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.
- Farida Khanum vs Abdul Qayyum Baig (deceased) through his legal heirs, etc2024 LHC 6002 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Faraz Iqbal Jamil and another vs The Federation of Pakistan and 04 others2024 LHC 1990, 2025 PLD Lahore 352 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
- Falak Sher, etc. vs Hashmat Bibi, etc.2024 LHC 755, 2024 PLJ Lahore 322, 2024 PLJ Lahore 262, PLD 2025 Lahore · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-21Read full judgment →
- Fakhar Iqbal Shah, Siffat ul Hassan Shah vs The State, etc, The State, etc2024 LHC 4351, 2024 LHC 4364, 2025 PCRLJ 802 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected revision challenge the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence, and whether the alleged motive and weapon recovery were established. The Lahore High Court held that numerous material contradictions between the ocular account and the site plan, defective police investigation, unexplained delays, doubtful medical evidence, unproved motive, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence created insurmountable doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the revision for enhancement of sentence, laying down the principle that the benefit of any doubt in the prosecution case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, and that conviction must rest on unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence.
Questions settled- Whether contradictions between the ocular account and the site plan are sufficient to create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events?
- Can a conviction be sustained on the same set of evidence where co-accused have already been acquitted by the trial court?
- What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the weapon is not properly identified during trial or matched with the crime empties?
- Does an unexplained delay in sending blood-stained earth to the forensic laboratory vitiate the prosecution's reliance on it?
- Faiza Basir Syed vs Customs Appellate Tribunal and others2024 LHC 3986, 2025 PTD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
- Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Ltd vs The Chairman Punjab Revenue2024 LHC 4283, 2024 PTD 1469 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-09Read full judgment →
- Equity Master Securities (Pvt.) Limited & 03 others vs Pakistan Stock2024 LHC 2925 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Employees Old Age Benefit Institution through Director Law EOBI vs Messrs2024 CLC 2021 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from appeals filed against the decision of the Civil Court making an arbitration award a Rule of the Court. The core legal question concerns the legality of initiating arbitration proceedings under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and obtaining an award without impleading a primary party to the contract, namely the Employees Old-Age Benefit Institution (EOBI), and whether a wholly owned subsidiary (PRIMACO) acts as an alter ego or assignee capable of substituting the principal without formal assignment or novation. The Lahore High Court held that the arbitral reference, proceedings, and the resulting award were invalid and unlawful because EOBI was not a party to the section 20 proceedings or the arbitration, and its subsidiary PRIMACO could not substitute it without a valid assignment or novation of contract. The key principle laid down is that a parent entity or principal cannot be bound by arbitration proceedings or an award resulting from a reference under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to which it was not a party, and a wholly owned subsidiary acting as an agent does not automatically become an alter ego or substitute for the principal for arbitration purposes in the absence of formal assignment or novation.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration agreement can be filed and a reference made under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in the absence of a principal party to the contract?
- Does a wholly owned subsidiary acting as an agent automatically substitute the principal party to a contract for the purposes of arbitration proceedings without a formal assignment or novation?
- Is an arbitration award and a decree making it the Rule of the Court sustainable when the reference to arbitration was invalid due to the non-impleadment of a necessary party?
- Eman Waseem vs The Returning Officer, Na-50, Attock-II, Attock and 22024 LHC 36, 2024 PLJ Lahore 96 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ehtisham Ali vs Province of Punjab, etc2024 LHC 5025 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
- Ehsan Ali vs The State, etc2024 LHC 5229, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 30 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, which cancelled the petitioner's post-arrest bail. The core legal question was whether bail obtained through the concealment of a previously withdrawn bail application in the same case constitutes a valid ground for cancellation. The petitioner had filed an initial bail application, which was withdrawn by his counsel, and subsequently filed a second application the following day without disclosing the prior withdrawal, leading to the second application being heard by a different judge who granted bail. The court held that obtaining relief through the concealment of material facts, such as the dismissal of a prior bail application, constitutes a fraud upon the court and is impermissible. The court affirmed the cancellation of bail, emphasizing that such conduct violates the principles laid down in established precedents regarding the integrity of judicial proceedings. The court endorsed the reasoning of the lower court, concluding that relief obtained through foul play cannot be sustained, regardless of the underlying merits of the case.
Questions settled- Does the concealment of a previously withdrawn bail application in a subsequent bail application constitute grounds for the cancellation of bail?
- Can a court cancel bail if the order granting it was obtained by keeping the court in the dark about prior proceedings?
- Is it permissible for an appellate court to endorse the reasoning of a lower court judgment without re-tracing the entire path of the decision?
- Dr.Iqrar Ahmad Khan etc vs Director General, Anti Corruption2024 LHC 3386, 2024 PLJ Lahore 704, 2025 YLR 281 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-09Read full judgment →
- Dr. Shahida Mansoor vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry2024 LHC 5101, 2024 LHC 4661, 2025 CLC 209 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
- Dr. Omer Chughtai, etc. vs Province of the Punjab, etc.2024 LHC 2418 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Asif vs Adj Layyah, etc2024 LHC 2704, 2024 CLC 1520 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-24Read full judgment →
- Dr. Manzoor Hussain Malik and another vs Mahar Muhammad Khalid2024 PLD Lahore 109 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ghulam Sarwar vs Province of Punjab through Vice-Chancellor and 52024 PLC (C.S.) 402 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated writ petition challenges the order of the Chancellor of the University of Sargodha declaring the appointment of the petitioner as Professor of Soil and Environmental Sciences null and void ab initio, along with a subsequent notification constituting an inquiry committee. The core legal question revolves around the validity of the Selection Board's decision to alter its criteria by awarding marks to candidates for professorial posts without proper prior approval, and whether appointees should suffer for departmental irregularities. The Lahore High Court held that while the Chancellor's order regarding the procedural irregularity of the Selection Board was lawful, innocent appointees cannot be penalized for departmental faults or procedural lapses committed by university authorities. The court modified the impugned orders, directing the university to re-examine the cases individually, protect appointees who were not at fault or acting in bad faith, and explore the creation of new seats to accommodate meritorious candidates.
Questions settled- Whether an employee can be penalized or deprived of their job due to procedural faults committed by departmental authorities in assessing eligibility for appointment?
- Does the Chancellor of a university have the power under the University of Sargodha Ordinance, 2002 to set aside Selection Board proceedings made without proper approval?
- Can a Selection Board unilaterally change its established practice of assessment to introduce a new marking scheme without proper statutory approval?
- Dr. Atia Naz vs Muhammad Ilyas Shah and others2024 PCRLJ 1190 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioner in a private complaint under section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code for defamation, allegedly committed by making statements in judicial petitions regarding the respondent's religious faith. The core legal question was whether statements made in good faith before judicial or lawful authorities regarding matters of custody and welfare constitute defamation. The Lahore High Court held that accusations preferred in good faith to an authorized person fall under the Eighth Exception to section 499, and that disputed factual questions concerning good faith and mens rea ought to be addressed initially before the trial court through an appropriate application. The court established the principle that criminal proceedings for defamation should not stifle bona fide assertions made before competent legal fora, and directed the petitioner to seek remedy under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Questions settled- Whether accusations preferred in good faith to an authorized judicial person constitute defamation under section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether a family court can issue declarations regarding religious faith while determining the welfare of a minor in a custody petition under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Should an accused person first approach the trial court via an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Dr. Aqsa Rehman vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2024 LHC 781, 2024 PLJ Lahore 250 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-26Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs and others vs Muhammad2024 LHC 6272 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-24Read full judgment →
- Dr. Rehana Kausar vs Province of Punjab, etc.2024 LHC 2817, 2025 PLJ Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-07Read full judgment →
- Director, Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation, Customs, Multan vs Customs Appellate Tribunal, etc2024 LHC 5731 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-25Read full judgment →
- Director Labour Welfare vs Muhammad Younas and others2024 YLR 2505 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →
- Defence Housing Authority, Lahore vs Pervaiz Riaz2024 LHC 2189 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-10Read full judgment →
- Defence Housing Authority vs The Federal Board of Revenue and others2024 LHC 5465, 2025 PTD 530 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
- Dawood Ahmad through Special Attorney vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and another2024 YLR 2680 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-22Read full judgment →
- Commissionerate of Afghan Refugees vs The State and another2024 MLD 1070 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed by the Commissionerate of Afghan Refugees challenging an order passed by the Special Court (CNSA) which dismissed its application for the superdari (temporary custody) of a vehicle seized in a narcotics case. The core legal question was whether a vehicle owned by a third party, not involved in the alleged narcotics offense, could be released on superdari pending the trial. The Lahore High Court, relying on established precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, held that where the owner of a seized vehicle is not an accused, associate, or relative of the accused, and had no knowledge of the vehicle's misuse for trafficking, the vehicle should be released on temporary custody. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prima facie demonstrate the owner's knowledge of the offense to justify continued detention of the vehicle. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and directing the release of the vehicle to the appellant subject to the furnishing of surety bonds and an undertaking not to dispose of the vehicle until the trial's conclusion.
Questions settled- Can a vehicle seized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be released on superdari to an owner who is not accused of the offense?
- What burden of proof does the prosecution bear to oppose the release of a vehicle on superdari in a narcotics case?
- Does the lack of knowledge of the owner regarding the use of a vehicle for drug trafficking entitle them to temporary custody of the vehicle?
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Rto, Faisalabad vs Messrs Chawla2024 PTD 368 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-28Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, District Zone, Regional Tax Office, Rawalpindi vs Sh. Ikram Ellahi & others2024 LHC 4017, 2024 PLJ Lahore 819, 2025 PTD 137 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-04Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Multan Electric Supply Company2024 LHC 4006 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Muhammad Osman Gul2024 LHC 463, PTCL 2024 CL. 341, 2024 PTD 889 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-15Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Masood-ul-Hassan Prop: M/s Prism2024 LHC 3179, 2025 PTD 58 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue Sialkot vs Air Sial Limited , Sialkot2024 LHC 4303, PTCL 2025 CL. 242 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-07Read full judgment →
- China Harbour Engineering Company Ltd. and others vs Z. Z. Enterprises2024 PLD Lahore 421, 2024 CLD 917 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
- Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member (Judicial-v), Board of Revenue,2024 LHC 3230, 2024 PLD Lahore 598 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-10Read full judgment →
- Chaklala Cantonment Board vs M/s Umar Khan and Others2024 LHC 1359, 2025 CLC 386 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-28Read full judgment →
- Chairman, National Highway Authority through its G.M. & another vs Abdul2024 LHC 546, 2024 PLJ Lahore 174, 2025 CLC 797 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-13Read full judgment →
- Ch. Umer Aftab Dhillu and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2024 LHC 1, 2024 PLJ Lahore 54, 2024 CLC 615 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) that rejected the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party's intra-party election certificate and withdrew its election symbol, 'BAT.' The petitioners argued that the ECP lacked jurisdiction and that the order violated fundamental rights, including freedom of association. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction over a matter already sub judice before the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Peshawar High Court, where similar issues regarding election processes and a 'level playing field' were pending. The Court held that it could not assume jurisdiction in a matter already pending before the Supreme Court or another High Court, as doing so would violate judicial propriety, risk conflicting judgments, and undermine the judicial process. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine. The key principle laid down is that a High Court must refrain from entertaining petitions on matters already pending before the Supreme Court or parallel High Courts to maintain judicial comity and prevent the multiplicity of litigation.
Questions settled- Can a High Court assume jurisdiction in a matter that is already sub judice before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Does the pendency of a matter before another High Court preclude a court from entertaining a petition on the same subject?
- Is a petition maintainable when it seeks to challenge an order already suspended by another court of competent jurisdiction?
- Can a High Court grant interim relief when the vires of the law being challenged is already under consideration by another court?
- Ch. Rizwan Ali Raa vs Government of Punjab & others2024 LHC 2344, 2024 CLD 1089 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-17Read full judgment →
- Ch. Pervaiz Elahi vs The State and another2024 LHC 2309, 2025 PCRLJ 685 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 09/2023 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 161, 162, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question involved was whether the prosecution had established sufficient reasonable grounds under the prohibitory clause of section 497 CrPC to warrant withholding bail, particularly where the timeline of alleged forgery conflicted with public records and cash recovery lacked identifying specifications. The Lahore High Court held that the gravity of the offence or the mere possibility of punishment under the prohibitory limb is insufficient to deny bail when the prosecution fails to unveil sufficient material establishing reasonable grounds of guilt and the case falls within the scope of further inquiry. The Court laid down that bail is not to be withheld as punishment, that prosecution bears the burden to show reasonable grounds connecting the accused to the offence, and that where two plausible views exist, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Does the expression reasonable grounds under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 obligate the prosecution to unveil sufficient material to show the accused committed an offence falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Can bail be withheld merely on the ground of the heinousness or gravity of the offence or the possibility of a ten-year sentence?
- Is unspecified cash recovery sufficient by itself to establish reasonable grounds for refusing post-arrest bail?
- When a case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused, is the accused entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Ch. Muhammad Arshad vs Parvez Elahi and two others2024 LHC 1337, 2024 CLC 1151, 2024 PLJ Lahore 578 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-03Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem (deceased) represented by legal heirs vs Mst. Aziza Khatoon (deceased) represented by legal heirs, etc2024 LHC 4723 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Zia-ur-Rehman2024 LHC 2543, 2024 PTD 1029 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-22Read full judgment →
- Ch. Bilal Ejaz vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2024 LHC 1604, 2024 PLD Lahore 428 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-16Read full judgment →
- Brigadier (Retired) Qaisar Shahzad vs The State, etc2024 LHC 4459, 2025 MLD 122, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 93 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition whereby the petitioner, Brigadier (Retired) Qaisar Shahzad, seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 255 dated 09.08.2024 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 408, and 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Morgah, District Rawalpindi, relating to allegations of unauthorized financial transactions, cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust. The core legal questions involved the tentative assessment of evidence regarding the ingredients of forgery, entrustment, misappropriation, and whether the case fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, documentary evidence was already in possession of the prosecution obviating any risk of tampering, the investigation was complete, and no exceptional grounds existed to withhold bail. Consequently, the petition was accepted and post-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner, reiterating the established principle that in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the general rule and jail is the exception.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the offences involved do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the absence of handwriting expert reports and documentary verification weaken the allegation of forgery at the bail stage?
- What exceptional circumstances justify the refusal of bail in cases where the offences do not attract the prohibitory clause?
- Bilqees Bibi vs The State etc2024 LHC 3790, 2024 YLR 2461, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1107 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner, a 50-year-old woman, in a triple murder case registered under sections 302, 148, 149, 109, and 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was attributed only a joint lalkara (incitement) and was empty-handed during the occurrence, was entitled to bail despite the heinous nature of the offence. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that her case fell within the scope of "further inquiry" under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that the mere heinousness of an offence is not a valid ground for refusing bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it. Furthermore, it emphasized that bail is not a mechanism for punishment and that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused even at the bail stage. The Court concluded that the prosecution's case against the petitioner required further evidentiary verification at trial, and thus, continued incarceration was not warranted.
Questions settled- Does the heinous nature of an offence automatically disqualify an accused from being granted bail?
- Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the post-arrest bail stage?
- Is a person attributed only with a joint lalkara and found empty-handed entitled to bail in a murder case?
- Does the grant of bail constitute a punishment for an under-trial prisoner?
- Bilal Sikandar vs The State and another2024 LHC 3700, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1083, 2025 YLR 152 · Lahore High Court · 2024-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail for the murder of his sister, allegedly committed in the name of 'ghairat' (honour). The core legal questions were whether an accused charged with honour killing is entitled to bail based on a compromise with legal heirs, and whether alleged conflicts between ocular and medical evidence constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that honour killing is a non-bailable offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, and that a compromise with legal heirs does not entitle the accused to bail due to statutory amendments, specifically Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, which mandates life imprisonment regardless of pardon. Furthermore, the Court ruled that conflicts between ocular and medical evidence require deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. The key principle laid down is that honour killings are treated as premeditated murder, and the legislative intent behind recent amendments is to prevent the release of perpetrators through compromise, ensuring they face the prescribed punishment.
Questions settled- Can an accused charged with honour killing be released on bail solely on the basis of a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased?
- Does a conflict between ocular account and medical evidence constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry to justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the offence of honour killing fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Begum Tasneem Akhtar (deceased) through L.Rs vs The learned Addl.2024 LHC 956 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
- Begum Shahida Ahmad and 3 others vs Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Lahore and others2024 YLR 2766 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-08Read full judgment →
- Beaconhouse School System, Okara vs Commissioner Sahiwal Division, etc.2024 LHC 280, 2024 PLJ Lahore 207, 2024 PLD Lahore 451 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
- Beaconhouse School System, Okara vs Commissioner Sahiwal Division, etc2024 LHC 430 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
- Bakhsh vs Member (Judicial VII), Board of Revenue etc.2024 LHC 737, 2024 PLJ Lahore 219 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
- Bagh Ali vs Addl. District Judge, etc2024 LHC 2256, 2024 PLD Lahore 695 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
- Badar Majeed Choudhary vs Government of the Punjab, etc2024 LHC 5280 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-17Read full judgment →
- Babar Sultan vs Government of the Punjab etc2024 LHC 5993, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 693 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the authorities to appoint the petitioner to the post of SSE (Engineer) following the termination of a previously appointed candidate. The core legal question was whether a candidate next on the merit list is entitled to appointment when a selected candidate, who had already joined, is subsequently removed from service under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had no legal entitlement to the post. The Court determined that Clause ix of the Recruitment Policy of 2011 permits the appointment of the next candidate on the merit list only in specific scenarios: where a selectee fails to join, refuses the offer, or leaves voluntarily within 190 days. The Court established the principle that a vacancy arising from the dismissal of an employee under the PEEDA Act is fundamentally different from a voluntary departure or failure to join. Consequently, such a vacancy does not trigger the waiting list mechanism and must instead be filled through a fresh recruitment process.
Questions settled- Does the removal of a public servant under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 create a vacancy that must be filled by the next candidate on the merit list?
- Under the Recruitment Policy of 2011, in what specific circumstances is the appointing authority permitted to offer a post to the next candidate on the merit list?
- Can a vacancy arising from the dismissal of an employee be filled from the waiting list without initiating a fresh recruitment process?
- Babar Rasool through Special Attorney vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 2 others2024 YLR 265 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →
- Azka Wahid vs Province of Punjab & others2024 LHC 1392, 2024 PLJ Lahore 734, 2025 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-07Read full judgment →
- Azeem Bakhash Chaudhary vs Returning Officer, Constituency Pp-192024 LHC 87 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-09Read full judgment →
- Awais Qarni vs The State and another2024 LHC 6320 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, convicting the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to life imprisonment for allegedly possessing 20 kilograms of charas. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the police recovery witnesses, the integrity of the chain of custody of the case property, and the admissibility of an unauthenticated media photograph and derivative oral testimonies under the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions in police testimonies, unauthorized pre-trial documentation, and the use of an inadmissible photograph undermined the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the court laid down the principle that under the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, oral testimonies derived from an inadmissible document are equally inadmissible, and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, with any evidentiary gaps extending a benefit to the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether an unauthenticated photograph from a media report is admissible as primary or secondary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
- Are statements of witnesses regarding an inadmissible document or photograph legally admissible as direct evidence?
- Does a breach in the chain of custody of sample parcels render the government analyst's report inconsequential?
- Must the prosecution stand on its own legs regardless of weaknesses in the defence's alternative plea?
- Aun Akhter & another vs Ahmad Abdul Rehman, etc.2024 LHC 1654 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-09Read full judgment →
- Atta Muhammad vs Additional District Judge and others2024 CLC 57 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-11Read full judgment →
- Atta Elahi vs Allah Bachaya etc2022 LHC 3672, 2024 CLC 29 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
- Atif Munawar vs Additional District Judge, etc2024 LHC 4099 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
- Atif Khan vs Merja Din and others2024 YLR 1833 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
- Askari Bank Limited vs M/s. Khawaja Flat Glass Industries (Private) Limited,2024 LHC 5873 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
- Asif alias Asad & three others vs The State & another2024 LHC 830, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 553, 2024 MLD 1672 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rioting armed with deadly weapons. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of an unlawful assembly, common object, motive, and whether the conviction of the appellants could be sustained when co-accused assigned identical roles had been acquitted, alongside the reliability of forensic and recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the common object and motive, and that weapon recoveries failed to provide the necessary corroboration, particularly given the acquittal of co-accused assigned identical roles without independent corroborative evidence. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that where multiple co-accused are assigned identical roles of ineffective firing and some are acquitted, the remaining accused cannot be convicted without strong and independent corroboration. The appeals were accepted and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.
Questions settled- Can an accused be convicted under Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of a common object of an unlawful assembly?
- Whether the acquittal of a co-accused assigned an identical role necessitates strong and independent corroboration before sustaining the conviction of remaining co-accused?
- Does the recovery of a firearm that does not match crime empties according to forensic analysis provide valid corroboration to the prosecution's case?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to establish the alleged motive and all material corroborative pieces of evidence fall through?
- Ashiq Ali, & others vs Ghulam Ali (deceased) through legal heirs, etc2024 LHC 2058, 2024 PLJ Lahore 537 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-22Read full judgment →
- Ashba Kamran vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to the President, President‟s Secretariat, Islamabad and others2024 LHC 3733, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1325, 2025 PLJ Lahore 70 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the appointment of the Chairman of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner questioned the validity of Rule 7A of the NADRA (Appointment and Emoluments of Chairman and Members) Rules, 2020, which facilitated the direct, non-advertised appointment of a serving officer. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government, as a delegatee, possessed the authority to bypass the qualification-based evaluation mandated by the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000. The Court held that the appointment was without "authority of law." It ruled that delegated legislation cannot override the primary enactment or dispense with statutory requirements for merit-based selection. The Court affirmed that quo warranto jurisdiction empowers it to scrutinize whether an appointment conforms to the primary statute. Consequently, the appointment was declared illegal as it exceeded the delegated authority, violating the legislative intent that required qualification-based evaluation for such public offices. The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius was applied to reject the claim of implied power to make direct appointments.
Questions settled- Can the High Court in quo warranto jurisdiction examine whether an appointment made by the executive exceeds the scope of delegated authority under the primary statute?
- Is a rule framed under delegated legislation valid if it permits direct appointment to a public office in a manner inconsistent with the qualification-based evaluation prescribed by the parent Ordinance?
- Does the power to appoint a Chairman of a statutory authority under the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 include the implied power to make direct, unadvertised appointments?
- Asghar vs The State and another2024 YLR 363 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 352/2022, registered at Police Station Kur, District Faisalabad, for offences under sections 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the existence of a cross-version and the complainant's delay in lodging the FIR. The court observed that the four-day delay in filing the FIR, without explanation, suggested deliberation and consultation. Furthermore, the court noted that the case involved two versions, with the petitioner claiming the complainant party were the aggressors, and that the complainant had suppressed the injuries sustained by the petitioner's side. Holding that the determination of the aggressor required further inquiry at trial, the court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is delayed without explanation and there exists a cross-version where the complainant suppresses injuries of the opposing party, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the case involves two conflicting versions of the incident?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused in an FIR necessitate further inquiry into the prosecution's case?
- Asghar Ali vs Muhammad Asghar2024 LHC 4161, 2024 PLJ Lahore 863, 2025 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-03Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali (deceased) through LRs vs Ahmad Ali (deceased) through LRs, etc2024 LHC 1838, 2024 PLJ Lahore 622 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Asad Abbas vs Government of The Punjab through Secretary Co-operative2024 PLC (C.S) 142 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for appointment as a Sub-Inspector (BS-11), arguing he was next in merit and entitled to the position after selected candidates failed to join. The core legal question was whether the department could deny the petitioner's appointment due to administrative delays and the subsequent expiration of the merit list, despite the petitioner having timely agitated his grievance. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable, noting that the department and the Punjab Public Service Commission were responsible for the administrative lapses that prevented the petitioner's appointment while the merit list was valid. The Court emphasized that a candidate cannot be penalized for the department's failure to act. The key principle laid down is that when selected candidates fail to join, the department is obligated to consider the next candidates on the merit list to fill vacant posts rather than leaving them empty. Furthermore, denying appointment to a qualified candidate while appointing others similarly situated constitutes discrimination in violation of the equality clause of the Constitution.
Questions settled- Can a government department deny appointment to a candidate next in the merit list due to the expiration of the merit list if the candidate timely agitated their grievance?
- Is a candidate entitled to be appointed as a substitute when selected candidates fail to join their duties?
- Can a candidate be penalized for administrative lapses or delays on the part of the recruiting department or the Public Service Commission?
- Does the appointment of one waiting candidate while denying another similarly situated candidate constitute discrimination under the Constitution?
- Arslan Ali vs The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and another2024 YLR 2801 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking suspension of the sentence awarded to the petitioner, Arslan Ali, who was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 alongside other sections in a private complaint arising from FIR No. 253/2019. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his life imprisonment sentence under the statutory grounds of Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the non-conclusion of his appeal within two years, and whether he fell within any exceptions disentitling him to such relief. The Lahore High Court held that since the delay in deciding the appeal was not attributable to the petitioner and he did not fall within the category of a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal, the provisions of Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandated the suspension of his sentence. The key principle laid down is that where an appellant undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment has not had his appeal decided within the statutory period of two years through no fault of his own, and does not fall under the statutory exceptions, the suspension of his sentence becomes a matter of right under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether the suspension of sentence becomes mandatory under Section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an appeal is not decided within two years through no fault of the appellant?
- Does a petitioner convicted of murder fall under the exceptions to Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely due to the nature of the injuries attributed to him?
- Are the principles of bail applicable when considering a petition for the suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Arshad Abbas vs Anti-Corruption Establishment Sargodha, etc2024 LHC 5847, 2025 PCRLJ 874 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, relating to the preparation of a Tatima Shajra by a Patwari in a joint Khata. The core legal question revolved around whether an administrative irregularity or the carving out of a Tatima in a joint property without prior partition constitutes a criminal offense falling within the mandate of the Anti-Corruption Establishment in the absence of any allegation of bribery. The Lahore High Court held that the preparation of a Tatima based on registered deeds in accordance with the Land Record Manuals does not constitute a criminal offense, and that weaponizing the criminal justice system for civil disputes or utilizing an anti-corruption agency for mere procedural irregularities amounts to an abuse of process. The court laid down the principle that the Anti-Corruption Establishment cannot exceed its mandate to investigate civil or departmental irregularities devoid of any element of corruption or illegal gratification, and that High Courts may quash FIRs under Article 199 where investigations are initiated mala fide or without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash an FIR under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan where the investigation is launched mala fide or without jurisdiction?
- Does the preparation of a Tatima Shajra in a joint Khata by a revenue official without formal partition proceedings constitute a criminal offense under the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Can the Anti-Corruption Establishment investigate mere departmental irregularities or procedural deviations by a public servant in the absence of any allegation of receiving illegal gratification?
- Whether criminal proceedings can be initiated regarding a subject matter that is already the subject of pending revenue and civil appeals between the parties?
- Arooj Hammad vs D.G. L.D.A. and others2024 PLC (C.S.) 681 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order of the Lahore Development Authority rejecting the petitioner's application for employment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The petitioner's father had died while in service, and her brother had previously been appointed under the said rule but later resigned. The core legal question was whether another family member could claim appointment under Rule 17-A after the initial appointee had availed the benefit and subsequently resigned. The Lahore High Court held that the benefit under Rule 17-A can only be availed once by a single member of the deceased employee's family and cannot be re-agitated or transferred after being exercised with family consent. The court laid down the principle that the right to employment under Rule 17-A is exhausted once a child or widow of the deceased civil servant is accommodated, and subsequent resignation of that appointee does not revive the right for other family members.
Questions settled- Can another family member claim appointment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 after the initially accommodated member resigns?
- Whether the right to employment under Rule 17-A can be exercised more than once for the family of a deceased civil servant?
- Does the resignation of a candidate appointed under Rule 17-A revive the claim for other legal heirs of the deceased employee?
- Aqeel alias Kaka, etc. vs The State, etc.2024 LHC 1224, 2024 PCRLJ 1721 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) refusing to transfer a criminal case to a court of ordinary jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a violent incident arising from personal enmity, where stray bullets incidentally struck the outer wall of a court building, constitutes "terrorism" triable by an ATC under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable and ordered the case transferred to the Sessions Court. The Court established that for an act to constitute terrorism, it must be committed with the specific design or purpose defined in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, rather than being a byproduct of personal vendetta. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Third Schedule of the Act, which lists "firing in the court premises" as a scheduled offence, must be interpreted narrowly. It cannot be extended to include firing in the surroundings or vicinity of a court, as courts lack the authority to expand the scope of special penal statutes beyond their literal meaning.
Questions settled- Does a violent act committed due to personal enmity constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Can a court expand the scope of the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to include firing in the surroundings of a court?
- Is the intent or motivation behind an act the determinative factor for classifying it as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Does the incidental hitting of a court's outer wall by bullets during a private dispute satisfy the criteria for "firing in the court premises" under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Anjum Mumtaz Malik vs Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore & others2024 LHC 5438, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 348 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a Senior Civil Judge, challenged an order declining his request for proforma promotion as an Additional District & Sessions Judge, which had been deferred due to adverse remarks in his PER for a specific period. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, whose promotion was deferred due to adverse remarks that were subsequently neutralized by earning three consecutive satisfactory PERs, is entitled to proforma promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, notwithstanding that the earlier promotions of his batchmates were termed officiating. The court held that once the temporary embargo or adverse remarks are overcome, a civil servant has an inalienable right to be considered for promotion along with batch-mates, and officiating promotions made against regular vacancies cannot preclude proforma promotion. The court laid down the principle that the removal of obstacles such as adverse remarks entitles an officer to remedy monetary and rank loss through proforma promotion, and that the device of officiating promotion cannot be used contrary to statutory rules to deny legitimate rights.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant is entitled to proforma promotion from the date his juniors were promoted once the adverse remarks deferring his promotion are successfully overcome?
- Can officiating promotions permanently preclude a civil servant from receiving proforma promotion when such promotions were made against regular vacancies rather than under circumstances specified in the rules?
- What is the effect of earning subsequent consecutive satisfactory PERs on earlier adverse remarks concerning integrity for the purpose of promotion?
- Amjad Ali vs The State etc2024 LHC 1934, 2024 MLD 1563, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1044 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence of rape under Section 376(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of a significant delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of independent corroboration, and medical evidence that contradicted the prosecution's timeline. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with flaws and inconsistencies, including the unexplained five-day delay in reporting the incident and the failure of medical evidence to support the allegation of recent rape, as the victim's hymen showed old, healed ruptures. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the place of occurrence or produce credible witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the established legal principle that if a single circumstance creates uncertainty, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
- Can a conviction for rape be sustained when medical evidence contradicts the timeline of the alleged offence?
- Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove the place of occurrence?
- Does the existence of a single doubt entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Amir Shahzad, Muhammad Iqbal vs The State, etc, The State, etc2024 LHC 390, 2024 YLR 2418, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1159 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-25Read 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 trial where a minor was killed by a firearm injury. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the existence of an unproven motive, the evidentiary value of a belated FIR, and conflicts between ocular and medical accounts. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to untrustworthy ocular testimony, doubtful medical evidence lacking an exit wound or recovered pellets, unproven motive, and inconsistent site plans. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the appellant's acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a chance witness whose presence at the crime scene is unnatural and unverified can form the basis of a murder conviction?
- Does a contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the nature of the firearm injury damage the prosecution's case?
- Is the uncorroborated recovery of a weapon from an accessible place sufficient to connect the accused to the crime when no crime empty is recovered?
- Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent court is sufficient to entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Amir Shahzad and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others2024 PLC (C.S) 33 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by employees of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) seeking directions for their promotion to higher posts, alleging that the recruitment process violated the established promotion policy. The core legal question was whether the NADRA promotion policy and service regulations, framed by the Authority under Section 45 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, possess statutory force, thereby rendering a constitutional petition maintainable for their enforcement. The Court held that while rules framed by the Federal Government under Section 44 of the Ordinance are statutory, the regulations and promotion policies framed solely by the Authority under Section 45, without Federal Government approval, are non-statutory in nature. Consequently, the Court determined that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for the enforcement of these non-statutory regulations. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, consistent with the principle established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that NADRA employees cannot seek constitutional remedies for grievances arising from non-statutory service regulations.
Questions settled- Are the regulations and promotion policies framed by the National Database and Registration Authority under Section 45 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, considered statutory in nature?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained for the enforcement of non-statutory service regulations of the National Database and Registration Authority?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to adjudicate service disputes of employees governed by non-statutory regulations?
- Amir Mahmood vs The State and another2024 LHC 4209, 2025 PCRLJ 65 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 23 and 27 of the Drugs Act 1976 and section 27 of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act 2012, following the seizure of unregistered medicated cosmetics containing allopathic drugs from a manufacturing facility. The core legal questions involved the authority of the Drug Inspector to inspect and seize items at the premises and whether the Petitioner was a mere employee or a partner of the firm. The Lahore High Court held that the seized items fell under the definition of medicated cosmetics governed by the DRAP Act rather than general cosmetics, that the Drug Inspector acted within lawful powers, and that tentative assessment of the partnership deed and records revealed sufficient incriminating material connecting the Petitioner as a partner. The Court ruled that pre-arrest bail is unwarranted where there is no proof of ulterior motives for false implication and sufficient incriminating evidence exists, thereby dismissing the bail application.
Questions settled- Whether a Drug Inspector has the authority under the Drugs Act 1976 and the DRAP Act 2012 to inspect premises and seize unregistered medicated cosmetics?
- Does the mere description of parties in a deed as partners establish a legal partnership, or must the true nature of the agreement be determined from the facts?
- What constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail in offences relating to unregistered drugs and medicated cosmetics?
- Amina Bibi and another vs Province of Punjab and others2024 LHC 4815 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-01Read full judgment →
- Ameer Mai and others vs Additional District Judge and others2024 MLD 1433 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
- Amal Sukhera vs Govt. of Punjab etc2024 LHC 4946 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-07Read full judgment →
- Allah Rakha, etc, Muhammad Afzal vs The State, etc, Muhammad Javed, etc2024 LHC 4419, 2025 PCRLJ 762, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 286 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the timing of the FIR, and the consistency of medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt, citing significant discrepancies: the FIR appeared ante-timed, the injured witness’s testimony contained material contradictions and improvements, and the medical evidence regarding firing distance contradicted the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the prosecution suppressed injuries sustained by one of the appellants, casting doubt on the entire incident's version. The court emphasized that the motive was not proven and that the prosecution's failure to provide a consistent account created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is riddled with contradictions, suppression of facts, and unnatural conduct, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused person during an occurrence cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the FIR is found to be ante-timed and the prosecution witnesses provide contradictory accounts of its preparation?
- Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient for conviction if it contains material contradictions and improvements regarding the incident's timeline?
- Does the failure to prove the alleged motive for a crime entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Allah Ditta, etc., Shah Jahan vs The State, etc.2024 LHC 1379, 2024 YLR 1924, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 929 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a private complaint. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a delayed FIR, the admissibility of medical reports without the authoring doctor's testimony, and the weight of abscondence as proof of guilt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the six-day delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the lack of reliable identification sources and the doubtful presence of eyewitnesses, undermined the prosecution's narrative. Crucially, the court ruled that postmortem reports are expert opinions that cannot be read into evidence unless the doctor is examined or their absence is legally justified and secondary evidence is properly established under Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and Section 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, affirming that abscondence alone is not conclusive proof of guilt and that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a postmortem report be read into evidence without the examination of the doctor who prepared it?
- Does the abscondence of an accused constitute conclusive proof of guilt?
- What is the legal requirement for proving the contents of a document under Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Is a delayed FIR without a plausible explanation sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
- Allah Ditta vs Noor Ahmad2024 LHC 6368, 2025 PLD Lahore 508 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-09Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh vs Ghulam Mustafa & another2021 LHC 4859, 2024 YLR 871 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh (deceased) through his legal heirs etc. vs Muhammad Hanif2024 LHC 1294, 2025 CLC 572 · Lahore High Court · 2024-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ali Zain vs The State, etc2024 LHC 1743, 2025 PCRLJ 201, PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 129 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, read with Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. The petitioner sought to set aside an order that disallowed defense counsel from cross-examining a prosecution witness (PW-1), a draftsman, regarding the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in restricting the cross-examination of a witness who did not prepare the site plan and was not an attesting witness to it. The High Court held that the trial court's decision was sound and reasonable. The court reasoned that since the witness was neither the author of the site plan nor an attesting witness, he could not be cross-examined on the contents or accuracy of a document he did not prepare. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that cross-examination must be relevant and directed at a witness competent to testify on the specific subject matter.
Questions settled- Can a witness be cross-examined on a document, such as a site plan, if they are neither the author nor an attesting witness of that document?
- Does a trial court have the discretion to disallow questions during cross-examination that are deemed irrelevant to the witness's testimony?
- Alamgir Liaqat vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore & another2024 LHC 1803, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 5 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal challenges an order declining the expunction of remarks recorded in the appellant’s Performance Evaluation Report (PER). The core legal question is whether remarks labeled "advisory" by the reporting officer are, in substance, "adverse" and whether their recording without prior counseling violates established service instructions. The Court held that the remarks—advising the appellant to run his office with dignity and integrity—are inherently adverse rather than advisory, as they impugn the officer's professional conduct. The Court emphasized that the label assigned by a reporting officer is not determinative; the essence of the remarks dictates their nature. Furthermore, the Court established that reporting officers are mandatorily required to provide prior counseling regarding performance deficiencies before recording adverse remarks in a PER. As the respondent failed to demonstrate that any such counseling occurred, the remarks were found to be unsustainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the expunction of the adverse remarks from the appellant's service record.
Questions settled- Are remarks in a Performance Evaluation Report labeled as 'advisory' by a reporting officer automatically exempt from being classified as 'adverse'?
- Is a reporting officer required to provide prior counseling to a civil servant before recording adverse remarks in a Performance Evaluation Report?
- What is the legal test for determining whether remarks in a Performance Evaluation Report are 'adverse' rather than 'advisory'?
- Al-Makkah Press (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. vs Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan)2024 LHC 5472, 2025 CLD 160 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-18Read full judgment →
- Al Baraka Bank Pakistan Limited through Authorized Officers vs Eden2024 CLD 852 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Gul (Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Ashiq And 72024 LHC 5239, 2025 CLC 670 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Ali, Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore2024 LHC 5444, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 434 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal challenges disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Civil Judge, resulting in minor penalties of withholding an increment and promotion. The appellant contended that judicial actions cannot form the basis of disciplinary proceedings absent proof of extraneous considerations, and that the relevant rules do not permit the simultaneous imposition of multiple minor penalties. The Court held that judicial officers enjoy immunity for official duties; erroneous judicial orders are subject to appellate review, not disciplinary action, unless mala fide intent is established. Regarding the statutory interpretation of Rule 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999, the Court determined that the word 'or' is disjunctive. Consequently, the disciplinary authority cannot combine multiple minor penalties such as withholding both an increment and promotion simultaneously. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned penalties were set aside, emphasizing that protecting judicial independence is paramount to prevent a chilling effect on the subordinate judiciary's functioning.
Questions settled- Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a Judicial Officer solely based on the quality of their judicial orders?
- Does the word 'or' in Rule 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999, allow for the simultaneous imposition of multiple minor penalties?
- What is the scope of immunity for Judicial Officers under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850?
- Akhtar Ali vs The State and others2024 YLR 1915 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a private complaint based on an FIR for murder and attempt to murder. The core legal questions involve the credibility of an uncorroborated ocular account, the effect of an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the implications of failing to record the statement of an injured witness who was vitally stable, and the evidentiary value of recoveries and motive when the primary prosecution evidence is unreliable. The Lahore High Court held that unexplained delay in the FIR, the absence of the injured's statement despite availability, and doubtful eyewitness presence rendered the prosecution's case untrustworthy. The appellate court laid down that conviction in a capital case must rest on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt, and where reasonable doubt arises, the benefit must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the appellant's acquittal.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR create a doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution's case?
- Can medical evidence alone serve to identify the accused and corroborate the ocular account without independent supporting evidence?
- What is the evidentiary value of an alleged weapon recovery when the primary prosecution evidence has been disbelieved and no crime empties were recovered from the spot?
- Does an unproved motive suffice to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of reliable eyewitness testimony?
- Ahsan Ullah vs Muhammad Nasir Cheema and 3 others2024 MLD 1233 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
- Ahsan Liaqat and three others vs University of the Punjab etc2022 LHC 4338, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1013 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment decides multiple writ petitions filed by former employees of the University of the Punjab who were subjected to major penalties (initially dismissal/removal, later converted to compulsory retirement) following departmental proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act, 2006). The petitioners were accused of forgeries and malpractices in compiling examination results. They challenged the proceedings on various procedural grounds, including the competency of the initiating and signing authorities, non-adherence to inquiry timelines, and lack of criminal prosecution. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Vice Chancellor and Registrar acted within their lawful authority. Crucially, the Court observed that several petitioners had admitted their guilt in their replies, which established their involvement under settled Supreme Court precedent. The Court emphasized that strict procedural technicalities do not vitiate departmental inquiries where substantial compliance is met and guilt is established, particularly in educational institutions where maintaining academic integrity is paramount.
Questions settled- Whether a joint inquiry under the PEEDA Act, 2006 is valid if initiated by the competent authority of the senior-most accused employee?
- What is the legal effect of an employee's voluntary admission of guilt during departmental inquiry proceedings?
- Can minor procedural deficiencies or delays in submitting an inquiry report vitiate the final penalty if the guilt of the accused is established?
- Does the non-initiation of criminal proceedings bar or invalidate simultaneous departmental disciplinary action against a public servant?
- Ahsan Allahi Zaheer and another vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department Punjab Lahore and three others2024 LHC 3038 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-09Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Mukhtar and others vs Government of the Punjab through Chief2024 PLC (C.S.) 376 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the vires of a notification issued by the Punjab government amending the Punjab Communication and Works Department (Engineering Posts Qualifications and Conditions Recruitment) Rules, 1985, to reserve a 5% quota for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer for holders of B.Tech (Hons) or BS Engineering Technology degrees, thereby diluting the 100% quota previously reserved for Sub-Divisional Officers holding professional engineering qualifications. The core legal question is whether non-engineers holding B.Tech or technology degrees can be appointed or promoted to posts involving professional engineering work in contravention of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975. The Lahore High Court allowed the petitions and set aside the impugned notification as being without lawful authority. The court held that posts such as Executive Engineer requiring the performance of professional engineering work can only be filled by qualified professional engineers registered with the Pakistan Engineering Council, and the government cannot permit non-engineers to perform or supervise professional engineering functions.
Questions settled- Whether posts requiring the performance of professional engineering work can be filled by persons holding B.Tech (Hons) or BS Engineering Technology degrees?
- Does the Pakistan Engineering Council Act regulate employment or restrict government posts to registered professional engineers where professional engineering work is involved?
- Can the provincial government alter promotion criteria to permit non-engineers to hold posts that require the discharge of professional engineering functions?