Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.
- Ishtiaq Saleem vs Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah (deceased) through L.Rs & others2023 LHC 2369 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-28Read full judgment →
- Ishrat Bano etc. vs Fateh Muhammad2023 LHC 736 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-09Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ahmed vs Shaukat Hussain Kiyani, Etc.2023 LHC 5158, 2024 MLD 334 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-10Read full judgment →
- Khushdil Khan Malik vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 LHC 5792, 2024 PLD Lahore 86 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-05Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Ansari vs The State2023 LHC 4322, 2024 MLD 846 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under sections 7(a), 7(b), and 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant relapsed into a mental illness, and a medical board certified him as suffering from schizoaffective disorder and unfit to face legal proceedings. The core legal question was whether an appellate court must postpone the hearing of a criminal appeal or a death reference when the convict is of unsound mind, given that the statutory protections in sections 464 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 explicitly apply only to inquiries and trials. The Lahore High Court held that although these statutory provisions do not explicitly govern appeals, the court possesses inherent power to postpone proceedings to prevent prejudice and ensure a fair hearing. The Court laid down the principle that an appellate court must postpone the hearing of an appeal or reference when the convict is mentally incapacitated, unless the case is such that the convict would be acquitted.
Questions settled- Do the protections and procedures under sections 464 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to criminal appeals?
- Does an appellate court have the inherent power to postpone the hearing of an appeal if the appellant is found to be of unsound mind?
- Can a criminal appeal or death reference be decided against a convict while they are mentally incapacitated and unable to instruct counsel?
- Imtiaz Hussain vs District Judge etc2023 LHC 6165 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-13Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Ali vs Muhammad Sadiq2023 LHC 1621 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Ahmad vs Muhammad Ashraf (deceased) through L.Rs. and others2023 YLR 2603 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-03Read full judgment →
- Imran Mustafa vs Government of Punjab, etc2023 LHC 6047, 2024 PLJ Lahore 63, 2024 PCRLJ 1487 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199(1)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by a convict sentenced under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner challenged the authorities' refusal to grant him sentence remissions, citing the insertion of Section 9(A)(1) via the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, which prohibits such remissions. The core legal question was whether this amendment applies retrospectively to a convict whose arrest, indictment, and conviction occurred prior to the amendment's promulgation. The Lahore High Court held that the amendment is prospective in nature and lacks explicit legislative intent for retrospective application. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner’s vested right to earn remissions, which accrued under the law existing at the time of his arrest and trial, could not be divested by subsequent legislation. The Court affirmed that amendments cannot nullify rights that have already crystallized, directing the authorities to grant the petitioner the remissions to which he is entitled under the law.
Questions settled- Does Section 9(A)(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, apply retrospectively to convicts sentenced before its promulgation?
- Can a statutory amendment deprive a convict of the right to earn remissions that accrued under the law existing at the time of their arrest and trial?
- Is the provision prohibiting remissions in the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, prospective or retrospective in nature?
- Imran Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 LHC 4120 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-17Read full judgment →
- Imran Hameed etc. vs The State etc.2023 LHC 4565, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 1019 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application regarding FIR No. 699/2022, registered under sections 298-B and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, against petitioners managing a Qadiani place of worship. The core legal question was whether the continued existence of a worship place built in 1922, featuring architectural elements resembling a mosque, constitutes a "continuing offence" rendering the current caretakers criminally liable under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the doctrine of "continuing offence" is inapplicable to these facts. It reasoned that the structure predated the relevant penal provisions, and the prosecution failed to establish any new criminal act or mens rea by the petitioners. Consequently, the Court granted pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that a "continuing offence" requires a series of acts or omissions driven by a unique criminal intent that persists over time; it cannot be invoked to criminalize the mere existence of a pre-existing structure where no current criminal conduct or mens rea is demonstrated by the accused.
Questions settled- Does the doctrine of continuing offence apply to the maintenance of a worship place built before the enactment of the penal provisions prohibiting specific architectural features?
- Can caretakers of a religious site be held criminally liable for the architectural design of a structure built decades prior to their management?
- Is the presence of a minaret on a non-Muslim place of worship sufficient to establish a continuing offence under sections 298-B and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Imran and others vs StatePLJ 2023 Cr.C. 232 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants, Imran and Hasnain, for murder and attempted murder under Sections 302(b)/34 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing Imran to death and Hasnain to imprisonment for life, alongside compensation orders under Section 544-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular account, the role and duties of a first responder under the Police Rules 1934, and the presence of mitigating circumstances for sentencing. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and medical evidence, and that separate dispatch of injured persons or minor discrepancies did not vitiate the case. However, considering the failure to prove the motive and the fact that fatal injuries were attributed to multiple accused, the court altered the death sentence of Imran to imprisonment for life while maintaining the rest of the convictions and sentences.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove motive constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting the alteration of a death sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What are the statutory and regulatory duties of a police officer acting as a first responder at a crime scene under the Police Rules 1934 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the separate dispatch of injured witnesses to a hospital on private transport versus emergency services cast genuine doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene?
- Whether minor discrepancies or statements against the record regarding the rough site plan can discredit confidence-inspiring ocular testimony in a murder trial?
- Imran and another vs The State2023 YLR 2084 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants, Imran and Hasnain, under sections 302(b)/34 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and causing firearm injuries, resulting in a death sentence for Imran and life imprisonment for Hasnain, alongside compensation orders under section 544-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony of injured and eyewitnesses, the legal role and duties of a first responder under the Police Rules 1934, the effect of non-proof of motive, and the adequacy of circumstances to sustain capital punishment. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular accounts corroborated by medical evidence. However, because the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive and firearms were sent for forensic analysis only after the arrest of the accused, mitigating circumstances existed against the death penalty. The court therefore dismissed the appeals while altering Imran's death sentence to imprisonment for life and answering the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether the unproven motive in a murder case serves as a mitigating circumstance to alter a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
- What are the statutory and regulatory duties and functions of a police first responder at a crime scene under the Police Rules 1934 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the separate dispatching of injured witnesses to a hospital cast doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of the occurrence?
- Whether the failure to record statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through a first responder vitiates the subsequent police investigation?
- Imran Ali vs The State etc.2023 LHC 6950, 2024 YLR 1868 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) PPC for the qatl-i-amd of his wife. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of delayed FIR registration, delayed post-mortem examination, the credibility of chance and belatedly introduced eye-witnesses exhibiting unnatural conduct, and the reliability of a weapon recovery after a significant time lapse. The Lahore High Court held that multiple infirmities in the prosecution case, including unexplained delays, lack of corroboration for eyewitness presence, unnatural silence during the attack, and a doubtful weapon recovery, rendered the prosecution evidence untrustworthy. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, laying down the principle that multiple cumulative circumstances creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does a significant and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination create a doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution story?
- Can the testimony of eye-witnesses whose names were omitted from the FIR and introduced via a belated supplementary statement after two days be relied upon without independent corroboration?
- Is the conduct of close relatives considered unnatural if they stand as silent spectators without intervening or attempting to rescue the victim from a non-firearm assault?
- Does a delayed recovery of a blood-stained weapon and its belated submission to the forensic science agency render the recovery and forensic report doubtful?
- Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 CLC 239 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
- Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2023 LHC 1, 2025 YLR 271 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-05Read full judgment →
- Imran Abbas Bhatti vs Govt. of Punjab etc2023 LHC 2764 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-23Read full judgment →
- Ilyas Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Sialkot and 7 others2023 CLC 138 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-03Read full judgment →
- Ikhlaq Haider Chattha vs Caretaker Chief Minister Punjab & others2023 LHC 3356, 2023 PLJ Lahore 714 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-07Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Hussain alias Jajay Shah vs The State and another2023 LHC 5785, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 471 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chishtian, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution had proved the recovery of narcotics from the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, given that material case documents were written in the same hand and cast serious doubt on the occurrence of the alleged police raid. The court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case, observing that the identity of handwriting on the complaint, recovery memo, and site plan strongly indicated they were fabricated at the police station in a single sitting. The Lahore High Court laid down the principle that a court is empowered under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, to compare disputed handwriting with admitted writing with extreme care and caution to resolve controversies, and that a single reasonable doubt arising from flawed police proceedings entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether a court is empowered to compare disputed handwriting or signatures under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
- Does the preparation of the complaint, recovery memo, and site plan in the same handwriting cast doubt on the genuineness of a police raid in a narcotics case?
- Is the prosecution required to prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials?
- Does a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in the mind of a prudent person entitle the accused to acquittal?
- Ijaz Akhtar vs Secretary to Government of Punjab and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 431 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging orders rejecting his claim for proforma promotion from BS-16 to BS-17 and dismissing his departmental appeal under Rule 20 of the Punjab Local Council Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983. The Petitioner, who had retired upon superannuation, claimed he was superseded while junior officers and another individual were granted proforma promotion. The core legal question was whether a retired civil servant is entitled to proforma promotion when his case was duly considered and deferred during his service due to pending disciplinary/surcharge matters and incomplete service records. The Court held that while a civil servant has a fundamental right to be considered for proforma promotion even after retirement if the right accrued during service without fault of his own, the Petitioner's case was lawfully considered and deferred multiple times during his active service due to valid impediments such as a surcharge order and missing ACRs. Consequently, promotion cannot be claimed as a vested right when the employee fails to meet the criteria or is legitimately superseded during service. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a retired civil servant has a fundamental right to claim proforma promotion after retirement?
- Can proforma promotion be claimed as a matter of right by an employee?
- Does a civil servant remain entitled to proforma promotion if his case was considered and deferred during service due to pending surcharge orders and incomplete records?
- Ijaz Ahmed vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Local Government2023 CLC 999 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Ahmad Khan vs Muhammad Bootay Khan deceased through his legal2023 LHC 7663, 2024 PLJ Lahore 156, 2025 CLC 684 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-05Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Ahmad and others vs Khizar Hayat and others2023 MLD 761 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ali and others vs Riaz-ul-Haq alias Riaz Ahmed and others2023 YLR 854 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State, etc2023 LHC 2911, 2024 YLR 1052 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition arose from the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner, a police constable, under sections 324, 337-F(v), 334 PPC and Article 155-C of the Police Order, 2002 for causing firearm injuries during an altercation. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established intent for an attempt to commit qatl-i-amd or whether the injuries were caused by mistake (khata) during grappling, and the legality of the petitioner's departmental removal from service. The Lahore High Court held that in the absence of intention and given evidence of grappling and short-range firing, the offence fell under causing hurt by mistake attracting Section 337-I PPC rather than sections 324, 334, and 337-F(v) PPC. Furthermore, the conviction under the Police Order, 2002 was set aside due to lack of statutory sanction. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution fails to prove specific intent and evidence suggests a scuffle, injuries resulting from a weapon discharging during grappling amount to 'khata' (mistake), and an exculpatory or explanatory admission by an accused under Section 342 Cr.PC must be considered as a whole.
Questions settled- Whether Section 324 PPC is attracted in the absence of evidence of intention or knowledge to commit qatl-i-amd?
- Does causing harm by mistake of act or fact during grappling amount to khata attracting Section 337-I PPC?
- Whether an admission or confession made by an accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. should be considered as a whole?
- Whether the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 is applicable to police service employees?
- Ifraheem etc. vs State and anotherPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 549 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court arises from criminal appeals and a murder reference following the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge for the triple murder of Zeenat Bibi, Bhai Khan, and Mian Khan. The core legal question involved the credibility of the ocular testimony, conflicting statements and private complaints filed by different complainants, improvements made by eyewitnesses, and the sustainability of convictions based on the same evidence which led to the acquittal of co-accused. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the eyewitnesses made dishonest improvements, their presence at the scene was doubtful, recoveries were inconclusive, and the medical and circumstantial evidence did not sufficiently corroborate the version presented. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeals, set aside the convictions and death sentences, and answered the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Can an accused be convicted on ocular testimony that suffers from material improvements and discrepancies?
- Does medical evidence alone serve to identify the assailant in a criminal trial?
- What is the evidentiary value of abscondence when the primary prosecution case is not reasonably believable?
- Can a conviction be sustained on the same evidence that resulted in the acquittal of co-accused in the absence of independent corroboration?
- Ifraheem and others vs The State2023 MLD 1568 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of criminal appeals against convictions and a murder reference arising from a trial court judgment regarding a triple murder incident. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular evidence marked by delayed reporting, conflicting versions in private complaints, material improvements by eye-witnesses, and the corroborative value of recoveries, motive, and abscondence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the eye-witnesses were untrustworthy due to dishonest improvements, omissions, and lack of proven presence at the crime scene. The court emphasized that medical evidence cannot identify an assailant, weapon recoveries without blood stains lack evidentiary value, and absconsion alone cannot substitute substantive proof. The appeals were accepted, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses who make material and dishonest improvements from their previous statements can be relied upon to sustain a conviction?
- Can medical evidence alone identify an accused person as the assailant in a criminal trial?
- What is the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries when the forensic reports show that the weapons were not blood-stained?
- Does mere abscondence of an accused person take the place of positive proof of guilt in the absence of a believable prosecution case?
- Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs Syed Asim Ghaffar etc2023 LHC 2608, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 423 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Prime Minister, sought an extension of protective bail previously granted by the Lahore High Court in connection with multiple criminal cases registered against him. The office raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the application, contending that protective bail is a one-time grace and that no provision exists for a second application or an extension of time. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the authority to entertain a second application for protective bail or extend the time limit of an initial grant. The Court held that the concept of protective bail is deeply rooted in fundamental rights, including the right to liberty, dignity, and access to justice. Consequently, the High Court is not precluded from entertaining a second request if the petitioner demonstrates legitimate grounds. The Court affirmed that it has the inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to grant such relief to ensure the protection of fundamental rights and prevent the obstruction of justice.
Questions settled- Can a High Court entertain a second application for protective bail?
- Does the High Court have the authority to extend the time limit of an initial grant of protective bail?
- Is protective bail a one-time grace that cannot be extended under any circumstances?
- What is the legal basis for the High Court to grant protective or transitory bail?
- Humaira Mehboob vs Summit Bank Limited etc2023 LHC 1313 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
- Humaira Mehboob vs Summit Bank Limited and others2023 CLD 525, 2023 PLJ Lahore 499 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
- Hira Masood vs Additional District Judge etc.2023 LHC 4933 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-15Read full judgment →
- Hayyat Ali through legal heirs and others vs Mst. Khatoon Begum through L.2023 YLR 1521 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-25Read full judgment →
- Hayat Kimya Pakistan (Private) Limited vs Humair Yusuf and others2023 LHC 2938, 2024 CLD 326 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-05Read full judgment →
- Hayat (Deceased) through L.Rs vs Mst. Fateh Khatoon2023 MLD 665 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-15Read full judgment →
- Haswa r Shah and others vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 850 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the conviction and death sentences imposed on the appellants for the rape and murder of a minor girl. The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, alleged extra-judicial confessions, and medical reports. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established a complete, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence linking the appellants to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The court found the last-seen evidence unreliable due to unexplained delays, contradictions, and unnatural conduct of the witnesses. Furthermore, the court rejected the extra-judicial confessions as fabricated, noting the absence of any credible motive for the accused to confess and the lack of independent corroboration. The court reiterated that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a chain of events incompatible with the innocence of the accused; any missing link destroys the case. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- What is the standard of proof required for an extra-judicial confession to be considered a valid basis for conviction?
- Does a disclosure made by an accused under police custody regarding a place of occurrence already known to the police qualify as a discovery of a new fact under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- What criteria must be met for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal trial?
- Does a significant delay in recording the statement of a witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impact the credibility of that witness?
- Hastam Ashraf Mann vs Muhammad Mohsin and others2023 MLD 1911 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-18Read full judgment →
- Hassan Naimat Ullah Khan and another vs Mumtaz City through CEO and 52023 CLD 1167, 2023 PLD Lahore 677 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-29Read full judgment →
- Hassan Munir vs Province of the Punjab, etc2023 LHC 5943 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-16Read full judgment →
- Hassan Iqbal vs State & another2023 PLJ Cr.C. 156 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving murder and rioting under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where conflicting versions exist between the FIR and the police investigation, the injury attributed to the petitioner is on a non-vital part, and a land dispute provides a background for possible false implication. The Lahore High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, extending the benefit of doubt to the petitioner at the bail stage despite the offences falling within the prohibitory clause. The court established that the heinousness of an offence or the mere commencement of a trial is not a ground to refuse bail when an accused otherwise makes out a case for it, and that pre-trial incarceration must not be used as a punishment.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted when there are conflicting versions of the occurrence presented by the FIR and the investigating officer?
- Does the heinousness of an offence alone justify the refusal of bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it?
- Is the mere commencement of a trial sufficient ground to refuse bail to an undertrial prisoner?
- Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused person at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail petition?
- Hasnain Afzal etc vs Government of Punjab etc2023 LHC 5502 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order declining the petitioners' representation to be treated as regular employees rather than permanent workmen. The petitioners were initially appointed on a daily wage basis in the Punjab Local Government Board without open merit competition. The core legal question is whether daily-wage employees can claim regularization as regular civil servants or if their status is restricted to permanent workmen under labor laws. The Lahore High Court held that daily wagers appointed without transparent open-merit procedures cannot bypass statutory requirements to become regular civil servants or regular employees. The court ruled that such employees can only be considered permanent workmen under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, as settled by Supreme Court precedent. The key principles laid down are that daily-wage service does not automatically mature into civil servant status, and the term 'regularization' in such contexts means attaining the status of a permanent workman under the Ordinance of 1968 rather than a regular civil servant.
Questions settled- Can daily-wage employees appointed without open-merit competition claim regularization as regular civil servants?
- Does the long duration of service as a daily wager convert an employee into a civil servant under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
- Are daily wagers governed by the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for the purpose of attaining permanent status?
- Can the regularization of daily wagers bypass the statutory recruitment process prescribed for public sector employment?
- Hashim Raza vs Federation of Pakistan etc2023 LHC 4342, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 853 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority (SMEDA) by the Federal Government, arguing it bypassed mandatory statutory procedures. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government could appoint a CEO without the recommendation of the SMEDA Board of Directors, as required by the governing Ordinance and associated rules. The Court held that the appointment was void ab initio because the Federal Government failed to adhere to the mandatory statutory process, which requires the Board to recommend candidates. The Court emphasized that when the law prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be followed strictly. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while the Federal Government has the authority to appoint the CEO, this power is not unbridled and must be exercised in accordance with the established legal framework, including the requirement for a functional Board to participate in the selection process. The Court set aside the impugned notification and directed the government to reconstitute the Board and follow the prescribed appointment procedure.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Government appoint a CEO of a statutory body without the recommendation of its Board of Directors when the statute mandates such a process?
- Does a contractual employee have a vested right to claim an extension of tenure through a constitutional petition?
- When a statute prescribes a specific manner for performing an official act, is strict compliance required for the act to be valid?
- Is the appointment of a CEO of a public sector company subject to judicial review regarding the process followed?
- Haroon Farooq vs Govt. of the Punjab & others2023 LHC 7619, 2025 CLC 280 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-29Read full judgment →
- Haroon Farooq vs Government Of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 92023 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-09Read full judgment →
- Haroon Farooq vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 LHC 1450, 2024 PLD Lahore 637 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
- Harmooz Khan and 5 others vs Abdul Azeem Khan and 12 others2023 YLR 1150 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz and others vs The State & another2023 LHC 6967 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his son. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden, setting aside the conviction and answering the Murder Reference in the negative. The Court found the prosecution's eye-witnesses to be "chance witnesses" whose presence at the crime scene was not plausibly explained. Furthermore, significant delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem suggested the case was fabricated. The Court noted that the alleged motive was unproven, and the recovery of the weapon was unreliable due to the excessive time lapse, allowing for potential tampering. Emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right rather than a grace, the Court held that the mere recovery of a dead body from an accused's premises is insufficient for conviction absent independent corroborative evidence. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted, and his release was ordered.
Questions settled- Is the mere recovery of a dead body from an accused's house sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Does the failure to produce natural witnesses of an occurrence justify an adverse inference against the prosecution?
- Can the testimony of chance witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration of their presence at the crime scene?
- Is a delay in lodging an FIR and conducting a post-mortem examination a ground for doubting the prosecution's case?
- Hamza Sugar Mills Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PLD Lahore 736 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-05Read full judgment →
- Hamza Sugar Mills Ltd. & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 LHC 4778 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-02Read full judgment →
- Hamza Khalid vs The State and another2023 LHC 7628, 2024 PCRLJ 422 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 18 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 and section 6 of the Passport Act 1974. The core legal questions involved the legality of a search and seizure conducted by the Federal Investigation Agency without a warrant during night hours, the applicability of section 5(5) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974, and the admissibility of evidence obtained through allegedly illegal searches. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that unless there is an express constitutional or statutory bar, relevant evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure is not inadmissible per se, provided it is relevant and does not cause serious prejudice to the accused. The court laid down that under the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974, procedural irregularities or lack of search warrants during urgent night-time raids do not vitiate proceedings or render recovered evidence inadmissible unless mala fides or serious prejudice is proven.
Questions settled- Whether evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure is inadmissible in criminal proceedings in Pakistan?
- Does a failure by the Federal Investigation Agency to obtain a search warrant prior to conducting a raid vitiate the entire trial or proceedings?
- What are the mandatory elements required for the exercise of powers under section 5(5) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974?
- Are police and investigative agency witnesses considered as reliable as public witnesses in the absence of established animosity?
- Hamna Razzaq vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of National2022 PLJ Lahore 491 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
- Hamna Qaiser vs Chairman, PEMRA, etc2023 LHC 2894, 2024 MLD 243 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
- Hamid Mukhtar vs Federal Ministry of Energy, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 221 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
- Hamid Mehmood Shah Khagga vs Bank Al-Falah Limited through President2023 CLD 1464 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
- Hajra Javaid Makhdoom vs Muhammad Tehmas Nasir, etc.2023 LHC 6869, 2024 PCRLJ 1081, 2024 PLJ Lahore 362 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed to challenge orders passed by lower fora arising from a private complaint under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, where the accused was acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and a subsequent criminal revision was dismissed. The core legal question was whether an order of acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. in a complaint case is amenable to criminal revision or if the appropriate remedy is an appeal via special leave under Section 417(2) Cr.P.C., and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against such acquittal. The Lahore High Court held that an order of acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be challenged through a criminal revision due to the statutory bar where an appeal lies, and that a constitutional petition under Article 199 is not maintainable when an alternate specific remedy of appeal is provided by statute. The court laid down that acquittals under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. must be assailed through the specific appeal mechanism provided under Section 417(2), Cr.P.C. rather than by revision.
Questions settled- Is a criminal revision competent against an order of acquittal passed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against an order of acquittal when a specific alternate remedy of appeal is provided by statute?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy to challenge an order of acquittal passed in a private complaint under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Haji Arshad Mehmood vs Farrukh Imtiaz Khokhar, etc.PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 397 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, which granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case involving Sections 302, 109, 148, 149, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the lower court's grant of pre-arrest bail was perverse, given the incriminating material collected by the police connecting the respondent to the conspiracy and abetment of the crime. The High Court held that the impugned order was perverse as it ignored the prima facie evidence, including call data records and travel history, linking the respondent to the actual perpetrators. The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of mala fide for false implication, which was absent in this case. Furthermore, the court reiterated that abetment and criminal conspiracy are serious offences, and the grant of bail should not impede investigation or recovery of evidence. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and cancelled the respondent's pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when there is prima facie incriminating material connecting the accused to the crime?
- What constitutes a perverse order justifying the cancellation of pre-arrest bail by a superior court?
- Is the absence of mala fide a critical factor in determining the eligibility for pre-arrest bail?
- Does the offence of abetment and criminal conspiracy warrant a different approach to bail compared to the main offence?
- Haji Arshad Mehmood vs Farrukh Imtiaz Khokhar, etc2023 LHC 20, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 438, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 261, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 397, 2024 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, which granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 109, 148, 149, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the lower court’s grant of bail was perverse, given the prosecution's evidence linking the respondent to the conspiracy and abetment of the crime. The High Court held that the impugned order was indeed perverse as it failed to consider the incriminating material—including Call Data Records and travel history—connecting the respondent to the crime and ignored the absence of any demonstrated mala fide by the complainant. The Court reaffirmed that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of mala fide and should not be granted when evidence suggests the accused's involvement in a serious offense like murder or when the investigation requires the accused's participation for the recovery of incriminating evidence. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition, set aside the lower court's order, and cancelled the respondent's pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Can pre-arrest bail be cancelled if the lower court's order is found to be perverse?
- Is proof of mala fide a prerequisite for the grant of pre-arrest bail in criminal cases?
- Does the existence of incriminating material connecting an accused to a conspiracy justify the cancellation of pre-arrest bail?
- Should the court consider the need for recovery of evidence when deciding on a petition for pre-arrest bail?
- Hafiz Riaz Ahmad vs Province of Punjab etc2023 LHC 311 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order withdrawing the petitioners' posting as Executive Engineer (XEN) on an "Own Pay and Scale" (OPS) basis, following a determination that they lacked the requisite engineering qualifications. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against an OPS posting order, or if such a matter fell within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that postings and transfers, including those on an OPS basis, constitute "terms and conditions of service" for civil servants. Consequently, under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the High Court’s jurisdiction is expressly barred, as such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court further clarified that the Service Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate questions of "eligibility," distinct from "fitness." Accordingly, the petition was dismissed for lack of maintainability, affirming that administrative courts retain exclusive authority over service-related disputes regardless of allegations of mala fides or ultra vires actions.
Questions settled- Does a posting or transfer on 'Own Pay and Scale' (OPS) basis constitute a term and condition of service for a civil servant?
- Is the jurisdiction of the High Court barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 in matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants?
- Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the 'eligibility' of a civil servant for a particular post?
- Hafiz Muhammad Zaman Khan through Legal Heirs vs Member Board of Revenue and others2023 MLD 1700 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Hafiz Ali Raza vs Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 573 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Ali Raza vs Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, etc2023 LHC 1304 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges a preventive detention order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, under section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, against thirteen persons. The petitioner contended that the detention orders were issued without any supporting material, violating fundamental rights and statutory requirements. The core legal questions involved the legality of preventive detention based on mere source reports without tangible material, the standard of 'reasonable grounds', and the High Court's jurisdiction to review preventive detention under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Lahore High Court held that preventive detention cannot be sustained on bald assertions or conjectural presumptions without tangible supporting evidence and strict compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards. The Court ruled that 'reasonable grounds' require credible evidence and a bona fide belief going beyond mere suspicion. The detention orders were declared arbitrary and without lawful authority, setting them aside and ordering the immediate release of the detenus.
Questions settled- Whether preventive detention can be ordered solely on the basis of a source report without tangible material or supporting evidence?
- What constitutes 'reasonable grounds' for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in cases of preventive detention?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, to review orders of preventive detention before the matter is decided by a Review Board?
- Whether failure to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu within the prescribed statutory period renders the detention order illegal?
- Hafeez Ullah Shahid vs Asj/Jop, etc2023 LHC 3920, 2024 MLD 951 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-05Read full judgment →
- Hafeez Ahmed and others vs The State and others2023 YLR 2503 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal appeals against the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and assault, alongside a murder reference and an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the ocular account, medical evidence, and the timing of the FIR. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the FIR was registered with unexplained delay, suggesting post-event fabrication. Furthermore, the ocular testimony was severely undermined by medical evidence—specifically, the absence of corresponding external injuries for the alleged gunshot wounds and the mischaracterization of wound types. The Court reiterated that the testimony of "chance witnesses" whose presence is unproven, and witnesses whose credibility is compromised by material falsehoods, cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, emphasizing that the benefit of any doubt arising from such lacunae must accrue to the accused.
Questions settled- Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR, coupled with evidence of record tampering, entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account of the incident is fundamentally contradicted by the medical evidence?
- Is the testimony of a 'chance witness' admissible if they fail to provide a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
- Can evidence generated by modern devices, such as mobile call data records, be admitted to disprove the presence of a witness at the scene of the crime?
- Habib Bank Limited vs Ayub-Ul-Hassan Khokhar and others2023 PLD Lahore 47 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited through Manager vs Messrs Sajid Cloth House through Legal Heirs and another2023 CLD 1481 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Hussain, etc vs Abdur Rasool etc2023 LHC 1628 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-20Read full judgment →
- Gulzar Ahmad (deceased) through his legal heirs vs Rab Nawaz etc2023 LHC 5745, 2024 MLD 995 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-07Read full judgment →
- Gujranwala Steel Industries vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, etc2023 LHC 6308, 2024 CLD 343 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir vs Mst. Tanzeela Nusrat etc.2023 LHC 4866, 2024 PLJ Lahore 82, 2023 CLC 2169 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir (deceased) through L.Rs vs Muhammad Nawaz2023 LHC 5870, 2024 YLR 789 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Raza and another vs Mureed Abbas and others2023 CLC 122 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool, etc. vs Province of Punjab, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Qadir Khan vs National Accountability Bureau, Etc2023 LHC 6132 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-23Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nazik, etc vs The State, etc2023 LHC 6463, 2024 MLD 1484 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of an FIR registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged misappropriation of animals given on a share basis several years prior to the report. The core legal question is whether the transaction constituted a criminal breach of trust or merely a civil dispute involving a business agreement, and whether pre-arrest bail ought to be confirmed given the delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the transaction. The court held that the ingredients of criminal breach of trust were not attracted since the animals were handed over for a share in business rather than on trust, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principles laid down include that a mere breach of promise, agreement, or contract does not constitute criminal breach of trust without an element of entrustment, and that the merits of a case may be touched upon even at the pre-arrest bail stage.
Questions settled- Does a mere breach of promise or business agreement constitute a criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the merits of a case be touched upon while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
- How is mala fide established when it is a state of mind that cannot always be proved through direct evidence?
- Ghulam Nabi vs Kabir Khan2023 LHC 2090 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa, etc. vs Muhammad Musharaf Hussain, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 485 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore etc2023 LHC 5999, 2025 PLJ Lahore 22 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the jurisdiction of the Punjab Labour Court to adjudicate a reference regarding the non-payment of bonus by a trans-provincial establishment, M/s UDL Distribution (Pvt.) Ltd. The petitioner argued that as a trans-provincial entity, the matter fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and that the Labour Court lacked authority. The Court examined the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968, specifically Standing Order No. 7(6), which explicitly mandates that no court other than a Labour Court shall try offences under the Ordinance. The Court held that the Labour Court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate violations of the Standing Orders, regardless of the establishment's trans-provincial status, as the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 does not encompass disputes regarding bonus payments. The judgment affirms that jurisdiction is determined by the parent statute governing the specific violation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower fora that the Labour Court was the competent forum for the prosecution of the alleged non-payment of bonus.
Questions settled- Does a Labour Court have exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968?
- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction over disputes concerning the non-payment of bonus by a trans-provincial establishment?
- Can the jurisdiction of a Labour Court be ousted simply because an establishment is trans-provincial in nature?
- Do Inspectors appointed under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 possess the same powers as those under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance, 1968 regarding bonus payment disputes?
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Muhammad Hayat (Late) through Legal Heirs and others2023 LHC 2222 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Hakim-Ud-2023 YLR 1899 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Madni vs State and 5 othersPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 782 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khanpur, which dismissed the petitioner-complainant's application for re-summoning the Investigating Officer (PW-11) for further re-examination. The core legal question revolves around whether a prosecution witness can be repeatedly recalled for re-examination to fill gaps in the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court held that witnesses cannot be recalled for further examination merely to fill lacunae or protract proceedings, and that discretionary powers under procedural law cannot be abused to defeat the ends of justice. The court laid down the principle that while courts possess adequate powers to summon or re-summon any witness for a just decision, such powers will not be exercised to allow a party to fill in the gaps of its case, and revision against such discretionary orders requires showing exceptional circumstances or perversity.
Questions settled- Can a prosecution witness be re-summoned for further re-examination merely to fill in the lacunae of a case?
- What is the scope of the trial court's power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the re-summoning of witnesses?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court exercise its revisional jurisdiction against an order declining to recall a witness?
- Ghulam Hussain vs Rent Controller, Gujranwala and another2023 YLR 820 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid and others vs Ahmad Khan and others2023 CLC 355 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Fareed vs Government of Punjab, etc2023 LHC 1609 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-06Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Dastgeer vs The State and another2023 YLR 793 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Ghulam Dastgeer, under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused who were subsequently acquitted, participated in the murder of the deceased by firing at him. The core legal question before the appellate court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and whether a conviction could be sustained by relying solely on the inculpatory portion of the defence's plea under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while rejecting the prosecution's evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case, as the testimony of the eye-witnesses was riddled with material improvements and contradictions, rendering their presence at the scene doubtful. The court further held that a statement of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected in its entirety and cannot be split to extract an admission of guilt when the prosecution's evidence has been discarded. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of an inculpatory admission contained in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution evidence has been entirely disbelieved?
- Whether the statement of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is to be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
- Does material improvement in the testimony of an eye-witness regarding the manner of occurrence render the ocular account doubtful?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the prosecution's case?
- Ghulam Ali vs Rana Babar Khan and 3 others2023 PLD Lahore 507 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs Gop, etc.2023 LHC 4080, 2024 PCRLJ 1298, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 934 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the orders placing the appellant's name in the 4th Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the subsequent rejection of his review petition. The core legal question concerns whether the state established 'reasonable grounds' under Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to justify such proscription. The Lahore High Court held that the state failed to provide any credible, concrete material linking the appellant to any proscribed organization or terrorist activity. The court emphasized that enlisting a person in the 4th Schedule severely restricts fundamental rights, including liberty and property, and therefore requires a stringent, evidence-based approach. The court ruled that mere involvement in a past criminal case, without fresh, articulable evidence, is insufficient to justify such listing. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders. The judgment establishes that 'reasonable grounds' for proscription must be based on credible, verifiable evidence that transcends mere suspicion, conjecture, or stale criminal records, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
Questions settled- What constitutes 'reasonable grounds' for listing a person in the 4th Schedule under the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997?
- Can a person be listed in the 4th Schedule based solely on past involvement in a criminal case?
- Does the listing of a person in the 4th Schedule of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, require the state to provide concrete and credible evidence?
- Ghazi Fabrics International Ltd. and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 6 others2023 CLC 324 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain and others vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 1546 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves criminal appeals against convictions for abduction and rape under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given significant evidentiary gaps. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, setting aside the convictions and acquitting the appellants. The Court emphasized that an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the 'best evidence rule,' noting that the prosecution's failure to produce a minor witness and other key witnesses warranted an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The Court also found that the medical evidence, which showed no signs of sexual intercourse, directly contradicted the prosecutrix's allegations. Finally, the Court reiterated that when prosecution witnesses are disbelieved regarding some accused, their testimony cannot support the conviction of others without strong, independent corroboration. Consequently, the appellants were granted the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to produce a minor witness?
- Is medical evidence showing no signs of sexual intercourse sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a rape case?
- Can the testimony of witnesses disbelieved regarding some accused be used to convict others without independent corroboration?
- Ghulam Ghous vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Higher Education2023 LHC 4149, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 493, 2023 PLJ Lahore 829 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an order by the Higher Education Department, Government of the Punjab, which denied him age relaxation for the post of Registrar at a public university. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a government employee, was entitled to the benefit of Rule 3(v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976, which allows for the exclusion of continuous government service from the computation of the upper age limit. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to this benefit, finding that the Rules of 1976 apply to 'Government servants' broadly, not merely 'civil servants,' and that employees of autonomous bodies like the university are considered to be in the service of the government. The Court ruled that the impugned order was illegal and discriminatory, directing that the petitioner's recommendation by the Search Committee be processed. The key principle established is that beneficial provisions in service rules should be interpreted to advance the remedy, and that employees of autonomous bodies performing government business qualify as government servants for the purpose of age relaxation.
Questions settled- Does Rule 3(v) of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 apply to employees of autonomous bodies?
- Are employees of autonomous bodies considered government servants for the purpose of age relaxation rules?
- Should beneficial service rules be interpreted to advance the remedy for the employee?
- Is the Government College University, Faisalabad considered an autonomous body performing the business of the Government of the Punjab?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad vs Khalid Mahmood and another2023 PLC (C.S) 727 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra-Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 was filed by the Federation of Pakistan challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge-in-Chamber, which directed the allotment of an additional residential plot to Respondent No.1, a retired Grade-22 officer, under a Prime Minister's Package. The core legal question was whether Respondent No.1 was unlawfully denied the benefit based on administrative criteria excluding officers re-employed or posted in provincial authorities, while other similarly situated Grade-22 officers who were re-employed or posted outside standard divisions received the benefit. The High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision, holding that the posting of BS-22 officers rests entirely with the competent federal authority and does not diminish their rank as Secretary. The Court ruled that denying Respondent No.1 the plot while granting it to identically placed officers constituted arbitrary discrimination without an intelligible differentia, violating Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the posting of a Grade-22 Secretary to a provincial authority deprive them of their status as a Secretary to the Government of Pakistan for official welfare schemes?
- Can executive criteria for beneficial schemes create artificial classifications among officers of the same rank without violating Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether the denial of a welfare benefit to one retired officer while granting it to similarly situated re-employed officers amounts to unconstitutional discrimination?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division2023 LHC 2344 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan through Military Estates Officer, Multan Circle Multan2023 LHC 3596 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Fazal Karim and 2 others vs Mehboob Khan (deceased). through his legal2023 PLJ Lahore 528, 2024 CLC 699 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-31Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karim & 2 others vs Mehboob Khan (deceased) through his legal heirs2023 LHC 1297 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-31Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Hussain vs The State and another2023 PLD Lahore 300 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the trial court's order striking off the petitioner's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in a criminal trial under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question addresses whether a trial court can legally close an accused's right of cross-examination due to the non-appearance of defense counsel, and how to balance the speedy conclusion of a trial with the right to a fair trial. The Lahore High Court held that the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is an invaluable statutory right under Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and an indispensable component of the right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. A trial court cannot arbitrarily strike off this right; if defense counsel is absent or fails to appear, the proper course of action is to appoint a competent defense counsel at state expense pursuant to the applicable High Court Rules and Orders, rather than compelling the accused to cross-examine witnesses personally or closing the right.
Questions settled- Whether the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is an integral component of the right to fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a trial court lawfully strike off or close an accused person's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses due to the absence or default of their counsel?
- What procedure should a trial court adopt when an accused's privately engaged counsel repeatedly fails to appear for cross-examination?
- Is cross-examination conducted by an accused person personally a valid substitute for cross-examination by a trained legal counsel?
- Fayyaz Ahmad, etc vs The State, etc2023 LHC 1106 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for rioting, murder, and other offences committed during a massive mob attack on a police station following an incident involving the burning of the Holy Quran. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution successfully established the identity of the appellants and proved their active participation as members of the unlawful assembly beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that in cases of large-scale mob violence, the prosecution must provide reliable, specific evidence regarding the identity and individual roles of the accused, which was lacking in this case, particularly given that the witnesses were unfamiliar with the appellants prior to the incident and electronic evidence (CDs and photographs) was neither formally produced nor forensically verified. Furthermore, the court noted that co-accused on the identical set of evidence had already been acquitted. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt and acquitting them of the charges.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an individual in a riotous mob establish that they shared the common object of an unlawful assembly?
- Is a conviction for rioting sustainable when the prosecution witnesses are unable to reliably identify the individual accused from a large crowd and are unfamiliar with them prior to the incident?
- Can digital evidence such as photographs and video recordings be relied upon without being formally produced through witnesses and subjected to forensic verification?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on identical evidence entitle other appellants to the benefit of the principle of parity and acquittal?
- Fayyaz Ahmad vs Subay Deen2023 LHC 5286, 2024 PLD Lahore 70 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-11Read full judgment →
- Faysal Bank Limited vs National Electric Company Pakistan and others2023 CLD 879 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
- Faysal Bank Limited vs Haris Steel Industry (Pvt.) Limited2023 PLJ Lahore 416, 2023 PCTLR 19 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
- Faysal Bank Limited and others vs Ch. Shehzad Munir and others2023 CLD 1390, 2023 MLD 2088 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-22Read full judgment →