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.

• Posco International Corporation through Authorised Officer vs Rikans2023 CLD 189 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-26
  foreign arbitral awardrecognition and enforcementpublic policyarbitration agreementNew York Conventionanti-suit injunctioncommercial arbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2011. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent’s objections—based on alleged incapacity, inability to present a case due to concurrent local litigation, and public policy concerns—justified refusing enforcement. The court held that the application must be allowed, recognizing the award as a binding decree. It established that 'incapacity' under Article V(1)(a) refers strictly to the capacity to contract, not subsequent procedural difficulties. Furthermore, the court ruled that 'inability to present a case' requires objective constraints, not a party's tactical decision to boycott proceedings. Crucially, the court adopted a restrictive interpretation of 'public policy,' holding it cannot be used as a 'back door' to review the merits of an award or re-litigate issues. Emphasizing a pro-enforcement policy, the court affirmed that arbitration agreements impose negative obligations on parties to avoid parallel litigation, reinforcing the integrity of international commercial contracts.

  Questions settled

  • Does 'incapacity' under Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention refer to a party's capacity to contract or a subsequent inability to defend a claim?
  • Can a party claim it was 'unable to present its case' under Article V(1)(b) if it voluntarily chose to abstain from arbitration proceedings?
  • Is the 'public policy' exception in the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act 2011 a valid ground for courts to review the merits of a foreign arbitral award?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation in a local court constitute a valid ground to refuse enforcement of a foreign arbitral award?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Construction Company Private Limited vs Water and Development Authority through its Chairman, Lahore & others2023 LHC 4292, 2023 PLD Lahore 703, 2023 PLJ Lahore 785 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• PIA Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Province of Punjab etc.2023 LHC 5208, 2024 CLC 947 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-10
  cooperative societiesinquiry by registrarconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionrevisional powershousing societyadministrative control
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the PIA Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited to challenge orders passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies Punjab and the Secretary Cooperative Department, Government of the Punjab, regarding an inquiry into the affairs of the society. The core legal question revolved around whether the Registrar and the Secretary acted within their lawful authority under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, in ordering and upholding an inquiry into the society's constitution, working, and financial condition. The Lahore High Court held that the Registrar is fully empowered under Section 43 of the Act to initiate an inquiry on his own motion, and the Secretary possesses valid revisional and administrative powers under Section 64-A of the Act read with the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011. The court established the principle that regulatory authorities can lawfully investigate irregularities within cooperative societies to protect members' interests, and constitutional courts will not interfere with such legally sound administrative orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has the power under Section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, to hold an inquiry into the affairs of a society on his own motion?
  • Can the Secretary of the Cooperatives Department exercise revisional powers under Section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, to examine the legality or propriety of an order passed by a subordinate officer?
  • Does the Secretary of a department have the administrative competence under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, to oversee the functioning and administration of cooperative societies?
  • Under what circumstances can a constitutional court interfere with an inquiry ordered into the working and financial condition of a cooperative housing society?
  Read full judgment →
• Pepsi Cola International (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2023 PTCL CL. 71 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• Pepsi Cola International (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PTD 541 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• Parvez Elahi vs Care Taker Government of Punjab etc.2023 LHC 4107, 2024 PLJ Lahore 43, 2023 PLJ Lahore 688 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf through its General Secretary Asad Umar, Munir2023 LHC 395 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf through its General Secretary Asad Umar vs Governor of Punjab and another2023 LHC 143 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaaf through General Secretary Asad Umar and others vs Governor of Punjab and another2023 PLJ Lahore 461 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaaf through General Secretary and others vs Government of Punjab and others2023 PLD Lahore 179 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-10
  provincial assembly electionsdissolution of assemblyelection commission of pakistanconstitutional penumbratime-bound mandatewrit of mandamuscaretaker governmentelectoral process
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses consolidated petitions seeking the interpretation of time-bound constitutional provisions regarding the holding of general elections to the Provincial Assembly of Punjab within ninety days of its dissolution under Articles 105, 112, 218, 219, and 224 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with the Elections Act, 2017. The core legal question was which authority is constitutionally mandated to announce the date of the general election when the provincial assembly stands dissolved by operation of law rather than by an express order of the Governor. The Lahore High Court held that while Article 224(2) of the Constitution does not explicitly name the declaring authority in such an eventuality, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), acting under the doctrine of constitutional penumbra and its broad mandates under Articles 218(3), 219(d), and 220, is the ultimate independent constitutional authority responsible for organizing and conducting elections. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions and directed the ECP to immediately announce the election date for the Provincial Assembly of Punjab, after consulting the Governor, to ensure elections are held within the mandatory ninety-day period.

  Questions settled

  • Which authority is constitutionally mandated to announce the date of general elections when a Provincial Assembly stands dissolved by operation of law?
  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan possess the implied power to fix and announce election dates under the doctrine of constitutional penumbra?
  • Can a writ of mandamus be issued under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan directing the authorities to hold elections within the mandatory ninety-day period following the dissolution of an assembly?
  • What is the scope of the duties entrusted to the Election Commission of Pakistan under Article 218(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan regarding pre-poll election stages?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Through its Senior General Manager and 2 others vs Misri Khan & Company Through Misri Khan (deceased) Through His Legal Heirs2023 LHC 6823 · Lahore High Court
  civil revisionlimitationexclusion of timeFederal Ombudsmancivil proceedingsrecovery of moneygovernment contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from a suit for recovery of Rs. 31,65,640/- filed by a government contractor against Pakistan Railways for unpaid building materials. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed the decision, applying Article 115 of the Limitation Act 1908 and holding the suit to be within time. The petitioners challenged these findings on the ground of limitation, arguing that Article 56 of the Limitation Act 1908 governed the claim and that the suit was time-barred. The High Court examined whether the time spent by the respondent prosecuting a complaint before the Federal Ombudsman could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the Federal Ombudsman is not a 'court' and proceedings before it do not constitute 'civil proceedings' for the purposes of Section 14. Consequently, the time consumed before the Ombudsman could not be excluded. The Court set aside the concurrent findings, holding that they suffered from material irregularities, and dismissed the suit as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time spent prosecuting a complaint before the Federal Ombudsman can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the Federal Ombudsman qualify as a court for the purposes of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Which provision of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to a suit for the recovery of the price of work done or materials supplied?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact be disturbed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if they are based on misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. Through its2023 LHC 4751 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-05Read full judgment →
• Pak Arab Refinery Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax/Wealth Tax2023 PTD 1158 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-20Read full judgment →
• Numan alias Nomi and others vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1394 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-19
  forensic evidencedigital evidencedue processlimited de novo trialcriminal appealadmissibility of evidenceSection 265-C Cr.P.C.electronic document
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of the appellants for gang rape, primarily focusing on the trial court's reliance on forensic video evidence that was not properly exhibited or provided to the accused. The core legal question was whether the improper admission of this forensic evidence necessitated a de novo trial. The Lahore High Court held that while the forensic evidence (video/snaps) was not properly admitted, a full de novo trial was not required. The Court established that digital evidence possesses a dual character: as a "document" containing information and as "real evidence" for inspection. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for a limited purpose. The trial court was directed to provide the accused with copies of the forensic evidence, allow time for defense preparation, and properly exhibit the evidence in camera, followed by cross-examination and a fresh statement of the accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed that Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, permits convictions based on such forensic evidence, provided procedural fairness is maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Does the improper admission of forensic evidence in a criminal trial necessitate a full de novo trial?
  • What is the dual legal character of audio/video clips and digital snaps in the law of evidence?
  • Is the prosecution required to provide copies of forensic evidence to the accused before it can be used at trial?
  • Can a conviction be lawfully based on forensic evidence under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Numan alias Nomi and others vs State etc.2PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 320 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-19
  electronic evidenceforensic evidencevideo recording admissibilitydue processremand for trialQanun-e-Shahadat Ordergang rape trialreal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376(ii) and 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court. During the hearing, it emerged that forensic video evidence and snaps generated from a cell phone by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency were relied upon by the trial court without being played in court, without copies being provided to the accused, and without being properly exhibited through a witness. The core legal question revolved around the admissibility and proper procedure for bringing digital and electronic forensic evidence on record during a criminal trial. The Lahore High Court held that electronic documents and video clips possess a dual character as documentary and real evidence, and while they are admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, they must be properly proved, exhibited through witness testimony, and supplied to the accused in advance to satisfy due process. The court set aside the convictions and remanded the matter to the trial court for a limited de novo procedure to properly exhibit the forensic evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether electronic and video evidence can be relied upon without being properly exhibited through witness testimony and played in court?
  • Can digital forensic evidence be treated as both an electronic document and real physical evidence under the law of evidence?
  • What is the proper procedure for supplying copies of electronic and forensic evidence to the accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether improper admission of evidence necessitates a limited remand of the case to the trial court for correct exhibition?
  Read full judgment →
• Nousheen Akram vs Federation of Pakistan etc2023 LHC 5901 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• Nouman Arshad vs The Director General, etc2023 LHC 6820 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-21Read full judgment →
• Nosherwan Khan vs United Bank Limited and others2023 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-25
  misconductbanking employeedismissal from serviceconcurrent findingsbreach of trustwrit jurisdictionfake currency
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent findings of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which upheld the dismissal of the Petitioner, a bank cashier, from service. The Petitioner was terminated for gross misconduct involving the placement of fake currency notes within a bundle of genuine notes. The core legal question was whether the NIRC's findings, which affirmed the dismissal based on the Petitioner's misconduct, warranted interference by the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any procedural illegality or error in the concurrent findings of the lower forums. It observed that the Petitioner participated in the inquiry proceedings without objection and that the misconduct—a breach of trust in a sensitive banking role—justified the dismissal. The Court affirmed that banking institutions rely on public trust and cannot retain employees involved in such breaches. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing the principle that procedural irregularities in financial institutions are serious matters, and courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding employee misconduct where the inquiry process was substantially fair.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the National Industrial Relations Commission in a service matter?
  • Does the placement of fake currency notes by a bank cashier constitute gross misconduct justifying dismissal?
  • Is a bank justified in dismissing an employee for breach of trust despite a long tenure of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Zaman vs Mst. Gullan through Legal Heirs2023 MLD 551 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Mst. Umar Wadi and others2023 YLR 532 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
• Nishtar Hospital Multan through Medical Superintendent vs Messrs Linde2023 YLR 2364 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-21Read full judgment →
• Nisar Sarwar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Energy Power Division), Islamabad and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 81 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-27
  current chargemaster and servantadministrative discretiontransfer and postingLESCOservice matterwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Superintending Engineer (BS-19) at LESCO, challenged an office order replacing him with a junior officer on a 'current charge' basis, alleging violation of seniority and transfer policies. The core legal question was whether the court could interfere in the internal transfer and posting matters of a corporate entity governed by non-statutory rules under the master-servant doctrine, and whether administrative discretion in such postings was exercised lawfully. The Court held that while LESCO is governed by non-statutory rules, limiting direct judicial interference, administrative authorities are still obligated to exercise discretion fairly, transparently, and in accordance with established policies. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Power Division) to treat the petition as a formal representation, hear the parties, and issue a speaking order within fifteen days. The principle laid down is that administrative authorities must act fairly and reasonably, and discretionary powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily, even in organizations governed by the master-servant principle.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere in the internal transfer and posting matters of an entity governed by non-statutory rules?
  • Is an administrative authority required to exercise discretionary powers in a transparent and unbiased manner despite the master-servant doctrine?
  • Does the appointment of a junior officer on a current charge basis to a non-vacant post require adherence to established seniority and transfer policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed vs Haji Fazal Dad2023 CLC 201 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
• Nirma Shahzadi vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 316 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-29
  section 164 statementjudicial discretionrecording of statementcriminal procedureconstitutional petitioncoercioninvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a Judicial Magistrate's order refusing to record the petitioner's statement a second time under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a witness or complainant has an absolute right to have their statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. multiple times, or if the Magistrate possesses discretion to decline such requests. The Court held that the power to record statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. is discretionary, not mandatory, and must be exercised judicially to advance the cause of justice. The Court established that while section 164, Cr.P.C. does not explicitly prohibit a second statement, it cannot be granted mechanically. A petitioner seeking a second statement must demonstrate exceptional circumstances, such as proving that the initial statement was involuntary, coerced, or procured through duress. Absent such proof, or where the request appears mala fide or intended to aggravate charges without justification, the Magistrate is justified in refusing the application.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Magistrate legally obligated to record a statement under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whenever requested?
  • Can a statement recorded under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, be recorded a second time?
  • What criteria must a Magistrate apply when deciding whether to allow a second statement under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the person seeking to record a second statement under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to show that their first statement was involuntary?
  Read full judgment →
• Nib Bank Limited vs Messrs Pasban Agro Chemicals Company and others2023 CLD 1131 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-27Read full judgment →
• Niaz Khan vs The State2023 PCRLJ 567 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01
  mental illnessschizophreniacapability to stand trialunsound mindfair trialmedical boardremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Attock, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murder of his wife. The core legal question revolved around the appellant's mental illness (schizophrenia) and whether the trial court failed to properly determine his capability to face trial and defend himself under sections 464 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that once a court observes or receives material suggesting an accused's mental incapacity, it is mandatory to conduct a thorough inquiry supported by a comprehensive medical board report, and the summary rejection of the defence application in this regard caused a miscarriage of justice and violated the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter back to the trial court to determine the appellant's capability to stand trial in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is bound to conduct a formal inquiry into the mental health and capability of an accused to face trial when prima facie signs of abnormality are observed?
  • Does the summary dismissal of an application by the defence to examine the head of a medical board regarding an accused's psychiatric condition vitiate the trial?
  • What is the legal procedure and onus of proof when a plea of mental incapacity or insanity is raised in a criminal trial under Pakistani law?
  • Whether a judgment of conviction can be sustained when the trial court completely fails to address or determine a properly raised plea concerning the accused's mental illness?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Abbas alias Muhammad Nawaz, etc, The State vs The State, etc, Muhammad Asif, etc2023 LHC 5215 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Newage Cables (Pvt.) Ltd vs Lahore Electric Supply Company, etc2023 LHC 566 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pak Limited, Lahore etc. vs Shehryar Kureshi etc.2023 LHC 5317, 2024 CLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
• Nemat Ullah Khan vs Province of The Punjab, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 334 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
• Nemat Ullah Khan vs Province of The Punjab and others2023 CLD 261 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore and 5 others2023 YLR 382 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-09
  habeas corpusphysical remandcase diarypost-arrest bailillegal detentionjudicial mindinvestigating officersupplementary statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the recovery of a 17-year-old detenu from alleged illegal police custody. The Court examined the legality of the detention, the validity of the physical remand order, and the procedural irregularities in the investigation, specifically the delegation of case diary recording to subordinates. The Court held that the remand order was passed mechanically without the Magistrate applying an independent judicial mind to the evidentiary material. Furthermore, the Court determined that the investigating officer lacked the authority to delegate the recording of case diaries to subordinates. Finding no cogent evidence connecting the detenu to the alleged offence, the Court set aside the remand order and converted the habeas petition into a post-arrest bail application under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, admitting the detenu to bail. The judgment establishes that Magistrates must record reasoned, speaking orders for physical remand and that supplementary statements cannot substitute for FIRs or justify arrest without sufficient incriminating material.

  Questions settled

  • Can an investigating officer delegate the duty of recording case diaries to a subordinate?
  • Is a Magistrate required to record reasons when granting physical remand of an accused?
  • Can a habeas corpus petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be converted into a post-arrest bail application?
  • Does a supplementary statement have the same legal status as an FIR for justifying an arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad & another vs Muhammad Siddique2023 LHC 6984, 2025 CLC 32 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-15Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmad vs Muhammad Sadiq (deceased) through L.Rs. and 22023 LHC 4648, 2024 MLD 18 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-15Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs DPO, etc2023 LHC 6318 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
• Naveed Sadiq vs The State2023 YLR 2562 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-10
  murderbenefit of doubtacquittal of co-accusedmedical contradictionre-appraisals of evidencejudge's power to question witnessesprivate complaintcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Naveed Sadiq, handed down by the trial court under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, arising from a private complaint after co-accused were declared innocent during police investigation. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, and the proper scope of the trial court's powers under Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to ascertain the truth. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from material discrepancies, unproven motive, lack of independent corroboration despite the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence, and medical contradictions. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and major co-accused are acquitted on identical evidence, remaining convictions cannot stand without reliable independent corroboration, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted on the same set of evidence when co-accused facing identical charges have already been acquitted, in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Does the presence of injuries on a prosecution witness conclusively prove their truthfulness and presence at the crime scene?
  • What is the scope and extent of a trial judge's power under Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to question witnesses and summon material evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of an unproven motive on a criminal case resting on ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Ahmed etc vs Sheikh Amjad Saeed deceased through his legal2023 LHC 2201, 2024 PLJ Lahore 151 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nauman Anjum vs Area Magistrate, etc2023 LHC 2625 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• National Transmission & Despatch Company Ltd vs The Commissioner2023 LHC 6773, 2024 PLD Lahore 360, 2024 PTD 599 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-28Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority vs Senior Civil Judge, (Referee Court), Lodhran2023 CLC 1798 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• National Engineering Services Pakistan (Nespak) and 2 others vs Muhammad Nawaz Cheema and 13 others2023 PLC (C.S) 785 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-15
  intra court appealmaster and servantconstitutional jurisdictionnon-statutory rulestermination of servicepublic sector companiesmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the judgment of a learned Single Judge who allowed constitutional petitions filed by respondents whose employment with National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK) was terminated. The core legal question was whether employees of a private limited company whose service rules are non-statutory can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 for alleged violations of service terms, or if their employment is governed strictly by the principle of 'master and servant'. The court held that NESPAK is a private limited company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act 1913, and its service rules framed by its Board of Directors are non-statutory. Consequently, the relationship between NESPAK and its employees is governed by the principle of 'master and servant', rendering constitutional petitions against termination non-maintainable. The key principle laid down is that companies lacking statutory rules or statutory backing cannot be treated at par with statutory corporations, and their employees cannot seek enforcement of service terms through constitutional writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the employees of National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK) can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against termination of their service?
  • Do the service rules of National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK) possess a statutory character?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to the employees of a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act where service rules are non-statutory?
  Read full judgment →
• National Command Authority, etc vs Zahoor Azam, etc2023 LHC 3306, 2024 CLC 1, 2023 PLJ Lahore 862 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-14Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs M/s Brite Chemicals, etc.2023 LHC 4910 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-21Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through Branch Manager vs Arshad Munir Khalid2023 CLD 1092 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
• Nasira vs Special Judge Rent, Lahore and another2023 LHC 3949, 2024 CLC 230, 2023 PLJ Lahore 679 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-05Read full judgment →
• Nasir Sohail Aabid and others vs Mst. Aisha Bibi through L.Rs. and others2023 YLR 1222 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-25Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali Raja alias Asif vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 1262 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-28
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessabscondenceocular evidencemedical evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, medical reports, and recovery of the weapon. The Lahore High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with doubts. The eye-witnesses were determined to be chance witnesses who failed to justify their presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, material contradictions existed between the ocular account and the medical evidence, and the alleged motive remained unproven. The court held that abscondence alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction when the substantive evidence is unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any failure to do so entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of the accused's abscondence when the substantive evidence is unreliable?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness admissible without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a material contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained based on the recovery of a weapon if the recovery proceedings lack independent witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Abdullah vs Provincial Quality Control Board and another2023 CLC 1387 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-24Read full judgment →
• Nasir Abbas Bhatti vs Abid Hussain, etc2023 LHC 4457, 2024 CLC 268, 2023 PLJ Lahore 820 · Lahore High Court · 2023-08-10Read full judgment →
• Nargis Bibi (deceased) through her legal heirs, etc vs Muhammad Amin, etc2023 LHC 3231, 2024 YLR 2342 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →
• Naeem Shah vs The State2023 YLR 166 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-11
  post-arrest bailhundi businesshawalaprohibitory clausefurther inquiryforeign exchange regulationmoney laundering
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Naeem Shah, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 5 and 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, and section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, relating to an unlawful hundi/hawala business. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the primary offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that material connecting him to the alleged offences required further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that since the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail was the rule and refusal the exception, and no exceptional circumstances justified continued incarceration, especially when the applicability of stringent penal provisions required further probe. The court laid down that bail cannot be withheld merely on the basis of inferences and presumptions, and that for offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause, or carrying a flexible range of punishment, lesser sentences are considered for bail purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be withheld merely on the basis of inferences and presumptions drawn from forensic analysis?
  • Does the applicability of section 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 require further inquiry when proceeds of crime are yet to be definitively proven at the bail stage?
  • What are the recognized exceptional circumstances for refusing bail in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Rizwan and another vs Government of Punjab and 4 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1176 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-28
  constitutional petitionpay protectioncontract appointmentprinciple of locus poenitentiaevested rightterms and conditions of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court by two petitioners challenging the order passed by the Secretary Services and General Administration Department, Government of Punjab, which refused to pay them salaries including allowances based on pay protection clauses contained in their appointment letters. The core legal question was whether the government could unilaterally withdraw the pay protection and allowances expressly granted under the terms of a contract appointment after the petitioners had accepted the offer and altered their position. The Court held that once a contract is finalized and acted upon, the executive authority cannot unilaterally rescind or alter its terms, invoking the principle of locus poenitentiae and noting that a vested right had been created. The key principle laid down is that the government is bound by the specific terms and conditions of a contract it offers and enters into with employees, and it cannot subsequently retract promised benefits like pay protection after the employee has surrendered their regular service based on those representations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government can unilaterally withdraw pay protection and allowances promised under the terms of a contract appointment?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae bar the executive from rescinding benefits after decisive steps have been taken upon its representation?
  • Are parties bound by the specific terms and conditions settled in a contract of appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Sultan and another vs Hamza Shamim and 2 othersPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 404 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-22
  sine die adjournmentcriminal revisionfair trialdue processabsconding accusedSessions trialstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, which adjourned a murder trial sine die pending the arrest of an absconding co-accused. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Court possesses the authority to adjourn a trial for an indefinite period under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable, setting it aside. The Court established that Section 344, Cr.P.C. mandates that adjournments must be for a specific, reasonable time, and does not permit indefinite postponement. It emphasized that the right to a fair trial and due process, guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, requires the expeditious disposal of criminal cases. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the absence of a co-accused does not necessitate staying proceedings, as evidence recorded during the trial remains relevant under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, even if witnesses become unavailable later.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Sessions Court adjourn a criminal trial sine die under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the non-arrest of a co-accused constitute a valid ground for the indefinite adjournment of a Sessions trial?
  • Is the power to stop proceedings under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to trials conducted by a Sessions Court?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 prohibit the indefinite adjournment of criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Shah vs The State2023 LHC 6692, 2024 YLR 1127, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 772 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-30
  circumstantial evidencelast seen togetherDNA evidencechain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder referenceconfession to police
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder, sodomy, and destruction of evidence. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution's circumstantial evidence—comprising 'last seen' testimony, recovery of the corpse, and DNA analysis—was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances. The 'last seen' evidence was rejected due to unexplained delays and dishonest improvements in testimony. The recovery of the body was deemed unreliable due to the absence of a formal recovery memo and contradictions regarding the recovery process, alongside a lack of forensic evidence consistent with water immersion. Furthermore, the court ruled that DNA reports serve only as corroboratory evidence and were inadmissible here due to failure to prove proper sampling and safe custody. The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be scrutinized with extreme caution, and where the chain is broken or evidence is tainted, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is the evidence of 'last seen together' sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration?
  • What are the requirements for the admissibility of a disclosure statement made to the police under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a DNA report be treated as primary evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case?
  • Does a dishonest improvement in a witness's statement invalidate the entire testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. World call Telecom Ltd. through Chief Financial Officer vs Govt. of the2023 PTCL 402 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Ashfaq Brothers & another vs Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal of2023 LHC 474, 2024 PTD 1227, 2024 PLD Lahore 573 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-08Read full judgment →
• M/s. Al-Ghani Chain Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Ahassam Amin vsPTCL 2023 CL. 536 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Tradhol International Sa Sociedad Unipersonal vs M/s Shakarganj2023 LHC 2392 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Samsara Couture House (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs Syeda Khadija2023 LHC 6883, 2024 CLD 484 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
• M/s Reshma Textile Mills Ltd vs Customs Appellate Tribunal Through its2023 LHC 5346, 2024 PTD 591 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-12Read full judgment →
• M/s Popular Sugar Mills Limited vs District Collector, Sargodha & 2 others2023 LHC 6342, 2025 CLD 6, 2025 CLC 760 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-05Read full judgment →
• M/s Popular International (Pvt.) Ltd vs Province of Punjab and others2023 LHC 5550 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• M/s Paragon Technologies vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited and2023 LHC 4474, 2024 PLD Lahore 1, 2024 CLD 153 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-26Read full judgment →
• M/s Pak Hygienic Industries vs Federation of Pakistan etc2023 LHC 6173 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-29Read full judgment →
• M/s Nordex Singapore Equipment Limited vs Federal Board of Revenue, Cir2023 LHC 5802, 2024 PTD 208 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-10Read full judgment →
• M/s Nishat Hotels & Properties Ltd. & another vs Province of Punjab &2023 LHC 3770, PTCL 2024 CL. 71, 2024 PTD 837 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
• M/s Mandviwalla Builders & Developers and Mangla View Resort (Pvt.)2023 LHC 3368 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Makkah Traders, etc vs MCB Bank Limited2023 PCTLR 42 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
• M/s Lahore Carpet Manufacturing Company vs Muhammad Jamil & 032023 LHC 6616, 2024 PLC 114 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-21
  revisional jurisdictionPunjab Labour Appellate TribunalPayment of Wages ActPunjab Industrial Relations Actdeduction of wagesfinal settlementsuo motu powerLabour Court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves five connected writ petitions challenging decisions of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLAT) which enhanced monetary awards in favor of employees (Respondents) under the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The employer contended that PLAT lacked revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by the Labour Court in appeal under Section 17 of the Wages Act and that the workers were bound by signed final settlement forms. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Labour Court, while exercising powers under the Wages Act, performs functions assigned to it under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act 2010 (PIRA). Consequently, PLAT possesses valid revisional jurisdiction under Section 47(5) of PIRA to review Labour Court decisions for legality and propriety. The Court further clarified that information invoking PLAT's suo motu revisional jurisdiction can be brought by an aggrieved party. On the merits, the Court upheld the reliance on documentary service certificates over oral evidence and ruled that signing unilateral settlement forms without free consent does not bar workers from claiming full statutory dues.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal possess revisional jurisdiction under Section 47(5) of PIRA over an order passed by the Labour Court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
  • Can a party to a dispute lay information before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal to invoke its suo motu revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does the signing of a final settlement form preclude a worker from claiming remaining statutory dues under the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Limited Through its2023 LHC 2257 · Lahore High Court
  trans-provincial establishmenttrade union registrationNational Industrial Relations Commissionjurisdictionindustrial relationsconstitutional petitionlabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a trans-provincial media establishment, challenged the registration of a trade union (respondent No.3) by the provincial Registrar Trade Unions under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether the provincial Registrar possessed the jurisdiction to register a trade union for an establishment operating across multiple provinces, or if such authority exclusively vested in the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court held that the status of the employer, rather than the nature of the dispute, determines the appropriate forum for registration. Since the petitioner is a trans-provincial establishment, the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 applies exclusively. Consequently, the provincial Registrar lacked the legal authority to register the trade union, rendering the registration void. The judgment reaffirms the principle that for trans-provincial establishments, the NIRC holds exclusive jurisdiction over the registration of trade unions and the adjudication of industrial disputes, overriding provincial legislation pursuant to Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have exclusive jurisdiction to register trade unions for trans-provincial establishments?
  • Does the status of the employer determine the jurisdiction for trade union registration rather than the nature of the industrial dispute?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act 2012 have an overriding effect on provincial labour laws regarding trans-provincial establishments?
  • Can a provincial Registrar of Trade Unions validly register a trade union for an establishment that operates in more than one province?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Honda Atlas Cars (Pakistan) Limited vs Additional Collector, Legal, Ltu,2023 LHC 4256, 2023 CLC 2125 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Hadi Developers Private Limited. vs Government of the Punjab etc2023 LHC 6408, 2024 PLJ Lahore 131, 2024 YLR 783 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• M/s Gulistan Group of Companies vs Mr. Waseem Javed Khand2023 LHC 940, 2024 MLD 1111 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
• M/s Computer Tips & another, M/s Kingly Solutions (Pvt) Limited vs2023 LHC 4741, 2024 PLD Lahore 41, 2024 CLD 212 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Basfa Textile (Pvt.) Limited, Lahore vs Deputy Director (Customs),2023 LHC 349, 2024 PTD 265 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Abdullah Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2023 LHC 3935, 2023 PTD 1791, 2023 PLJ Lahore 771 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muzammil Hayat vs Provincial Police Officer etc.2023 LHC 4690, 2023 PLJ Lahore 887 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-26
  deputationrepatriationcivil servantjurisdiction bardisciplinary proceedingsvested rightpolice officer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Punjab Police on deputation with the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), challenged his repatriation order and memorandum issued by provincial authorities following the registration of a criminal case against him. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant on deputation to a federal agency remains subject to the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 and Article 212 of the Constitution, whether such a petition is barred by the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction, whether a deputationist has a vested right to complete their deputation period, and whether rule 11 of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules 1975 excludes the lending department from initiating disciplinary proceedings. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner remains a Punjab civil servant, making the constitutional petition barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. The court held that a deputationist has no vested right to serve the full deputation period, and that rule 11 of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules 1975 does not divest the lending department of its concurrent power to recall its personnel and initiate disciplinary inquiries.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a provincial civil servant on deputation to a federal agency ceases to be governed by the provincial civil servants act?
  • Does a deputationist possess a vested right to claim continuity of service in the borrowing agency for the entire allocated deputation period?
  • Does rule 11 of the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules 1975 bar the lending department from recalling a deputationist and initiating disciplinary proceedings against him?
  • Are service matters relating to terms and conditions of civil servants on deputation barred from the constitutional jurisdiction of the high court under article 212 of the constitution of pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muteen Ur Rehman and others vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 468 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-30
  pre-arrest bailkidnappingwrongful confinementdelay in FIRmala fideulterior motivestentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in case FIR No. 710 dated 21-06-2021 registered under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Okara. The core legal questions relate to whether the elements of kidnapping for secret confinement under Section 365 were made out, the effect of delayed registration of the FIR, and whether pre-arrest bail could be confirmed in view of existing civil and criminal litigation between the parties indicating potential mala fides. The Lahore High Court held that the ingredients of Section 365 were not prima facie satisfied as the victim was not secretly confined, making Section 342 applicable instead, and that unexplained delay in FIR registration alongside prior enmity warranted confirmation of bail. The court laid down the principle that merits of the case can be examined at the pre-arrest bail stage, that the scope of pre-arrest bail is expansive, and that an accused is a favorite child of law where liberty is guaranteed under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is constituted when the victim is allegedly confined openly rather than secretly?
  • Can the merits of a case be considered by a court while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does an unexplainable delay in the registration of an FIR create doubt regarding the bona fides of the prosecution case?
  • Whether previous civil or criminal litigation between the parties can establish prima facie mala fides for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Masood vs Defence Housing Authority, Lahore, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 207 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Masood vs Defence Housing Authority, Lahore and others2023 MLD 1523 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs City Steel Industries Lahore through Partners and others2023 CLD 235 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed vs Ishfaq Ahmed and others2023 YLR 420 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• Musawar Hussain vs The State and another2023 LHC 7735, 2024 YLR 1653 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-27
  pre-arrest bailfasid marriageunlawful conjunctioniddat periodtalaqIslamic jurisprudencecriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition involves an application for pre-arrest bail arising out of FIR No. 1465 of 2023 registered at Police Station Saddar Muridke, District Sheikhupura, initially for an offence under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with subsequent addition of sections 420, 468, and 471. The core legal questions examined by the court relate to whether an individual can concurrently marry two real sisters and whether a man can marry the sister of his divorced wife while she is undergoing the Iddat period. The Lahore High Court held that marrying two sisters concurrently or marrying a divorced wife's sister during her Iddat constitutes an irregular (fasid) rather than void (batil) marriage, which carries criminal culpability and attracts discretionary punishment under Tazir despite not warranting Hadd. The court further clarified that a talaq is ineffective until the expiration of the Iddat period, and marrying within that period creates criminal liability. Consequently, the court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application, establishing principles regarding temporary prohibitions under Islamic jurisprudence, the nature of fasid marriages, and the legal consequences of contracting marriage during the subsistence of Iddat.

  Questions settled

  • Is it permissible for an individual to marry two real sisters concurrently?
  • Can an individual marry the sister of his divorced wife while the latter is undergoing the Iddat period?
  • Does marrying the sister of a divorced wife during her Iddat period render the marriage void (batil) or irregular (fasid)?
  • Does the registration of an FIR for a cognizable offence become invalidated if investigation reveals only a non-cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Murtaza alias Murti and another vs The State2023 MLD 1769 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-23
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencedishonest improvementindependent corroborationpolice investigationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution's ocular evidence, which contained significant contradictions with medical reports and involved dishonest improvements by witnesses, could sustain convictions after the acquittal of seven co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment establishes key principles: first, injuries on prosecution witnesses merely indicate their presence at the scene, not the veracity of their testimony. Second, police opinions regarding guilt or innocence are irrelevant once trial evidence is recorded. Third, if prosecution evidence is disbelieved against acquitted co-accused, it cannot be used against remaining accused without independent corroboration. Finally, recoveries are rendered unreliable when weapons and crime scene empties are kept together at the police station, precluding forensic validation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a prosecution witness automatically establish the truthfulness of their testimony?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution evidence has been disbelieved against co-accused and lacks independent corroboration against the remaining accused?
  • Is the police opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused relevant after the recording of evidence at trial?
  • Does the practice of keeping recovered weapons and crime scene empties together at the police station invalidate the forensic report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muratib Ali Alvi vs The Punjab Bar Council, Lahore through Chairman2023 PLD Lahore 313 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed vs The State, etc.2023 LHC 2484 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-28Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 1180 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad, Advocate High Court vs Province of Punjab, through Chief2023 LHC 1082 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad, Advocate High Court vs Province of Punjab through Chief2023 PLJ Lahore 543 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs State, etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 268 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-09
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailcriminal appealvicarious liabilityforensic evidenceappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the petitioner, Munir Ahmed, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah, following his conviction under Sections 302 and 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, convicted for his alleged role in a murder, demonstrated sufficient grounds for the suspension of his sentence pending the final disposal of his appeal. The court observed that evidence, including forensic reports and the testimony of the Investigating Officer, indicated the petitioner was not armed and did not fire the shots that caused the deceased's injuries, as all crime empties were linked to the co-accused's weapon. Given the petitioner's prolonged incarceration of over one year and nine months and the unlikely prospect of an early hearing for his appeal, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief. The court suspended the sentence and granted bail, establishing the principle that where evidence prima facie contradicts the prosecution's allegations regarding the accused's role, suspension of sentence is warranted pending appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when forensic evidence contradicts the prosecution's case regarding the accused's role?
  • Does the absence of an early hearing prospect for an appeal constitute a valid ground for the suspension of a sentence?
  • Is the suspension of a sentence permissible when the evidence suggests the accused was not armed during the commission of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain and 5 others vs Government of Punjab through District2023 PLD Lahore 216 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Bibi and others vs Public At Large and others2023 YLR 675 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Multan Electric Power Company and another vs Messrs Grit (Pvt.) Limited2023 CLC 1266 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mulazim Hussain vs Government of the Punjab and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1184 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-07
  retired civil servantdepartmental proceedingslimitation periodPEEDA Actshow-cause noticepension rulesstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a Show-Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Secretary, Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department, Government of the Punjab, against a retired civil servant. The petitioner, who retired on February 4, 2016, received the SCN on April 2, 2019, alleging misconduct. The core legal question was whether departmental proceedings or an SCN could be initiated against a retired government employee more than one year after their retirement, specifically in light of the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act). The Court held that the SCN was illegal and without lawful authority. It reasoned that Section 1(4)(iii) of the PEEDA Act mandates that proceedings against retired employees must be initiated within one year of retirement. Furthermore, the Court noted that Rule 1.8(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules also prohibits the institution of departmental proceedings after more than one year from the date of retirement. The Court established that statutory time limits for initiating and finalizing proceedings against retirees are mandatory, intended to prevent indefinite liability, and any proceedings initiated beyond these periods are void.

  Questions settled

  • Can departmental proceedings be initiated against a retired government employee more than one year after their retirement under the PEEDA Act 2006?
  • Does Rule 1.8 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules permit the initiation of departmental proceedings against a pensioner after the lapse of one year from the date of retirement?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee within the statutory timeframe prescribed by the PEEDA Act 2006?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs District Judge and others2023 YLR 193 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zuhaib Ishaq vs Senior Civil Judge and others2023 MLD 1968 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zuhaib Ishaq vs SCJ, etc2023 LHC 284 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Additional District Judge and others2023 YLR 200 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2023 PCRLJ 834 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-09
  non-custom paid vehicleseizure of propertycustoms authoritiesjurisdiction of magistratedepartmental adjudicationpolice powerssuperdari
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from a petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge directing the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner, a Border Military Police official, for allegedly failing to report the seizure of a non-custom paid vehicle to a Magistrate under section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involve the jurisdiction of police officers to seize non-custom paid vehicles, the applicability of section 523, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether ordinary criminal courts or magistrates possess jurisdiction over the adjudication and custody of smuggled or non-custom paid goods, or if such matters exclusively fall within the domain of customs authorities under the Customs Act 1969. The Lahore High Court held that the police have no independent authority to seize non-custom paid vehicles except to assist customs authorities, that special laws such as the Customs Act 1969 prevail over general criminal procedure provisions, and that judicial magistrates and sessions courts lack jurisdiction to order the disposal or release on superdari of non-custom paid vehicles. The court established the principle that departmental adjudication of goods seized under the Customs Act 1969 is exclusively within the purview of customs authorities, and official acts performed by police in good faith are protected under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the police have the authority under the Customs Act 1969 to independently seize non-custom paid vehicles?
  • Do judicial magistrates or sessions courts have jurisdiction to order the disposal or release of non-custom paid vehicles?
  • Does the adjudication of property seized under the Customs Act 1969 fall exclusively within the domain of customs authorities?
  • Whether a police officer is liable to penalty for failing to report the seizure of a vehicle to a magistrate when acting in accordance with departmental procedures and special laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid Saleem vs Secretary, Government of Punjab etc.2023 LHC 4923 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-19
  pensionary benefitsvested rightlocus poenitentiaepast and closed transactionadministrative irregularitypromotion withdrawalconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the withdrawal of the petitioner's promotion and the subsequent reduction of his pensionary benefits from the post of 'Assistant Finance' (BS-16) to 'Senior Clerk.' The core legal question was whether the respondent department could retrospectively cancel a promotion order and deny pensionary benefits based on alleged administrative irregularities in the promotion process, despite the absence of fraud or misrepresentation by the employee. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned orders were illegal and without lawful authority. The court ruled that where a promotion is granted by a competent authority and no fault, fraud, or misrepresentation is attributable to the employee, the department cannot penalize the employee for its own administrative errors. The court emphasized that the promotion had become a 'past and closed transaction' and a 'vested right.' Consequently, the principle of locus poenitentiae applied, prohibiting the department from undoing the promotion at a belated stage. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the authorities to grant pensionary benefits corresponding to the BS-16 post.

  Questions settled

  • Can a department withdraw a promotion order after a considerable period due to its own administrative irregularity?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent the withdrawal of a promotion order where no fraud or misrepresentation by the employee is alleged?
  • Is an employee entitled to pensionary benefits based on a promotion that has become a past and closed transaction?
  Read full judgment →