special Courts regarding the production of seized narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Kousar Abbas alias Piya vs The State, etc2024 LHC 6266, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 192 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-02
  criminal revisionJaifahmedical evidencebody cavityocular accountPakistan Penal Codeconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner under Sections 324, 337-C, 337-D, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries to the complainant. The core legal question was whether a stab wound in the left hypochondrium qualifies as Jaifah under the Pakistan Penal Code, and whether the conviction could be sustained despite the non-examination of the operating surgeon and the reliance on a photocopy of surgical notes. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence, sufficiently established the nature of the injury. The court affirmed that an injury penetrating the body cavity where vital organs are located constitutes Jaifah, regardless of the non-production of the original surgical notes. The principle laid down is that where medical testimony confirms an injury penetrates a body cavity housing vital organs, it satisfies the criteria for Jaifah, and minor procedural irregularities in medical documentation do not vitiate the prosecution's case when the injury's nature is otherwise established.

  Questions settled

  • Does a stab wound in the left hypochondrium constitute Jaifah under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for Jaifah be sustained if the operating surgeon is not examined as a witness?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the reliance on a photocopy of surgical notes, in the absence of the original, invalidate a conviction based on medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizer Hayat and others vs The State etc2024 LHC 2590 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-27
  plea of alibibenefit of doubtchance witnessescall data recordpolice investigationmurder trialacquittalmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal filed against the conviction and sentence under Sections 302(b) and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence arising from a private murder complaint. The core legal questions relate to the appreciation of a plea of alibi supported by call data records and police investigation findings, the reliability of chance witnesses, and the standard for granting the benefit of doubt. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, while dismissing the revision for enhancement of sentence. The court held that where an accused establishes a plea of alibi through call data records and supporting testimonies, corroborated by the investigating officer's finding of innocence, and the prosecution relies on unverified chance witnesses with unproven motive, the resulting serious doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. The key principle laid down is that a well-substantiated plea of alibi coupled with reasonable doubts in the prosecution narrative entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the police opinion regarding the innocence of an accused can be considered along with tangible evidence for acquittal?
  • Can a plea of alibi supported by call data records and defence evidence override weak ocular testimony?
  • Is a prosecution witness considered a chance witness when no cogent reason is provided for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat Farooka and Province of Punjab vs Government of Pakistan2024 CLC 932 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-29Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Javed Mehmood vs Punjab Small Industries Corporation2024 LHC 1349 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Addl. District Judge etc2022 LHC 2698, 2024 MLD 1749 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad & 2 others vs StatePLJ 2024 Cr.C. 252, 2025 YLR 116 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-14
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencechance witnessesmurder convictionacquittalpost-mortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and death sentences awarded by the trial court for offences under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt given the evidentiary inconsistencies. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed. The court identified significant delays in the post-mortem examination, casting doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses. Furthermore, the court noted that the eyewitnesses were related and chance witnesses who failed to justify their presence at the scene, and it was highly improbable that assailants would spare them if they were truly present. Additionally, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and the recovered weapons did not match the crime scene evidence. The court reiterated the principle that motive is a double-edged weapon and that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create reasonable doubt regarding the presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene?
  • Can the testimony of related and chance witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration when their presence at the scene is not justified?
  • Does a conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is the existence of a motive sufficient to sustain a conviction when other evidence is unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalida Bibi and another vs The State etc.2024 LHC 150, 2024 PCRLJ 1972, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1185 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-15
  post-arrest bailprostitutiontrafficking in personsfornicationpolice powerssearch without warrantcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for individuals charged under Sections 371A and 371B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a police raid on a private residence where the petitioners were found in an 'objectionable condition.' The core legal question was whether these sections, which criminalize the sale, purchase, or procurement of persons for prostitution, apply to consensual sexual acts between individuals in private premises. The Court held that Sections 371A and 371B PPC are inapplicable to consensual sexual intercourse, as they specifically target trafficking and brokerage for immoral purposes. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the offence of fornication under Section 496B PPC requires a formal complaint under Section 203C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that police authority to enter private premises without a warrant is strictly circumscribed by the Police Order 2002 and the Punjab Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance 1961. Finding no evidence connecting the petitioners to the charged offences, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that liberty cannot be curtailed on bald allegations without a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Do Sections 371A and 371B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to consensual sexual intercourse between individuals in a private place?
  • Can the police enter private premises without a warrant to investigate suspected immoral activities?
  • Is a complaint under Section 203C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for initiating prosecution for the offence of fornication?
  • Does the Punjab Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance 1961 criminalize consensual sexual intercourse between two adults?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs StatePLJ 2024 Cr.C. 489, 2024 PCRLJ 1212 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08
  qatl-i-amdqisasta'zirplea of guilttazkiyah-al-shuhoodinjured witnessmurder referenceweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Fateh Jang Attock, whereby the appellant Khalid Mehmood was convicted under Section 302(a), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of three women and sentenced to death as Qisas on three counts, along with convictions under Sections 324 and 337-F(iv) of the same Code. The prosecution case was based on ocular accounts provided by natural and injured eye-witnesses, supported by medical evidence, a proved motive, and a forensic match of crime empties with a weapon recovered upon the appellant's disclosure. The Lahore High Court examined the validity of awarding death as Qisas based on an unrepresented guilty plea at the time of indictment and the absence of the procedural requirement of Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood. The Court held that the conviction under Section 302(a) as Qisas was legally unsustainable, set it aside, and converted it to a conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the appellant to death as Ta'zir on three counts. The convictions and sentences under Sections 324 and 337-F(iv) were maintained, the criminal appeal was dismissed, and the murder reference was answered in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction of death as Qisas under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the basis of a plea of guilt made without legal representation at the time of indictment?
  • Whether the procedural requirement of Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood is a mandatory precondition for awarding the punishment of death as Qisas under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the failure to put an incriminating judicial confession to an accused during examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate its use as proof of qatl-i-amd liable to Qisas?
  • When proof of Qisas in the forms specified in Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is lacking, can an appellate court convert a conviction from Section 302(a) to Section 302(b) of the Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood and others vs Sardaran Bibi and others2024 MLD 90 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-08Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs The State and another2024 LHC 2029 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-23
  terrorism financinganti-terrorismbenefit of the doubtmobile phone data extractionright to privacyself-incriminationcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellant handed down by the Anti-Terrorism Court under various sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for terrorism financing and related offenses. The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the admissibility of unexhibited and unverified evidence, and the legality of extracting digital data from a mobile phone without consent or court warrant in violation of constitutional privacy protections and the prohibition against self-incrimination. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the presence of the witnesses at the spot, substantiate the recoveries, or prove the chain of custody for the forensic evidence. The court concluded that data extraction from a personal device without a warrant violates Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, setting aside the conviction and ordering the immediate release of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the extraction of data from a personal mobile phone without consent or prior judicial warrant violates the constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to exhibit document counterfoils and prove the chain of custody of case property render forensic reports unreliable?
  • Is it necessary for multiple circumstances to exist to extend the benefit of the doubt to an accused person?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials regarding an alleged spot recovery at a busy public place without associating independent witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Law Book House vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 LHC 254, 2025 PLD Lahore 311 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• Karam Elahi vs Ahmad Din, etc2023 LHC 4189, 2024 MLD 1886 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
• Kaniz Haider etc vs Khaliq Dad etc2024 LHC 5013, 2025 MLD 662 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
• Kaneez Fatima, etc. vs Senior Civil Judge etc.2024 LHC 2358, 2024 PLD Lahore 715, 2025 PLJ Lahore 159 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-15Read full judgment →
• Kamran Mushtaq vs The State & 02 others2024 LHC 5222, 2025 MLD 367, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 149 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-08
  juvenile justicedetermination of agejuvenile offenderossification testmedical examination reportbirth certificateburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhera, rejecting his documentary evidence of juvenility and relying instead on a medical ossification report under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The core legal question was whether a trial court is bound to accept birth or educational certificates produced by an accused claiming to be a juvenile without inquiry, or whether it can hold an inquiry and rely on a medical report when documents are ambiguous or unverified. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the inquiry for age determination is a judicial proceeding requiring verification of documents under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court ruled that 'absence of documents' in Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 includes the absence of authentic, correct, and true documents admissible in evidence. When documents are found unverified, fabricated, or based on volunteered entries, the trial court has the authority to conduct an inquiry and resort to a medical examination report to determine age.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is bound to accept educational and birth certificates claiming juvenility without testing their authenticity?
  • What constitutes the 'absence of documents' under Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 for the purpose of ordering a medical examination?
  • Whether an inquiry for age determination under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 is a judicial proceeding governed by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Khan vs Government of Punjab and others2024 MLD 298 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
• Kamran Ali alias Hannan vs The State through Prosecutor General Punjab2024 YLR 1063 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-06
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailstatutory delaymajor portion of sentencecriminal appealpunishment in advance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by Kamran Ali alias Hanan seeking the suspension of his sentence and grant of bail pending his main appeal against conviction under Sections 324 and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's sentence should be suspended and bail granted on the ground of having undergone a major portion of his awarded sentence when the main appeal was unlikely to be heard early. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that since the petitioner had already undergone over eight years out of his ten-year sentence and contributed no delay to the hearing of his pending appeal, keeping him incarcerated would amount to serving punishment in advance. The key principle laid down is that where an accused has served a substantial portion of their substantive sentence and the timely disposal of the main appeal is remote through no fault of the appellant, the sentence ought to be suspended to prevent premature execution of punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-conviction bail can be granted when the accused has undergone a major portion of the awarded sentence?
  • Does the unlikelihood of an early hearing of a pending criminal appeal justify suspending the sentence of the convict?
  • Can prolonged incarceration pending appeal be construed as serving punishment in advance?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawad Ali Shah, etc vs Mst. Sarwat Fatima, etc2024 LHC 5358 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-14Read full judgment →
• Javed Islam vs Tahir Islam2024 LHC 2567 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-13Read full judgment →
• Javed Ahmad Shafqat vs Tariq Ali2024 LHC 5180 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-05Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad Ramzan vs Returning Officer and another2024 LHC 28, 2024 YLR 903 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-06Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad Alias Jan vs The State2024 YLR 94 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-17
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusocular accountrecovery proceedingspost-mortem delayQatl-i-AmdSection 103 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for offences under sections 302, 460, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the ocular account, the lack of a verified light source, and the acquittal of co-accused based on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies; where witnesses are found unreliable regarding co-accused, their testimony cannot be safely relied upon for the appellant. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a delayed post-mortem, failure to secure a light source for night identification, and non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding recoveries create reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, and must be extended if a single circumstance creates uncertainty in a prudent mind.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to the testimony of witnesses who have been disbelieved regarding co-accused in the same case?
  • Is a recovery of a weapon valid if the investigating officer fails to associate independent witnesses from the locality as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on medical evidence when the ocular account of the occurrence is found to be unreliable?
  • Does an inordinate delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshaid Ahmad Dasti vs Government of Punjab, etc2024 LHC 5299 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-14Read full judgment →
• Jamila Bibi vs Station House Officer and 3 others2024 PCRLJ 1014 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-05
  habeas corpusillegal detentionstation diaryroznamchapolice recordsfundamental rightsconstitutional petitioncriminal procedure
  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 three alleged detenues from illegal police custody. Upon the deputation of a court bailiff, one detenu was traced in a police station in connection with a registered criminal case, while the other two were reported to be neither in custody nor required in any case. During the proceedings, irregularities in the maintenance of the station diary (Roznamcha) under the Police Order 2002 and Punjab Police Rules 1934 came to light. The court examined the legal significance of the station diary in safeguarding fundamental rights and preventing illegal detentions. The court disposed of the petition after noting that one detenu's arrest was regulated by law and referring the matter of the remaining individuals to the concerned Superintendent of Police. The court held that maintaining a manual station diary alongside a digital copy is mandatory to ensure transparency, and manual records shall prevail in case of conflict.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal evidentiary and monitoring significance of maintaining a station diary under the Police Order 2002 and Punjab Police Rules 1934?
  • Can a computerized or soft copy of a station diary substitute for the mandatory manual record in police stations?
  • Which record prevails in the event of a conflict between the manual station diary and the computerized station diary?
  • What are the consequences under the Punjab Police Rules 1934 for making wrong entries in the station diary?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamil Tariq vs New Jubilee Insurance Company Limited etc2024 LHC 4594, 2025 CLD 217 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Jamal Nasir Cheema through Special Attorney vs Election Commission of Pakistan, through Secretary and 3 others2024 CLC 1392 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-14Read full judgment →
• Jahanzaib & another vs Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Collectorate of Adjudication, Dry Port, Faisalabad & another2024 LHC 5865, PTCL 2025 CL. 188 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jadeed Feeds Industries (Pvt.) Limited vs Board Of Revenue, Punjab And Other2024 LHC 5151, 2024 LHC 4916 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Istikhar @ Iftikhar vs The State etc.2024 LHC 1763, 2024 PCRLJ 1795 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-13
  Zina-bil-Jabrrapeminor victimDNA evidenceocular testimonymedical jurisprudencecriminal appealpenile penetration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence of Zina-bil-Jabr (rape) against a minor girl. The core legal questions were whether the offence constitutes 'rape' under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when medical evidence indicates an intact hymen but physical trauma to the perianal area, and whether the absence of positive DNA evidence and semen stains invalidates the prosecution's case. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 375 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the definition of 'vagina' includes the labia majora, and partial penetration is sufficient to constitute rape. The Court affirmed that forensic evidence, such as DNA analysis, is merely corroborative and its absence does not negate overwhelming ocular and medical evidence, especially when the victim's testimony is confidence-inspiring and prompt. The key principle laid down is that sexual assault involving a minor, supported by consistent ocular testimony and medical findings of physical trauma, is sufficient for a rape conviction even in the absence of full vaginal penetration or positive DNA results.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'vagina' under Section 375 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 include the labia majora for the purpose of establishing rape?
  • Is full vaginal penetration required to sustain a conviction for rape under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the absence of positive DNA evidence or semen stains automatically invalidate a prosecution case for rape when supported by other credible evidence?
  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained based on ocular testimony and medical evidence of perianal injury even if the victim's hymen remains intact?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Mohsin vs Additional District and Sessions Judge & others2024 LHC 920, 2025 MLD 216, 2025 PLJ Lahore 251 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-12Read full judgment →
• Irfan Mehmood vs University of the Punjab through Registrar, Quaid-e-2024 MLD 130 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
• Irfan Arshad vs Mst. Zainab Noor etc2024 LHC 5971, 2025 MLD 401 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-23Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain etc vs Govt. of the Punjab etc2024 LHC 2278, 2024 PLJ Lahore 559, 2024 PLJ Lahore 563 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-19Read full judgment →
• Imran Haider vs The State and another2024 LHC 3798, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1175, 2025 PCRLJ 482 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-22
  juvenile justicedetermination of ageossification testcriminal revisionNADRA Form-Bdocumentary evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge declaring the respondent a juvenile for trial purposes. The petitioner contended that the respondent was an adult, relying on a school leaving certificate, and argued that the trial court erred by failing to order an ossification test given the conflicting evidence regarding the respondent's age. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the trial court's decision. The Court held that under Section 8 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, an ossification test is not mandatory when reliable documentary evidence exists. The Court determined that official public documents, specifically the NADRA-issued Form-B and a Union Council birth certificate, carry greater evidentiary weight than a private school certificate. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the school certificate was unreliable due to discrepancies in the student's name and academic history. Establishing the principle that where two views regarding an accused's age are possible, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's well-reasoned order.

  Questions settled

  • Is an ossification test mandatory for determining the age of an accused when documentary evidence is available?
  • Does a NADRA-issued Form-B take precedence over a private school leaving certificate for determining an accused's age?
  • Can an accused claim juvenility before the trial court if the issue was not raised during the initial investigation?
  • What is the standard for resolving conflicting evidence regarding an accused's age in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs The Returning Officer and another2024 LHC 100, 2024 PLD Lahore 502, 2025 PLJ Lahore 113 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs Returning Officer etc.2024 LHC 76 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State, etc.2024 LHC 2349, 2025 PCRLJ 48 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13
  pre-arrest bailcustodia legisabsence of accusedmalafidefurther inquiryconvicted prisonerconstitutional jurisdictionbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a criminal petition filed before the Lahore High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 365/23 registered under sections 186, 353, 148, 149, 212, 506ii, 172, 173, and 174 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether an accused person, initially granted interim pre-arrest bail but subsequently confined as a convicted prisoner in another case, can have their pre-arrest bail petition decided on merits in their absence. The High Court held that once an accused is granted interim pre-arrest bail and becomes custodia legis, the court is authorized to decide the bail petition on merits in the absence of the accused if their presence is prevented by custody in another case, particularly when exercising constitutional jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights. The court established that the registration of the FIR appeared to stem from malafide and political victimization, and sufficient grounds existed for further inquiry, leading to the confirmation of the pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-arrest bail petition can be decided on merits in the absence of the accused who is confined in another case as a convicted prisoner?
  • Does Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the decision of a bail application when the accused is in judicial custody in a separate matter?
  • Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights by granting or declining pre-arrest bail when physical presence in court is restricted?
  • Whether malafide in the registration of a criminal case can be inferred from the facts and circumstances to justify the grant of pre-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Spl. Judge, A.T.C, etc.2024 LHC 175, 2024 PLD Lahore 486 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-23
  pre-arrest bailad-interim bailnon-appearanceexemption from personal attendancevideo linkanti-terrorism courtcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated criminal revision petition challenges the orders passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No. III, Lahore, whereby the petitioner's applications for exemption from personal attendance and pre-arrest bail in multiple cases were dismissed due to non-appearance. The petitioner, while on ad-interim pre-arrest bail in the subject cases, had been convicted and incarcerated in another matter, rendering him physically unable to attend court on the dates of hearing. The core legal question was whether an accused's pre-arrest bail application can be dismissed for non-prosecution when their absence is due to confinement in another case and thus beyond their control. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's absence was well-explained and involuntary, and the trial court erred in treating the exemption applications as not maintainable. The court laid down the principle that where an accused on ad-interim pre-arrest bail is confined in jail in another case, the trial court must liberally consider exemption applications or procure attendance via video link to decide the bail petition on merits rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for pre-arrest bail can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the accused is confined in prison in another case and unable to attend?
  • Does confinement in jail following conviction in a separate case constitute a satisfactory explanation for the absence of an accused on ad-interim pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a court obliged to grant exemption or use alternative means such as video link to secure the attendance of an accused who is imprisoned during the pendency of a pre-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority2024 CLC 584 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-04Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Government of the Punjab and others2024 LHC 5766 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-25Read full judgment →
• Imran Abbas Bhatti vs Government of Punjab and others2024 CLC 385 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-23Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ullah vs The State and another2024 LHC 1462, 2025 PLD Lahore 512 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-15
  sexual abuse of childchild witness competencyvoir dire testAnti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act 2021uncorroborated testimonyspecial court jurisdictionhearsay evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the sexual abuse of a minor. The appellant contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction as a Special Court under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, and argued that the child victim’s testimony was inadmissible due to the absence of a voir dire test. The Court held that the trial judge, having been duly notified, possessed jurisdiction despite a misdescription in the judgment. Regarding the child witness, the Court ruled that a formal voir dire test is not a mandatory statutory requirement; rather, the court’s satisfaction regarding the witness's competency to understand and answer questions rationally is sufficient. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a conviction can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a child victim if the evidence is credible and trustworthy. The judgment emphasized that corroboration in such cases is a rule of prudence, not a rigid rule of law, and mandated child-friendly procedures and the protection of victim identities in judicial records.

  Questions settled

  • Is a formal voir dire test mandatory to assess the competency of a child witness under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Can an accused be convicted based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a child victim of sexual abuse?
  • Does a misdescription of a judge's designation in a judgment invalidate the proceedings if the judge otherwise possessed the requisite jurisdiction?
  • Are out-of-court statements made by a child victim of sexual abuse admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule?
  Read full judgment →
• Ihsan Ullah alias Munshi, etc, Sikandar Hayat vs The State etc., Saleem alias2024 LHC 406, 2024 YLR 2000, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1011 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs Muhammad Anwar, etc.2024 LHC 2864, 2024 CLC 1735 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• Humayon Sajjad vs Aslam Khan2024 LHC 2268, 2024 YLR 2826 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-15Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Commission of Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Islamabad and another2024 LHC 3763, 2025 PLD Lahore 7 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-06Read full judgment →
• Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and another vs Government of the Punjab2024 LHC 4742 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hina Imtiaz vs Additional District Judge etc.2024 LHC 2451 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-24Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State2024 LHC 2606, 2025 MLD 862 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-22
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtdying declarationmedical evidenceocular accountballistic reportacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged inconsistencies in the ocular account, medical evidence, and the validity of the dying declaration. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The Court found that the ocular account was directly contradicted by medical evidence, which showed no signs of a contact-fire shot, contrary to the complainant's claim. Furthermore, the alleged dying declaration was deemed unreliable as it lacked necessary medical verification and was treated merely as a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the motive was not proven, and ballistic reports failed to link the recovered weapon to the crime. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that a single circumstance creating doubt is sufficient to grant the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of blackening, burning, or tattooing on a gunshot wound contradict an ocular account claiming a contact-range fire shot?
  • Can a statement recorded by a police officer without medical verification of the declarant's fitness be treated as a valid dying declaration?
  • Is a statement recorded by police in the absence of hospital staff or medical verification admissible as a dying declaration?
  • Does the failure of ballistic evidence to match recovered empties with a weapon constitute a ground for acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hammad Ali Khan and others vs Mst. Sadia Akbar and others2024 MLD 1445 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-25
  constitutional petitionrecovery of dowergold ornamentsmaintenance allowancemisreading of evidencefamily courtiddat period
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioners to challenge the appellate judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, which had partially accepted the respondent's appeal by granting her 10-tola gold ornaments as dower and maintenance allowance for the iddat period. The core legal question revolved around whether the lower appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence regarding the payment and discharge of the dower amount in the shape of 10-tola gold ornaments. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate court misread and misappreciated the evidence, noting that the petitioner had successfully established through consistent pleadings and unrebutted witness testimony that the dower had already been handed over prior to rukhsati. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and modified the impugned judgment by setting aside the award of 10-tola gold ornaments as dower. The key principle laid down is that while constitutional courts ordinarily do not re-examine factual findings, they are fully competent to interfere under Article 199 when findings of lower forums suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence, erroneous assumptions, or arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the strict application of evidentiary rules under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 apply uniformly to proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Is a husband's uncontroverted oral testimony and supporting witness statement regarding the pre-rukhsati delivery of dower sufficient to prove its discharge?
  • What are the precise grounds upon which the High Court may review and correct factual determinations made by lower family and appellate courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Khalid Dad Nasir and another vs Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan)2024 CLD 1421 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-20Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Atif Mumtaz vs Senior Member Board of Revenue Punjab, etc2024 LHC 4048 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hafiz Malik Muhammad Umar vs Government of Punjab, etc.2024 LHC 709 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-13Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Ammar Yasir vs Returning Officer Na-59 and another, Returning2024 LHC 130, 2024 PLD Lahore 351 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-09Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ullah, etc vs State, etcPLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1173 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-25
  Illegal Dispossession Actwithdrawal of complaintcompromiseacquittalcriminal appealprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Alipur, arising from a private complaint alleging illegal dispossession from land. During the hearing of the appeal, the complainant submitted an affidavit and expressed a desire to withdraw the complaint due to a compromise reached between the parties, stating that possession of the disputed land had been restored to him. The core legal question concerned the effect of a compromise and the withdrawal of a private complaint in proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Lahore High Court held that a complainant may withdraw a complaint on any consideration even if the offences are non-compoundable, relying on established precedent. Consequently, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the complaint and acquitted the appellants of the charge, ordering their immediate release unless required in other cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complainant withdraw a private complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 upon entering into a compromise?
  • Whether the withdrawal of a complaint is permissible when the underlying offences are non-compoundable?
  • What is the effect of a compromise between the parties on a conviction under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib-ur-Rehman vs The State and another2024 LHC 4739, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 20, 2025 YLR 835 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-01
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsmethamphetamineforensic analysisfurther inquiryquantitative testControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 12 kilograms of items soaked in methamphetamine (Ice) from a parcel booked by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail when the forensic report confirmed the presence of the substance but failed to provide a quantitative analysis of the actual amount of methamphetamine recovered. The Court held that the absence of a quantitative determination regarding the psychotropic substance created a significant evidentiary gap, rendering the prosecution's case against the petitioner a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where a forensic report fails to quantify the exact amount of a narcotic substance, the prosecution may struggle to meet the evidentiary standards for conviction, thereby satisfying the requirement for 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a forensic report to provide a quantitative analysis of a recovered narcotic substance constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a quantitative test necessary to establish the severity of an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can a petitioner be granted post-arrest bail if the forensic evidence is inconclusive regarding the exact quantity of the alleged contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib ur Rehman vs The State etc2024 LHC 4453, 2025 MLD 714 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-03
  pre-arrest bailcriminal intimidationstatutory interpretationfurther inquirypenal code applicationbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from an FIR registered under Sections 506(ii) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, alleging criminal intimidation. The Court examined the contents of the FIR and the statutory provisions regarding criminal intimidation. It observed that the police had incorrectly cited 'Section 506(ii)' as a distinct offence, noting that the provision is not structured as independent parts but rather as a single section defining criminal intimidation with varying degrees of punishment based on the nature of the threat. The Court clarified that the definition of criminal intimidation requires specific intent to cause alarm or compel an act, which was not clearly established in the FIR. Finding that the petitioner's culpability required further inquiry by the trial court and noting that the petitioner had already joined the investigation, the Court held that incarceration was not justified. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed, emphasizing the need to correct misconceptions regarding the application of penal provisions for criminal intimidation.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, contain independent sub-sections or parts for criminal intimidation?
  • What is the essential intent required to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Is a case involving the application of Section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, considered a matter of further inquiry when the specific intent is not clearly established in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab, etc vs Muhammad Ahmad2024 LHC 2683 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-16
  intra court appealpolice appointmentcolor blindnessmedical fitnessminimum qualificationspolice rulesoverriding effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers directing the Police Department to consider the respondent for appointment as Sub-Inspector despite being diagnosed with color blindness. The core legal question revolves around the scope and construction of the Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, framed under the Police Order 2002, and whether they implicitly exclude the vision standards and medical fitness criteria prescribed under Rule 12.16 of the Police Rules 1934 and the 1965 Notification. The larger bench held that the overriding effect of the Rules of 2013 is limited only to direct inconsistencies and does not render the medical fitness and vision standards under the Police Rules 1934 and 1965 Notification inapplicable. The court concluded that minimum qualifications in the schedule are bare minimum requirements and must be read in conjunction with supplemental medical requirements unless expressly inconsistent. Consequently, color blindness remains a valid ground for medical unfitness. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 are exhaustive and exclude the medical fitness requirements prescribed under Rule 12.16 of the Police Rules 1934?
  • Does color blindness constitute a valid ground for disqualification from appointment as a Sub-Inspector in the police department?
  • What is the scope of the overriding effect provided under Rule 14 of the Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 vis-a-vis the Police Rules 1934?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Islamabad2024 LHC 3195, 2024 PLD Lahore 467 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Golden Jubilee Cooperation Society vs Secretary Cooperative etc2024 LHC 2699, 2024 MLD 1473 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
• Glaxo Smith Kline Pakistan Limited vs Provincial Quality Control Board2024 MLD 937 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-21Read full judgment →
• Ghzanfar Ali alias Manzoor, etc. vs The State, etc.2024 LHC 1202, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 909 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-18
  criminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtillegal detentionhabeas corpusweapon recoveryanti-terrorismmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302, 353, 186, 148, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question involved the reliability of identification parades, subsequent weapon recoveries, and the credibility of eyewitnesses when unknown accused are later nominated following habeas corpus petitions. The Lahore High Court held that an identification parade loses its efficacy and value if the accused were already nominated by witnesses prior to the parade, and that positive forensic reports of weapons recovered much later do not connect the accused to the crime scene empties if earlier recovered crime empties failed to match. The court laid down the principle that in cases involving unknown culprits subsequently named through improper channels or after illegal detention established via constitutional petitions, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade retains its evidentiary value when the accused persons are already nominated by witnesses prior to the holding of such parade?
  • Does a positive forensic report matching recovered weapons with test-fired cartridges render a conviction sustainable when the crime empties collected from the spot fail to match?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when habeas corpus petitions establish the prior illegal custody and subsequent delayed formal arrest of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when multiple contradictions and improvements appear in the testimonies of official eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Muhammad Mushtaq, etc.2024 LHC 560 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Jaffar vs The State and others2024 MLD 276 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-10
  electricity theftcriminal appealbenefit of doubtdelay in FIRhearsay evidencenon-production of case propertyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal assails the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court against the appellant under Section 462-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged electricity theft. The prosecution's case rested on an inspection by a GEPCO surveillance team, which claimed that the appellant was stealing electricity via direct wire connection. The High Court evaluated the evidence and identified critical deficiencies: an unexplained three-day delay in lodging the complaint, reliance on hearsay by the complainant who did not witness the incident, failure to seize or produce the wire used for the theft, tampering and alterations on the recovery memo, and non-production of the electricity meter or proof of ownership/occupancy of the premises. Furthermore, key recovery witnesses were not examined. The Court held that withholding material evidence and failing to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt entitled the accused to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR regarding electricity theft weaken the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for electricity theft be sustained when the physical wire used to commit the theft is not seized or produced in court?
  • Is a complaint based solely on hearsay statement from a surveillance team sufficient to prove an offense beyond reasonable doubt?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution withholding primary case property and failing to examine material recovery witnesses during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Province of Punjab and 2 others2024 YLR 573 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain (deceased) through Legal heirs and others vs Sher2024 YLR 56 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs Muhammad Bilal, etc2024 LHC 4961 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastgir Siddiqui and others vs Mst. Elizbeth and another2024 LHC 3245, 2024 CLC 1776 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akhtar vs Muhammad Iqbal2024 LHC 3055 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• Ghazanfar Amin vs Province of Punjab and others2024 LHC 2905 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-22Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz-ul-Hassan Anwar vs Mst. Shehla Khalid etc.2024 LHC 1493, 2024 PLJ Lahore 601, 2025 CLC 960 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-21Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Limited vs M/s Dynasel Limited and others2024 LHC 2628, 2025 PLD Lahore 263, 2025 CLD 369 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• Fauji Fresh and Freeze Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue & others2024 LHC 158, 2024 PTD 1068 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
• Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited and Fauji Fertilizer Bin Qasim Limited vs ecurity and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and another2024 LHC 5533, 2025 CLD 343 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Shahzad vs Maqbool Hussain Awan2024 LHC 1879, 2025 PLJ Lahore 184 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →