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.

• Messrs Makkah Traders through Managing Partner and 3 others vs MCB2023 CLD 307 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs It Comm Private Limited through Authorized Representative vs Collector, Collectorateof Customs (Appraisement) and 4 others2023 PTD 1258 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd through Authori_3e3cf0922023 PLC 177 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-10
  trans-provincial establishmenttrade union registrationNIRCindustrial relationsconstitutional petitionjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a private limited company operating as a trans-provincial media establishment, challenged the summary rejection of its application for the revocation of the trade union registration of respondent No.3. The core legal question before the court was which forum and law govern the registration of trade unions for trans-provincial establishments. The Lahore High Court held that for trans-provincial establishments, the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 exclusively applies, and the National Industrial Relations Commission possesses the sole authority to register trade unions, rendering provincial registrations under provincial legislation like the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that the status of the employer as a trans-provincial entity dictates exclusive federal jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, superseding provincial laws pursuant to the constitutional scheme.

  Questions settled

  • Which forum and law govern the registration of trade unions in the case of a trans-provincial establishment?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have exclusive jurisdiction over trans-provincial establishments regarding trade union registration?
  • Can a provincial registrar register a trade union for an establishment operating across multiple provinces under provincial labour laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gibraltar (Smc-Pvt.) Limited through Sole Director and CEO and another vs Messrs Samad Rubber Works (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director and 6 others2023 PLD Lahore 149 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs G.A. Traders Sole Proprietorship through Haji Ghazanfar Ali (since2023 CLD 1332 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Dairy Crest Food (Private) Limited through Chief Executive vs Muzammal Khan Lodhi2023 MLD 191 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Crescent Jute Products Ltd. through Chief Executive vs Bank Alfalah2023 CLD 108 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Best Way Cement Ltd. through Duly Authorized Representative vs Yasir Saleem and 2 others2023 CLC 2042 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bahawalpur Cotton Company through Partners and others vs United Bank Limited2023 CLD 1116 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Askar Oil Services (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Petroleum Division) Islamabad and 2 others2023 CLC 182 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Ghani Chain Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Ahassam Amin vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PTD 340 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Barkat Seed Corporation and 3 others vs Silk Bank Limited and others2023 CLD 372 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs 3N-Lifemed Pharmaceuticals vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department and others2023 CLC 948 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mehr Shaukat vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/ASJ and others2023 MLD 2016 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Idrees vs Khalid Hussain and 2 others2023 YLR 1362 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mehmood (deceased) through LRs etc. vs Siraj Ahmad (deceased)2023 LHC 5072 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mehdi Khan vs Shumaila Bibi and others2023 MLD 1928 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mehboob and others vs Fateh Bibi and another2023 LHC 2242 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• Meezan Bank Limited and others vs Syed Hassan Mehmood Shah2023 CLD 324 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs The Federation of Pakistan etc2023 LHC 13 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Tanveer Spinning and Weaving Mills and others2023 CLD 491 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-16Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs M/s Mazco Industries PrivateLimited etc.2023 LHC 1039 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Messrs Mazco Industries Private Limited and others2023 CLD 410 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 240 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Adeel Shahbaz Steel Mills and others2023 LHC 2922, 2023 PLJ Lahore 617, 2023 CLD 655 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-07
  territorial jurisdictionbanking suitrecovery of financesreturn of plaintcause of actionleave to defendfinancial institution
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed by MCB Bank Limited against Adeel Shahbaz Steel Mills and its partners and guarantors for the recovery of Rs.103,007,781.63 under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question concerned whether the Lahore High Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, given that the finance agreements were executed in Hattar and Islamabad, and the defendants resided or carried on business outside Lahore, despite the registered office of the Defendant Company being in Rawalpindi. The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Consequently, the Court ordered the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for presentation before a court of competent jurisdiction. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a court must determine the question of its own jurisdiction as a preliminary matter before proceeding to the merits. It further clarified that while a registered office is a relevant factor, territorial jurisdiction is primarily determined by where the cause of action arises, where the defendant resides, or where they carry on business.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have a mandatory duty to decide the question of its own jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of a case?
  • Is the registered office of a company the sole determinant for establishing territorial jurisdiction in a banking suit?
  • Under what circumstances must a court return a plaint for presentation before a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does a Banking Court have the power to follow the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is silent?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited through Authorized Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan2023 CLD 333, 2023 [M] CLR 135 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Rasool Hashmi vs Government of the Punjab and others2023 CLC 1201 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain Asif vs Province of Punjab etc2023 LHC 2504 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain and others vs Mst. Jantan Bibi and others2023 LHC 1598 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed vs The State, etc2023 LHC 580 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-08
  dishonoured chequeSection 489-F PPCdishonestymens reabest evidence rulecriminal appealacquittalQanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a Magistrate's acquittal of the respondent in a case registered under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of the offence, specifically the existence of a valid loan or obligation and the accused's dishonest intention at the time of issuance. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the underlying loan transaction, noting significant evidentiary gaps and the failure to produce the alleged written loan agreement. The Court emphasized that for Section 489-F to apply, the prosecution must demonstrate both a valid obligation and the accused's dishonest intent. Dishonesty is a state of mind (mens rea) to be inferred from the accused's course of action (an objective test). Furthermore, the Court reiterated that documentary evidence, when available, constitutes the "best evidence" and must be produced, as oral assertions cannot substitute for required documentation. The judgment affirms that acquittal should not be disturbed unless the finding is perverse or arbitrary.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is "dishonesty" under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a subjective state of mind or an objective course of action?
  • Does the failure to produce a written agreement mentioned in testimony violate the "best evidence rule" under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What is the criteria for interfering with a judgment of acquittal in a criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed vs State, etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 581 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-08
  dishonoured chequeacquittal appealloan transactionburden of proofdishonestymens reabest evidence rulemarginal witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonouring of a cheque. The core legal questions involved the failure of the prosecution to prove the underlying loan transaction, the necessity of producing marginal witnesses to a written agreement under Article 79 and Article 139 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 489-F PPC, particularly the requirement of establishing dishonesty as a state of mind. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the foundational monetary transaction, the execution of the loan agreement, and the requisite dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the time of issuing the cheque. The court laid down the principle that to attract Section 489-F PPC, the prosecution must strictly prove the underlying loan or obligation and the element of dishonesty, failing which an acquittal must be sustained as findings of acquittal command double presumption of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must prove the underlying monetary transaction and loan agreement to sustain a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is dishonesty an essential ingredient and a state of mind that must be affirmatively established for the applicability of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the evidentiary requirement for proving a written document under Article 79 and Article 139 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What are the strict criteria and grounds required for an appellate court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzurul Haq vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 6154 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-27Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State etc2023 LHC 6754, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 822, 2024 PCRLJ 2036 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-07
  ArshDamansuspension of sentenceexecution of sentencecriminal revisionpost-conviction releasestatutory procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge allowing convicts to deposit Arsh and Daman under protest to secure their release from jail pending appeal. The core legal question is whether a trial court possesses the jurisdiction to permit a convict to deposit compensation amounts under protest to bypass the statutory requirements for suspension of sentence. The Court held that upon conviction, a sentence of imprisonment must be executed unless deferred or suspended under specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, namely Section 382-A or Section 426. The Court ruled that it is impermissible for a trial court to allow a convict to deposit Diyat, Arsh, or Daman under protest as a mechanism for release. Consequently, the trial court's order was declared illegal and set aside, as any deviation from the prescribed statutory procedure for suspension of sentence constitutes an act without lawful authority. The principle laid down is that the execution of a sentence is mandatory upon conviction, and release pending appeal can only occur through strict adherence to the statutory mechanisms for suspension.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court allow a convict to deposit Arsh and Daman under protest to secure release from jail pending appeal?
  • Is it permissible for a trial court to deviate from the prescribed procedures for suspension of sentence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the submission of bail bonds under Section 382-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to surrendering before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Government Of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Punjab Lahore and others2023 YLR 64 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-27Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad, etc. vs Khalid Hassan Khan, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 234 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad, etc vs Khalid Hassan Khan, etc2023 LHC 36 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs State etc.2023 PLJ Cr.C. 160 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-14
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtmurder trialcriminal appealchain of circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendered by the trial court. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved its case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last seen, an extra-judicial confession, and recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the crime, as the last-seen evidence was shrouded in mystery and uncorroborated, the extra-judicial confession lacked credibility and independent corroboration, and material witnesses were withheld. The Court laid down the key principle that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be established beyond doubt, touching from the dead body to the accused, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession alone can form the basis of a criminal conviction without independent and reliable corroboration?
  • Is last-seen evidence considered the weakest type of evidence requiring strong independent corroboration?
  • What is the standard of proof required when a criminal case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Energy (Power Division), Islamabad and 4 others2023 LHC 5152 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mansha Ali vs The State, etc2023 LHC 4873 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-04
  physical remandanti-terrorism courtpersonal libertycriminal revisioninvestigation progressjudicial discretionpolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Administrative Judge of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which granted a 14-day physical remand of the petitioner following an initial four-day remand period. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court exercised its discretion lawfully under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, when granting subsequent physical remand without sufficient justification or evidence of progress in the investigation. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the remand was granted mechanically without the investigating officer demonstrating that further evidence was likely to be recovered or that the investigation required continued police custody. The court emphasized that personal liberty, guaranteed under the Constitution, cannot be curtailed through mechanical remand orders. The key principle laid down is that under Section 21-E of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, a court must not grant further physical remand unless the investigating officer satisfies the court that further evidence is likely to be available and that no bodily harm will be caused to the accused, while also ensuring the court has applied its mind to the case diary and investigation progress.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant further physical remand of an accused without the investigating officer demonstrating that further evidence is likely to be available?
  • Does the addition of new offences during an investigation automatically justify an extension of physical remand?
  • Is a court required to apply its mind to the case diary and investigation progress before authorizing physical remand under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansha Ali vs The State & another2023 LHC 6054, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 837 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-24
  physical remandjudicial remandAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal revisioncustodial interrogationspeaking orderpolice diariesfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Administrative Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, granting further physical remand of the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the Administrative Judge is required to provide cogent, reasoned orders for physical remand under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and whether the general principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to such proceedings. The Court held that the impugned remand order was invalid, as it was passed in a mechanical manner without judicial application of mind or evidence of investigative progress. The Court emphasized that physical remand is an exception, not the rule, and must be justified by a speaking order based on a thorough examination of police diaries. It further established that the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, does not exclude the application of general remand principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the remand order, directing the petitioner to be lodged in judicial custody, and formulated comprehensive guidelines for Magistrates regarding the necessity, justification, and procedural requirements for granting physical remand.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Administrative Judge of an Anti-Terrorism Court required to provide cogent reasons when granting physical remand under Section 21-E of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, exclude the application of general principles of remand contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate grant an extension of physical remand if the investigation record shows no material progress since the previous remand period?
  • Is a remand order passed without the presence of the accused valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansab Ali, Ameen Bibi vs The State etc, Mansab Ali etc2023 LHC 3287, 2024 PCRLJ 617, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 746 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-06
  murderchance witnessmedical evidencemotivebenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalpost-mortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of chance witnesses, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, proof of motive, and the evidentiary value of recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the eyewitnesses were unverified chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, their testimony contradicted the medical evidence regarding the nature and distance of injuries, the alleged motive remained unproved, and the recoveries were legally inconsequential. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant of the charge, set aside his conviction and sentence, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The key principles laid down include the strict requirement for independent corroboration of chance witnesses, the fatal impact of material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the rule that an unproved motive and flawed recovery evidence cannot sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses who are closely related chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent and confidence-inspiring corroboration?
  • Does a major discrepancy between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the distance of firing and the nature of injuries create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What are the legal consequences when the prosecution sets up a specific motive but completely fails to prove it during the trial?
  • Can a recovery of a weapon be used to corroborate the prosecution's case if the attesting witness is a discredited eyewitness and the recovery is not from exclusive custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Zulfiqar Ahmad etc. vs Mosaddaq Parvaiz etc.2023 LHC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Zarin Khan vs Adnan Ali Malik and 2 others2023 CLC 1368 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
• Malik Waseem ur Rehman vs The Province of Punjab Deputy2023 LHC 1855 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Usama Bin Tahir Awan vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 517 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-01
  pre-arrest bailmala fide prosecutionbelated statementrash and negligent drivingQatl-i-amdulterior motives
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 seeks pre-arrest bail for the accused in a case registered under sections 279, 337-G, 427, 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution's case of intentional murder (Qatl-i-amd) introduced via a belated statement is tainted with mala fide, and whether the accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the belated conversion of a rash and negligent driving case into intentional murder, alongside contradictory statements and questionable medical grounds for delay, rendered the petitioner's involvement prima facie doubtful and pointed toward mala fide prosecution. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that where an accused's involvement is doubtful and dismissal of pre-arrest bail would merely entitle them to post-arrest bail, sending them to prison is a futile exercise.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the prosecution's case is tainted with mala fide and belated improvements?
  • Is it a futile exercise to send an accused to prison if they would immediately become entitled to post-arrest bail upon surrender?
  • Does the right to fair trial and protection against arbitrary arrest under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 affect the threshold for granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Yaqoob etc. vs Government of The Punjab etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 519 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Yaqoob etc vs Government of the Punjab etc2023 LHC 1365 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Mehboob vs Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others2023 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Malik Khan and others vs Member (Judicial-Vim, Board of Revenue, Punjab2023 MLD 448 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Azmat Ullah vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 10 others2023 PCRLJ 290 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-08
  protective bailtransitory bailproclaimed offenderaccess to justicefair trialdue process of lawsurrender before courtconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 by a proclaimed offender residing abroad who was nominated in a murder case under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought protective/transitory bail to return to Pakistan and surrender before the competent court without being arrested at the airport. The primary legal question was whether a fugitive from law or proclaimed offender located abroad is entitled to protective bail under the constitutional guarantees of access to justice, fair trial, and due process. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, granting protective bail for a fixed period subject to furnishing sureties. The Court held that access to justice and fair trial under Articles 4, 9, 10A, and 14 of the Constitution are inviolable fundamental rights. It ruled that protective bail is not pre-arrest bail on the merits, but a limited, time-bound restraint order enabling an accused to surrender before the competent forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court grant protective or transitory bail under Article 199 of the Constitution to an accused person who is abroad and declared a proclaimed offender?
  • Does being a fugitive from law or a proclaimed offender entirely bar an accused from seeking a time-bound restraint order to surrender before a competent court?
  • What is the legal nature and distinction between protective bail and pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the right of access to justice an inviolable constitutional right enforceable through protective bail under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoomzadi Gauhar Bano Qureshi vs Province of Punjab through Chief2023 PCRLJ 1646 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-06
  preventive detentionconstitutional jurisdictionalternate remedypublic ordernon-speaking orderjudicial reviewdetention order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a detention order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi, under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, against Shah Mehmood Qureshi. The core legal question was whether the detention order was legally sustainable given the lack of incriminating material and whether the existence of an alternate remedy under Section 3(6) of the Ordinance barred the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court held that the detention order was perverse and non-speaking, as it failed to provide reasonable grounds or supporting evidence for the apprehension of public disorder. Furthermore, the Court determined that the availability of an alternate remedy does not oust the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction when an order is passed without legal reasoning or authority. The key principle laid down is that preventive detention requires the detaining authority to establish reasonable grounds through concrete material, and an order lacking such justification is invalid and subject to judicial review despite the existence of statutory alternate remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of an alternate remedy under Section 3(6) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 valid if it lacks incriminating material or reasonable grounds?
  • Does a detention order that fails to provide legal reasoning violate Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahnoor Shabbir vs Additional District Judge, etc2023 LHC 6415, 2024 CLC 513, 2024 PLJ Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-12Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodi Begum and others vs Mohammad Eisa and others2023 MLD 739 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Textile Mills Limited through Technical Director Power of the Company vs Sui-Northern Gas Pipelines, SNGPL through Managing Director, Lahore and 5 others2023 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Khan and 3 others vs Bashir Ahmed and another2023 YLR 176 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-31Read full judgment →
• Mafaiza Begum vs Ghazwana Perveen and others2023 YLR 1961 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• Madrissa-Tul-Madina vs Lahore Development Authority, etc2023 LHC 6496 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-08Read full judgment →
• Madiha Ammad vs The State through Prosecutor General Punjab and 92023 PCRLJ 372 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-15
  cancellation reportfirst information reportprocedural fairnessright to fair trialchange of investigationpolice rulesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the Judicial Magistrate concurring with a police cancellation report and cancelling an FIR registered under Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the Superintendent of Police must mandatorily countersign a cancellation report under the Police Rules, 1934, and whether a complainant has a right to be heard by the Magistrate prior to the cancellation of an FIR in light of the constitutional rights to fair trial and due process under Articles 4 and 10A. The Lahore High Court held that Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules requiring the Superintendent of Police to submit or countersign the cancellation report is mandatory, and that under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution, the complainant of an FIR is entitled to procedural fairness and a right of hearing before a Magistrate decides on a cancellation report. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the power to cancel a first information report is inherent in section 173 read with section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the requirement under Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules 1934 for the Superintendent of Police to submit or countersign a cancellation report mandatory?
  • Does a complainant have a fundamental right to be informed and heard by a Magistrate when considering a police cancellation report under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a Magistrate act as a criminal court when concurring with a cancellation report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Madeeha Munir vs Government of the Punjab and 06 Others2023 LHC 2359, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 68 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-06
  locus poenitentiaeeducator recruitmentsoftware errormerit listintra court appealcontractual employmentconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves multiple intra-court appeals and a constitutional petition arising from a recruitment process for educators initiated by the Government of the Punjab under the Recruitment Policy 2016/2017. The core legal question concerned whether the principle of locus poenitentiae could protect appointment contracts erroneously issued to candidates lower in merit due to software errors in the recruitment process, preventing their withdrawal in favor of more deserving candidates higher in merit. The Lahore High Court held that the principle of locus poenitentiae does not apply to protect benefits or appointments erroneously extended on the basis of a software mistake or illegality, particularly to the detriment of more meritorious candidates. The court established that an illegal or erroneous order does not create perpetual rights, and rectification of merit is permissible when a mistake is discovered, provided there is no evidence of malice, favoritism, or political interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to protect appointment contracts granted erroneously due to a software error in a recruitment process?
  • Can a government department rectify a merit list and withdraw appointments made on the basis of erroneous software calculations?
  • Whether constitutional interference is warranted in public employment selections in the absence of established malafide, political interference, or departure from merit?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Haroon Ashraf vs Dr. Fayyaz Ranjha and 9 others2023 YLR 767 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-17Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (R) Muhammad Zubair vs Mst. Sughran Begum and another2023 CLC 1411 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-16Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The State etc2023 LHC 1228, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 814, 2024 YLR 1082 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlpsychotropic substancesretrospective legislationex post facto lawcontinuing offenceketaminestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application concerns FIR No. 57/2022, registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged illegal transportation of ketamine. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s actions constituted an offence, specifically considering the timing of ketamine’s classification as a psychotropic substance and the constitutional protection against retrospective criminal punishment under Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Court dismissed the bail application, holding that while the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws prevents punishing past acts that were lawful at the time, the petitioner’s failure to comply with the Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001, regarding the transportation of psychotropic substances constitutes a continuing offence. The Court established that even if the initial import was protected, the subsequent transportation without a valid permit after the substance was legally classified as psychotropic violates Section 7 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Penal statutes must be strictly construed, but continuing breaches of regulatory duties remain prospective in nature.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, protect an accused from prosecution for the transportation of a substance that was classified as psychotropic after its initial import?
  • Can the failure to maintain records or obtain permits for controlled substances under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Regulation of Drugs of Abuse, Controlled Chemicals, Equipment and Materials) Rules, 2001, be treated as a continuing offence?
  • Does the prohibition against ex post facto laws under Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, apply to procedural rules or only to substantive penal provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs State etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 299 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-22
  criminal appealmurderchance witnessbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencesolitary witnessmedical evidencecriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302(b) and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendered by the trial court. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the reliability of the eyewitnesses, who were classified as chance witnesses, and the corroborative value of medical and recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene, that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness lacked the necessary strong corroboration, and that various loopholes in the medical evidence, motive, and alleged recoveries created serious doubts in the prosecution story. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that the uncorroborated testimony of a chance witness cannot form the basis of a safe conviction on a capital charge, and that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as of right. The appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted by giving him the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a chance witness can be relied upon for sustaining a conviction on a capital charge?
  • What is the legal evidentiary value of medical testimony in establishing the identity of an assailant in a criminal trial?
  • When is an adverse inference drawn against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 for withholding material witnesses?
  • Does a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution story entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Hussain vs Mohammad Ashiq2023 CLC 768 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-28Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs Chief Officer, Municipal Committee, Gojra and 2 others2023 CLC 1673 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-19Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali @ Bao. and others vs The State & another2023 LHC 6906, 2024 YLR 372 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-30
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtchance witnesspost-mortem delaycircumstantial evidenceacquittalenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while the connected revision petition seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the credibility of the alleged eyewitnesses and the established motive. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It determined that the eyewitnesses were 'chance witnesses' who could not provide a credible reason for their presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, an unexplained ten-hour delay in the post-mortem examination indicated the fabrication of evidence and the procurement of fake witnesses. The Court also noted that the alleged motive, which targeted the complainant and witnesses, was inconsistent with the fact that they remained unharmed while the deceased was killed. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the revision petition, reiterating that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a chance witness admissible without independent corroboration or a justifiable reason for their presence?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create a reasonable doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the alleged motive targets individuals who remain unharmed while the deceased is killed?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a legal right for an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Tax Bar Association vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 6550, PTCL 2024 CL. 26, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 310, 2024 PTD 281 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-18
  Appellate Tribunal Inland RevenueMustafa Impex doctrinejudicial tribunalde facto doctrineappointment rulesconstitutional validityreading down doctrinemerit-based recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Lahore Tax Bar Association, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 130 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (Appointment of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2020. The core legal questions concerned whether the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) is a judicial tribunal, the validity of appointments made on a contract basis against permanent posts, and the constitutional authority of the Prime Minister to frame rules and make appointments independently of the Federal Cabinet. The Court held that the ATIR is a judicial tribunal and that executive authority vests exclusively in the Federal Cabinet, not the Prime Minister individually. Consequently, the Court read down the term 'Prime Minister' in Section 130(2) to 'Federal Government' and declared the 2020 Appointment Rules ultra vires for lack of Cabinet approval. Invoking the de facto doctrine, the Court allowed existing incumbents to continue temporarily while mandating the promulgation of new, transparent rules within thirty days and the completion of fresh recruitment within forty-five days thereafter, emphasizing that appointments to permanent posts must follow a competitive, merit-based process.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue a judicial or administrative tribunal?
  • Can the Prime Minister unilaterally exercise statutory powers assigned to the Federal Government without Cabinet approval?
  • Are appointments to permanent posts on a contract basis legally permissible?
  • Can the doctrine of reading down be applied to save the constitutionality of a statutory provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority through Director General and Director Land2023 MLD 2118 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-02Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority and another vs D.G. Khan Cement2023 MLD 11 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-24Read full judgment →
• Laeeq Ahmad vs Addl. District Judge, Kasur, etc2023 LHC 2301 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-20Read full judgment →
• Khursheed Ahmad and 3 others vs Province of Punjab through Collector2023 PLD Lahore 245 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-06Read full judgment →
• Khurram Shahzad vs Zeeshan Nawaz, etc2023 LHC 3780, 2023 PLJ Lahore 719, 2025 YLR 13 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-16Read full judgment →
• Khurram Shahzad vs Province of Punjab through Deputy Commissioner2023 PLC (C.S.) 1375 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-06
  government accommodationallotment policyvested rightcivil revisionspecific reliefvoid ab initiotenancy-at-will
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a serving police official holding the rank of Superintendent of Police, filed a civil revision assailing concurrent judgments of the courts below which dismissed his suit for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction against the withdrawal of the allotment of a government-owned residence in Lahore. The core legal questions involved whether a police official, not belonging to the cadre of the Services and General Administration Department, is eligible for the allotment of government accommodation under the Punjab Government Residences Allotment Policy, 2021 and whether such an allotment, being void ab initio, confers any vested right of occupation. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was ineligible for the allotment from the outset under both the applicable 1997 policy and the 2021 Allotment Policy, rendering the initial allotment void and making him an occupant at will liable to eviction. The Court laid down the principle that government servants have no vested legal right to residential accommodation, that an authority competent to issue an order possesses the inherent power to rescind or recall it, and that a grace period for policy transitions does not cure an allotment that was illegal from its inception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police official not belonging to the cadre of the Services and General Administration Department is eligible for the allotment of government residential accommodation under the Punjab Government Residences Allotment Policy, 2021?
  • Does a government servant have a vested legal right or claim to the allotment of government-owned residential accommodation?
  • Whether the grace period provided for existing allotments under an allotment policy covers an allotment that was illegal and void ab initio from its inception?
  • Can an authority vested with the jurisdiction to pass an order rescind or recall the same under the General Clauses Act 1956?
  • Does the occupation of a government residence by an allottee amount to a tenancy-at-will terminable by the State at any time without cause shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh and another vs The State2023 MLD 1983 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14
  abatement of appealdeath of appellantcriminal appealdeath sentenceservice benefitslex foriSection 544-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by a convict against his conviction and death sentence, which remained pending before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the appeal abates upon the death of the appellant, and if legal heirs possess the right to continue the proceedings to preserve the deceased's service benefits. The Court held that the appeal stands abated pursuant to Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It clarified that while an appeal against a sentence of fine may survive, compensation awarded under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, does not constitute a fine. The Court affirmed the principle of lex fori, noting that jurisdiction is conferred by domestic law, not foreign precedents. It established that the death of an accused results in the abatement of criminal proceedings ab initio, effectively nullifying the conviction. Consequently, the Court ruled that legal heirs cannot continue the appeal to secure service benefits, as death terminates both criminal and departmental inquiries, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal appeal abate upon the death of the appellant under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can legal heirs continue a criminal appeal after the death of the appellant to secure service benefits?
  • Does compensation awarded under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, constitute a fine for the purposes of abatement?
  • Does the death of a civil servant during the pendency of a criminal appeal terminate pending departmental inquiries?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawar Mumtaz, etc vs Deputy Commissioner, etc2023 LHC 791 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
• Khateeb Hussain and others vs State and othersPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 857 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-21
  qatl-i-amdanti-terrorism actdeath sentence confirmationdefinition of terrorismabetmentocular accountbenefit of the doubtpost-mortem examinationyoung age mitigating circumstance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference arise from the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Bahawalpur, convicting the appellants for the murder of an associate professor and vice-principal of a college. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the crime constituted terrorism under the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, and whether abetment was established against the co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and prompt registration of the FIR, firmly established the guilt of the primary appellant for premeditated murder. However, the Court ruled that a personal vendetta or private crime does not constitute 'terrorism' merely because it creates fear or shock in society, unless the specific statutory intent or mens rea of terrorism is proven. Consequently, convictions under the Anti-terrorism Act were set aside for the main appellant, though his death sentence under the Pakistan Penal Code was maintained. Regarding the co-accused charged with abetment and glorification, the Court found the evidence insufficient and granted him the benefit of the doubt, resulting in his acquittal. The key principles laid down emphasize that private crimes driven by personal motives do not qualify as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, and that young age alone does not constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence in brutal murder cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does a brutal murder committed out of personal annoyance or private vendetta qualify as an act of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Whether young age of an accused by itself constitutes a sufficient mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can a conviction for abetment be sustained when eyewitnesses admit to having no personal knowledge or evidence of instigation by the accused?
  • Does the creation of fear, shock, or insecurity in society automatically transform a private crime into an act of terrorism without proof of statutory mens rea?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Safdar Makhdoom vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary2023 PCRLJ 1373 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-31
  under-trial prisonermedical boardlocus standiaggrieved personjudicial reviewright to healthprison rulesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the constitution of a special medical board and its report declaring his incarcerated son to be malingering, as well as the executive authority exercised by the health secretary in the matter. The core legal questions involved the locus standi of a prisoner's father to invoke constitutional jurisdiction, the competence of executive authorities to constitute medical boards for under-trial prisoners, and the proper forum for regulating a prisoner's medical examination. The High Court held that the prisoner's father qualifies as an aggrieved person with locus standi, and that matters concerning an under-trial prisoner's custody, medical examination, and hospital transfer fall within the jurisdiction of the trial court/magistrate rather than executive functionaries. Consequently, the court declared the constitution of the special board and its report to be without lawful authority and directed the trial court to entertain fresh applications in this regard, while also ordering an inquiry into the procedural violations surrounding the prisoner's hospital transfer. The key principles laid down are that prisoners retain fundamental rights to life and dignity, that close relatives have standing to challenge illegal detentions or medical neglect, and that the regulation of a prisoner's custody and medical evaluation lies exclusively with the judicial authority rather than the executive.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the father of an incarcerated under-trial prisoner has the locus standi to maintain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging actions affecting the prisoner's health and custody?
  • Do executive authorities possess the jurisdiction to independently entertain complaints from private parties and constitute special medical boards for prisoners, or does such power vest in the trial court or magistrate regulating the prisoner's custody?
  • What are the mandatory procedures under the Prison Rules, 1978, for transferring an under-trial prisoner to a hospital outside the jail premises or to another station?
  • Does an arrested person or under-trial prisoner retain fundamental rights to life, dignity, and appropriate healthcare while lodged in prison?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 1283 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-26
  murder referencejudicial confessionocular evidencerelated witnessesdeath sentenceabscondencecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant for the murder of his ex-wife and causing injuries to his mother-in-law. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence from related witnesses, the impact of the appellant's judicial confession, the evidentiary value of long abscondence, and whether the death sentence was warranted. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of the weapon, and the appellant's repeated judicial confessions. The court rejected arguments regarding the delay in post-mortem examination, noting the priority given to treating the injured victim. It affirmed that related witnesses are competent if their testimony is trustworthy and confidence-inspiring. The court established that a judicial confession, when voluntary and corroborated by other evidence, constitutes strong proof of guilt. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and confirmed the death sentence, finding no mitigating circumstances to warrant leniency.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of related witnesses be relied upon for conviction in a murder case?
  • Does a voluntary judicial confession made during trial proceedings provide sufficient basis for conviction?
  • Is long abscondence of an accused considered a strong piece of corroborative evidence?
  • Does a delay in conducting a post-mortem examination automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Iqbal and others vs Mst. Yaseen and others2023 CLC 963 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Khairat Ali vs Saqib Ashfaq and others2023 CLC 926 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Layyah and 12 others2023 YLR 729 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
• Khadija Shah vs The State, etc.2023 LHC 5020 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-11
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilityanti-terrorismsocial media evidenceSection 161 Cr.P.C.criminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Khadija Shah, sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 1271/2023, involving various offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, following violent protests. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidence presented, specifically regarding her alleged role in inciting violence and anti-state activities. The Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the initial F.I.R. and that subsequent statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, appeared to be improvements upon the original complaint. Furthermore, forensic reports verifying the authenticity of social media content attributed to the petitioner were pending. The Court held that the prosecution's case against the petitioner required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly noting her subsequent apology for a controversial tweet. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where evidence is inconclusive and requires further investigation, the benefit of doubt at the bail stage favors the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the introduction of an accused's name in a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, after the registration of an F.I.R. without naming them, constitute grounds for further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted when forensic reports verifying the authenticity of digital evidence relied upon by the prosecution are still pending?
  • Does an apology for a controversial social media post impact the determination of guilt for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Nawaz, etc vs State, etc2023 LHC 6660, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 813 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-19
  refusal to sign charge sheetSection 180 PPCcontempt of courtSection 480 CrPCSection 482 CrPCsummary convictionmaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants under Section 180 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (PPC) and sentencing them to fifteen days' simple imprisonment with a fine for refusing to sign a charge sheet. The core legal questions were whether an accused person is legally required to sign a charge sheet, whether a court can directly pass a sentence of imprisonment under Section 180 PPC, and whether an appeal against such an order is maintainable. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The Court held that while obtaining signatures on a charge sheet is common practice, it is not a statutory legal requirement, and refusal to sign does not constitute an offence under Section 180 PPC. Furthermore, under Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Cr.P.C.), a court taking summary cognizance of contempt in its presence can only impose a fine up to two hundred rupees; to impose imprisonment, it must forward the case to a Magistrate under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court also affirmed that an appeal against a summary conviction under Section 480 Cr.P.C. is competent under Section 486 Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused person legally required to sign a charge sheet under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court directly sentence an accused to imprisonment under Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for an offence under Section 180 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What procedure must a court follow under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it considers that a sentence of imprisonment is warranted for contempt committed in its presence?
  • Is an appeal maintainable under Section 486 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against a summary conviction passed under Section 480 of the Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Mehmood vs Election Commission of Pakistan & 02 others2023 LHC 2145 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-13Read full judgment →
• Kashf Foundation through Chief Executive vs Chief Commissioner Inland2024 PTD 808, 2023 LHC 7605 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
• Kareem Nawaz and 4 others vs District Collector/Deputy Commissioner2023 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-12
  land acquisitionsection 4 notificationurgency powersfeasibility reportfundamental rightsright to propertyjudicial reviewabdication of discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the acquisition of land by the District Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the extension of infrastructure at PAF Base, Multan, and the subsequent issuance of a notification under sections 17(4) and 6 by the Commissioner. The core legal questions involved the legality of the initial section 4 notification without complying with mandatory feasibility rules, the abdication of statutory discretion by public authorities through external drafting and dictation, and the proper interpretation and exercise of urgency powers under section 17. The Lahore High Court held that the District Collector failed to conduct the mandatory objective feasibility examination under the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, and abdicated his powers by merely endorsing a pre-drafted notification. The Court further held that the Commissioner's issuance of the urgency notification under section 17(4) after a prolonged delay negated any genuine urgency, suffered from dictated exercise of power, and lacked the requisite objective formation of opinion. Consequently, both notifications were declared void ab initio and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that compulsory acquisition is a severe invasion of fundamental property rights, requiring strict adherence to procedural safeguards, objective feasibility assessments by collectors, and independent, reasoned formation of opinion by commissioners in cases of urgency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the District Collector to conduct an objective feasibility study and examine alternate land uses renders a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 void?
  • Can a public authority abdicate its statutory discretion by adopting and issuing a draft notification prepared by external agencies or military authorities?
  • Whether the Commissioner is legally required to form an independent, objective opinion in writing based on material evidence before invoking the special urgency powers and dispensing with sections 5 and 5-A under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Does an inordinate delay in issuing a declaration under section 17(4) and section 6 negate the existence of urgency required for bypassing normal land acquisition procedures?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Saeed vs Additional District Judge etc.2023 LHC 4682, 2023 PLJ Lahore 912 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-13Read full judgment →
• Kamran Khan vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2023 LHC 2759, 2023 PLJ Lahore 834 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
• Kamila Aamir and another vs Additional District & Session Judge and others2023 LHC 3572, 2023 PLD Lahore 601, 2023 PLJ Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-19
  Order II Rule 2rejection of plaintclaim splittingmultiplicity of litigationcause of actioninheritance disputecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an appellate order rejecting their plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the bar under Order II Rule 2. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could institute a second suit for inheritance claims and cancellation of documents while a prior suit concerning the same estate was pending, and whether a final decision in the first suit is a prerequisite for invoking the bar of Order II Rule 2. The Lahore High Court held that the second suit was barred, as the petitioners had split their claims and reliefs arising from the same cause of action—the denial of inheritance rights—across two separate proceedings. The Court affirmed that Order II Rule 2 is designed to prevent multiplicity of litigation and vexatious suits, and its application does not require a final judgment in the prior suit. Furthermore, the Court established that while rejection of a plaint generally relies on the plaint's contents, a court may consider admitted facts outside the plaint to determine if a suit is barred by law, thereby avoiding unnecessary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require a final judgment in the first suit to be applicable?
  • Can a court consider facts outside the plaint when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the omission of a claim or relief in a prior suit regarding the same cause of action bar a subsequent suit under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Kabeer Akbar vs State etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 446, 2023 PCRLJ 1588 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08
  pre-arrest bailcorporate criminal liabilitydishonestly issuing a chequeseparate legal entityidentification doctrinemens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a pre-arrest bail application in a criminal case involving the dishonour of a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions examined by the Lahore High Court are whether criminal liability under Section 489-F is attributable to a corporation, and whether the individual signing the cheque on behalf of the company bears criminal liability. The court held that corporations can be prosecuted under Section 489-F as the term 'whoever' encompasses both natural and juristic persons, and that the criminal liability of the signatory depends on their role, position, and authority as the directing mind of the company. The court laid down principles regarding corporate criminal liability, the identification doctrine, and the separate legal entity of corporations. Finding that the dispute involved contractual breaches and prima facie malice, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Is criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 attributable to a company?
  • Does the person who signs a cheque on behalf of a company bear criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • How does the identification doctrine apply to determine the criminal intent of a corporation?
  Read full judgment →
• Judicial Activism Panel, etc. vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc.2023 LHC 4329, 2023 CLC 1947 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-08Read full judgment →
• Judicial Activism Panel, etc vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc2023 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-08Read full judgment →
• Judicial Activism Panel vs Government of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 5568, 2024 YLR 1961 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-31Read full judgment →
• Javed Khan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 1280 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-27
  upgradation of postsservice lawright to equalitydiscriminationphysical training instructorsconstitutional petitionservice benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Physical Training Instructors (PTIs) in Federal Government Educational Institutions (Cantonments and Garrisons), sought the upgradation of their posts to BS-17, alleging discriminatory treatment compared to similarly situated employees in the Federal Directorate of Education who received such benefits. The core legal question was whether the denial of this upgradation violated the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court held that while upgradation is a policy decision and not an inherent right, once the state decides to grant such benefits to a class of employees to prevent stagnation, it cannot arbitrarily exclude others performing identical duties. The Court found that the respondents had previously recommended the upgradation to remove discrimination and that a similar previous judgment involving a PTI had attained finality. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to upgrade the petitioners' posts. The key principle laid down is that the state cannot discriminate between similarly situated employees in the matter of service benefits like upgradation once a policy decision to grant such benefits has been implemented for a specific cadre.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee claim upgradation of a post as a matter of right?
  • Does the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution prohibit discriminatory denial of service benefits like upgradation to similarly situated employees?
  • Can a government department deny service benefits to a specific group of employees when those benefits have already been granted to others in the same cadre?
  • Does an office memorandum regarding the constitution of a committee for upgradation operate retrospectively?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 690 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26
  criminal revisionvideo evidenceSection 265-C Cr.P.C.disclosure of evidenceadmissibility of evidencePunjab Forensic Science Agencyfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged a trial court order that excluded hard disks containing video evidence of an occurrence from the record. The core legal question was whether a trial court is justified in excluding crucial prosecution evidence simply because copies could not be immediately prepared in court, and what the correct procedure is for ensuring compliance with the mandatory disclosure requirements under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that the trial court’s attempt to have the disks copied by an unqualified official was unwarranted. The Court ruled that video recordings constitute documents and are vital evidence. Consequently, the trial court was directed to facilitate the preparation of copies through a competent IT department or the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The judgment establishes that procedural failures in providing copies to the accused should be remedied through proper administrative channels rather than by excluding material evidence, as the court must ensure the fair administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does a video recording of a crime scene constitute a document under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is the provision of copies of prosecution evidence to the accused under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory?
  • Can a trial court exclude crucial prosecution evidence solely due to the failure to prepare copies in open court?
  • What is the appropriate procedure for a trial court to follow when copies of digital evidence are required for the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs State, etc.2023 PLJ Cr.C. 85 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26
  video evidencesupply of copiesfair trialdocumentary evidencecriminal revisionforensic analysisSection 265-C Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order by the Trial Court excluding hard disks containing video evidence of the occurrence from the record. The prosecution relied on these hard disks, which were secured during investigation and analyzed by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. Initially, the Trial Court ordered the prosecution to provide copies of this evidence to the accused under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. However, when a police official present in court failed to copy the data, the Trial Court ordered the exclusion of the evidence. The High Court held that video evidence constitutes a document under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and is crucial for determining the case. It ruled that the Trial Court's decision to exclude the evidence due to a technical failure by an unqualified individual was legally unsustainable. The High Court set aside the impugned order, directing the Trial Court to ensure copies are prepared by a competent laboratory, such as the Punjab Forensic Science Agency, emphasizing that compliance with Section 265-C is mandatory for a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a video recording or hard disk containing video footage constitute a document under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is the prosecution legally obligated to supply copies of video evidence to the accused under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court exclude critical prosecution evidence solely because of a failure to produce copies of that evidence in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad Tayab vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 LHC 429, 2024 CLD 575, 2024 PLD Lahore 211 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-01Read full judgment →
• Jalil Ahmed vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Local2023 PLC (C.S.) 1403 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-26
  dismissal from servicecompetent authorityjudicial defiancereinstatementSection 12(2) CPCdepartmental misconductservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of dismissal from service issued by the Administrator of the Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) against the petitioner, a junior clerk. The core legal questions were whether the Administrator was the competent authority to pass the dismissal order under the relevant rules and whether the respondents could circumvent a prior court-ordered reinstatement by issuing a fresh dismissal order without challenging the initial judgment. The Court held that the impugned dismissal order was illegal and issued without lawful authority, noting that the Tehsil Municipal Officer was the competent authority under the Punjab Tehsil/Town Municipal Administration Rules of Business, 2002. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the respondents' attempt to frustrate a final judicial order through administrative action was improper and contemptuous. The Court affirmed the principle that an employee should not suffer for the departmental authorities' own procedural errors or failures. Additionally, the Court dismissed the respondents' application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, ruling that it cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or revision to challenge a judgment that has attained finality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be used as a substitute for an appeal, revision, or review?
  • Can an administrative authority issue a dismissal order to circumvent a previous court-ordered reinstatement without challenging the original judgment?
  • Is an employee liable to suffer the consequences of procedural faults committed by departmental authorities during the appointment process?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Khan. vs Abdul Ghaffar (deceased) through L.Rs. etc.2023 LHC 6290 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
• J.K. Twills and Drills (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Director and another vs Premier Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited and another2023 CLD 1098 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →