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.

• The State vs Shakeel Shah2022 LHC 5220 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-19
  Qatl-i-Amdtest identification paradecapital punishmentmitigating circumstancesocular evidenceforensic evidencecriminal appealrobbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court for Qatl-i-Amd and robbery. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular accounts, medical evidence, and test identification parades, and whether the death penalty was appropriate for one appellant. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was robust, as the eyewitnesses remained consistent, their testimony was corroborated by medical reports, and the forensic analysis of recovered weapons linked the appellants to the crime. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions for both appellants. Regarding sentencing, the Court exercised its discretion to commute the death sentence of the first appellant to life imprisonment, identifying mitigating factors such as his age and the absence of repeated firing. The judgment reaffirms that while test identification parades are vital for corroborating ocular evidence against strangers, the court must meticulously evaluate mitigating circumstances when determining whether the ultimate penalty of death is justified, ensuring sentencing aligns with the principles of proportionality and judicial caution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of an assailant's features in the initial FIR invalidate a subsequent test identification parade?
  • Is a test identification parade legally restricted to being held only within jail premises?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment based on factors such as the convict's age and the absence of repeated firing?
  • Does the forensic matching of recovered weapons with crime scene empties provide sufficient corroboration for ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Noor Hassan alias Nooro2022 LHC 5147 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-12
  circumstantial evidencelast seen theoryDNA profilingunnatural offenceQatl-i-Amdmitigating circumstancesmurder referencedeath sentence commutation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Noor Hassan alias Nooro, was tried and convicted by the trial court under sections 302(b), 377, 364-A, and 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the abduction, unnatural assault, and Qatl-i-Amd of a nine-year-old child, Allah Ditta. He was sentenced to death under section 302(b) and rigorous imprisonment for ten years under section 377, along with compensation and fine. The Lahore High Court heard the criminal appeal and murder reference together. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, comprising last-seen evidence, recovery of the dead body and the appellant's clothes at his pointation, medical evidence establishing death by throttling, and definitive DNA profiling matching the appellant's profile with seminal and epithelial fractions found on the deceased's clothes. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the circumstantial evidence chain, the application of Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the evidentiary value and admissibility of DNA profiling reports from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The High Court maintained the conviction but altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life, citing mitigating circumstances including the appellant's young age and the nature of circumstantial evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the failure of the accused to offer a reasonable explanation under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 when last seen with the deceased provide an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence?
  • Are DNA test reports prepared by an expert of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency per se admissible in evidence under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 read with the Punjab Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007?
  • Can the young age of the accused and the fact that a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence serve as mitigating factors to alter a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mushtaq Ahmad2022 LHC 5608, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 406 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-02
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtocular evidenceburden of proofDNA evidenceQatl-i-Amdpost-mortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife and causing the abortion of her fetus. The Lahore High Court acquitted the appellant, finding the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed. The court held that the ocular evidence was unreliable, as the alleged eyewitnesses failed to intervene during the incident, and their testimony contained significant contradictions. Furthermore, the court noted inordinate delays in reporting the FIR and conducting the post-mortem, which indicated fabrication of the prosecution's narrative. Crucially, DNA analysis from the crime scene did not implicate the appellant. The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof remains strictly on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While a death in the matrimonial home may require an explanation, this does not shift the burden of proof to the accused if the prosecution’s case is otherwise demolished. The court held that medical evidence is merely confirmatory and cannot identify an offender. Emphasizing that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the court set aside the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of a spouse in the matrimonial home shift the burden of proof to the accused to explain the circumstances?
  • Can medical evidence serve as substantive evidence to identify an offender?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding their guilt?
  • Does Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Siddique2022 LHC 5442 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-29
  Qatl-i-Amdfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuschance witnessescriminal appealdeath sentencebenefit of doubtocular accountmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for Qatl-i-Amd. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the credibility of the eyewitnesses. The Lahore High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, answering the Murder Reference in the negative. The Court held that the prosecution witnesses were "chance witnesses" who failed to justify their presence at the scene. Crucially, the Court applied the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus principle, ruling that because the witnesses’ testimony was rejected regarding the acquitted co-accused, it could not be relied upon against the appellant. The Court further observed that the assailants’ failure to harm the witnesses, despite being adversaries, rendered the ocular account implausible. Additionally, the Court noted that the medical evidence regarding rigor mortis contradicted the stated time of occurrence, and that the recovery of weapons was procedurally flawed under Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court held that when the ocular account is unreliable, corroborative evidence like motive and recovery lacks evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of eyewitnesses be relied upon against an appellant if the same witnesses were disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused?
  • Does the failure of assailants to harm witnesses present at the scene, who were their known adversaries, render the ocular account doubtful?
  • Is the recovery of weapons valid if the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding the association of independent witnesses are violated?
  • Does the development of rigor mortis inconsistent with the alleged time of occurrence create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Maqbool alias Allah Wasaya, Muhammad2022 LHC 5543 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State vs Malik Imtiaz Mahmood Awan, Advocate2022 LHC 2503 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-27
  gift deedinheritancedisinheritance of heirsdelivery of possessionfraudulent transfercivil revisionIslamic law of gift
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenges an appellate court judgment that dismissed a suit for declaration, which had initially been decreed in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner, an elderly father, sought to invalidate a gift deed allegedly executed in favor of his two sons, arguing it was a fraudulent attempt to disinherit his daughters. The core legal question was whether the respondents had satisfied the mandatory requirements of a valid gift under Islamic law—namely, declaration by the donor, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession—and whether the registered deed was sufficient proof of these elements. The Court held that the appellate court erred by relying solely on the registration of the deed while ignoring the lack of evidence regarding the essential ingredients of a gift. The Court emphasized that mere registration does not validate a gift if the donor disputes the transaction and the mandatory requirements are not proven. The key principle laid down is that a beneficiary of a gift deed, especially one that excludes legal heirs, bears the burden of proving the actual transaction, including the donor's free will and the physical delivery of possession, regardless of the document's registration status.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of a gift deed automatically satisfy the legal requirements for a valid gift under Islamic law?
  • Is a beneficiary of a gift deed required to prove the essential elements of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession even if the deed is registered?
  • Can a party rely on contradictory statements in earlier pleadings without confronting the witness with those specific contradictions during cross-examination?
  • What is the burden of proof on a donee who claims a gift that excludes other legal heirs from inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Javaid2022 LHC 5253 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-25
  qatl-i-amdbenefit of the doubtocular account and medical evidence conflictfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusimproving statementsdelayed FIRdelay in post-mortemmurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Javaid, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, while acquitting all co-accused. The core legal questions involve the reliability of interested eyewitnesses, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, unexplained delays in reporting and post-mortem examination, violations of search and seizure rules under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the application of the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus following the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The court held that where eyewitnesses make dishonest improvements, conflict with medical testimony, fail to prove a source of light during a nighttime occurrence, and their testimony is disbelieved regarding co-accused, their evidence lacks credibility and cannot sustain a conviction without independent corroboration, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses can be relied upon when it is in direct conflict with the medical evidence regarding the seat and nature of injuries?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused tried on the same set of evidence vitiate the credibility of eyewitnesses against the remaining convict in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a disputed weapon recovery and unverified motive when the ocular testimony has been rejected?
  • Whether material improvements in the statements of eyewitnesses during trial impeach their credit and render their testimony unsafe for maintaining a capital conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Hameed alias Kora2022 LHC 4665 · Lahore High Court
  murderdacoitychance witnesstest identification paradejoint identification paradebenefit of the doubtrecoverydeath reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals filed against convictions and sentences under sections 302 and 393 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a murder reference for confirmation of a death sentence. The core legal questions involved the credibility of an alleged eyewitness, the validity of a joint identification parade, the evidentiary value of recoveries made through police officials without independent witnesses, and the application of the benefit of the doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the source of light at the night-time occurrence, that the sole eyewitness was an unverified chance witness whose delayed statement cast doubt on his testimony, that the joint test identification parade was legally flawed, and that recoveries made in violation of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a joint test identification parade conducted without matching the physical descriptions given in the FIR holds evidentiary value?
  • Does an unexplained, prolonged delay in recording the statement of an alleged eyewitness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render their testimony unreliable?
  • Whether the testimony of a chance witness whose presence at the crime scene is unverified and uncorroborated can be safely relied upon for recording a conviction?
  • What is the evidentiary status of weapon recoveries effected solely on the pointing of accused persons in the absence of independent public witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Gujranwala vs M/s Gujranwala2022 LHC 2375, 2025 PTD 166 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Multan Zone vs Muhammad Iqbal Rind2022 LHC 4885, 2022 PTD 1411 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore vs M/s Tasneem Akhtar2022 LHC 7268 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Khaliq2022 LHC 5037 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-28
  murder referencecriminal appealbenefit of doubtchance witnessburden of proofocular evidenceQatl-i-Amdrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the murder of his wife and aunt. The Lahore High Court examined whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant, noting that the alleged eyewitnesses were "chance witnesses" who could not provide a convincing reason for their presence at the scene, and their testimony contained significant contradictions regarding the occurrence. Furthermore, the Court observed that the recovery of the weapon was procedurally flawed under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the motive remained unproven. Emphasizing that the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution and does not shift to the accused simply because a crime occurred in their home, the Court ruled that medical evidence cannot identify a culprit. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the death sentence was not confirmed, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the presumption of guilt because a murder occurred within their residence?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 if the prosecution fails to establish its case?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to identify a culprit in a murder case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a recovery made in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The Bank of Punjab vs Messrs Super Trunk House through Proprietor and another2022 PLD Lahore 564 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
• The Bank Of Punjab through Authorized Representative vs Office Of The Ombudsperson (Mohtasib), Punjab and others2022 MLD 714 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-15Read full judgment →
• Temoor Shikoh vs Member (Judicial-III), B.O.R. etc2022 LHC 7808 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Technical Education & Vocational Training Authority through its Chief2022 LHC 6710 · Lahore High Court
  Intra Court AppealmaintainabilityLaw Reforms Ordinanceconstitutional petitiondepartmental proceedingsalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal arises from an order passed by a learned Single Judge in-Chamber who accepted a constitutional petition filed by a respondent employee against his removal from service by the Technical Education & Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA). The core legal question before the court was the maintainability of the Intra Court Appeal in light of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, where the order challenged in the constitutional petition arose out of proceedings that provided for departmental appeal, revision, or review. The court held that the Intra Court Appeal is barred because the proviso explicitly restricts such appeals whenever the original order was subject to at least one appeal, revision, or review under the applicable law, and this bar applies regardless of whether the appellant authority itself is precluded from challenging its own orders. The key principle laid down is that the plain meaning of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, prohibits Intra Court Appeals in all matters where alternative remedies of appeal, review, or revision were available against the original departmental orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Intra Court Appeal is maintainable against an order of a Single Judge passed in a constitutional petition when the underlying order arose from proceedings providing for an appeal, revision, or review?
  • Does the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, bar an authority from filing an Intra Court Appeal if the applicable law does not provide the authority itself with a remedial forum to challenge its own orders?
  Read full judgment →
• TCS (Private) Limited vs Mst. Haseena Begum2022 PLD Lahore 524 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
• Tazeem Butt and others vs Province Of Punjab and others2022 MLD 722 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-04Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood Sultan vs Mumtaz Ahmed etc2022 LHC 6455, 2022 [M] CLR 1541 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Tariq Javed vs Chairman, National Highway Authority, Islamabad and 62022 MLD 810 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
• Tariq Irshad vs Special Judge, etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 201 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-28
  simultaneous proceedingsdouble jeopardycriminal revisionstay of proceedingsforgerycivil and criminal litigationstandard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application filed under Section 249, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to stay criminal proceedings in FIR No. 07/19. The petitioner contended that the FIR was a duplicate of a previously quashed FIR and that criminal proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of parallel civil litigation regarding inheritance. The core legal questions were whether the second FIR constituted double jeopardy and whether criminal proceedings must be stayed pending civil adjudication. The Court held that the second FIR was distinct, as it concerned the forgery of a manual identity card not previously litigated. Furthermore, the Court held that criminal and civil proceedings are distinct in nature, purpose, and standard of proof, and thus may proceed simultaneously. The Court affirmed that there is no legal bar to concurrent proceedings, nor does the pendency of civil litigation automatically necessitate a stay of criminal prosecution. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be stayed pending the outcome of civil litigation regarding the same subject matter?
  • Does the registration of a second FIR based on different forged documents constitute double jeopardy?
  • Is there a legal bar to the simultaneous prosecution of civil and criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Iqbal vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2022 LHC 3649 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-28Read full judgment →
• Tariq Iqbal Malik vs M/s. Multiplierz Group Pvt. Ltd. and 04 others2022 LHC 2643, 2022 CLD 468, 2022 PCTLR 953 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-01
  investigation into affairs of companycorporate fraudlocus standidoctrine of intertwinedSECPshareholder rightscommercial lawregulatory oversight
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a real estate dealer, sought a court direction under Section 257(1)(a)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2017, for the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) to investigate the affairs of the respondent company. The petitioner alleged that the respondents committed fraud by advertising a real estate project without proper regulatory approvals and fleeing after collecting public funds. The core legal question was whether a non-member third party could directly invoke the court's power under Section 257 to order an investigation without meeting the requirements of Section 256. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Sections 256 and 257 are 'intertwined' and must be read in pari materia. The court established the principle that to invoke an investigation into a company's affairs, a complainant must typically demonstrate a nexus or link, such as membership or shareholding, as defined in Section 256. Allowing third parties to trigger investigations for contractual disputes would bypass standard legal remedies and disrupt corporate stability.

  Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Alam and 3 others vs Special Judge Anti-Corruption, D.G. KhanPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 297 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-20
  criminal revisioncancellation reportsummoning of accusedfurther investigationjurisdiction of trial courtnon-bailable warrants
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the orders passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, D.G. Khan, which simultaneously summoned the petitioners to face trial in FIR No. 18/2009 and directed a fresh investigation by the Circle Officer. The core legal question was whether a trial court, upon receiving a cancellation report from the police, possesses the jurisdiction to summon accused persons while simultaneously ordering further investigation into the same matter. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted with patent illegality by blowing hot and cold in the same breath. The Court determined that a trial court must either agree or disagree with a cancellation report and direct the submission of a challan, but it cannot summon accused persons when no formal challan is before it. Furthermore, the court lacks jurisdiction to summon accused persons while simultaneously remitting the case for further investigation, as there is no active case before the court to justify such summons. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh investigation to the appropriate jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court summon an accused person while simultaneously ordering a fresh investigation into the same case?
  • Does a trial court have the jurisdiction to summon an accused when no formal challan has been submitted to it?
  • Is an order for the issuance of non-bailable warrants sustainable if the underlying order summoning the accused is found to be illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 547 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-24
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryfirearm injurymedical evidencecriminal liabilitybail
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, involving the murder of the complainant's father. The petitioner was alleged to have caused a firearm injury to the deceased's right thigh. Upon reviewing the record, the Court noted that the post-mortem report identified injuries 1-4 as firearm injuries, but failed to categorize the injury attributed to the petitioner (injury 5) in the same manner. Furthermore, the medical report did not classify injury 5 as ante-mortem, and it was admitted that this injury was not the cause of death. Additionally, the investigation failed to connect the petitioner to the crime, and no weapon was recovered at his instance. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry into his guilt. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, subject to the provision of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a medical report to classify an injury as a cause of death or as a firearm injury constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the investigation fails to connect the accused to the alleged crime or recover the weapon of offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Abbas vs The State and another2022 MLD 1636 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-09
  circumstantial evidenceextrajudicial confessionlast-seen evidencebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealmurder trialacquittalchain of circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302(b) and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a private complaint concerning abduction and murder. The case entirely hinged on circumstantial evidence, including an alleged extrajudicial confession, recovery of a dead body, last-seen evidence, and weapon recoveries. The Lahore High Court evaluated the circumstantial evidence against established legal standards, emphasizing that the chain of circumstances must be complete and unbroken to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the prosecution's evidence—comprising contradictory recovery dates, weak and uncorroborated extrajudicial confessions, delayed witness statements, and discredited last-seen testimony—to be highly infirm, shaky, and fraught with severe doubts. Furthermore, co-accused facing identical allegations had already been acquitted. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be safely recorded solely on the basis of a joint extrajudicial confession?
  • What are the mandatory legal principles for appreciating circumstantial evidence in a criminal murder trial?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on identical evidence create a ground for the acquittal of the remaining appellant?
  • Can delayed statements of material witnesses without plausible explanation form a reliable basis for a capital conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib vs Government of Punjab, etc2022 LHC 1816, 2024 PCRLJ 578, 2022 PLJ Lahore 592 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-17
  concurrent sentencesconsecutive sentencesSection 382-B Cr.P.C.sentencing discretionlife imprisonmentunder-trial detentioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a convict seeking the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and a direction that his multiple sentences of life imprisonment run concurrently rather than consecutively. The petitioner had been convicted on two counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, which the trial court and appellate courts had ordered to run consecutively. The core legal question was whether the court possessed the authority to order concurrent sentences for multiple convictions in a single trial and whether the mandatory benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. regarding pre-sentence detention could be granted at this stage. The court held that under the proviso to Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, consecutive sentences in a single trial are restricted, and the aggregate punishment should not exceed statutory limits. Furthermore, the court affirmed that granting the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. is mandatory. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, ordering the sentences to run concurrently and directing the jail authorities to extend the statutory benefit of pre-sentence detention to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 prohibit the imposition of consecutive sentences in a single trial that exceed fourteen years?
  • Is the grant of the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 mandatory for the period an accused spent in custody as an under-trial prisoner?
  • Can a court order multiple sentences of life imprisonment to run concurrently rather than consecutively?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain and another vs The State and another2022 LHC 4876 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-05
  suspension of sentencedamanarshta'zirhurtshort sentencepenal code interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks the suspension of sentences awarded to the petitioners by the trial court. The core legal question revolves around whether the restrictions imposed by Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, requiring specific aggravating circumstances to award imprisonment as ta'zir alongside arsh, apply to offences punishable with daman under Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where no arsh is provided. The court held that Section 337-N(2) exclusively applies to cases of hurt where arsh is awarded and does not extend to offences punishable by daman, meaning the trial court has the discretion to award imprisonment as ta'zir for daman-related offences without proving previous conviction or other special circumstances. The petition was dismissed as to the first petitioner where no illegality was found in the sentence, but allowed as to the second petitioner on the ground of a short sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to cases of hurt where the punishment entails daman instead of arsh?
  • Can a court award imprisonment as ta'zir alongside daman without finding the offender to be a previous convict or hardened criminal?
  • What are the considerations for suspending a sentence on the ground of a short sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Does the definition of daman under Section 299 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 remain distinct from arsh?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1543 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-05
  suspension of sentencedamanarshta'zirhurtcriminal appealstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the suspension of sentences awarded by the trial court for convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the restriction in Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which limits the imposition of ta'zir imprisonment to specific categories of offenders, applies to offenses punishable by daman under Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the non-obstante clause in Section 337-N(2) is exclusively applicable to cases involving arsh. Since Section 337-F(vi) prescribes daman rather than arsh, the restrictive conditions of Section 337-N(2) do not apply, and the trial court retains discretion to award imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that the statutory limitations on awarding ta'zir imprisonment in hurt cases are confined to offenses where arsh is the prescribed punishment, thereby excluding offenses where daman is the principal punishment. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner was upheld, while the co-petitioner's sentence was suspended due to its short duration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the restriction in Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the imposition of ta'zir imprisonment apply to offenses punishable by daman?
  • Is a trial court authorized to award imprisonment as ta'zir for an offense under Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Are the provisions of Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable to offenses not entailing the sentence of arsh?
  Read full judgment →
• Talat Mehmood Abbasi vs Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and 32022 P Cr. L J 649 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-03
  criminal revisionadditional evidencefilling up lacunasremandtrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for producing additional evidence was dismissed. The core legal question concerns whether additional evidence can be permitted at a belated stage to fill up lacunas in the prosecution's case, contrary to specific remand directions from the High Court. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while essential evidence must be allowed for a just decision, courts cannot permit parties to fill up lacunas or improve their case at a late stage, especially when the High Court had previously directed the trial court to proceed from the stage of statements under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the basis of the existing record. The key principle laid down is that the discretionary power to summon additional evidence under section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be abused to afford a party a second chance to patch up weaknesses or fill gaps in evidence after the trial has progressed significantly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is justified in dismissing an application for additional evidence filed at a belated stage to fill up lacunas?
  • Can a party be permitted to produce additional evidence when the High Court has specifically directed the trial court to decide the case on the basis of evidence already available on record?
  • Does the discretionary power under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow a party a second chance to improve the quality of its evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 186 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-27
  criminal appealmurderdying declarationbenefit of doubtocular evidencematerial improvementQatl-e-Amdacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction 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 had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant inconsistencies in the ocular evidence, the failure to prove the alleged motive, and the questionable validity of the purported dying declaration. The Court held that the prosecution witnesses made deliberate, material improvements to their statements to align them with medical evidence, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the Court determined that the dying declaration was inadmissible and unreliable as it was recorded in the presence of interested parties and lacked proper medical verification. Emphasizing that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, the Court set aside the conviction. The key principle laid down is that a judgment must be based on critical analysis of evidence rather than presumptions, and that material improvements in testimony destroy a witness's veracity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a witness who makes material improvements to their testimony to align with medical evidence remain credible?
  • What are the essential criteria for evaluating the reliability of a dying declaration in a criminal trial?
  • Can an accused be convicted based on presumptions when the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent?
  • Is a statement recorded by a police officer in the presence of interested witnesses admissible as a reliable dying declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Jamil Butt vs The Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar2022 LHC 7781 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-07
  dismissal from servicejudicial misconductquantum of punishmentservice tribunalreputation of a judgedepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves service appeals filed by a former Civil Judge challenging his dismissal from service and the rejection of his representation against adverse remarks in his annual confidential report. The core legal questions relate to the establishment of misconduct against a judicial officer and whether the quantum of punishment of dismissal ought to be reduced to compulsory retirement. The court held that ample material substantiated the serious charges of corruption and misconduct, particularly compromising judicial integrity, and that the tribunal ought not to interfere with the departmental penalty of dismissal in the absence of unreasonableness or arbitrariness. The key principle laid down is that a judge must jealously guard judicial reputation and integrity, and service tribunals should not substitute or lessen departmental penalties for proven grave misconduct without strong, cogent reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a service tribunal can modify the quantum of punishment imposed by departmental authorities without recording cogent reasons?
  • Does a judicial officer found guilty of corruption and serious misconduct deserve leniency in punishment?
  • What are the limitations of a service tribunal's powers in substituting its own findings regarding the quantum of punishment for those of the departmental authority?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ahmed Yar2022 LHC 5303 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-07
  recall of witnessre-examination of witnessSection 540 CrPCdiscovery of truthcriminal trial procedureprosecution evidencejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order passed by the trial court dismissing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which sought the recall and re-examination of a prosecution witness. The core legal question concerned the scope of the court's power to summon or recall witnesses to ensure a just decision in a criminal trial. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing the trial court to recall and re-examine the witness, ensuring the respondent had an opportunity for cross-examination. The court held that Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 confers wide, and in certain circumstances mandatory, powers upon the court to summon or recall any person as a witness at any stage of the proceedings if such evidence is essential for a just decision. The court emphasized that the primary objective of any trial is the discovery of truth, and the court must actively exercise its enabling powers to discern the truth rather than remaining a passive observer in the face of defective investigations.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 allow the court to recall a witness to fill a lacuna in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the power of the court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 limited to the benefit of the accused?
  • Can a trial court dismiss an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 solely on the ground that it is a belated application?
  • What is the scope of the court's duty to summon or recall witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to ensure a just decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Synthetic Products Enterprises Limited vs Federal Board of Revenue, etc2022 CLC 7886 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahid Hussain Shah vs Mumtaz Ali etc2022 LHC 3812 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Shaukat Abbas Hamdani and others vs The State and others2022 PCRLJ 1150 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-06
  corruption and corrupt practicesNational Accountability Ordinancebenefit of doubtillegal gratificationsubstandard materialmisuse of authorityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellants of corruption and corrupt practices under Section 9(a) and punishing them under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established that the appellants misused their authority, created a false emergency for a water supply project, used substandard materials, and exchanged illegal gratification. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the project's necessity and proper material standards were supported by testimonies, and that the alleged bribe money lacked corroborative proof, especially given a co-appellant's prior acquittal in an assets-beyond-means reference. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, extended the benefit of the doubt, and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that while the National Accountability Ordinance shifts a burden of proof under certain circumstances, the initial burden to establish a prima facie case firmly rests upon the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must establish a initial prima facie case before the burden of proof shifts to the accused under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the mere simultaneous deposit and withdrawal of funds between a contractor and a public official constitute conclusive proof of illegal gratification without corroborative evidence?
  • Whether failure to prosecute initiators of a project while targeting downstream officials affects the sustainability of a corruption charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mubarak Hussain Shah vs Syed Muhammad Ayub Shah(deceased)2022 LHC 4767, 2024 MLD 1633 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Hammad Raza vs Special Secretary Government of The Punjab and others2022 PLJ Lahore 956 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Hammad Raza vs Special Secretary Government of The Punjab and 62022 PLC (C.S.) 825 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-11
  disciplinary proceedingscompulsory retirementproportionality of penaltydiscriminationPEEDA Actmisconductservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Inspector in the Market Committee, challenged his compulsory retirement imposed following disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The petitioner was penalized for accepting time-barred dues on the orders of the Administrator, while the Secretary, Market Committee, received a significantly lighter penalty for similar involvement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s compliance with superior orders absolved him of misconduct and whether the disparity in penalties constituted unlawful discrimination. The Court held that while a government servant cannot use compliance with illegal orders as a defense for misconduct, the principle of proportionality and equality must be maintained. Finding no distinguishing factor to justify the harsher penalty imposed on the petitioner compared to the Secretary, the Court ruled that the disparity violated Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the Court partially accepted the petition, converting the petitioner's penalty of compulsory retirement to match the lesser penalty imposed on the Secretary, thereby upholding the principle of non-discrimination in administrative disciplinary actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does compliance with an illegal order from a superior officer constitute a valid defense against a charge of misconduct for a government servant?
  • Can a court interfere with a disciplinary penalty on the grounds of discrimination if a co-accused received a significantly lighter punishment for similar involvement?
  • Does the imposition of a harsher penalty on one employee compared to another involved in the same incident violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Haider Ali vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited etc2022 LHC 6227 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghazi Shah vs The State and another2022 PLD Lahore 539 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-10
  anti-terrorismfund raising for proscribed organizationSection 11-H ATAsafe custody of forensic evidencebenefit of doubtacquittal appealproscribed organization
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal assails the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 11-F(6) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for allegedly collecting funds for a proscribed organization (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan). The prosecution alleged that the appellant was apprehended red-handed collecting funds with a receipt book. The High Court observed that there was no evidence demonstrating that the appellant was a member of or associated with the proscribed organization, or how he incited the public. Crucially, none of the donors who allegedly paid the funds were joined in the investigation, despite Section 11-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 penalizing both the provision and receipt of terrorism funds. Furthermore, the safe custody and transmission of the recovered receipt books and specimen signatures to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency were not established, vitiating the forensic evidence. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to apprehend or investigate the donors of terrorism funds cast doubt on the prosecution's case against an alleged fund collector under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Does the lack of proof regarding safe custody and chain of transmission of recovered articles and specimen signatures render a forensic science report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for fund raising be sustained where there is no evidence establishing the accused's membership or link with a proscribed organization?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Faisal Mehboob vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 CLC 1153 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Hussain Jaffri, etc vs Addl. District Judge, etc2022 LHC 4740, 2022 PLJ Lahore 906 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Ali Shah vs Deputy Controller, Pakistan Television Corporation2022 LHC 4694 · Lahore High Court
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantstatutory rulesservice mattersPakistan Television CorporationmaintainabilityLeave Preparatory to Retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an office order directing the petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC), to proceed on Leave Preparatory to Retirement. The core legal question was whether the PTVC Employees Service Rules of 1978 are statutory in nature, thereby allowing an aggrieved employee to invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that the PTVC Employees Service Rules are non-statutory. Consequently, the employment relationship between the petitioner and PTVC is governed by the principle of master and servant, precluding the enforcement of service terms through a constitutional petition. The Court affirmed that rules do not become statutory merely because they are adopted by a statutory body or approved by a government authority; rather, statutory rules must be framed under delegated legislative power, often requiring publication in the official gazette. Where service rules are non-statutory, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for reinstatement or service disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules of 1978 statutory in nature?
  • Can an employee of a public sector company invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for service-related grievances if the service rules are non-statutory?
  • Does the adoption of service rules by the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, render those rules statutory?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Ali Shah vs Deputy Controller, Admin and Personal-III PTV, Islamabad and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 1433 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-21
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantstatutory rulesservice matterLeave Preparatory to RetirementPakistan Television Corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC), challenged an office order directing him to proceed on Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) via a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether the PTVC Employees Service Rules of 1978 constitute statutory rules, thereby permitting the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction in a service-related dispute. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It determined that the PTVC Employees Service Rules are non-statutory, as they were not framed under delegated legislative power derived from a parent Act, despite being adopted by the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. Consequently, the relationship between the petitioner and PTVC is governed by the master-servant principle, precluding the maintainability of a writ petition for service grievances. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction in service matters is only available where employment is governed by statutory rules, and the mere adoption of rules by a regulatory authority does not confer statutory status upon them.

  Questions settled

  • Are the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited Employees Service Rules of 1978 considered statutory rules?
  • Can an employee of a public sector company invoke constitutional jurisdiction for service matters if their employment is not governed by statutory rules?
  • Does the adoption of service rules by the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, render those rules statutory?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a public sector company for a grievance arising from a master-servant relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Hamza and others vs Province Of The Punjab and others2022 PLC (C.S.) 525 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-30
  constitutional petitionregularization of servicedaily wagesmaster and servantcontract employmentArticle 25 discriminationefflux of timeLahore Arts Council
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, challenging a quasi-judicial order dated 30.09.2020 that denied their request for regularization of service. The petitioners were engaged by the Lahore Arts Council on work charge/daily wages basis for temporary 89-day terms under Clause 89(d) of the Lahore Arts Council (Alhamra) Regulations 2010. They contended that their appointments were extended from time to time, the posts were permanent, and denial of regularization constituted discrimination under Article 25. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that employees appointed on contract or daily wages for a fixed tenure have no vested right to claim regularization or extension upon expiry by efflux of time. Having accepted the contractual terms, petitioners could not resile from them. Furthermore, in the absence of violation of statutory service rules, contractual employment is governed by the master and servant principle, barring writ jurisdiction. The Court also held that petitioners failed the department's regularization criteria and reasonable classification does not violate Article 25.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract or daily-wage employee claim extension or regularization of service as a matter of vested right after accepting fixed-term appointment conditions?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable to enforce service rights where the employment is contractual and governed by the master and servant rule?
  • Does the differential treatment of daily-wage employees based on failure to fulfill prescribed departmental eligibility criteria violate Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can courts interfere with an employer's policy decisions regarding qualifications, suitability, and criteria for regular service appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad Sher vs Addl. District Judge, etc2022 LHC 3000, 2022 PLD Lahore 715 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Suriya Nafees vs Muhammad Ramzan Shahid etc2022 LHC 1989 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-18Read full judgment →
• Sumaira Ashraf vs Dr. Muhammad Shafiq etc2022 LHC 3088 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-26Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mehmood vs Province of Punjab through its Chief Secretary, Lahore2022 LHC 8562 · Lahore High Court
  constitutional petitionservice matterjurisdictional barcompulsory retirementterms and conditions of servicePEEDA ActService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner, an EST/SVT (BS-16), following disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The petitioner alleged that the inquiry, which concerned irregularities in his initial appointment, did not relate to his terms and conditions of service, thereby bypassing the jurisdictional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court addressed the core question of whether it possessed jurisdiction to entertain the petition despite the constitutional ouster. Holding that the petition was not maintainable, the Court ruled that the bar under Article 212 is absolute and inflexible. It established that terms and conditions of service encompass the initial appointment process; thus, any disciplinary action arising from alleged pre-induction irregularities constitutes a service matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked in service matters, regardless of allegations of coram non judice or discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a petition by a civil servant regarding disciplinary action taken for irregularities in their initial appointment?
  • Is the bar on jurisdiction contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 applicable to disciplinary proceedings concerning pre-induction irregularities?
  • Can a civil servant invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the grounds that a departmental order is coram non judice or discriminatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Limited, etc vs Muhammad Shafi2022 PLJ Lahore 159 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-01Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipe Lines Limited, etc. vs Farman Ali, etc.2022 LHC 6389, 2024 CLC 164, 2022 [M] CLR 1593 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
• Subhan Allah vs The State & another2022 LHC 6197 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-14
  fair trialpolice registersprivileged documentsSection 172 CrPCSection 94 CrPCcriminal revisionright to defensepolice diary
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, facing trial for explosive-related offenses, challenged the trial court's order dismissing his application to summon specific police registers (No. 2, 19, and 21). The trial court had ruled these documents were privileged under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court examined whether police registers maintained under the Police Rules, 1934, fall under the privilege of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exclusively governs the 'case diary' of an investigating officer and does not extend to general police registers. Consequently, the trial court's refusal was set aside. The Court emphasized that under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the right to a fair trial is paramount. Trial courts possess broad powers under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon documents necessary for a just decision. The principle established is that police registers are public documents, not privileged, and must be produced if deemed necessary for the defense to ensure a fair trial and prevent miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Are police registers maintained under the Police Rules, 1934, considered privileged documents under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to summon police registers for the purpose of a fair trial?
  • Is the scope of Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited to the case diary of an investigating officer?
  • Can an accused person request the production of police registers to challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad ZeeshanPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1568 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad HafeezPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 949 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-27
  narcoticsvehicle releasesuperdariconfessional statementcontrol of narcotic substancesvehicle confiscation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 challenges an order passed by the Special Court CNS, Lahore, whereby a car involved in a narcotics case was released to the brother of the convict upon conviction. The core legal question concerns the legality of releasing a vehicle seized during a narcotics offense to its registered owner following the conclusion of the trial and conviction of the accused. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's decision to release the vehicle to its rightful owner was justified, noting that the vehicle was owned prior to the commission of the offence and that the owner had no prior knowledge of its misuse in narcotics trafficking. The key principle laid down is that an innocent owner of a vehicle used in a crime is entitled to its return unless the prosecution establishes that the owner had knowledge of such use, and vehicles not falling strictly within statutory seizure parameters or belonging to innocent third parties may be returned upon due verification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle seized during a narcotics offense be released to its owner after the trial concludes?
  • What are the circumstances under which a vehicle can be legally seized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is an innocent owner entitled to the return of a vehicle used in a crime under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Zonal Head/Attorney2022 CLD 1048 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan through Zonal Head/Attorney2022 CLD 190 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Zonal Head vs Kausar2022 CLD 1340 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-12Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan through Chairman/Zonal2022 CLD 1026 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-22Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and another vs Mst. Shahida Parveen2022 CLD 1310 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-01Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan and four others2022 LHC 7273 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sonhara vs Faiz Ellahi alias Faizan Mai, etc2022 LHC 2961 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
• Sobia Nazir vs Province of Punjab, etc2022 [M] CLR 374 · Lahore High Court · 202-03-21
  maternity leavefundamental rightsfemale employeescontract employeeinternshipright to motherhoodconstitutional petitionPunjab Workers Welfare Fund
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, an internee Senior Teacher (IT) at a Workers Welfare School, challenging the order of the respondent declining her application for 90 days of paid maternity leave based on the terms and conditions of the Internship/Retainership Policy. The core legal question was whether a female contract or internee employee, whose service contract or applicable policy does not explicitly provide for maternity leave or make general civil service leave rules applicable, can be denied maternity leave and associated pay, and whether such denial violates fundamental constitutional rights. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that maternity leave is a fundamental right of female employees regardless of whether it is expressly mentioned in their service contracts or specific departmental leave rules, as rooted in the constitutional protections for women, children, human dignity, and against forced labor. The court laid down the principle that all public and private entities are under an obligation to provide maternity leave with pay and job protection to female workers—including temporary, contract, and internee staff—to safeguard motherhood and ensure a just social order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female employee appointed on an internship or contract basis is entitled to paid maternity leave when her service contract or policy is silent on the matter?
  • Does the denial of maternity leave to a female employee violate her fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are public sector departments and institutions under an obligation to provide maternity benefits and paid leave to temporary, ad hoc, or internee female workers?
  • Does forcing a pregnant woman to perform duties during advanced stages of pregnancy amount to forced labor prohibited by the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sme Bank Limited through Branch Manager vs Messrs Punjab Store through Proprietor and another2022 CLD 251 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-29Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 860 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-25
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdelay in FIRocular accountmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a fellow prisoner inside a hospital mental cell. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account, the impact of an inordinate delay in reporting the crime, and the benefit of doubt arising from inconsistencies in prosecution evidence. The Lahore High Court held that an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with unreliable eyewitness testimony and inconsistent testimonies of jail warders, rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt, laying down the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt on its own legs, and a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version?
  • Can medical evidence alone establish the identity of the assailant in a criminal trial?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt on its own legs without taking benefit from weaknesses in the defence?
  • What is the legal effect of a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution story?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat Gondal, etc. vs Bashir Ahmad Qureshi, etc.2022 LHC 7475 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• State, Bagga, Manjhi vs Bagga, Manjhi, The State2022 LHC 2172 · Lahore High Court
  police encounterbenefit of the doubtdishonest improvementsindependent corroborationinjured witnessfair trialanti-terrorismweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal appeals and a capital sentence reference following a judgment by the anti-terrorism court convicting the appellants for murder, attempted murder, and related offenses stemming from a police encounter. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular testimony when co-accused have been acquitted, the legal effect of dishonest improvements by witnesses, the standard of investigation in police encounter cases, and the evidentiary value of recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that where a set of witnesses is disbelieved regarding certain co-accused, their testimony cannot be used to convict remaining accused without strong independent corroboration, and that police encounters require independent investigation rather than by the aggrieved party itself. The court established that dishonest material improvements by eye-witnesses render their testimony untrustworthy, and corroborative evidence like weapon recoveries cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable substantive evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, giving the appellants the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses disbelieved regarding some co-accused can be made the foundation of conviction for remaining accused without strong and independent corroboration?
  • Does an investigation conducted by the police in a case involving a police encounter satisfy the constitutional requirement of a fair trial and impartial investigation?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of recoveries of weapons of offense when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
  • What is the evidentiary value of injuries on the person of a witness when the witness makes dishonest improvements during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Baz alias Shahbaz vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1214 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-20
  criminal revisionre-summoning witnessprosecution lacunaadministration of criminal justiceSection 540 CrPCtrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against an order passed by the Sessions Judge (Special Judge) ATC, Sahiwal, which allowed the prosecution's application to re-summon a Magistrate (PW-19) for further examination. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in permitting the re-summoning of a witness to clarify the date on an application for an identification parade, or whether this constituted an impermissible attempt by the prosecution to fill a lacuna in its case. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court's order was lawful. The Court affirmed that the power under Section 540 is plenary, allowing the court to summon or recall any witness at any stage if essential for a just decision. It clarified that an oversight or mistake by the prosecution during trial does not equate to an irreparable 'lacuna' in the prosecution's case, and the primary function of a criminal court is the administration of justice rather than penalizing procedural errors.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power of a court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall a witness extend to correcting oversights made by the prosecution?
  • Is an oversight by the prosecution during a trial equivalent to an irreparable lacuna in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a trial court exercise its power to re-summon a witness if the prosecution discovers a need for clarification at a belated stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Baz alias Shahbaz vs State, etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 102 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-20
  criminal revisionre-summoning of witnessprosecution lacunaadministration of criminal justicepowers of trial courtSection 540 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge (Special Judge) ATC, Sahiwal, which allowed the prosecution's application to re-summon a Magistrate (PW-19) for further examination. The petitioner argued that this action improperly allowed the prosecution to fill a lacuna in its case. The Lahore High Court examined the scope of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which grants courts plenary power to summon or recall any witness at any stage of proceedings if their evidence is essential for a just decision. The Court held that an oversight or mistake by the prosecution during trial does not constitute an irreparable 'lacuna'—which refers to an inherent weakness in the prosecution's case—but is rather a correctable error. The Court emphasized that the primary function of a criminal court is the administration of justice, not merely assessing the performance of parties. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial court's order, finding that recalling the witness was necessary for a just decision and would not prejudice the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the re-summoning of a witness to correct an oversight by the prosecution constitute filling a lacuna?
  • What is the scope of a trial court's power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall a witness?
  • Is an oversight committed by a public prosecutor during a trial considered an irreparable lacuna in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab and seven others2022 LHC 4681 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Tariq vs M/s Premium Developers2022 LHC 1901 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Azfar Amin vs Chaudhary Asif Ali and 4 others2022 PLD Lahore 92 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Khaliq and 8 others vs Government Of Pakistan, Board Of Trustees, through Secretary Establishment, Islamabad and 4 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 43 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-14
  group insurancefederal employeesretirement benefitsstatutory interpretationinsurance fundservice lawtarka
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by retired Federal Government employees seeking payment of Group Insurance sums upon their retirement, relying on Section 17(5) of the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969. The petitioners argued they were entitled to these funds, citing discriminatory treatment compared to provincial employees. The core legal question was whether retired federal employees are entitled to claim Group Insurance benefits during their lifetime, similar to death benefits, and whether the Insurance Fund could be utilized for their benefit. The Court held that Group Insurance is a form of compensation accruing only upon an employee's death, as stipulated in Section 15 of the Act of 1969, and is not an inheritable benefit or 'Tarka'. Consequently, the claim for payment of insurance sums upon retirement was dismissed as untenable. However, regarding the utilization of surplus funds under Section 17(5), the Court directed the Board to examine the petitioners' grievances individually to determine if the remaining funds could be applied for the benefit of retired employees, as permitted by the statute.

  Questions settled

  • Are retired federal employees entitled to claim Group Insurance benefits during their lifetime under the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act 1969?
  • Does the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act 1969 classify Group Insurance as an inheritable benefit or 'Tarka'?
  • Can surplus amounts in the Federal Employees Insurance Fund be utilized for the benefit of retired employees under Section 17(5) of the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Akhtar vs Muhammad Saleem Shad Qureshi, etc.2022 LHC 7326 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-07Read full judgment →
• Sheeraz Khan and another vs Deputy Commissioner, Chakwal and 3 others2022 MLD 1267 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-17Read full judgment →
• Shazia Afzal vs Justice Of Peace and 2 others2022 PLJ Lahore 61 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-06Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 448 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-28
  double murderocular evidencemitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationcriminal appealbenefit of doubtmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellants for the double murder of two individuals. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the evidentiary record. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular evidence, corroborated by medical testimony, was sufficient to prove the appellants' guilt, despite minor discrepancies and the failure to prove motive or recovery of weapons. The Court affirmed the convictions under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, the Court determined that the failure to establish motive and the unreliability of the recovery evidence acted as mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions but commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment, extending the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that while ocular evidence may suffice for conviction, the failure to prove motive and recovery evidence entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt regarding the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove motive and recovery of weapons entitle an accused to a reduction in sentence from death to life imprisonment?
  • Is ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder when recovery evidence is disbelieved?
  • Can an appellate court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment while maintaining the conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Ali vs Muhammad Sharif etc2022 PLJ Lahore 354 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-24Read full judgment →
• Shakeela Naz vs Mst. Nazir Begum through L.Rs. and others2022 YLR 1118 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-13Read full judgment →
• Shaista Norrrn Sajid vs M/s Qatar Airways International, Etc2022 LHC 4180 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-09Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Tariq vs Messrs Premium Developers through C.E.O.2022 YLR 1867 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
• Shahzeb vs The State, etc2022 LHC 4638, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1524 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-09
  control of narcotic substancessafe custody of case propertychain of custodychemical examiner reporttest protocolscontradictions in prosecution evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to life imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband and samples, the validity of the chemical examiner's report, and material contradictions in prosecution evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of safe custody and safe transmission of the case property and samples to the testing laboratory, that the chemical examiner's report lacked mandatory test protocols and analysis details rendering it unreliable, and that glaring contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses created serious doubts. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant on the principle that the benefit of a single reasonable doubt in a criminal case must be extended to the accused as of right, particularly under stringent penal statutes requiring a stricter standard of proof.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure by the prosecution to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples to the chemical examiner vitiate the conviction?
  • Is a chemical examiner's report lacking mandatory test protocols and individual test results legally admissible to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can material contradictions between the time of recording the complaint and the duration of the weighing process create a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution giving up a material witness who carried the initial complaint to the police station?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh Latif vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2022 LHC 6312, 2022 [M] CLR 1487 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-09Read full judgment →
• Shahida Parveen vs Province of Punjab & others2022 LHC 6828 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Shahid Wazeer vs Additional District Judge, etc2022 LHC 7798 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
• Shahid Rasool vs Government Of Punjab through Secretary Home2022 PLJ Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-25Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood, etc vs District Collector/Land Acquisition Collector, etc2022 LHC 7991 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-17Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2022 LHC 6542, 2022 [M] CLR 1556 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz alias Gillu vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1451 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-11
  murderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRocular and medical discrepancyexit wound attributed as entry woundacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of delayed FIR registration, delayed post-mortem examination, credibility of closely related and inimical eye-witnesses, consistency between ocular and medical evidence, and the evidentiary value of motive, weapon recovery, and absconding. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to fatal discrepancies, including delayed reporting, unconvincing ocular testimony contradicted by medical evidence where an exit wound was attributed as a firearm entry, lack of independent corroboration after co-accused acquittal, and unproven motive. The court established that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, thereby setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a noticeable delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version?
  • Can ocular testimony be relied upon when the injury attributed to the accused is medically established as an exit wound rather than an entry wound?
  • Whether prosecution witnesses disbelieved with respect to an acquitted co-accused can be relied upon against a remaining accused without independent and unimpeachable corroboration?
  • Is mere absconding of an accused sufficient by itself to prove guilt or remedy defects in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz and another vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 299 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubteye-witness testimonymotiverecovery of weapondelay in FIRpost-mortem delayacquittaldeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns a criminal appeal filed by Shah Nawaz and Ahmad Nawaz against their convictions and sentences for murder under Sections 302(b)/34 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, alongside a murder reference for the confirmation of Shah Nawaz's death sentence. The core legal question revolved around the sufficiency and credibility of the prosecution's evidence, particularly the eye-witness accounts, the motive, and the recovery of weapons. The Lahore High Court entertained serious doubts regarding the appellants' participation, noting inconsistencies in the eye-witnesses' presence and statements, a significant delay in the post-mortem examination suggestive of fabricated evidence, dishonest improvements in the motive story, and an inconsequential recovery of a rifle. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted both appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, reiterating the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt lead to the acquittal of an accused?
  • What impact do inconsistencies in eye-witness accounts have on the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination raise doubts about the prosecution's narrative?
  • How do dishonest improvements in the motive story affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  • Is a recovery of a weapon with a negative forensic report sufficient to establish guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Faisal vs The State2022 YLR 2052 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-19
  post-arrest bailHundi and Hawalaprohibitory clausefurther inquiryFederal Exchange Regulation ActAnti Money Laundering Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Shah Faisal under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in connection with FIR No. 13 dated 29.03.2022, registered under Sections 5 and 23 of the Federal Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, an employee apprehended during a raid for alleged Hundi and Hawala business, was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was merely a manager and not the owner, no independent witnesses were associated with the raid, the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and he had no previous criminal record, his case fell within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The court established the key principle that in non-prohibitory offences where guilt requires further inquiry and the accused has no criminal record, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who is merely an employee and manager rather than the owner of a business premises involved in Hundi operations is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory degree of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make bail a rule and refusal an exception?
  • When does a criminal case become one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad, etc vs Mst. Shaher Bano, etc2022 LHC 2047 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 644 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-29
  pre-arrest bailhomicidepostmortem examinationcriminal conspiracybail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged homicidal death of Mst. Naseem Bibi. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail in a heinous offense involving capital punishment where they were nominated in the FIR and supported by medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were nominated in the crime report, implicated by eyewitnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the medical postmortem report categorically established homicide while ruling out suicide. The Court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail is restricted to exceptional and rare cases where mala fides, enmity, or absence of an offense is apparent on the record, elements which were missing in this case. Consequently, the pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted in a case involving capital punishment when the accused are nominated in the FIR?
  • Does a medical report ruling out suicide and confirming homicide provide sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail?
  • What is the scope of pre-arrest bail in criminal matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan vs Koh-i-Noor Edible Oil2022 LHC 3419, 2025 CLD 44 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-16Read full judgment →
• Sawera Ikram vs Amir Naveed2022 PLD Lahore 600 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15
  Family Court executiontransfer of execution petitionmoney decreearrears of land revenuepreceptsattachment of propertyFamily Courts Act 1964judgment debtor
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple transfer applications seeking the transfer of execution petitions arising from decrees passed by Family Courts. The central legal question is whether execution petitions for money decrees passed by Family Courts must be transferred to other districts where the judgment debtor resides, or whether the executing court can satisfy the decree without such transfer. The Court held that transferring execution petitions to other districts causes unnecessary hardship to women and children, who are the primary beneficiaries of the Family Courts Act, 1964. The Court ruled that the executing court can satisfy decrees by adopting procedures such as issuing precepts to other courts for the attachment of property or attaching salaries, rather than transferring the entire petition. The Court emphasized that the Family Courts Act, 1964 is a special statute designed to protect vulnerable segments of society, and procedural technicalities should not hinder justice. Executing courts possess powers to adopt methods for decree satisfaction, including those under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provided they are not inconsistent with the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Family Court execute a money decree by treating the decretal amount as arrears of land revenue?
  • Is it necessary to transfer an execution petition to another district simply because the judgment debtor resides there?
  • Can an executing court issue a precept to another court for the attachment of property belonging to a judgment debtor?
  • Are the technical provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to the execution of decrees passed by Family Courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardaran Bibi vs Muhammad Arshad and others2022 CLC 1703 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Qurban Ali Dogar vs Pakistan Bar Council through Chairman and 82022 CLC 649, 2022 PLJ Lahore 144, 2022 [M] CLR 1054 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-05Read full judgment →
• Saqlain Abbas vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 894 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-09
  pre-arrest bailmala fidegeneralized allegationscriminal procedurefalse implicationinvestigation findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the confirmation of pre-arrest bail for the petitioner, Saqlain Abbas, in connection with FIR No. 138/21 registered at Police Station Thatah Sadiqabad, District Khanewal, for offenses under Sections 506(ii), 337-F(i), 337-L(ii), 109, 427, 379, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the investigation findings. The Court observed that while the petitioner was named in the FIR, the role attributed to him was generalized. Furthermore, investigation revealed that co-accused initially alleged to be armed with firearms were found innocent, suggesting the prosecution's case was exaggerated. The Court held that the possibility of false implication with mala fide intent could not be ruled out, rendering the petitioner's arrest unnecessary. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the ad interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed, establishing that where allegations are generalized and investigation casts doubt on the prosecution's narrative, pre-arrest bail is warranted to prevent misuse of the criminal process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the role attributed to the accused in the FIR is generalized?
  • Does the finding of innocence of co-accused during investigation provide grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail for other accused?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted if the court finds the prosecution's case appears exaggerated and motivated by mala fide intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1121 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-09
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessdelay in FIRocular accountappellant acquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's son by throwing him into a canal. The core legal questions involve the credibility of an uncorroborated ocular account, the evidentiary value of testimony by chance witnesses, the effect of unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and the application of the benefit of the doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to an unexplained eleven-hour delay in reporting the crime, the doubtful and chance nature of the eye-witnesses' presence at the crime scene, omissions in the FIR, and a lack of recovery or established motive. Consequently, the court laid down that a conviction cannot be sustained on shaky and suspect evidence of chance witnesses without plausible explanations for their presence, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR is sufficient to cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version?
  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon without convincing explanations for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Whether an un-witnessed occurrence with shaky ocular evidence is sufficient to maintain a conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Khan vs The State and 3 others2022 PCRLJ 1828 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-08
  Illegal Dispossession Actappeal against acquittalmaintainability of appealstatutory right of appealrevisional jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an acquittal order passed by the trial court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of an appeal against an acquittal under Section 8-A of the said Act. The Lahore High Court held that the right of appeal is a creation of statute and cannot be inferred by implication; Section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 provides a right of appeal solely against convictions and orders under Section 8(1), omitting any right of appeal against acquittals. Consequently, an appeal against an acquittal under the Act is not maintainable, nor can an acquittal be converted into a conviction via revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, though a constitutional petition may remain available where no other efficacious remedy exists. The key principle laid down is that the right of appeal is strictly statutory, and in the absence of an express legislative provision granting a right of appeal against an acquittal under special legislation, such an appeal is incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal maintainable against an order of acquittal passed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does Section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 provide a right of appeal against an acquittal?
  • Can a right of appeal be inferred by implication where the statute is silent?
  • Can the High Court convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →