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.

• Farhan Ali and others vs The State and others2023 YLR 1819 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-29
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailcriminal appealfurther inquiryappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the petitioner, Muhammad Farhan Ali, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shakargarh. The petitioner was convicted in a private complaint case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including Section 302(b). The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence pending the final adjudication of his appeal. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the injury attributed to the petitioner was not declared the cause of death, no recovery was made from him, and the motive remained unproven during the trial. Applying the principle that the criteria for suspending a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are analogous to the principles of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court held that the petitioner had established a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and suspended the sentence subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Are the principles for the suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 analogous to the principles of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a sentence of life imprisonment be suspended pending the final decision of an appeal where the prosecution fails to prove motive and recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Fareeha Kanwal vs Punjab Healthcare Commission and others2023 LHC 5425 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
• Fareed-ud-Deen Ahmed vs Chancellor University of Education, etc2023 LHC 3889 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-02
  service lawprocedural technicalitiesright of appealdisciplinary proceedingsPEEDA Actadministration of justicemaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Junior Key Punch Operator at the University of Education, was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. He filed an appeal before the University Syndicate, citing the wrong statutory provision (Section 33 of the University of Education, Lahore Ordinance, 2002) instead of the correct provision (Section 16 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006). The Syndicate dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to this technical error. The petitioner challenged this dismissal via a constitutional petition. The Lahore High Court held that the dismissal of an appeal on purely technical grounds, such as citing the wrong provision of law when the remedy was otherwise available before the same forum, constitutes a failure of justice. The Court emphasized that procedural rules exist to facilitate, not thwart, the administration of justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the Syndicate's order, directing that the appeal be treated as filed under the correct Act and decided on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be dismissed solely for citing the wrong provision of law if the remedy is otherwise available before the same forum?
  • Is the right of appeal a substantive right that should not be defeated by procedural technicalities?
  • Does the mis-description of a legal provision in an appeal constitute a curable defect?
  • Is an appellate forum required to treat an appeal as filed under the correct law if the original proceedings arose under that specific statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Syed Anwar Ud Din (deceased) through L.Rs. vs Syed Raza Haider and others2023 LHC 4964 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs The Federal Land Commissioner, Islamabad and others2023 CLC 1477 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher and 2 others vs Abdul Aziz (deceased) through L.Rs etc2023 LHC 3213, 2024 MLD 55 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad etc vs Chairman Federal Land Commission, Islamabad etc2023 LHC 6607, 2024 MLD 756, 2024 PLJ Lahore 495 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain vs Razia Begum, Etc.2023 LHC 6270 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-23Read full judgment →
• Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Ltd. (FESCO) through Chief Executive2023 MLD 362 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-17Read full judgment →
• Faisal, The State vs The State, Faisal2023 LHC 4882, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 350 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-03
  criminal appealmurder convictionocular accountdelayed FIRdishonest improvementssuppression of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account, the impact of a delayed FIR, and the evidentiary value of alleged dishonest improvements in witness statements. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the initial information provided to the police at the scene was suppressed, rendering the subsequent FIR a product of deliberation. Furthermore, the ocular testimony was deemed unreliable due to significant, dishonest improvements and omissions made by the witnesses. The Court also noted the absence of corroborative evidence, such as matching crime empties for the recovered weapon, and deemed the motive weak. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The key principle laid down is that the suppression of the true first information and the introduction of dishonest improvements by witnesses fatally undermine the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of the initial statement made to the police at the scene of the crime invalidate the subsequent FIR?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when eyewitnesses introduce significant dishonest improvements and omissions in their testimony?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon sufficient for conviction if no matching crime-empty is recovered from the crime scene?
  • Does the failure to follow mandatory legal requirements in issuing warrants and proclamations invalidate the evidence of abscondance?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Zafar and another vs Siraj-ud-Din and 4 others, Genome2023 LHC 6015 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Faisal Aziz Malik vs Returning Officer (PP 82-Khushab-1)2023 LHC 2096 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-11Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board through its Secretary vs Ghyas Ahmad Rana2023 LHC 6472, 2024 CLC 1828 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board and others vs Muhammad Tufail and others2023 CLC 2090 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
• Engineer Irfan Ahmad Qureshi vs University Of Engineering and others2023 YLR 203 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Hussain Rathore vs Bahria Town (Private) Limited, Ahmad Ali Riaz and Riaz Malik2023 LHC 5476, 2024 PLD Lahore 204 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
• Ejaz alias Jajji and others vs The State and others2023 YLR 1835 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-10
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtsuppression of factscross-version caseprivate complaintacquittalappreciation of evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentences recorded by the Sessions Judge, Pakpattan, in a private complaint involving charges of murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the existence of a cross-version case and significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants, noting that the complainant suppressed the true genesis of the occurrence and that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable due to material improvements and contradictions in their testimony. Furthermore, the delay in lodging the FIR and the failure to provide consistent medical evidence regarding the cause of death and injuries created serious doubts. The Court emphasized that when the prosecution suppresses the true mode and manner of an incident, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the related revision petition and petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of the true genesis of an occurrence by the prosecution entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses have made material improvements and contradictions in their testimony?
  • Is an injured witness's presence at the scene of an occurrence sufficient to establish their credibility as a truthful witness?
  • What is the effect of a delayed FIR on the credibility of the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehtisham Basharat vs Deputy Inspector General of Police and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 8 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-14
  waiting listrecruitment processlegitimate expectationpolice recruitmentconstitutional petitionadministrative delaypublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the District Police Officer, Gujrat, which rejected the petitioner’s request for recruitment as a Constable. The petitioner, ranked first on the waiting list, sought appointment after a selected candidate failed to join, but the department rejected the application, citing the expiry of the 90-day validity period of the waiting list. The core legal question was whether the department could deny appointment to a waiting-list candidate when the vacancy arose or was declared after the expiry of the waiting list's validity period due to administrative delays. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable. It ruled that the department cannot penalize a candidate for the expiry of a waiting list when the delay in the recruitment process—specifically the medical examination phase—was attributable to the department itself. The Court established that once a recruitment process commences, it must be completed within the stipulated time. Furthermore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation entitles a candidate on a waiting list to be considered for appointment when a vacancy arises, regardless of the expiry of the waiting list, if the delay is not the candidate's fault.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department deny appointment to a candidate on a waiting list solely because the validity period of the list expired due to the department's own administrative delays?
  • Does a candidate on a recruitment waiting list possess a legitimate expectation to be considered for appointment when a vacancy arises due to a selected candidate's failure to join?
  • Is a recruitment authority required to complete the appointment process within the stipulated time frame for the validity of a waiting list?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah Chaudhry vs The State and 3 others2023 PLD Lahore 233 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-22
  cancellation reportFIR cancellationPolice Rules 1934Superintendent of Policefair trialnatural justiceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order passed by a Magistrate agreeing with a police cancellation report in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions revolved around the mandatory procedure for submitting a cancellation report of a criminal case under Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, the competence of a Deputy Superintendent of Police versus a Superintendent of Police to forward such a report, and the adherence to principles of natural justice and fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that a cancellation report must be mandatorily routed through the Superintendent of Police in accordance with Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, rather than a Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Police Order, 2002, and that Magistrates must provide a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the complainant. The court laid down the principle that where a law requires something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone, and that pre-trial proceedings and cancellation reports are subject to the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal case FIR can be cancelled through a report forwarded by a Deputy Superintendent of Police instead of the Superintendent of Police under Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934?
  • Does a Magistrate have the inherent power under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to cancel a criminal case?
  • Is a Magistrate bound to provide an opportunity of hearing to the complainant before agreeing with a police cancellation report?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution apply to pre-trial proceedings and investigation matters such as cancellation reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 PLD Lahore 352 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ummara Munir vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of National Health Services, Regulation & Coordination (NHRSR&C), Government of Pakistan, Islamabad & others2023 LHC 2439, 2024 PLJ Lahore 23, 2024 MLD 1086 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahid Mehmood vs Chairman PPSC etc2023 LHC 2538 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shafi-Ur-Rehman Afridi vs The State and 2 others2023 PCRLJ 456 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryjurisdiction of FIAOGRA Ordinancepetroleum import quotaregulatory immunitymoney laundering
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns post-arrest bail applications filed by officials of the Ministry of Energy (Petroleum Division) and a director of an Oil Marketing Company, accused of irregularities in petroleum import quotas and licensing. The core issue was whether the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) had jurisdiction to register a criminal case regarding matters governed by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) Ordinance, 2002, and whether the petitioners' actions constituted criminal offences warranting detention. The Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the petitioners' case fell within the ambit of 'further inquiry.' The Court established that the OGRA Ordinance, 2002, provides a complete, self-contained mechanism for complaints and holds overriding effect over other laws regarding regulatory matters. Consequently, the FIA lacks jurisdiction to initiate criminal proceedings for matters falling under the OGRA Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that regulatory authorities performing functions under the Ordinance are immune from prosecution absent evidence of criminal intent or illegal gratification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have jurisdiction to register criminal cases regarding matters governed by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002?
  • Does the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, have an overriding effect over other laws regarding regulatory complaints?
  • Can public servants performing functions under the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance be prosecuted without evidence of criminal intent or illegal gratification?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sajid Iqbal vs University of Sargodha and others2023 LHC 2796 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-26
  sexual harassmentworkplace harassmentcross-examinationdue processdepartmental inquirycriminal acquittaleducational institution
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by an Assistant Professor challenging concurrent orders of the University of Sargodha's Syndicate and the Ombudsperson Punjab, which removed him from service following a complaint of sexual harassment by a female student. The petitioner contended that the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010 did not apply to students, that his acquittal in a parallel criminal case exonerated him, and that the inquiry was vitiated because he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. The High Court held that the Act applies to educational institutions and protects students harassed by employees. It also ruled that domestic disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal trials, meaning a criminal acquittal does not bar departmental action. However, the Court found that the Inquiry Committee's reliance on a questionnaire without allowing the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses violated statutory procedures and the constitutional right to a fair trial. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition, set aside the removal order, and remanded the case for de novo inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010 apply to complaints made by students against university employees?
  • Does an acquittal in a criminal trial under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operate as a bar to domestic disciplinary proceedings on the same facts?
  • Can a delayed complaint of sexual harassment under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010 be dismissed solely on the ground of delay?
  • Is the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during a domestic inquiry under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010 a violation of due process and the right to a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hassan Shahryar vs Sana Waqar through authorized attorney and 22023 CLC 2025 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-25Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aszhar Ali vs Muhammad Ali2023 LHC 2586, 2024 PLJ Lahore 143 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Asma Nighat Zaidi & others vs Syeda Safoora Begum & others2023 LHC 2591, 2024 CLC 1288 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aftab Hassan Minhas vs National Council for Homeopathy etc.2023 LHC 4805, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 84 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-14
  constitutional petitionservice lawdismissal from servicedepartmental appeallimitation periodinquiry proceedingsNational Council for Homeopathy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the dismissal order dated 08.04.2015 and the subsequent appellate rejection order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the National Council for Homeopathy, seeking reinstatement with back benefits. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary inquiry lacked due process, copies of the proceedings were withheld, and the appeal was delayed due to the non-provision of inquiry documents. The respondents asserted that the departmental appeal was barred by time under the governing regulations and that the dismissal followed due procedure. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Regulation 33(2) of the NCH (Staff) Regulations 1987 strictly prescribes a 28-day limitation period for filing an appeal, which expired before the petitioner approached the departmental authority or sought court assistance. Applying the principles that the law aids the vigilant and that acts required in a specific manner must be performed accordingly or not at all, the Court found the dismissal well commensurate with proved allegations after full opportunity of defence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-provision of inquiry documents condone or suspend the mandatory statutory limitation period of 28 days for filing a departmental appeal under Regulation 33(2) of the NCH (Staff) Regulations, 1987?
  • Can a departmental appeal be entertained on the merits if it was submitted beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed by the governing service regulations?
  • Whether an employee's failure to file a timely statutory appeal within the prescribed period precludes relief under the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hassan and others vs Ijaz Naseer and others2023 LHC 3741, 2025 CLC 196 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
• Doud Khan vs Muhammad Rashid, etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 199 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-20Read full judgment →
• Doctor Yasmin Rashid vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and 2 others2023 MLD 695 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-16Read full judgment →
• Director Intelligence & Investigation-FBR, through Additional Director, Faisalabad vs Muhammad Imran & others2023 LHC 2126 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Director (Aso) Customs Intelligence and Investigation vs Taimur Tariq Butt2023 PTD 63 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-19Read full judgment →
• DG Khan Cement Company Limited etc vs Federal Board of Revenue etc.2023 LHC 1074, 2025 PTD 424 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
• Deputy Registrar of Companies vs Mukhtar Textiles Mills Limited and 82023 LHC 1032 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-21Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority through Secretary vs District and Sessions2023 MLD 339 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-24Read full judgment →
• Dawat Saraye vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 LHC 4338, 2023 PTD 1667, 2023 PLJ Lahore 793 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Legal Division, Regional Tax Office, Lahore vs M_s. Rafaqat Marketing, Lahore through Chairman and anotherPTCL 2023 CL. 772 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Legal Division, Regional Tax Office, Lahore vs Messrs Rafaqat Marketing, Lahore through Chairman and another2023 PTD 720 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Messrs Pak Land Travels (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad2023 PTD 1342 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Legal Division Rto, Lahore vs Messrs Meco2023 PCTLR 84 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-III, Large Taxpayers, Karachi vs M/s.PTCL 2023 CL. 811 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-III, Large Taxpayers, Karachi vs M/s2023 LHC 2252 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Ltu, Lahore vs M/s Shezan2023 LHC 1379, 2023 PLJ Lahore 504, 2024 PTD 758 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Ltd, Lahore vs M/s. Shezan2023 PLJ Lahore 504 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Gujranwala vs Muhammad Khalid Chaudhry2023 LHC 5263, PTCL 2024 CL. 48, 2024 PTD 80 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Faisalabad vs Messrs Ahmad Straw Board Private Limited, Faisalabad2023 PTD 1528 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Ltu, Lahore vs M/s. Marwat2023 PTCL 85 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Ltu, Lahore vs Messrs Marwat2023 PTD 732 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lyallpur Zone, Rto, Faisalabad vs M/s. Ideal2023 PTCL CL. 33 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal-Zone-Lto, Lahore vs M/s Rasool2023 LHC 5946, 2025 PTD 121 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone, Lto, Multan vs Messrs Usman2023 PTD 679 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone, Large Taxpayers Office, Lahore2023 PTD 44 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone, Corporate Tax Office, Lahore vs LF Logistics Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore & another2023 LHC 5270, PTCL 2024 CL. 21, 2024 PTD 728 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Large Taxpayers, Lahore vs M/s. SapphirePTCL 2023 CL. 100 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore vs M/s. Arco Plastics (Pvt.) LimitedPTCL 2023 CL. 718, 2025 PTD 552 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore vs Messrs Descon Engineering2023 PTD 492 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore Bench, Lahore. vs Unique Cycle2023 LHC 4896, 2024 PTD 158 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Faisalabad vs Messrs Engineers Associated2023 PTD 393 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-II, Rto, Gujranwala vs Messrs Crystal2023 PTD 758 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Punjab Medical Store2023 PTD 1046 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Rice Exporters Association ofPTCL 2023 CL. 260 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Niagra Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.2023 PLJ Lahore 66 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Lahore Rubber StorePTCL 2023 CL. 555 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Prime Commercial Bank Ltd2023 LHC 148 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Pakistan Cricket Board Lahore2023 LHC 5827 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Mehran Business International (Pvt)2023 LHC 3960, PTCL 2024 CL. 406 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Gujranwala Electric Power Co.2023 LHC 6720, 2024 PTD 440 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Muhammad Afzal Cheema2023 LHC 2750, 2023 PTD 953, 2023 LHC 2710 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Prime Commercial Bank Ltd2023 PTD 997 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Mehran Business International2023 PTD 1687 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Lahore Rubber Store2023 PTD 182 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-17
  rectification jurisdictionAppellate Tribunal Inland Revenuemistake apparent on the face of recordtax referencesales taxfunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax reference concerns the scope and exercise of rectification jurisdiction by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue. The respondent-taxpayer filed an application for rectification under Section 57 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, seeking to correct an earlier appellate order. The Tribunal allowed the application, annulling its previous decision based on an alleged mistake of law, without identifying the specific mistake or discussing its impact on the original order. The High Court held that the Tribunal's exercise of jurisdiction was improper. The Court emphasized that rectification is an ancillary jurisdiction limited to correcting patent mistakes of fact or law apparent on the face of the record, which do not require investigation, appraisal of evidence, or re-hearing. The Court laid down the principle that rectification cannot be used as a substitute for a tax reference or a review/re-hearing. The Tribunal must identify the specific mistake, record reasons, and correct the original order without conducting a fresh inquiry. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the application was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with these guidelines.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Appellate Tribunal use rectification jurisdiction as a substitute for a tax reference or a rehearing of the appeal?
  • What are the essential conditions for the exercise of rectification jurisdiction by the Appellate Tribunal?
  • Is the Appellate Tribunal permitted to recall its final order and fix the appeal for rehearing under the guise of a rectification application?
  • Does the rectification of a mistake require the Tribunal to conduct a fresh investigation or appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Lyallpur Zone, Rto, Faisalabad vs Messrs2023 PTD 430 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Col. (R) Muhammad Shabir Awan vs Raja Saghir Ahmed and 4 others2023 LHC 503 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
• Coca Cola Beverages Pakistan Ltd vs Ghulam Abbas Etc2023 LHC 4544, 2023 PLJ Lahore 824 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-06Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Autority vs Haji Pervez Khan & others2023 LHC 1435 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-05Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority through Airport Manager vs Haji Pervez Khan and 42023 YLR 2030 · Lahore High Court · 2023-04-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yasin and others vs The State and others2023 PCRLJ 1200, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 481 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-16
  murdercapital punishmentappellate jurisdictionmedical evidenceocular accountrecoverymotiveacquittal of co-accuseddelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Ghulam Yasin, under section 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting five co-accused. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitnesses when co-accused are acquitted, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR, the validity of medical and recovery evidence, and whether the death sentence should be commuted based on the acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the acquittal of co-accused out of abundant caution does not vitiate the prosecution's case against the principal accused where his role is distinct and proven by reliable ocular and medical evidence. The court upheld the conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life as a mitigating circumstance due to the acquittal of the co-accused. The key principles laid down include the application of the doctrine of abundant caution regarding the acquittal of co-accused, the corroborative value of prompt medical examination despite delay in the FIR, and the sustainability of conviction based on unimpeachable ocular testimony supported by forensic evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused out of abundant caution adversely impacts the prosecution's case against the principal accused?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report invariably prove fatal to the prosecution case when injured witnesses are promptly examined medically?
  • Whether the death sentence can be altered to imprisonment for life as a mitigating circumstance when co-accused persons assigned general roles have been acquitted?
  • Can a statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from an injured person who later dies be treated as a substantive dying declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• China Machinery Engineering Corporation, Pakistan Branch vs Federation2023 LHC 6354, 2024 PTD 242 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-11Read full judgment →
• Chief Operating Officer, Technical Education & Safdar Iqbal Chaudhry vs Vocation Training Authority (TEVTA) & others2023 LHC 3238, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 661 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-05
  pensionary emolumentssuperannuationwithholding pensionabatement of departmental proceedingsPEEDA Act 2006Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules 1963constitutional petitionmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the Technical Education & Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA) withholding Rs.3,773,122 from the petitioner's pensionary emoluments upon his superannuation, alongside a connected petition challenging the conversion of pending disciplinary proceedings under the PEEDA Act, 2006 into proceedings under Rule 1.8(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963. The primary legal questions were whether pending departmental inquiry proceedings abate upon a civil servant's superannuation and whether such abated proceedings can be converted into pension reduction proceedings under Rule 1.8(a) without establishing grave misconduct. The High Court held that under Fundamental Rule 54-A, departmental disciplinary proceedings abate upon retirement. Furthermore, under Section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, pension is an indefeasible right that cannot be arbitrarily withheld. The Court ruled that pending disciplinary proceedings cannot be converted into Rule 1.8(a) pension proceedings after retirement, especially where recovery of a specific sum is sought, which falls under Rule 1.8(b). Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned notification and quashed the inquiry communications.

  Questions settled

  • Do departmental disciplinary proceedings pending against a civil servant automatically abate upon superannuation?
  • Can departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated during service be converted into proceedings under Rule 1.8(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules 1963 after retirement?
  • Can pensionary benefits of a retired civil servant be withheld without fulfilling the conditions set out in Section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Parvez Elahi vs Governor Punjab etc.2023 PLJ Lahore 245 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Parvez Elahi vs Governor Punjab etc2023 LHC 8 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Parvez Elahi vs Governor Punjab and others2023 PLD Lahore 154 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Abdul Majeed vs The Learned Ex-officio Justice of Peace2023 LHC 6035, 2024 PLJ Lahore 73 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chand Iqbal and others vs Province of the Punjab and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 530 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-04
  civil servantprobationer terminationshow-cause noticePPSC recommendationswithdrawal of recommendationjurisdiction of service tribunallocus poenitentiaeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the termination of petitioners who were appointed as Deputy Accountants (BS-16) following recommendations by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC), subsequent to the withdrawal of those recommendations based on an Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) report regarding paper leakage. The core legal questions addressed are whether the petitioners acquired the status of civil servants upon appointment and could be terminated without show-cause notice, whether the High Court's jurisdiction was ousted under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the PPSC and ACE acted within their lawful authority in withdrawing the recommendations. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners became civil servants on probation upon issuance of appointment letters, and since their termination carried a stigma of misconduct without proper inquiry under PPSC Regulations, it amounted to a termination requiring a show-cause notice and due process. The Court further held that the termination did not relate to terms and conditions of service or fitness for appointment, thus falling outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal and leaving the High Court's writ jurisdiction intact under Article 199. Finally, the Court ruled that neither the ACE nor the PPSC followed the mandatory statutory inquiry procedures under Regulation 25, making the withdrawal of recommendations and subsequent terminations without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that a probationer civil servant cannot be terminated without a show-cause notice and due process where the termination is stigmatic, and a public service commission cannot arbitrarily withdraw recommendations without complying with its own enabling regulations and conducting a proper inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a probationer civil servant can be terminated without a show-cause notice and due process when the termination is based on allegations of using unfair means?
  • Does the bar to jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution apply when a civil servant's termination stems from the withdrawal of a public service commission's recommendation prior to terms and conditions of service becoming applicable?
  • Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a termination order passed pursuant to the withdrawal of recommendations by the Punjab Public Service Commission?
  • Can the Punjab Public Service Commission withdraw recommendations for appointment after a candidate has been issued an appointment letter and assumed office without conducting a formal inquiry under its regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman National Highway Authority and another vs Abdul Hameed etc2023 LHC 1413, 2025 PLJ Lahore 51 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-20Read full judgment →
• Ch. Zafar Muhammad Iqbal vs Mst. Kausar Parveen and others2023 LHC 4770 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-25Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shaukat Ali Noon and another vs Tehzeb Bakers (Pvt.) Limited and others2023 LHC 6559, 2024 CLD 113 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-19Read full judgment →
• Ch. Rahmat Ali Memorial Trust vs Lahore Development Authority and another2023 LHC 952 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Noman Haseeb vs The learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Court, Bahawalpur and four others2023 LHC 1635 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-16
  criminal revisionproduction of documentsfilling lacunaeprosecution evidenceanti-corruption trial
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal revision petition, the petitioner challenged the order of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption Court dismissing his application filed under sections 94 and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking to produce copies of certain documents as part of prosecution evidence after the accused had been examined under section 342. The core legal question was whether documents could be produced under sections 94 and 540 Cr.P.C. without summoning the person having custody or the maker of the documents, and whether such provisions could be invoked at a belated stage to fill lacunae. The Lahore High Court held that the powers under sections 94 and 540 Cr.P.C. require summoning the person having custody of the documents or a witness to prove them, and cannot be utilized by a party to fill up lacunae in its case or protract proceedings indefinitely. The petition was accordingly dismissed and the impugned order upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Can documents be produced under sections 94 and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, without summoning the person having custody or the maker of the documents?
  • Whether the provisions of section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, can be used by a party to fill in the lacunae of its case?
  • At what stage of a trial can an application under sections 94 and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be validly entertained?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Noman Haseeb vs Learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Court, Bahawalpur and 4 othersPLJ 2023 Cr.C. 942 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Saleem vs Ch. Abdul Razzaq2023 YLR 1568 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Hanif vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan2023 PLC (C.S) 836 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-25
  service lawpromotionstatutory ruleswrit jurisdictionState Life Insurance Corporationjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Area Manager at the State Life Insurance Corporation, filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the position of Manager Marketing, alleging that his juniors had been promoted while his claim was denied. The respondents argued that the State Life Employees Service Regulations, 1973, while statutory, were silent regarding promotion criteria and thus could not govern the petitioner's promotion. The petitioner relied on precedent to assert that the regulations were statutory, thereby granting him a legitimate right to seek judicial intervention. The Court addressed the core legal question of whether it could issue a direction for promotion when the governing statutory rules lack specific criteria for such advancement. The Court held that because the statutory rules are completely silent on the criteria and merit for promotion, it is impossible for the Court to determine if the petitioner meets the requirements for promotion. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the respondents' decision and dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner may pursue any available alternate remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court issue a direction for promotion when the governing statutory rules are silent on promotion criteria?
  • Are the State Life Employees Service Regulations, 1973, considered statutory in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Fawad Ahmad and others vs Government of the Punjab and others2023 LHC 3967, 2024 PCRLJ 1903 · Lahore High Court · 2023-05-05
  joint investigation teamanti-terrorism actconstitutional petitioncognizanceprosecutor generaldoctrine of ripenessfair trialquashing of investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses constitutional petitions filed by senior politicians of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) challenging the formation of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) by the Punjab Government under section 19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to investigate several FIRs registered against party leaders and workers following violent protests. The core legal questions revolved around the legality and maintainability of the challenges against the JIT, the interpretation of terrorism offences in light of Supreme Court precedents, the procedural validity of the JIT's notification, and the role and powers of the Prosecutor General. The Court held that the petitions were maintainable, but dismissed them on merits, ruling that the Provincial Government is fully competent to constitute a JIT under section 19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, that the formation of a JIT is a purely administrative act not subject to premature judicial review, and that the Impugned Order strictly conformed to mandatory procedural requirements. The key principles laid down include the parameters of the doctrine of ripeness regarding police investigations, the non-interference of courts in ongoing investigations, and the distinct statutory roles of the Advocate General and the Prosecutor General.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the formation of a Joint Investigation Team under section 19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is open to judicial review before the completion of the investigation?
  • Does the inclusion of section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in an FIR automatically vitiate the formation of a Joint Investigation Team when the ingredients of terrorism are yet to be determined during investigation?
  • Whether the High Court should interfere with a notice issued under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 under its constitutional jurisdiction before the investigation concludes?
  • What is the extent of administrative and prosecutorial independence of the Prosecutor General under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 vis-a-vis government instructions?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan through Chairman vs Muhammad Afzal2023 YLR 1283 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-19Read full judgment →
• Bilawal Hussain vs Mst. Farzana Kausar2023 LHC 4958 · Lahore High Court · 2023-09-25Read full judgment →
• Bid Farooq vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior and others2023 PCRLJ 678 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12
  protective bailpre-arrest bailproclaimed offenderconstitutional petitionbail maintainabilitypresence of accusedcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a circular regarding passport facilities and seeking protective pre-arrest bail in multiple criminal cases registered against the petitioner. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel restricted the prayer solely to the grant of protective ad-interim pre-arrest bail in various FIRs, as the petitioner was residing abroad and had been declared a proclaimed offender. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether protective pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused who is not present in court and is abroad. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the physical presence of the accused in court is a mandatory statutory precondition under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that without the personal presence of the accused before the court, a petition for pre-arrest bail—including protective bail—is not maintainable and cannot be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether protective pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused who is abroad and not present in court?
  • Is the physical presence of the accused in court a mandatory precondition for the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the distinct categories of pre-arrest bail recognized in criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ali Shahzad vs The Bank of Punjab etc2023 LHC 367 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-24
  constitutional petitionmaster and servantstatutory rulesPEEDA Act 2006Bank of Punjabreinstatementservice grievancedue process
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Manager Operations at the Bank of Punjab, was dismissed from service following alleged involvement in fraudulent transactions. His internal appeals were rejected, leading him to file a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking reinstatement. The bank raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, contending that the relationship was governed by the master and servant rule as the bank's HR Manual consists of non-statutory service rules. The High Court analyzed the statutory nature of service rules and acknowledged that while the bank's internal HR Manual is non-statutory, the Government of Punjab holds a controlling share in the bank, making it a statutory entity subject to the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006 (PEEDA). Since PEEDA overrides non-statutory service regulations by virtue of its non-obstante clause, the bank was legally required to conduct disciplinary proceedings under PEEDA. Holding the dismissal order unlawful for failure to adhere to statutory procedural safeguards, the High Court accepted the petition, set aside the dismissal, and reinstated the petitioner with back benefits, reserving the bank's right to initiate de novo proceedings under PEEDA.

  Questions settled

  • Does a constitutional petition lie against disciplinary action taken under non-statutory service rules where an overriding statutory law like PEEDA applies?
  • Does the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006 apply to employees of the Bank of Punjab?
  • What constitutes a 'statutory rule' to oust the application of the principle of master and servant in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ali Shahzad vs Bank of Punjab through President and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1059 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-09
  Constitutional petitionMaster and servantService mattersStatutory rulesDisciplinary proceedingsPEEDAWrongful dismissalGovernment-controlled corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of a Bank of Punjab employee, questioning the maintainability of the petition given the "master and servant" relationship. The core legal question was whether the Bank's internal HR Manual constituted statutory rules and whether the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA) applied to the Bank's employees. The Court held that while the Bank's HR Manual is non-statutory, the Bank is a government-controlled corporation subject to PEEDA. The Court determined that PEEDA acts as a legislative intervention that overrides internal service rules, mandating that disciplinary proceedings against such employees must strictly adhere to the statute's procedures. Consequently, the dismissal was set aside for non-compliance with PEEDA, and the petitioner was reinstated with back benefits, with liberty granted to the Bank to proceed de novo under the Act. The key principle laid down is that where a statute like PEEDA intervenes to regulate the terms and conditions of service in government-controlled corporations, the general "master and servant" principle is excluded, and the employer must strictly follow the statutory disciplinary procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Employees, Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 apply to employees of the Bank of Punjab?
  • Can an employee of a corporation governed by non-statutory service rules invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court if a special statute like PEEDA applies?
  • Does the principle of 'master and servant' apply when a statute intervenes to regulate the terms and conditions of employment?
  • Are the service bye-laws of the Bank of Punjab considered statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed, Mst. Sajeela Zakir vs Ahmed and four others, The State etc2023 LHC 1090 · Lahore High Court
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtforensic evidencepost-mortem reportocular testimonyaccidental deathburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the conflicting medical evidence and the defense's plea of accidental death due to self-inflicted firearm injury. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found the motive unproven, the ocular testimony unreliable due to the unexplained presence of witnesses, and the medical evidence manipulated, specifically regarding the presence of blackening around the entry wound. Furthermore, forensic analysis supported the possibility of a close-range accidental discharge rather than a distant shot by the appellant. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout and that a single reasonable doubt suffices for acquittal. The court dismissed the connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence and the petition against the acquittal of co-accused, reinforcing the principle that the prosecution must prove its case without relying on the weaknesses of the defense.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a dead body from the accused's premises shift the burden of proof to the accused to explain the death?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive and the ocular testimony is found unreliable?
  • Is the manipulation of medical evidence by a doctor sufficient to cast doubt on the entire prosecution case?
  • Does the presence of blackening around a gunshot wound necessarily indicate a close-range fire?
  Read full judgment →