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.

• Muhammad Zaheer vs The State and another2023 YLR 1146 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybogus FRCpassport office officialssection 497(2) CrPCSection 173 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This order disposes of three post-arrest bail petitions filed by officials of the Passport Office, Gujrat, who were nominated as accused in an FIR registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and Section 30(2) of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance 2000. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail where passports were issued based on a Family Registration Certificate (FRC) provided by co-accused, which was later found to be bogus during investigation. The Lahore High Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the petitioners acted on an official FRC provided to them without any evidence of taking illegal gratification or performing verification beyond standard procedures. The Court established that where government officials issue documents based on NADRA records in good faith, and investigation is complete with the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 submitted, the case requires further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is an official who issues a passport based on an FRC that later turns out to be fake entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) CrPC?
  • Does the completion of investigation and submission of the report under Section 173 CrPC justify granting bail where there is no apprehension of tampering or abscondance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar alias Gulabi vs The State etc2023 LHC 6578, 2024 MLD 919 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-29
  murderocular accountmedical evidencecontradictionbenefit of doubtmotiverecoverycross-examinationcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder arising from a private complaint filed after an initial police exoneration. The core legal questions involve the reliability of ocular and medical evidence, the credibility of chance witnesses, the substantiation of motive, and the integrity of weapon recovery and forensic reports. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond a shadow of doubt due to glaring contradictions between the medical and ocular accounts, the absence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the crime scene, delayed and doubtful recovery of crime empties and the weapon, and an unproven motive. The key principles laid down include that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt, that contradictions between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding entry and exit wounds render eyewitness accounts untrustworthy, and that proper standards and techniques of cross-examination must be observed in adversarial criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding entry and exit wounds are sufficient to discard the testimony of eyewitnesses?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive through independent documentary or oral sources weaken its case?
  • Whether the delayed dispatch of crime empties and non-exclusive recovery of the weapon vitiates the reliance on forensic analysis reports?
  • Can an accused be entitled to the benefit of the doubt when multiple circumstances create reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yunas vs Province of The Punjab and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 444 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-09
  voluntary retirementretrospective operationcivil serviceconstitutional petitionvested rightsPunjab Civil Servants Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order recalling the petitioner's retirement, which authorities attempted to enforce following an amendment to the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The core legal question was whether the 2021 amendment to Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which altered voluntary retirement criteria, could be applied retrospectively to a retirement order issued and finalized prior to the amendment's promulgation. The Court held that the amendment does not apply retrospectively to retirement orders lawfully issued before the enactment. Relying on the principle that statutes changing the law do not affect past events unless expressly stated, the Court determined that the petitioner’s retirement, having been sanctioned and finalized under the law prevailing at the time, remained valid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, affirming that a civil servant’s retirement, once lawfully sanctioned, becomes final and conclusive, and cannot be reopened by subsequent legislative changes absent clear retrospective intent.

  Questions settled

  • Can an amendment to the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, regarding voluntary retirement criteria be applied retrospectively to retirement orders issued before its promulgation?
  • Does a lawfully sanctioned retirement order become final and conclusive for a civil servant?
  • Can a competent authority recall a retirement order based on subsequent legislative amendments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Zaheer vs Additional District Judge etc2023 LHC 5194, 2024 CLC 664 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Additional District Judge, Ferozewala and others2023 PLD Lahore 503 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf (deceased) through L.Rs vs Naila Shaheen and others2023 LHC 295 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis etc vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 LHC 1350 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis and others vs Mst. Dolat Bibi and others2023 LHC 3883, 2024 MLD 728 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The State2023 YLR 328 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-08
  murdercapital punishmentcommutation of death sentenceocular accountspot arrestbenefit of doubtunproven motivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Yasin, who was tried and convicted under sections 302(b)/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the Qatl-e-Amd of an infant. A murder reference was also sent to the Lahore High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, despite the failure to prove the alleged motive. The court held that while the motive was unproven and discarded, the eyewitness testimony—corroborated by medical evidence, the prompt lodging of the FIR, and the appellant's spot-arrest with the weapon—established the appellant's guilt beyond a shadow of doubt. However, due to the unproven motive and uncertainty surrounding the immediate trigger of the incident, the court extended the benefit of doubt regarding the quantum of sentence, commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life while maintaining the conviction, compensation, and statutory benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unproven motive in a murder case necessitates the acquittal of the accused when ocular and medical evidence are otherwise trustworthy?
  • Can an unproven motive serve as an extenuating circumstance to warrant the alteration of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Is the prompt lodging of an FIR and spot-arrest with a blood-stained weapon sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Whether minor discrepancies in the statements of eyewitnesses are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Muhammad Ismail, etc.2023 LHC 4763, 2024 CLC 922, 2023 PLJ Lahore 896 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Additional District Judge, Burewala and 6 others2023 CLC 86 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs Lahore Development Authority and another2023 CLC 1507 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar and 4 others vs Ghulam Haider and 2 othersPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 329 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-12
  private complaintsummoning of accusedsufficient grounddelay in filing complaintpreliminary inquirycriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioners challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, which summoned them to face trial in a private complaint under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant (Respondent No. 1) had filed the private complaint regarding the murder of his father after his attempts to register a second FIR were set aside. The petitioners contended that the complaint was filed with delay and that the summoning order was not a speaking order. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that there is no statutory limitation for filing a private complaint, and delay alone is not fatal if the complainant was actively pursuing other legal remedies. The Court further held that for summoning an accused under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, only a "sufficient ground" for proceeding is required, which is distinct from the "reasonable ground" required under Section 497. At the summoning stage, the court must only find a prima facie case and is not required to conduct an in-depth appraisal of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in filing a private complaint is by itself fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • What is the distinction between 'sufficient ground' for proceeding under Section 204 and 'reasonable ground' under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an aggrieved person file a private complaint against persons not nominated in the initial First Information Report regarding the same occurrence?
  • What is the scope of appraisal of evidence by a trial court at the stage of summoning an accused in a private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar alias Mumna vs The State and another2023 LHC 5417 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-21
  pre-arrest bailtheftsuspicionmalice in lawpower to arrestincriminating materialright to liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of an F.I.R. registered under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the theft of an ox. The core legal question revolved around whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed and arbitrary police arrest prevented in the absence of tangible direct or indirect incriminating evidence connecting the accused to the crime, relying merely on a delayed and unverified suspicion. Upon tentative assessment of the record, the Lahore High Court held that suspicion alone, however strong, cannot substitute for admissible legal evidence, and police powers of arrest under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 require reasonable and credible information based on concrete facts rather than vague allegations. The Court laid down the principle that the non-availability of incriminating material against an accused, coupled with police insistence on arrest without valid justification, warrants the confirmation of pre-arrest bail and establishes legal malice, ensuring protection of personal liberty and fair trial under the constitutional framework.

  Questions settled

  • Can suspicion alone serve as a substitute for admissible and legal evidence to justify the arrest of an accused under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the prosecution fails to collect any direct or indirect incriminating material connecting the petitioner to the alleged crime?
  • What constitutes reasonable and credible information under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for exercising the power to arrest?
  • Does the absence of incriminating material alongside police insistence on arrest sufficiently indicate malice in law to justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad Afzal vs D.G. Anti-Corruption, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 22 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waqas vs Executing Court, etc.2023 LHC 4846 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waqar alias Fauji vs The State etc2023 LHC 2141, 2024 MLD 1015 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-07
  transfer of criminal casevenue of trialsessions casesub-division trialdistrict headquartersoption of trial venue
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the transfer of a sessions case from an Additional Sessions Judge at a sub-division to the District Headquarters, on the ground that mandatory Lahore High Court instructions regarding the venue of trial were violated. The core legal question was whether the statutory and administrative procedure regarding giving the accused an option for the venue of trial (District Headquarters versus Sub-Division) under High Court directives was duly followed. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court and the magistrate failed to provide the accused with the mandatory option to choose the place of trial as stipulated by Lahore High Court Letter No. 7886/RHC/MIT dated 25.5.1999, which confers a valuable right upon the accused. The court laid down the principle that the procedure for determining the venue of sessions trials and recording the option of the accused must be strictly adhered to by magistrates and sessions judges, and denial of this option warrants the transfer of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person has a right to be given an option regarding the venue of a sessions trial between the District Headquarters and the Sub-Division?
  • What is the legal effect if a magistrate fails to record the option of the accused regarding the place of trial under the Lahore High Court instructions?
  • Can a criminal case be transferred under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for non-compliance with administrative directives governing the venue of trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uzair Aslam and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Water and Power Development Authority, Islamabad and 5 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1038 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-06
  recruitment processvested rightintra court appealpublic employmentwrit of mandamuscancellation of recruitmentadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the cancellation of a recruitment process by the Multan Electric Power Company (MEPCO). The core legal question is whether candidates who have passed the written test and interview for a government post acquire a vested right to appointment, thereby preventing the employer from scrapping the recruitment process. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the recruitment process had not attained finality as no appointment letters were issued or approved by the competent authority. The Court established the principle that mere participation in, or passing, stages of a recruitment process, such as written tests or interviews, does not create a vested right to employment. An enforceable right only accrues upon the final approval of the selection board and the issuance of an appointment letter. Consequently, an employer retains the discretion to abandon or scrap a recruitment process before it reaches this decisive stage, provided the action is not mala fide.

  Questions settled

  • Does passing a written test and interview for a public post create a vested right to appointment?
  • Can an employer scrap a recruitment process before the issuance of appointment letters?
  • At what stage of a recruitment process does a candidate acquire an enforceable legal right to employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Ghani vs The State and others2023 PLD Lahore 291 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-14
  framing of chargedischarge of accusedcriminal procedurepolice reportprosecutorial assessmentfundamental rightsjudicial scrutinyColumn No. 2
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order by an Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioner as an accused despite their name appearing in Column No. 2 of the police report. The core legal question concerned the extent of the trial court's duty to examine material before framing a charge under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether this empowers the court to discharge an accused lacking sufficient incriminating evidence. The Court held that framing a charge is not an automatic process; it requires the trial court to apply its mind by perusing the police report, prosecution documents, and the prosecutor’s assessment submitted under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act 2006. The Court emphasized that involving individuals in criminal proceedings without sufficient evidence violates fundamental rights under Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the trial court must weigh the incriminating material against the evidential and public interest tests before proceeding. The petition was dismissed with a direction for the trial court to strictly adhere to these requirements before framing charges.

  Questions settled

  • What material must a trial court examine before framing a charge under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the trial court have the authority to discharge an accused if sufficient incriminating material is not available before the framing of a charge?
  • Is a trial court required to consider the prosecutor's assessment of evidence when deciding whether to frame a charge?
  • Can an accused be summoned to face criminal proceedings solely based on their mention in a police report without judicial scrutiny of the available evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Farooq vs Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi &2023 LHC 2338, 2024 MLD 638 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar Ramzan vs Arfeen Ejaz and others2023 MLD 1875 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tayyab and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 518, 2023 YLR 2207 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-25
  circumstantial evidencecapital punishmentchain of custodyforensic evidenceidentification of dead bodycriminal appealreasonable doubtmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on circumstantial evidence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, specifically regarding the recovery of the dead body, the chain of custody of forensic samples, and the alleged motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case. The Court found that the identification of the dead body was not established, the chain of custody for forensic evidence was broken, and the recovery of the body was not based on the exclusive knowledge of the appellant. Furthermore, the motive was unsubstantiated, and the prosecution failed to provide a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and incapable of any other reasonable hypothesis. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of custody for forensic samples is broken?
  • Does the recovery of a dead body constitute admissible evidence under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, if the information was not exclusively within the accused's knowledge?
  • Is the identification of a dead body a prerequisite for proving a murder charge when the case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Must circumstantial evidence be incompatible with the innocence of the accused to justify a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tasleem vs The State, etc2023 LHC 3342, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 367 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-01
  embezzlementcriminal appealcross-examinationbenefit of doubtcase propertystandard of proofcorruptionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under sections 409, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for alleged embezzlement. The core legal question was whether the failure of the accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, due to his own negligence, renders the prosecution's evidence as "deemed admitted" and sufficient for conviction. The Court held that the principle of deemed admission for lack of cross-examination is applicable to civil proceedings and not criminal cases. It affirmed that criminal cases must be decided based on the totality of evidence rather than narrow procedural defaults. The Court found the prosecution failed to establish a nexus between the appellant and the alleged financial misappropriation, failed to provide forensic analysis of the disputed cheques, and failed to properly produce or account for the recovered case property. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in a criminal trial amount to an admission of the prosecution's case?
  • Is the principle that a fact is deemed proved if not cross-examined applicable to criminal cases?
  • What is the legal requirement for the production and handling of case property, specifically currency notes, during a criminal trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of high probabilities without evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs The Government of the Punjab through Secretary2023 LHC 5763 · Lahore High Court
  compulsory retirementpensionary benefitsqualifying servicecondonation of deficiencycivil service lawadministrative interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the refusal of pensionary benefits by the respondent authorities, who cited a deficiency in qualifying service following the petitioner's compulsory retirement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose dismissal was converted to compulsory retirement by the Punjab Service Tribunal, was entitled to pensionary benefits despite the alleged deficiency in service length. The Court held that under Rule 3.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, compulsory retirement qualifies for a retiring pension without prescribing a minimum length of service. Furthermore, the Court applied Rule 2.12(2)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, which mandates the condonation of service deficiencies of six months or less. The Court emphasized that administrative authorities lack the power to interpret or modify statutory provisions, a function reserved for the judiciary. Consequently, the impugned letters denying the pension were set aside, and the authorities were directed to finalize the petitioner's pension case, affirming that compulsory retirement entitles a civil servant to proportionate pensionary benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does compulsory retirement entitle a civil servant to pensionary benefits?
  • Can administrative authorities interpret or modify statutory provisions regarding pension eligibility?
  • Is a deficiency of six months or less in qualifying service automatically condoned under the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules?
  • Does the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules prescribe a minimum length of service for a retiring pension in cases of compulsory retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Controller General of Accounts, Islamabad and 32023 PLJ Lahore 79 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Sahi vs Govt. of Punjab and others2023 LHC 6816, 2024 YLR 1306 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Sahi vs Government of Punjab, etc.2023 LHC 4985 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tanveer and another, The State vs The State, Muhammad2023 LHC 5037 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-10
  common intentionmurder referencecommutation of death sentenceocular accountforensic evidencecriminal appealQatl-e-Amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the convictions and sentences of two appellants, Muhammad Tanveer and Muhammad Tahir Ramzan, for murder and attempted murder, alongside a murder reference for the confirmation of the death sentence awarded to Muhammad Tanveer by the trial court. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and whether the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was justified. The Court held that while the ocular account, supported by medical evidence and forensic reports, proved the individual acts of the appellants, the prosecution failed to establish a pre-concert or common intention between them, as they were at their own residence and the motive remained unproven. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions based on common intention. The death sentence of Muhammad Tanveer was commuted to life imprisonment due to the failure to prove the motive and the lack of immediate cause for the murder. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive and the immediate cause of the occurrence remains shrouded in mystery, it reacts against the imposition of the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove the motive and the immediate cause of an occurrence justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be inferred when the accused are present at their own residence and no pre-concert is established?
  • Is the testimony of injured witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, sufficient to sustain a conviction even if the motive is not proven?
  • Does the absence of primer and lack of sufficient microscopic markings on a cartridge case prevent the forensic identification of a firearm?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Talha vs The State etc2023 LHC 3185, 2024 PLJ 269, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 786 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-07
  post-arrest bailbench fixationforum shoppingperceived biasrecusal of judgechange of counsel
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second petition seeking post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the proceedings, the petitioner sought to change his counsel and engage an advocate who had been blocked by the presiding bench for unprofessional conduct, thereby attempting to force a transfer of the case to another bench. The core legal question addressed is whether a litigant can manipulate the judicial process and bench fixation by tactically engaging a blocked advocate to create a perception of bias. The court held that litigants cannot be permitted to trick the system or dictate bench fixation through malafide tactics, and that it is the conscience of the judge alone to determine whether to recuse. The key principle laid down is that courts must firmly reject deliberate attempts by litigants to forum-shop or manipulate bench composition through strategic changes of counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Can a litigant manipulate the fixation of a case before a particular bench by tactically engaging a specific advocate?
  • Whether a judge should recuse from a case based on a subjective perception of bias engineered by the litigant?
  • Does the engagement of a blocked advocate to supersede previous counsel constitute a malafide attempt to avoid hearing before a specific bench?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Nawaz Cheema and others vs Federation of Pakistan2023 PLC (C.S.) 662 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-12
  public sector employmentwrit jurisdictionmaster and servantcorporate governanceno reason clauseprocedural due processArticle 199termination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of National Engineering Services Pakistan (Private) Limited (NESPAK), challenged their termination, which was effected without assigning reasons under a 'no reason' clause in their appointment letters. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction over a public sector company's employment termination when the company's internal service rules are non-statutory. The Court held that NESPAK, as a state-controlled entity performing public functions, qualifies as a 'person' under Article 199 of the Constitution. Crucially, the Court determined that the termination violated the statutory Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, which mandate transparency and procedural due process. Consequently, the Court held that the 'no reason' termination clause is unconstitutional, as it offends the principles of fairness, accountability, and the right to be dealt with in accordance with the law under Articles 4 and 25. The Court set aside the termination letters, establishing that public sector bodies must act as fiduciaries and cannot exercise arbitrary, despotic power in employment matters, regardless of the non-statutory nature of internal service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Is a public sector company, which is controlled by the Government, a 'person' amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the existence of non-statutory internal service rules preclude an employee of a public sector company from challenging their termination in a writ petition?
  • Are 'no reason' termination clauses in public sector employment contracts legally valid?
  • Do the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, constitute statutory law that overrides internal non-statutory service rules in employment matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suqrat vs The Learned Addl. District Judge, Etc2023 LHC 992 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suqrat vs Additional District Judge and others2023 CLC 1285 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman and others vs Member (Judicial-II), B.O.R. and others2023 YLR 1182 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sufyan Qasim (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Manzoor2023 LHC 5180 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail Asim vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 735 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-17
  confessional statementdrug courtcharge framingfair trialprocedural irregularityplea of guiltycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Drug Court, Bahawalpur, which convicted the appellant based on a confessional statement recorded after he had initially pleaded not guilty at the time of indictment. The core legal question is whether a trial court, having commenced proceedings under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following a plea of not guilty, retains the discretion to accept a subsequent confession and convict the accused without recording prosecution evidence. The Lahore High Court held that once an accused pleads not guilty at the charge-framing stage, the provisions of Section 243, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 become inoperative, and the court is legally bound to proceed with the trial by recording evidence under Section 244, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court ruled that the conviction was unsustainable as it bypassed mandatory procedural requirements, thereby violating the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the matter was remanded for trial in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court accept a confession and convict an accused after the accused has already pleaded not guilty at the time of indictment?
  • Does the procedure under Section 244, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 become mandatory once an accused denies the charge at the time of framing?
  • Is a confessional statement recorded after the commencement of trial proceedings under Section 244, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 legally valid for conviction?
  • Does the failure to record prosecution evidence after a plea of not guilty violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sidique vs Syed Riaz Shah through LRs and others2023 MLD 404 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Amna Bibi, etc2023 LHC 2702 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sibtain Khan vs Deputy Speaker, Provincial Assembly for the Province of Punjab through Secretary Punjab Assembly and Others2023 PLJ Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shareef deceased through LRs, etc vs Muhammad Ramzan2023 LHC 479 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shareef (Deceased) through LRs and others vs Muhammad2023 CLC 782 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzad vs The State and others2023 MLD 1490 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-31
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealQatl-i-amdrecoverycall data recordscapital punishmentacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court for the offence of Qatl-i-amd and theft under sections 302(b), 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence presented, specifically Call Data Records (CDRs) and the alleged recovery of stolen items. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the CDRs were not legally proved, lacking authentication from service providers or evidence of ownership, and the alleged recovery of stolen articles from an open, accessible shop was insufficient to link the appellant to the crime. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce a representative from a mobile service provider to verify call data records render such evidence inadmissible or unproved?
  • Is the recovery of stolen property from an open, accessible area sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused?
  • Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Khan vs Faysal Bank Ltd. and others2023 CLD 928 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz Najam vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 LHC 2829 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-24
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityNADRAnon-statutory regulationsstatutory interventionservice lawGovernment Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the removal of a National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) employee from service. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against NADRA, a statutory body, when the employee was proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, despite NADRA's own service regulations being non-statutory. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that while NADRA's regulations were framed under the National Database and Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2000, they are non-statutory. Furthermore, the Court determined that the mere adoption of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, by NADRA via its internal regulations does not elevate those rules to statutory status. Because the Rules of 1973 apply to civil servants and were only made applicable to NADRA employees through non-statutory adoption, their application does not constitute 'statutory intervention' sufficient to invoke the Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. Consequently, the Court established that internal disciplinary proceedings conducted under adopted rules do not grant an employee the right to file a constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Are the service regulations framed by the National Database and Registration Authority under the National Database and Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2000, statutory or non-statutory in nature?
  • Does the adoption of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, by a statutory body via internal regulations grant those rules statutory status?
  • Can an employee of a statutory body invoke constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 if they were proceeded against under rules that were only adopted by reference?
  • Does the application of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, to a non-civil servant constitute statutory intervention?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz and others vs State and othersPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 895 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-18
  Qatl-i-Amdbenefit of the doubtocular evidencemedical evidencecriminal appealmurder referenceappreciation of evidenceinjured witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murder of Muhammad Qasim and attempted murder of two others. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with fatal flaws, including significant contradictions between medical reports and eyewitness testimony regarding the number and nature of injuries. Furthermore, the court noted the unexplained delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the failure of investigating officers to collect blood-stained earth, rendering the place of occurrence unproven. Crucially, the court observed that the assailants' failure to harm the complainant, who was present and had a direct dispute with them, contradicted natural human conduct. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The judgment reaffirms that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a prosecution witness automatically stamp their testimony as truthful?
  • What is the legal consequence of an investigating officer's failure to collect blood-stained earth from the crime scene?
  • Does the failure of assailants to harm a present, unarmed complainant with whom they have a dispute cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  • What is the effect of a significant, unexplained delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Additional District Judge and others2023 YLR 887 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman2023 PCRLJ 790 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-18
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Ordinancepecuniary jurisdictionconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsunconscionable delayAccountability Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed seeking post-arrest bail in a reference involving corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1997. The core legal question concerned the legality and continuation of the petitioner's detention following recent statutory amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance, which altered the pecuniary jurisdiction of Accountability Courts to offenses involving an amount not less than five million rupees, while the alleged embezzlement against the petitioner amounted to Rs. 267.179 million. The Lahore High Court held that since the alleged amount fell below the newly prescribed threshold, the Accountability Court lacked jurisdiction to further proceed with the reference, rendering the continued detention of the petitioner uncertain, unconscionable, and violative of fundamental rights. The court established that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can be invoked to protect personal liberty and grant post-arrest bail where prolonged detention lacks a valid legal basis due to legislative amendments and delayed trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can grant post-arrest bail under Article 199 of the Constitution when an accused's continued detention becomes uncertain and lacks jurisdiction following amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance?
  • Does an Accountability Court retain jurisdiction over a reference where the alleged misappropriated amount is below the statutory threshold introduced by subsequent amendments?
  • Can prolonged incarceration coupled with slow trial progress constitute grounds for granting post-arrest bail in corruption cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Magistrate 1st Class, District Gujrat and 6 others2023 YLR 1752 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and others vs The State & another2023 LHC 6917, 2024 PCRLJ 504 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-06
  murderqatl-i-amdmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationocular accountmedical evidencesafe custody of weaponmotiveacquittal appealbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death, alongside the acquittal of co-accused and an appeal against said acquittal. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, the impact of unproven motive and broken chain of safe custody for weapon recovery, and the justification for altering a death sentence to life imprisonment based on mitigating circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness accounts, corroborated by medical evidence, firmly established the appellant's guilt despite discounted weapon recovery and motive, but that these missing elements constituted mitigating circumstances warranting the reduction of the death penalty. The court laid down the principle that while unproven motive and flawed weapon recovery discount certain parts of the prosecution case, a conviction for murder can safely rest on consistent, reliable ocular testimony supported by medical evidence, and such factors can serve as mitigating circumstances to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inconsistencies between ocular accounts and medical evidence are fatal to a murder prosecution?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the prosecution's evidence regarding motive and weapon recovery has been disbelieved?
  • Does the failure to prove motive and weapon recovery constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to commute a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the mere presence of co-accused at the crime scene is sufficient to infer common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of supporting medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar alias Babar vs Muhammad Yasin (deceased) through L.Rs. & others2023 LHC 5624, 2024 MLD 467 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saqlain vs The State etc2023 LHC 6649, 2024 YLR 2568 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-21
  post-arrest bailwithdrawal of bail petitionfresh groundsprohibitory clausemurderdisposal of petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated petitions seeking post-arrest bail for offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were implicated in a murder case where evidence included supplementary statements, pointing out the crime scene, and recovery of incriminating items. A primary legal question arose regarding whether a previous bail petition, which was "disposed of" after the petitioner sought withdrawal following arguments, constitutes a dismissal on merits, thereby precluding a subsequent petition absent fresh grounds. The Court held that the expression "disposed of accordingly" following arguments signifies that the matter was contested and concluded, effectively terminating the petition. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner lacked fresh grounds to justify the new application. Finding the petitioners connected to the planned murder, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and noting that prosecution witnesses have already been examined, the Court dismissed the bail applications for all petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a bail petition after arguments followed by an order of 'disposed of' constitute a dismissal on merits?
  • Can a second bail petition be maintained without fresh grounds after a previous petition was disposed of following arguments?
  • Does the phrase 'disposed of accordingly' in a judicial order imply a final determination of the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State and another2023 LHC 6139, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 409 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-25
  rapefornicationconsentpromise of marriagecriminal appealcognizanceprivate complaintDNA test
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the sexual relationship between the parties constituted rape or fornication, and whether the trial court possessed the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence based on a police report rather than a private complaint. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of rape, as the evidence demonstrated that the sexual intercourse was consensual, albeit based on a false promise of marriage, which constitutes fornication. The Court emphasized that for the offence of fornication under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the law mandates that cognizance be taken only upon a private complaint under Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the trial court’s proceedings, initiated via a police report, were deemed coram non judice. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, subject to financial provisions for the welfare of the child born of the relationship.

  Questions settled

  • Does sexual intercourse based on a promise of marriage constitute rape under Section 375 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a trial court take cognizance of the offence of fornication under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a police report?
  • Is a private complaint mandatory for the initiation of proceedings regarding the offence of fornication under Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the definition of consent under Section 90 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 include sexual relations entered into under a promise of marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Additional District Judge, etc2023 LHC 3672, 2024 MLD 2013 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and another vs State and another2023 PLJ Cr.C. 222 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-08
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtunnatural eye-witnessdelayed FIRimprovements in evidenceunproved motivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involve the credibility of eyewitness testimony, unexplained delays in reporting the crime and conducting the post-mortem, adverse inference from withholding natural witnesses, improvements in witness statements, and the failure to prove the alleged motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unnatural conduct of alleged eye-witnesses, material improvements, delayed FIR and post-mortem, and unproved motive. The court laid down the principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in reporting a crime and conducting a post-mortem examination cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version?
  • Can adverse inference be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 when the prosecution abandons material child witnesses present at the scene?
  • What is the legal effect of material and dishonest improvements made by prosecution witnesses to fill gaps in their earlier statements?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive weaken its case against the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid vs State, etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 612 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-08
  juvenile offendersodomysexual abusedoctrine of mergersentencing principlesSection 71 PPCreduction of sentenceDNA evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by a juvenile convict challenging his convictions and sentences under Sections 377 and 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, awarded by the learned Juvenile Court. The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed sodomy on a minor child. The core legal questions pertained to whether convictions under both Section 377 and Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could simultaneously stand for acts committed during the same transaction under the doctrine of merger and Section 71 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as well as the appropriate quantum of sentence for a juvenile offender. The High Court maintained the conviction under Section 377 based on ocular evidence and a positive DNA report, but set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 377-B, holding that minor obscene acts merge into the graver offence of sodomy. Taking into account the appellant's juvenility, lack of prior criminal history, and student status, the court reduced the sentence under Section 377 to two years' simple imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be simultaneously convicted and sentenced under both Section 377 and Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for acts forming part of the same transaction?
  • Does the doctrine of merger under Section 71 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cause a lesser offence of sexual abuse to merge into the graver offence of sodomy?
  • Whether juvenility, being a first offender, and status as a student justify a substantial reduction in the quantum of sentence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Jameel Ahmed and another2023 LHC 5877 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and 2 others vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S) 849 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28
  service lawoperational costincentive bonuscontractual interpretationstatutory corporationarea managerservice regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges a judgment that declined to restrain the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan from deducting 'Incentive Bonus' and 'Additional Incentive Bonus' from the 'Operational Cost' of its Area Managers. The core legal question is whether such deductions are permissible under the appellants' appointment letters and the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973, despite the express exclusion of these bonuses from the definition of 'Operational Cost' in the appointment terms. The Court held that the terms of the appointment letter, which explicitly exclude Incentive Bonus and Additional Incentive Bonus from the calculation of 'Operational Cost', must be given effect. The Court reasoned that while the Corporation has the authority to recover excess operational costs, it cannot ignore the express contractual provisions excluding these specific bonuses from such cost calculations. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, declaring the deductions illegal and ordering the refund of the deducted amounts, establishing the principle that express contractual exclusions in service agreements must be strictly observed and cannot be overridden by general recovery powers.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory corporation deduct 'Incentive Bonus' and 'Additional Incentive Bonus' from the 'Operational Cost' of its employees when the appointment letter expressly excludes these items from such costs?
  • Do the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations 1973 permit the recovery of excess operational costs from all emoluments, including those expressly excluded by the appointment contract?
  • Are Area Managers of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan considered full-time employees under the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan Nowaiz Gill vs The Returning Officer PP-77, Sargodha-2023 LHC 2131 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan etc vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 1028 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-22
  abduction for ransomsection 164 statementright of cross-examinationsubstantive evidenceadverse inferencebenefit of the doubtrecovery proceedingsanti-terrorism trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life sentences of the appellants under Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, handed down by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the complainant died before cross-examination, the applicability of Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the consequences of withholding material witnesses under Article 129(g), and the validity of recovery proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence under Section 265-J Cr.P.C. or Article 47 without fulfilling mandatory notice requirements and completing the witness examination through cross-examination, and that flawed recovery proceedings and unexplained delays further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants on the basis of benefit of the doubt, laying down principles regarding the strict evidentiary thresholds required for statements of deceased witnesses and the mandatory nature of cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be treated as substantive evidence when the maker dies before being cross-examined?
  • Does the failure to give prior notice to the accused before recording a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. render it inadmissible under Section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during the investigation stage be equated with evidence given in a judicial proceeding under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What is the legal effect of withholding vital natural witnesses on the prosecution's case under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the omission to confront an accused with critical incriminating evidence during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Government of Punjab and others2023 LHC 2667 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Khan Fatyana & 29 others vs Speaker National Assembly2023 LHC 2719 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Ahmad vs Mst. Shaheen Akhtar etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 323 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Ahmad vs Mst. Shaheen Akhtar and 3 others2023 PLD 317 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rehmat Ullah vs The State etc2023 LHC 4087, 2024 PCRLJ 1, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 287 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-14
  anti-terrorismdigital privacyself-incriminationcase propertybenefit of doubtwarrantless searchcriminal evidenceconstitutional rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, for allegedly distributing banned literature and hate material. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of missing case property and the constitutionality of extracting data from a personal mobile phone without a warrant or consent. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's failure to produce the alleged banned materials (case property) before the court was fatal to its case. Furthermore, the Court ruled that extracting data from an accused's mobile phone without judicial permission violates the constitutional right to privacy and the protection against self-incrimination. The Court clarified that principles of evidence in criminal matters differ from civil proceedings; specifically, a criminal case is decided on the totality of circumstances rather than narrow gaps in cross-examination. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt, and ordered his immediate release, establishing that warrantless digital surveillance is unconstitutional.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce case property in court constitute a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the extraction of data from an accused's mobile phone without a judicial warrant or consent a violation of the constitutional right to privacy?
  • Does the principle that a fact is deemed proved if not cross-examined apply to criminal cases?
  • Can data retrieved from an accused's mobile phone be used as evidence if obtained without judicial permission?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razzaq, etc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 6402, 2024 PLD Lahore 238, 2024 PLJ Lahore 169 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Khan vs Muhammad Wajahat Ameer Khan and others2023 CLC 1750 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed (deceased) through his legal heirs, etc vs Muhammad Ismail, etc2023 LHC 1403, 2024 CLC 1451 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and another2023 YLR 1924 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-13
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction baildelay in disposal of appealjuvenile court convictionstatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the suspension of the sentence awarded to the petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, who was convicted under Sections 376, 449, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's sentence should be suspended and bail granted pending the disposal of his criminal appeal, given the considerable lapse of time since the filing of the appeal without fault on his part. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and held that where a convicted person has undergone a significant period of imprisonment (exceeding two to three years) after filing an appeal, and there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future through no fault of the appellant, the sentence ought to be suspended and bail granted, provided the accused is not a hardened criminal or previously convicted of a capital offense. The key principle laid down is that the protracted and un-delayed pendency of an appeal without fault of the convict warrants the suspension of sentence under Section 426 Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a convicted person's sentence can be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the delayed hearing of their appeal?
  • Does the pendency of a criminal appeal for a prolonged period without fault of the appellant entitle them to the concession of bail?
  • What are the considerations for suspending a sentence when the main appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs State, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-III, Lahore and 5 others2023 PCRLJ 662 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-19
  anti-terrorism court jurisdictionabduction for ransomtransfer of casescheduled offenseprivate complaintcriminal revisionpremature transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) transferring a private complaint to an ordinary court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The petitioner alleged abduction for ransom, a scheduled offense under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The ATC had initially taken cognizance, summoned the accused, and framed charges. However, after recording only the complainant's testimony, the ATC transferred the case, opining that the dispute was not a scheduled offense. The High Court set aside the transfer order, holding it premature. The Court ruled that once an ATC has taken cognizance and framed charges for a scheduled offense, it cannot divest itself of jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without recording substantive evidence, specifically the testimony of the victim. The principle established is that an ATC must allow the trial to reach a stage where the absence of a scheduled offense is clearly demonstrated by evidence before exercising its power to transfer the case to an ordinary court.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court transfer a case to an ordinary court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, after framing charges for a scheduled offense?
  • Is it legally permissible for an Anti-Terrorism Court to divest itself of jurisdiction before recording the testimony of the primary victim in a case of abduction for ransom?
  • Does the framing of a charge for a scheduled offense by an Anti-Terrorism Court preclude a subsequent transfer of the case to an ordinary court without further evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Haq Nawaz (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others2023 CLC 582 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan etc vs Muhammad Ramzan etc2023 LHC 3274, 2023 PLJ Lahore 605 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and others vs Additional District Judge and others2023 CLC 1453 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Additional District Judge, Jhang etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 256 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique & another vs The State & another2023 LHC 6928, 2024 YLR 23 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-27
  murder referencedeath sentence conversiongrave and sudden provocationbenefit of doubtunnatural conduct of witnessesmedical and ocular conflictdelayed post-mortemstatement under section 342 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing two appellants to death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-i-Amd of two deceased persons following a private complaint. The Lahore High Court examined the evidence, noting a significant delay in conducting postmortem examinations, the occurrence taking place during the darkness of night without a reliable source of light, and the unnatural conduct of the prosecution eye-witnesses who failed to intervene despite the absence of firearms. Furthermore, the court identified a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence. While the prosecution's ocular and recovery evidence was disbelieved, one appellant candidly admitted in his Section 342 Cr.P.C. statement to committing the murders due to grave and sudden provocation upon finding the deceased in an objectionable position. The High Court held that where prosecution evidence is discarded, an accused's exculpatory-cum-inculpatory statement must be accepted or rejected in toto. Consequently, the court acquitted one appellant on the basis of doubt, while altering the conviction of the confessing appellant from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) PPC, sentencing him to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment on two counts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a significant and unexplained delay in conducting post-mortem examinations creates doubt regarding the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot?
  • Can an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admitting the crime under grave and sudden provocation be accepted in toto when the prosecution evidence is disbelieved?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of related and interested eye-witnesses whose conduct is unnatural can form the basis of a capital conviction?
  • Does a delayed recovery of a blood-stained weapon after more than a month lose its evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs State etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 656 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-04
  criminal revisionsecond marriagepolygamyarbitration council permissionmitigation of sentenceacquiescence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 6(5)(b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 for contracting a second marriage without the prior permission of the Arbitration Council in writing and without the explicit written consent of the first wife. The core legal question revolves around the legality of the second marriage and the relevance of the first wife's prolonged delay and implied acquiescence in filing a complaint after fourteen years. The Lahore High Court held that while contracting a second marriage without the permission of the Arbitration Council constitutes an offense under the law, the conduct, acquiescence, and delayed action of the complainant wife are vital factors in determining the quantum of sentence. The court laid down the principle that although statutory violations regarding polygamy must be penalized, an inordinate delay by the aggrieved spouse in initiating penal proceedings and the implied acceptance of the marital situation can be considered mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contracting a second marriage without the permission of the Arbitration Council constitutes an offense under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • Can the prolonged delay and implied acquiescence of the first wife in filing a complaint serve as a mitigating factor in reducing the sentence for illegal polygamy?
  • Is a written permission from the Arbitration Council mandatory for contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of an existing marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raees vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 532 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07
  murder referencecapital punishmentbenefit of the doubtchance witnessesweapon recoveryforensic evidenceacquittal of co-accusedcriminal appeal
  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 for qatl-i-amd and sentencing him to death, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular evidence from chance witnesses, the reliability of weapon recoveries and forensic reports, and whether the same discredited testimony used to acquit a co-accused can sustain the appellant's conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution witnesses were unconvincing chance witnesses whose testimony had already been disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused, and that corroborative evidence such as medical reports, motive, and weapon recovery suffered from fatal discrepancies. Consequently, the court established that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is sufficient for acquittal. The appeal was accepted, the death sentence was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses can form the sole basis of a capital conviction without reliable independent corroboration?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the same evidence that has already been disbelieved to acquit a co-accused without distinct corroborative material?
  • Does a discrepancy in the recovery memo and forensic agency reports regarding the weapon of offense render the recovery evidence untrustworthy?
  • Whether absconsion alone can cure the fundamental defects and gaps in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rabi Zahid vs Abdul Razzaq Manzoor etc2023 LHC 3537 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Osman Gull vs Federation of Pakistan etc.PTCL 2023 CL. 569 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-06
  Section 7EIncome Tax Ordinance 2001capital value of assetsdeemed incomelegislative competencereading downdiscriminatory taxationfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses constitutional petitions challenging the vires of Section 7E of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, introduced via the Finance Act, 2022, which levies tax on capital assets by treating a percentage of their fair market value as deemed income. The core legal questions involve the federal legislature's competence under Entries 47 and 50 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan to tax immovable property and treat its fair market value as income, as well as the validity of certain discriminatory exclusions. The court held that treating the fair market value of immovable property as income under Entry 47 exceeds federal legislative competence, but saved the tax as a levy on the capital value of assets under Entry 50 by applying the doctrine of reading down to remove the deeming income phrase. Furthermore, specific exclusions under Section 7E(2)(d) were struck down as violating the equality guarantees of Article 25. The key principles established are that the federal legislature cannot tax as income an item that cannot rationally be considered income, but may tax the capital value of immovable property under Entry 50 as part of the total assets.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Legislature is competent under Entry 47 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution to treat the fair market value of immovable property as deemed income?
  • Can the provisions of Section 7E of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 be saved by reading down the phrase 'treated to have derived, as income' to fall within the legislative competence of Entry 50 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution?
  • Do the exemptions and exclusions of certain persons under Section 7E(2)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 violate the fundamental right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Whether immovable property forms an integral component of capital assets for the purpose of taxation on the capital value of assets under Entry 50 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer vs Ghulam Mustafa2023 YLR 431 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer vs Ghulam Hussain and another2023 CLC 1070 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer vs Ch. Ghulam Hussain, Etc. Judgment2023 LHC 495 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer vs Adj, Sialkot, etc2023 LHC 3363, 2023 YLR 2140 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Additional District Judge, etc.2023 LHC 4878, 2024 CLC 375 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others vs Province of Punjab through Additional2023 LHC 5635, 2024 CLC 524 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed vs The State2023 PCRLJ 896 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-07
  murderbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidence contradictionmotivecriminal appealdeath sentence confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Naveed, handed down by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of Mst. Noreen Bibi. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative recoveries, despite material contradictions, an unproven motive, and improvements by the witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular account was unreliable due to glaring contradictions with the medical evidence and inconsistencies among the related and interested witnesses. Furthermore, the alleged motive was not directed at the deceased and remained unproven, and the weapon recovery was suspicious. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt on its own legs, and multiple circumstances creating doubt in the prosecution's narrative entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence are sufficient to discard the testimony of eye-witnesses in a murder trial?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive weaken its case against the accused?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to an acquittal when multiple circumstances create serious doubt in the prosecution story?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be safely based on a doubtful weapon recovery from an accessible place in the absence of trustworthy eye-witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs Justice of Peace and others2023 PCRLJ 222 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-24
  medico-legal certificateexpert witnessfair trialregistration of FIRmedical jurisprudenceconstitutional petitionJustice of Peace
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissing a petition under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought a direction for the registration of an FIR. The petitioner argued that the medical evidence relied upon by the Justice of Peace to dismiss the complaint was flawed because the medical examiner failed to provide reasons for the opinion regarding the possibility of fabrication of injuries. The court noted that the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy via a private complaint and disposed of the petition accordingly. However, the court addressed a critical issue regarding the medico-legal system, observing that a significant percentage of medical examiners lack adequate training and qualifications. The court held that an expert opinion, including that of a medical examiner, lacks evidentiary value unless supported by cogent reasons and data. It emphasized that a medico-legal system comprising unqualified examiners undermines the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and issued directions to health authorities to ensure that only qualified medical examiners perform such duties and that all medico-legal certificates provide detailed reasons for conclusions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical examiner's opinion regarding the fabrication of injuries hold evidentiary value if it is not supported by cogent reasons?
  • Can a medico-legal system staffed by unqualified or untrained medical examiners be considered consistent with the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What is the minimum requirement for a witness to be considered an 'expert' under Article 59 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir @ Bhola and another vs StatePLJ 2023 Cr.C. 962 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-03
  criminal appealdeath sentencebenefit of doubtocular evidencechance witnessFIR delaymurderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular evidence and recovery of the weapon. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing significant evidentiary gaps. Specifically, the Court noted an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions regarding the eyewitnesses' presence, and suspicious overwriting on the inquest report and injury statement. Furthermore, the Court found the recovery of the weapon unreliable and the post-mortem examination delayed without justification. Emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused rather than a concession, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms that where evidence is contradictory and the prosecution story appears to be an afterthought, the accused must be acquitted to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses be relied upon if their presence at the crime scene is not convincingly explained?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the existence of overwriting on official police documents like inquest reports and injury statements undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem etc. vs Province of Punjab through Collector, District2023 LHC 998 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs StatePLJ 2023 Cr.C. 50 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12
  Qatl-i-Amdchance witnessesburden of proofbenefit of doubtmedical evidencecriminal appealdeath sentenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the Qatl-i-Amd of his wife. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the ocular account, the impact of medical evidence contradicting the prosecution's version of events, and the applicability of the burden of proof when a death occurs within a matrimonial home. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the eye-witnesses to be "chance witnesses" whose presence was doubtful and whose conduct was unnatural. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the cause of death contradicted the prosecution's narrative of strangulation, and the recovery of incriminating evidence was procedurally flawed. The court emphasized that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution and cannot shift to the accused merely because a death occurred in his house, especially when the prosecution's case is otherwise demolished. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the death sentence not confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the presumption that a death occurred within his house when the prosecution's case is otherwise unreliable?
  • Does the failure of eye-witnesses to intervene during a crime cast doubt on their presence at the scene?
  • Does Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 shift the burden of proof to the accused to prove innocence in a murder case?
  • Is a recovery of evidence valid if it violates the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Mir vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadir Khan (deceased) through L.Rs vs Muhammad Usama2023 LHC 3877, 2023 PLJ Lahore 705, 2025 MLD 66 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem and others vs The State etc2023 LHC 7518, 2024 YLR 2521 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-29
  circumstantial evidenceextrajudicial confessionbenefit of doubtfootprint trackingcriminal appealmurderPunjab Police Rulesappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence for murder, alongside a criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—comprising alleged extrajudicial confessions, footprint tracking, and an unproven motive—was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. The court found the extrajudicial confession improbable, the footprint tracking evidence unreliable and procedurally deficient under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and the motive unproven. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that circumstantial evidence must firmly connect the accused to the crime without gaps. Furthermore, it holds that when prosecution witnesses are disbelieved regarding one co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon against another without independent, unimpeachable corroboration. The court emphasized that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a matter of grace.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is incomplete?
  • Is the evidence of a footprint tracker considered reliable enough to sustain a conviction without corroboration?
  • Can the testimony of prosecution witnesses be relied upon against an accused if those same witnesses were disbelieved regarding a co-accused?
  • Does the failure to prove a set-up motive in a criminal case entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir Akhtar vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2023 MLD 34 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir (deceased) through L.Rs vs Muhammad Zia Ullah and others2023 LHC 6235 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz Hussain vs Additional District Judge and others2023 YLR 509 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moosa vs The State and another2023 LHC 4390 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-16
  pre-arrest bailproclaimed offendernon-bailable warrantscancellation of bailsuccessive bail petitionsabsconsionrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving offences under Sections 447, 511, 506-B, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had initially been granted pre-arrest bail, which was confirmed on merits, but subsequently absented himself from the trial court, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest and his declaration as a proclaimed offender. The core legal questions revolved around the competence of successive pre-arrest bail petitions after confirmation of an initial bail on merits, the revisability of orders issuing non-bailable warrants and declaring an accused a proclaimed offender, and whether the issuance of non-bailable warrants amounts to cancellation of bail. The Lahore High Court held that successive bail petitions under Section 498 Cr.P.C. after confirmation of bail on merits are not competent, that the issuance of non-bailable warrants or declaration as a proclaimed offender ipso facto amounts to cancellation of bail, and that the appropriate remedy against such orders or bail cancellations is a revision petition under Section 439-A or Section 439 Cr.P.C. rather than a fresh bail application. The petition was consequently dismissed due to the petitioner's absconsion and misuse of legal process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether 2nd and 3rd petitions under Section 498 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court were competent after the confirmation of 1st bail before arrest on merits?
  • Whether an order passed by a Magistrate with respect to issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest and declaring an accused a Proclaimed Offender is revisable?
  • Whether issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest by a trial court would tantamount to cancellation of bail of the petitioner?
  • Whether issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest or cancellation of a bail order under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. can be challenged through a petition under Section 498 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Manzoor @ Dani vs The State & another2023 LHC 472 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-07
  post-arrest bailjuvenile justiceheinous offencenarcoticsage determinationjuvenile bailstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by a juvenile accused of possessing narcotics under Section 9(1) 3(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether a juvenile under sixteen years of age, charged with a heinous offense, is entitled to bail under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The Court held that the petitioner, being approximately thirteen years and eleven months old at the time of the occurrence, falls within the protective ambit of Section 6(3) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The Court clarified that Section 6(4) of the Act, which permits the denial of bail for heinous offenses, applies exclusively to juveniles over sixteen years of age. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to be treated as if accused of a bailable offense. The Court emphasized that bail is a procedural change of custody, not an acquittal, and granted the petition, noting that the investigation was complete and the petitioner's continued incarceration was unnecessary.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 6(4) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, apply to a juvenile who is sixteen years of age or younger?
  • Is a juvenile under sixteen years of age entitled to be treated as if accused of a bailable offense regardless of the nature of the offense?
  • Does the restriction on bail for heinous offenses under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, apply to a child under the age of sixteen?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Majid vs Dr. Muhammad Shahid IqbalPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 423 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-15
  contempt of courtproceedings against a dead personnullity in lawcivil contemptsubstitution of partiesofficial capacitywrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This contempt of court petition was filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, seeking initiation of proceedings against the Medical Superintendent of Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, for non-compliance with an order passed in a writ petition. The core legal question was whether a contempt petition filed against a sole respondent who was already dead at the institution of proceedings is maintainable, and whether substitution of the incumbent office-holder is permissible. The Lahore High Court held that any legal proceedings instituted against a dead person are void ab initio and a nullity in the light of established jurisprudence, and that a contempt petition filed against a sole dead respondent cannot be cured by substituting the current incumbent. The Court laid down the principle that proceedings against a dead person are stillborn and non-maintainable, though the underlying official order remains valid and binding on the current holder of the public office, against whom a fresh petition may be filed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether legal proceedings including a contempt petition filed against a sole respondent who is already dead are a nullity in law?
  • Can a dead respondent in a contempt petition be substituted by the present incumbent of a public office?
  • Whether an order passed against a public official by designation remains valid and binding despite the death of the person who previously held that office?
  • Does a personal action such as contempt of court abate upon the death of the alleged contemner?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Madni and 11 others vs Province of Punjab through District2023 YLR 1033 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 1688 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01
  quashing of FIRFIA jurisdictionimpersonationscheduled offencesconstitutional petitionnexus with Federal Governmentmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeks the quashing of First Information Report No.214/21 registered at Police Station FIA Bahawalpur for offences under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the FIA lacked jurisdiction as the matter had no nexus with the Federal Government and fell within the domain of the local police. The core legal question was whether the impugned FIR was registered without lawful authority. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the petitioner was allegedly caught impersonating a candidate during a recruitment test for the FIA itself, a clear nexus existed with the Federal Government, bringing the matter within the statutory cognizance of the FIA under Section 3(1) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974. The court established that the factual veracity of allegations cannot be determined in constitutional jurisdiction and should instead be raised before the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Investigation Agency has jurisdiction to register and investigate an FIR where the scheduled offences have a nexus with the Federal Government?
  • Can the High Court determine the falsehood or truth of allegations in a constitutional petition for quashing of an FIR?
  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 require a nexus between the offences complained of and the Federal Government for the exercise of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →