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.

• Sana Sohail Khan vs National Industrial Relations Commission, etc2022 LHC 4580, 2022 PLC 167 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-19
  industrial relationsworkman statusmisreading of evidenceconstitutional jurisdictionnature of dutiesburden of proofNIRC jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which had set aside a single-member order reinstating the petitioner, on the grounds that she was not a "workman." The core legal question was whether the NIRC correctly determined the petitioner's status as a "workman" under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and whether the evidence regarding her duties was properly evaluated. The High Court held that the NIRC's decision was unsustainable due to the misreading and non-reading of evidence, specifically because the tribunal relied on a piecemeal reading of the petitioner's cross-examination while ignoring her testimony regarding her subsequent demotion. The Court remanded the matter for a fresh decision, establishing the principle that evidence must be read as a whole to reach a just conclusion. Furthermore, it affirmed that designation is not the sole determinant of employment status; rather, the nature of duties performed is the paramount factor, and once a claimant establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the claimant is not a workman.

  Questions settled

  • Does the designation of an employee determine their status as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Is it permissible for a tribunal to determine an employee's status based on a piecemeal reading of their testimony?
  • Once a claimant establishes a prima facie case of being a 'workman', does the burden of proof shift to the employer to prove otherwise?
  • Can the High Court interfere in a tribunal's decision if it is based on the misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Samman Maqbool vs Province of Punjab etc2022 LHC 4431 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• Samia Anwar etc. vs Nasir Hussain etc.2022 LHC 1933 · Lahore High Court · 2000-01-10Read full judgment →
• Samar Abbas vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-03
  murder referencebenefit of doubtchance witnessocular accountforensic evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular testimony, alleged motive, and forensic evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. Specifically, the eye-witnesses were deemed 'chance witnesses' whose presence at the crime scene was unexplained and doubtful. Furthermore, the motive was unsubstantiated, and the forensic evidence regarding the weapon recovery was rendered immaterial because the crime empties were sent to the laboratory after the appellant's arrest. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits and that any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's story entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted without a justifiable reason for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused if the prosecution fails to discharge its initial onus?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a positive forensic report when crime empties are sent to the laboratory after the accused's arrest?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Samar Abbas vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 336 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-13
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfurther inquiryidentificationexclusive possessioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Samar Abbas, in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery of 1380 grams of Charas, which was found in the premises of a third party rather than in the petitioner's exclusive possession, and the fact that the petitioner was not apprehended at the scene. The Court observed that the petitioner was nominated based on information provided by a secret informer whose statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was not on record, raising serious questions regarding identification and the veracity of the evidence. Holding that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry and noting the petitioner was a first-time offender no longer required for investigation, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where recovery is not from the exclusive possession of the accused and identification is disputed, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics from a third party's premises, rather than the accused's exclusive possession, constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can an accused be denied bail when the prosecution's case relies on the statement of a secret informer whose statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not on record?
  • Is the absence of the accused at the scene of recovery a factor that raises a serious question of identification for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Shahid vs University of Management And Technology, through Chairman, Board of Governors and Boards of Trustees and 9 others2022 CLC 1328 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
• Salma Karamat vs District Education Officer (M-Ee), Narowal, etc2022 LHC 5922 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-13Read full judgment →
• Salma Bibi etc vs Rana Sagheer Hussain2022 LHC 3434, 2022 PLD Lahore 589 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
• Saleem Mehmood vs Ch. Saeed Asghar2022 LHC 1993 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain alias Shaka vs The State and another2022 YLR 359 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-14
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailstatutory delaylibertycriminal appealidentification parade
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of the applicant’s sentence of life imprisonment pending the disposal of his criminal appeal. The applicant had been convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail given the circumstances of the case and the delay in the appeal process. The Court observed that the applicant was not named in the initial crime report, no identification parade was conducted, and the prosecution relied solely on witnesses who were relatives of the deceased. Furthermore, the applicant had already served over eight years in prison, and the final disposal of the appeal was not imminent. The Court held that the liberty of the individual is a precious right, and in the absence of a reparatory mechanism for wrongful incarceration, suspension of sentence is appropriate when the appeal is unlikely to be decided soon. The sentence was suspended, and bail was granted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the disposal of the main criminal appeal is not likely in the near future?
  • Does the absence of an identification parade and the fact that the accused was not named in the FIR constitute valid grounds for considering the suspension of a sentence pending appeal?
  • Is the liberty of a convict a relevant consideration for the suspension of sentence when there is no legal mechanism to compensate for wrongful incarceration?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain (deceased) through legal heirs etc vs Mst. Mumtaz Mai etc2022 LHC 8228 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-14Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ashraf vs The State and 2 others2022 PCRLJ 779 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-21
  condonation of delaylimitationappeal against acquittallawyers strikecertified copiestime-barred petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a criminal petition under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents in a private complaint under Section 6(1) of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery Act, 2016, read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was barred by time by ninety-seven days. The petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 seeking condonation of delay, attributing the delay to a lockdown of the District Courts due to lawyers' strikes and the subsequent time taken to obtain certified copies. The core legal question was whether a lawyers' strike and consequent inability to obtain certified copies constitute a sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Lahore High Court held that lawyers' strikes are illegal and unethical and do not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning delay, as recognizing such grounds would be against public policy and public interest. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the petition was dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a lawyers' strike constitutes a sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Can the time spent due to a voluntary boycott or strike of courts by lawyers be excluded for the purpose of limitation?
  • Does the failure to apply for certified copies within the available limitation period preclude the condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajida Rehmat Ullah vs Guardian Judge-II and others2022 PLD Lahore 183 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-10Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali vs The State and 5 others2022 PLD Lahore 55 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-23
  exhumationdisintermentpost-mortemcause of deathlocus standicriminal procedureunnatural death
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition challenged the orders of the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, which authorized the exhumation and post-mortem examination of the deceased, Ghulam Bibi. The petitioner contended that the applicant, a sister-in-law of the deceased, lacked the locus standi to seek exhumation and that the lower courts failed to follow proper procedure. The core legal question was whether an application for the exhumation of a dead body under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is restricted to legal heirs or if it can be filed by a stranger. The Court held that the primary objective of the law is to ascertain the cause of death in cases of unnatural or suspicious circumstances. It ruled that Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not impose a restriction of locus standi on applicants. Consequently, a Magistrate may order exhumation based on reasonable suspicion, even upon the request of a stranger, to ensure the criminal machinery is properly set in motion. The impugned orders were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restrict the right to apply for the exhumation of a dead body to legal heirs only?
  • Can a Magistrate order the exhumation of a dead body based on the application of a person who is not a blood relative of the deceased?
  • Is the existence of reasonable suspicion sufficient for a Magistrate to order the disinterment of a body to ascertain the cause of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Saima vs Additional District Judge and others2022 PLD Lahore 214 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
• Saifal through legal heirs and another vs Member Board Of Revenue and others2022 YLR 378 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Haroon Ali Syed vs Additional District Judge and others2022 PLJ Lahore 984 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Faisal Ali Khan vs Chairman LDA and another2022 PLJ Lahore 366 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmed vs Ambassador Usa Embassy, Islamabad Pakistan2022 PLD Lahore 138 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Safiya Ishaq etc vs Judge Family Court etc2022 LHC 6138 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-16Read full judgment →
• Safeer Ahmad vs Mst. Gulshan Bibi and others2022 CLC 634 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Safdar Hayat vs The State, etc2022 LHC 3063, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1328 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-15
  fair trialSection 342 CrPCdefence evidenceArticle 10-AQatl-i-Amdcriminal proceduredue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from a trial for Qatl-i-Amd, where the petitioner challenged the trial court’s dismissal of two applications filed after his statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been recorded. The petitioner sought to rectify his recorded response regarding the production of defense evidence and requested the summoning of Rescue 15 records. The core legal question was whether denying these applications, despite the petitioner's claim of clerical error and the necessity of the evidence for his defense, violated his fundamental right to a fair trial. The High Court held that the trial court’s refusal was unsustainable, as it prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial. Emphasizing that the accused is a favourite child of law, the court ruled that procedural technicalities should not impede the right to produce defense evidence. The judgment affirmed that Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 mandates a fair trial, which includes the essential right of an accused to present evidence in their defense to disprove charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal of a trial court to allow an accused to produce defense evidence after a Section 342 CrPC statement violate the right to a fair trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to rectify a clerical error in their statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 mandate that an accused be provided an opportunity to produce evidence in their defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali alias Subtain vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 584 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-20
  murderbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidence contradictiondelay in FIRacquitted co-accusedcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Safdar Ali alias Subtain, under Section 202(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a private complaint in a murder case. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of delayed FIR reporting, inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence, and the principle of extending the benefit of doubt when co-accused with identical roles have been acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inordinate unexplained delay in the FIR, doubtful presence of eyewitnesses who suffered no injuries, contradiction with medical evidence regarding the number of firearm wounds, unproven motive, and tainted evidence vis-à-vis acquitted co-accused. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version?
  • Can eyewitness testimony be relied upon when it stands in direct conflict with the medical evidence regarding the number of firearm injuries?
  • Whether evidence disbelieved against an acquitted co-accused can be safely utilized to convict another co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does the prosecution fail to establish its case if multiple circumstances create doubt regarding the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Anwar alias Noor Muhammad etc vs Member Colonies Board of Revenue Punjab etc2022 LHC 7218 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad, etc vs Muhammad Naeem, etc2022 LHC 2233 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Rasheed and another vs Mst. Uzma Rizwan and 10 others2022 CLC 492 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sadia Iqbal vs Umar Nasim Ahmed etc2022 PLJ Lahore 580 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Sadia Iqbal vs Umar Nasim Ahmed and another2022 YLR 2114 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain, etc vs Mehboob Hussain, etc2022 LHC 3819 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
• Sabeen Asghar etc vs Province of the Punjab etc2022 LHC 6801 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-20
  safe motherhoodmaternity leavefundamental rightsconstitutional petitioncontractual employeesright to lifehuman dignitywrit of mandamus
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by female contractual teachers seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to grant them 90 days of paid maternity leave, which had been verbally refused under the Internship/Retainership Policy, 2014. The core legal question was whether working women, including contractual employees, have a fundamental right to safe motherhood and maternity leave, and whether an executive policy omitting such provisions is void to the extent of its inconsistency with fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court held that safe motherhood is an inalienable fundamental right protected under Article 9, Article 14(1), and Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and that maternity leave is its essential subset. The Court ruled that fundamental rights override contractual terms and restrictive executive policies, making the constitutional petition maintainable despite the petitioners' contractual status. The key principle laid down is that the right to safe motherhood and maternity leave is a guaranteed fundamental right that cannot be denied by any state policy or contract.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right to safe motherhood and maternity leave constitutes a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable by a contractual employee for the enforcement of fundamental rights?
  • Can an administrative policy deny maternity leave to working women merely because it lacks a specific enabling provision?
  • Does the denial of maternity care and leave violate the guarantees of human dignity and equality under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Saba Sarwar vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2022 LHC 6521, 2022 [M] CLR 1606 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• S. Zafar Shah And Company through Partner vs Securities And Exchange2022 CLD 164 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-08Read full judgment →
• S. Akmal (deceased) through Legal-Heirs, etc vs Model Town Cooperative2022 LHC 3369, 2025 YLR 841 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-06Read full judgment →
• Romex International vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 LHC 2059 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-15Read full judgment →
• Romex International vs The Federation of Pakistan and others2022 PTD 760 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-15Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ullah vs The State2022 LHC 4286 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-31
  juvenile trialfair trialdue processremand for retrialexplosive substancesanti-terrorismhasty trialjuvenile justice system
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Punjab Arms Ordinance, 2015, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, rendered by the Anti-Terrorism Court. During the trial, upon an ossification test, the appellant was declared a juvenile, yet the trial court proceeded to frame a fresh charge and recorded the testimonies of fifteen prosecution witnesses on the very next day in undue haste, replicating verbatim the evidence from the joint trial of co-accused without complying with mandatory provisions such as supplying copies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court examined whether the juvenile appellant was denied his fundamental right to a fair trial, due process, and protections under Islamic law, international conventions, and the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The Court held that the trial court's hasty procedure and mechanical recording of evidence prejudiced the juvenile accused and violated fundamental rights. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a de novo trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recording statements of all prosecution witnesses in a single day after framing charge against a juvenile constitutes a denial of a fair trial?
  • Whether a trial court can adopt verbatim evidence from a joint trial after separating the case of a juvenile accused?
  • What are the criteria for an appellate court to remand a criminal case on account of procedural irregularities committed during trial?
  • Whether failure to supply copies of statements under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 prejudices a juvenile accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ellahi & another., Muhammad Sufian Abbasi & 3 others., Faraz Ahmed & another., Bar Association Murree vs Province of Punjab & 10 others2022 LHC 7533, 2024 PLD Lahore 379, 2024 PLJ Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Akhtar alias Razi Bawa and another vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 995 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-18
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of the doubtmurder referenceres gestaecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 367-A, 377, and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing them to death and imprisonment, alongside a murder reference. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including last seen evidence, wajtakkar, extra-judicial confession, medical evidence, and recoveries—was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case, as all pieces of evidence were weak, tainted, lacked independent corroboration, and did not meet the strict legal standards required for circumstantial evidence. The court laid down the principle that multiple weak or tainted pieces of evidence cannot corroborate one another, that circumstantial evidence must be wholly incompatible with the innocence of the accused, and that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case. The appeal was allowed, convictions and sentences were set aside, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether last seen evidence and wajtakkar are considered weak types of evidence requiring independent corroboration?
  • Can one tainted piece of evidence legally corroborate another tainted piece of evidence?
  • What are the essential characteristics required for a statement to be admissible as part of the res gestae under the law of evidence?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession alone sufficient to sustain a conviction in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ahmad and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1000 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-19
  criminal revisioninjured witnessfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusevidentiary valuerevisional jurisdictionacquittalcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioners for various offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a sole injured witness, the presumption of truthfulness attached to such witnesses, and whether conviction can be sustained without independent corroboration in cases of admitted enmity. The High Court held that while the presence of an injured witness is generally accepted, their testimony is not automatically truthful and must be appraised on its own merits. Finding that the prosecution’s case relied on a witness who made material improvements, provided a delayed statement, and was involved in admitted enmity, the Court found the evidence unreliable. Furthermore, applying the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the petitioners. The judgment affirms that the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, must reappraise evidence to ensure the correctness and legality of lower court findings, especially where material contradictions exist.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be recorded based on the testimony of a sole injured witness?
  • Does the presence of an injured witness at the crime scene automatically grant their testimony the stamp of truth?
  • Can the testimony of a sole inimical injured witness be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the reappraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rida Fatima vs Pakistan Medical Commission, etc2022 [M] CLR 1108 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 896 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-01
  criminal appealmurderchance witnessbenefit of doubtpost-mortem delayQatl-i-Amdocular evidenceabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for committing Qatl-i-Amd. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on chance witnesses, alleged medical discrepancies, and the absence of motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found the eye-witnesses to be unreliable "chance witnesses" whose presence at the crime scene was not established, and noted that the significant delay in conducting the post-mortem examination indicated the FIR was fabricated. Furthermore, the court observed that the assailants' failure to harm the complainant, despite being in close proximity, contradicted natural human conduct under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Additionally, the court ruled that abscondence alone cannot sustain a conviction and that the recovery of the weapon was inconclusive. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a concession, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt warrants acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an accused's abscondence?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create an inference that the FIR was fabricated?
  • Is the testimony of a witness who claims to be present at the crime scene reliable if they are a 'chance witness' and their presence is not corroborated?
  • Does the failure of assailants to harm a witness present at the scene of a crime contradict natural human conduct under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Shah vs The State, etc.2022 LHC 7296, 2024 YLR 1369 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-27
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaydelay in conclusion of trialabscondancemurderfurther inquiryhardship bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder and attempted murder case registered under Sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with subsequent additions. The Lahore High Court held that while the petitioner had no case for bail on merits due to prima facie establishment of allegations, he was entitled to post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of undue delay in the conclusion of the trial under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court ruled that the delay caused by court-ordered stays and the pursuit of legitimate legal remedies by the accused cannot be attributed to him, and that a statutory right to bail cannot be defeated merely on account of previous abscondance or the gravity of the offense. The petition was consequently allowed, granting bail subject to the furnishing of appropriate securities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be denied bail on statutory grounds of delay in trial when the delay is occasioned by court-ordered stays rather than acts of the accused?
  • Does time consumed by an accused in pursuing a legitimate legal remedy, such as a juvenile declaration application, constitute intentional delay disentitling them to statutory bail?
  • Can previous abscondance serve as a sole ground to refuse post-arrest bail when the accused has otherwise made out a case for bail as a matter of right under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • From which date should the detention period be calculated for the purpose of computing statutory delay in the conclusion of a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs The State and others2022 PCRLJ 1793 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-27
  damanexecution of sentencemaintainability of appealsurrender of convictinherent powerscriminal revisionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged orders passed by subordinate courts regarding the reimbursement of a Daman amount deposited by a convict who was subsequently acquitted on appeal. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of an appeal against conviction when the sentence, specifically the payment of Daman leading to release, had already been executed, and whether an appellate court can entertain an appeal without the convict having surrendered or having had their sentence legally postponed under Section 382-A or suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that once a convict pays the Daman and secures release without fulfilling the requirements of statutory postponement or suspension pending appeal, the sentence stands executed, rendering any subsequent appeal incompetent and any ensuing acquittal order patently illegal. The court laid down the principle that a convict must be properly on bail under Section 382-A or confined during the pendency of an appeal for it to be entertainable, and that depositing Daman under Section 337-Y of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 signifies acceptance of the conviction, barring inconsistent appellate challenges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against conviction is maintainable when the sentence of Daman has already been paid and the convict released without statutory postponement or suspension?
  • Does the payment of Daman under Section 337-Y of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bar a convict from subsequently challenging their conviction by way of appeal?
  • Can a High Court exercise revisional and inherent powers to set aside an illegal acquittal order passed on an incompetent appeal?
  • What are the legal requirements for the postponement or suspension of a sentence of imprisonment pending an appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs Chairman, Plat, Lahore etc2022 LHC 8035, 2024 PLC 265 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-06
  back benefitsreinstatement in servicemisconduct inquirystanding orders ordinancelabor appellate tribunaltermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses three writ petitions arising from labor disputes concerning the termination, reinstatement, and back benefits of a security guard employed by a sugar mill. The core legal questions involved whether a workman could be dismissed for alleged misconduct (absence from duty) without following the mandatory inquiry procedure prescribed under the law, whether past termination orders could be used against an employee in subsequent proceedings, and whether back benefits are the rule upon unconditional reinstatement. The court held that the employer violated Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, by terminating the petitioner without a show-cause notice or inquiry, and that past set-aside terminations are non-existent. Furthermore, the court held that back benefits follow as a rule upon reinstatement unless gainful employment is proven. The petitions filed by the employee were accepted, the Labour Appellate Tribunal's order denying back benefits was set aside, the employer's counter petition was dismissed, and the Labour Court was directed to implement the original reinstatement judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer can dismiss a workman for alleged misconduct without holding an inquiry as required under Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Whether a previous termination order that was set aside by a labor court can be revived and used against an employee in subsequent disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is the grant of back benefits the default rule upon an employee's unconditional reinstatement in service, and what constitutes an exception?
  • Does the mere pendency of a writ petition before a higher forum operate as an automatic stay against the implementation or execution of a lower forum's order?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Nasir Ahmad2022 LHC 6235 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace2022 PCRLJ 1067 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-24
  medical negligencespecial enactmentEx-Officio Justice of Peacecriminal proceedingshealthcare malpracticejurisdictionPunjab Healthcare Commission Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directing the police to record a criminal case against the petitioner regarding the death of a child, which the complainant alleged was due to medical negligence. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are maintainable for allegations of medical negligence in light of the specialized regulatory framework provided by the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010. The Court held that the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010, is a special enactment that prevails over general criminal law regarding healthcare negligence. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for medical negligence without first exhausting the remedies and procedures prescribed under the special law. The key principle laid down is that where a special statute governs professional negligence in healthcare, that specific forum must be approached, and criminal law cannot be set into motion by the police until the specialized body has determined professional misconduct or negligence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 prevail over the general criminal law regarding allegations of medical negligence?
  • Can criminal proceedings be initiated for medical negligence without exhausting the remedies provided under the Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010?
  • Is an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace authorized to direct the registration of a criminal case for medical negligence in the presence of a special regulatory statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali and Others vs Yaseen and Others2022 MLD 1825 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-02Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State2022 LHC 5184 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-21
  Qatl-i-Amdchance witnessesbenefit of the doubtburden of proofcriminal appealadverse inferencerecoverypost-mortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the Qatl-i-Amd of his wife. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account, the impact of failing to examine natural witnesses present at the scene, the effect of delayed FIR registration and post-mortem examination, and whether the burden of proof shifts to an accused when a death occurs within their home. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It found the eye-witnesses to be "chance witnesses" who failed to justify their presence, noted that the failure to examine the deceased's children (natural witnesses) created an adverse inference, and concluded that the delayed FIR and post-mortem indicated a fabricated narrative. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution and does not shift to the accused merely because a death occurred in their house. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine natural witnesses present at the scene of the crime create an adverse inference against the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the presumption that a death occurred within their house, or does the burden of proof remain on the prosecution?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon, in the absence of independent witnesses as required by law, possess evidentiary value?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehan-Ud-Din vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 321 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-07
  pre-arrest bailcompromisecriminal procedureanticipatory bailcomplainant statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 13/2020, registered under Sections 467, 468, 471, and 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, at Police Station ACE, District Multan. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail following a compromise reached between the petitioner and the complainant. During the proceedings, the complainant appeared in person, confirmed the existence of a compromise, and submitted an affidavit and an 'Iqrarnama' (agreement) stating he had no objection to the confirmation of the bail. The Deputy District Public Prosecutor did not vehemently oppose the petition. Upon consideration of the complainant's categorical statement and the submitted documents, the Court allowed the petition. The holding confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000 with one surety. The judgment affirms that a compromise between the parties, where the complainant expresses no objection, serves as a valid ground for confirming pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-arrest bail be confirmed solely on the basis of a compromise between the petitioner and the complainant?
  • Does the lack of objection from the complainant regarding a compromise constitute sufficient grounds for the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Reham Dad vs Province of Punjab through Its Chief Secretary, etc2022 LHC 2385 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmed, Rabia Bibi vs The State etc2022 LHC 7745 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-11
  fornicationrapeprivate complaintacquittalcriminal revisionbenefit of doubtprocedural irregularityCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and connected criminal revision arise from a trial court judgment convicting the appellant under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for fornication, despite the initial charge being under Section 376(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the conviction under Section 496-B without compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether a criminal revision is maintainable against an acquittal when a statutory appeal remedy was available. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions, unexplained delays, and lack of credible evidence, failing to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a conviction for fornication is unsustainable without a specific complaint filed under Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the Court affirmed that revision proceedings cannot be used to challenge an acquittal when an appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was the appropriate remedy. The appeal was accepted, the conviction set aside, and the revision petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court convict an accused for fornication under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a formal complaint lodged in accordance with Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a criminal revision maintainable against an acquittal when the aggrieved party had the statutory right to file an appeal against acquittal?
  • Does a trial court's decision to convict an accused for a lesser offence while implicitly rejecting the major charge amount to an acquittal of the major charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Abbas vs Deputy Director First Investigation Agency (FIA) Multan2022 PLJ Lahore 657 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmed vs Additional District Judge etc2022 PLJ Lahore 573 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-25Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheeda vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1065 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-03
  criminal appealqatl-i-amdacquittalfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuseye-witness testimonybenefit of doubtmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheeda, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-i-Amd, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life by the trial court, while three co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question was whether eye-witness testimony disbelieved by the trial court against the acquitted co-accused could still be relied upon to sustain the conviction of the appellant under the principle of sifting grain from chaff. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The court held that where eye-witnesses have been specifically disbelieved regarding co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon to the extent of the appellant, noting that the principle of sifting grain from chaff is no longer applicable in Pakistan following the adoption of the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

  Questions settled

  • Can eye-witness testimony disbelieved against acquitted co-accused be relied upon to sustain the conviction of a remaining appellant?
  • Is the legal principle of sifting the grain from the chaff applicable in criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  • Does the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus form an integral part of criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashed alias Chand and others vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 664 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25
  capital sentence referencejudicial confessionidentification paradeanti-terrorismmitigating circumstancesres gestaecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference concern the conviction of three appellants for the murder of an Additional District and Sessions Judge. The appellants were convicted by an Anti-Terrorism Court under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of retracted judicial confessions, the validity of identification parade proceedings, and the determination of appropriate sentencing for co-accused who did not fire the fatal shot. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants through consistent ocular evidence, valid identification parade proceedings, and voluntary judicial confessions that were corroborated by forensic evidence. The Court affirmed the conviction of all appellants but modified the sentences of two appellants who did not fire the fatal shot, converting their death sentences to life imprisonment based on mitigating circumstances. The principle laid down is that while a retracted confession can form the basis of a conviction, it must be voluntary and truthful, and that co-accused who did not commit the fatal act may be entitled to lesser punishment than the principal offender.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the basis of a conviction if it is found to be voluntary and truthful?
  • Does the mere relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased invalidate their testimony?
  • Can the death sentence of a co-accused be converted to life imprisonment if they did not fire the fatal shot?
  • Does the assassination of a judicial officer in relation to their official duties fall within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Tariq Islam, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2022 LHC 7580 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-11Read full judgment →
• Rao Talib Ali Khan vs Peer Saleem-ud-Din, etc2022 LHC 1777 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
• Rao Ghulam Mustafa vs The State and another2022 LHC 6497 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-14
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausestatutory interpretationcivil proceedingsrecovery of amount
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 regarding a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. and whether the punishment under Section 489-F PPC allows for imprisonment or fine alternatively. The Lahore High Court held that since the maximum punishment for the offence is three years or fine or both, the case falls outside the prohibitory clause, making bail the rule and refusal the exception. The court further noted that civil remedies for recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were already being pursued and that continued detention would serve no useful investigative purpose. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the punishment of imprisonment and fine under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 is disjunctive or conjunctive?
  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can bail be refused in a case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 solely on the ground of a huge disputed amount?
  • Is the pendency of civil proceedings under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relevant to the grant of bail in criminal cases involving financial disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Fakhar Nawaz vs Superintendent, New Central Jail Bahawalpur and another2022 LHC 6126, 2022 [M] CLR 1497 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Saleem vs Ministry Of Religious Affairs And Interfaith2022 YLR 464 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-06Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Saleem vs Additional District Judge and others2022 PLJ Lahore 246 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-09Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Ahmad Tahir vs Mian Muhammad Zia2022 LHC 7116 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-13Read full judgment →
• Rana Imran Khan vs Imran Aizad2022 LHC 3225 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-14Read full judgment →
• Rana Ghafoor Ali vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Ministry of Environment Government of Punjab and 2 others2022 CLD 962 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Rana Abdul Basit Khan vs Province of Punjab and 3 others2022 LHC 8416, 2024 CLC 716 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-27Read full judgment →
• Raja Ibadat Sajjad Khan vs Mst. Shehnaz Kousar etc2022 LHC 7759, 2023 PLJ Lahore 315, 2024 CLC 187 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
• Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan., Nemo vs Sajjad Hussain Bhatti, Deputy2022 YLR 1702 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-01
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of the doubtmurder referencecapital punishmentcall data recordrecovery of weaponblind murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Mohsin Abbas, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside a murder reference and an appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused. The prosecution case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, specifically an extra-judicial confession, the recovery of a weapon, and call data records, as it was an unwitnessed blind murder. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value and reliability of extra-judicial confessions, the admissibility and corroborative weight of circumstantial evidence, and compliance with mandatory procedural requirements for weapon recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the extra-judicial confession was fabricated and unreliable, the weapon recovery violated section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the call data record failed to connect the appellant to the crime. The court established that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every single link in the chain must be conclusively proven, and any missing link entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession in a criminal trial resting on circumstantial evidence?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when links in the chain of evidence are missing?
  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to associate independent witnesses from the locality vitiate the recovery of an incriminating weapon under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How many circumstances creating a reasonable doubt are required to extend the benefit of the doubt to an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafia Bibi alias Razia vs The State etc2022 LHC 2693 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-10
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcriminal revisionextra-judicial confessionright to libertyprocedural technicalitiesabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, facing allegations of abduction and murder, sought pre-arrest bail after the Sessions Court cancelled her previously granted bail. The primary legal question was whether the cancellation of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge was justified based on the additional evidence presented, and whether the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail was maintainable given that a revision petition was the appropriate remedy. The Court held that while a revision petition was the correct procedural route, it possessed the inherent power to convert the bail application into a criminal revision to prevent a failure of justice. Regarding the merits, the Court found the prosecution's additional evidence—delayed witness statements and a suspicious extra-judicial confession—insufficient to justify the cancellation of bail. The Court reaffirmed that bail cancellation requires specific grounds, such as the misuse of liberty or the emergence of credible evidence establishing guilt, which were absent here. Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation order, emphasizing that protection against arbitrary arrest is fundamental to the right to liberty and fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court convert a bail application into a criminal revision petition?
  • What are the specific circumstances under which bail granted to an accused can be recalled or cancelled?
  • Does the absence of incriminating material against an accused, coupled with police insistence on arrest, indicate mala fide?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession made jointly before multiple relatives considered to have legal sanctity?
  Read full judgment →
• Rabeah Hussain and 3 others vs Nusrat Aftab and 6 others2022 LHC 854, 2024 CLD 100 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-15Read full judgment →
• Qureshi Textile Mills Limited Through Assistant Manager vs District Council, Chak Shahana Road, Khanewal through Chairman and Another2022 MLD 1938 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-31Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1022 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15
  double jeopardyautrefois acquitautrefois convictanti-terrorismcriminal appealconstitutional protectionsame set of facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The appellant had previously been tried, convicted, and subsequently acquitted by the High Court in a separate case (FIR No. 80/2012) arising from the same set of facts and involving the same recovery of incriminating articles. The core legal question was whether the appellant's second trial for the same offences violated the doctrine of double jeopardy. The Court held that the second trial was indeed hit by the doctrine of double jeopardy, as the appellant had already been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for the same facts. The Court emphasized that the constitutional and statutory protections against double jeopardy, enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution, Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, forbid a second trial for the same offence. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of double jeopardy apply when an accused is tried for the same offence in a subsequent case arising from the same set of facts?
  • What are the prerequisites for the application of the doctrine of double jeopardy as established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Can an accused be prosecuted again for an offence for which they have already been acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, prohibit multiple punishments for the same act or omission?
  Read full judgment →
• Qudrat Ullah vs The State and others2022 PLD Lahore 512 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-09
  post-arrest bailmedical groundsunsound mindmental illnessschizophreniafitness to stand trialnarcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by Qudrat Ullah seeking post-arrest bail on medical grounds in a case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving a large recovery of contraband. The core legal question addressed was whether the High Court, in its bail jurisdiction, can release an accused suffering from a mental illness such as paranoid schizophrenia under sections 465 and 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, without the matter first being inquired into and determined by the trial court. The Lahore High Court held that the determination of an accused's unsoundness of mind and incapacity to make a defense must be tried and recorded by the trial court itself pursuant to the special procedure prescribed in Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the High Court cannot bypass this procedure to grant bail under Section 466 when acting as a post-arrest bail forum rather than the trial court. The key principles laid down are that an accused's mental illness and fitness to stand trial must be assessed by a Medical Board and formally tried by the trial court under Section 465 before powers relating to release or detention under Section 466 can be invoked, and that bail petitions based on mental incapacity should initially be addressed to the trial court following the statutory procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can grant post-arrest bail under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, on the ground of an accused's mental unsoundness without the matter being first tried and determined by the trial court?
  • Is a medical report from a jail medical officer alone sufficient for a court to invoke Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to release an accused of unsound mind?
  • What is the proper procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for dealing with an accused person who appears to be of unsound mind and incapable of making a defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali vs The State2022 PLD Lahore 694 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-15
  confessional convictionprobation of offenderseffect of probation on convictionstigma of convictioncriminal appealnarcotic substancesdisqualification of convicted persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment wherein the appellant, convicted under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 on the basis of his voluntary confession and sentenced to one year and nine months imprisonment with a fine, was simultaneously placed on probation under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was the maintainability of the criminal appeal against a conviction founded on confession where the appellant sought relief regarding the future stigma of conviction and its effect on his education and prospects. The Lahore High Court held that under section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal following a conviction on a confession is barred except as to the extent or legality of the sentence, though a revision may lie, but noted that the High Court may treat the matter appropriately. Crucially, the Court laid down that under section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960, a conviction coupled with an order of probation is deemed not to be a conviction for any purpose other than proceedings under the Ordinance itself, and stands disregarded for any law imposing disqualifications or disabilities, thereby destigmatizing the offender to protect future prospects.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal appeal is maintainable against a conviction recorded on the basis of a voluntary confessional statement?
  • What is the legal effect of a conviction under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 regarding future disqualifications and disabilities?
  • Can a conviction resulting in an order of probation be deemed a conviction for the purpose of imposing employment penalties or civil disqualifications?
  • How does section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restrict challenges to a sentence following a plea of guilty?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C.1218 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-15
  probationnarcotics controlconfessional statementcriminal appealdisqualificationdestigmatizationrehabilitative justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, convicted under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 for possession of 680 grams of charas, challenged his conviction and sentence. Although the trial court convicted him based on his voluntary confession, it placed him on probation under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960. The appellant sought to challenge the conviction, fearing it would jeopardize his future prospects as a student. The core legal question was whether a conviction under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 constitutes a disqualification or stigma for future purposes. The Court held that while the appeal against a conviction based on a confession is generally restricted by Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the conviction itself is valid. Crucially, the Court clarified that under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960, such a conviction is disregarded for any law imposing disqualifications or disabilities, except for proceedings under the Ordinance itself. The principle established is that probation is intended to destigmatize offenders, allowing them to reintegrate into society without the burden of a criminal record.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conviction under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 constitute a disqualification for future employment or educational prospects?
  • Can an appeal be filed against a conviction recorded solely on the basis of a voluntary confession?
  • Does the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 allow a court to disregard a conviction for the purposes of imposing legal disabilities?
  • Can a civil servant be dismissed from service solely based on a conviction under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar-Ul-Zaman and another vs The State and another2022 MLD 896 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-04
  criminal revisionhurtta'zirdamanprevious convicthabitual offenderdangerous criminalsentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition assails the appellate court's judgment upholding the petitioners' convictions under Section 337-F(v) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, while enhancing their sentences of imprisonment. The core legal question concerns whether a sentence of imprisonment as ta'zir can be awarded for offences of hurt under Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, in the absence of the conditions specified in Section 337-N(2). The Lahore High Court held that the non-obstante clause in Section 337-N(2) has an overriding effect, meaning that the normal punishment for hurt is arsh or daman, and imprisonment as ta'zir can only be awarded if the offender is a previous convict, habitual, hardened, desperate, dangerous, or if the offence is committed in the name or pretext of honour. The court concluded that since the prosecution failed to establish any such circumstances against the petitioners, the sentence of imprisonment by way of ta'zir was legally unsustainable and thus set aside, while maintaining the convictions and the payment of daman.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of imprisonment as ta'zir be awarded for offences of hurt under Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, without satisfying the conditions laid down in Section 337-N(2)?
  • What is the scope and overriding effect of Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, regarding the normal punishment for causing hurt?
  • How are the terms 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' to be interpreted under Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser-Ur-Rehman vs Civil Judge and another2022 CLC 391 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-12Read full judgment →
• Qaiser vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 851 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-24
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidenceante-timed FIRadverse inferencedeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Qaiser, for the murder of Muhammad Waseem, as handed down by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's contention that the deceased died from a stray bullet during cross-firing between rival groups. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case. The court found the FIR to be ante-timed, the ocular evidence unreliable due to significant contradictions regarding the transportation of the deceased to the hospital, and the motive unproven. Furthermore, the court drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 for the failure to produce independent witnesses. Emphasizing that corroborative evidence like medical reports and weapon recovery cannot substitute for reliable direct evidence, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant and setting aside the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce independent witnesses available at the scene of a crime warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can medical evidence and recovery of weapons alone sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  • Is an FIR considered ante-timed when the complainant's testimony regarding the timing of the report contradicts the official record?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence provide grounds for the acquittal of the remaining appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Public Service Commission, through Chairman and 3 others vs Ahsan-Ul-Haq2022 PLJ Lahore 232 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Punjab Healthcare Commission vs District & Sessions Judge Faisalabad2022 PLJ Lahore 441 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Province Of Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation Department, Jhang vs Sajjad Naseem and 3 others2022 PLC 44 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-26
  work-charge employeeregularization of servicelabour court jurisdictionadministration of the statecommercial establishmentconstitutional petitiontermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal which directed the regularization of a work-charge employee of the Irrigation Department. The core legal question was whether a government department employee could invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Courts to seek regularization under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 or the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The High Court set aside the lower orders, holding that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court determined that government departments do not constitute 'commercial establishments' under the Standing Orders, and the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 explicitly excludes persons employed in the 'administration of the State.' The Court further held that regularization of service is an executive function dependent on the existence of sanctioned posts and budgetary considerations. Consequently, work-charge employees whose services are terminated upon the expiry of their contract period cannot claim regularization through labour forums, as such forums lack jurisdiction over government departments governed by statutory service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to employees of a government department?
  • Can a work-charge employee of a government department seek regularization through a Labour Court under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Does the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 apply to persons employed in the administration of the State?
  • Is the regularization of a government employee an executive function requiring a sanctioned post?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Revenue2022 LHC 8424 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary, Government of Punjab, Labour &2022 KLR Revenue Cases 39 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through D.O.(R) Sahiwal vs District Judge and others2022 CLC 908, 2022 [M] CLR 1066 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Advocate General Punjab vs Saqib Jang &2022 LHC 3202 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Additional District Collector, Jhang and another vs Additional District Judge, Jhang and 2 others2022 MLD 1138, 2022 PLJ Lahore 953 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Muhammad Arif And Company2022 PLD Lahore 596 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-20
  civil revisionlimitationoffice objectionscondonation of delayre-filingstatutory limitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a challenge to an appellate court judgment that made an arbitral award a rule of the court. The core legal question concerns whether a civil revision, initially filed within the limitation period but returned by the office due to defects, remains within time when re-filed after the expiry of the prescribed period and the office-imposed deadline for removing objections. The Court held that the revision was time-barred. The ratio established is that when a petition is returned by the office with a specific timeframe to remove objections, the petitioner must comply with that deadline. Failure to re-file within the stipulated time, especially when the statutory limitation period for filing the revision has subsequently expired, renders the petition time-barred. The Court further affirmed the principle that a party seeking condonation of delay must provide a plausible explanation for each day of delay, demonstrating that the delay was beyond their control. Mere assertions of hardship or the involvement of valuable rights are insufficient to justify condonation when the statutory period of limitation has elapsed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil revision petition become time-barred if it is returned by the office for defects and not re-filed within the office-imposed deadline, provided the statutory limitation period has also expired?
  • Is a party required to explain each day of delay when seeking condonation for a time-barred civil revision petition?
  • Can a court entertain a time-barred civil revision petition in the absence of an application for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• President, The Bank of Punjab etc vs Authority under Payment of Wages2022 LHC 4215 · Lahore High Court
  trans-provincial organizationjurisdictionNational Industrial Relations CommissionPayment of Wages Actlabour disputeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses four consolidated constitutional petitions filed by the Bank of Punjab against orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which had dismissed the bank's applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC regarding lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether provincial labour authorities possess jurisdiction to adjudicate labour claims against trans-provincial organizations operating in more than one province. The Lahore High Court held that the status of the employer, rather than the nature of the dispute, determines jurisdiction. Relying on binding precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that provincial quasi-judicial forums have no jurisdiction over trans-provincial establishments, and exclusive jurisdiction vests in the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). Consequently, the petitions were allowed, the impugned orders of the Authority were set aside, and the employee's claims before the provincial authority were declared not maintainable, leaving them at liberty to approach the NIRC.

  Questions settled

  • Does a provincial authority under the Payment of Wages Act have jurisdiction to adjudicate labour claims against a trans-provincial banking organization?
  • Whether the nature of the dispute or the status of the employer determines the jurisdiction of labour forums in Pakistan?
  • Do provincial legislatures possess extra-territorial legislative competence to enact laws relating to trans-provincial establishments?
  Read full judgment →
• Premier Insurance Limited vs M/s Ihsan Yousaf Textile Private Ltd. etc.2022 LHC 7336 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Postal Life Insurance (Pli) vs Muhammad Iqbal2022 CLD 408 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Postal Life Insurance (Pli) and others vs Muhammad Ishaque Butt2022 CLD 309 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-26
  insurance claimrepudiation of insurance policyconcealment of material factsjurisdiction of insurance tribunalpostal life insurancenominee as trusteeliquidated damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Insurance Tribunal which allowed an application for the recovery of policy proceeds and liquidated damages filed by the nominee of a deceased policyholder against Postal Life Insurance. The core legal question was whether the appellant insurance entity could lawfully repudiate the insurance policy on the grounds of alleged concealment of material information regarding the assured's income in the proposal form under Rule 6(1) of the Post Office Insurance Fund Rules, 2001, and whether the Insurance Tribunal possessed jurisdiction over the matter. The Lahore High Court held that the appellants failed to establish any material concealment through credible or admissible evidence, noting that the inquiry report relied upon conjectures and that the insurer had accepted premiums for over four years after field verification. The Court further affirmed that the Insurance Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims against Postal Life Insurance because its management board is a body corporate under the Pakistan Postal Services Management Board Ordinance, 2002. Finally, the Court clarified that a policy nominee acts as a trustee to collect and distribute the proceeds among the legal heirs of the deceased under the applicable law of succession. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Insurance Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate insurance claims arising against the Postal Life Insurance?
  • Can an insurance policy be lawfully repudiated on the ground of concealment of income without credible and admissible evidence?
  • What is the legal status and responsibility of a nominee under an insurance policy regarding the distribution of policy proceeds?
  • Does acceptance of insurance premiums for several years after field verification preclude the insurer from later alleging material concealment in the proposal form?
  Read full judgment →
• Posco International Corporation vs Rikans International & others2022 LHC 4059 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
• Pervez Iqbal vs The State and another2022 LHC 1858 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-03
  murderbenefit of doubtrelated and chance witnessesmedical conflictprivate complaintpolice investigation innocencemotiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, alongside a connected criminal revision for the enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions centered on the credibility of related and chance eyewitnesses, the presence of material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, delayed registration of the FIR and post-mortem examination, unexplained delay in filing a private complaint, and the evidentiary value of police investigations declaring the accused innocent. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to numerous infirmities, including unreliable eyewitness accounts, withheld natural witnesses, unproven motive, and conflict with medical evidence. The court laid down the principle that multiple cumulative doubts in the prosecution's narrative entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and the dismissal of the revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration when their presence at the scene is doubtful?
  • Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence provide sufficient ground to create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of police findings declaring an accused innocent during successive investigations?
  • Is the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive sufficient to react against a murder conviction?
  • How does a delayed FIR and delayed post-mortem examination impact the credibility of a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar and others vs Land Acquisition Collector and others2022 LHC 1641 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Abbasi vs Government of Punjab and others2022 LHC 6911, 2025 PLD Lahore 191 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
• Pepsi Cola International (Pvt.) Limited. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2022 LHC 6508, 2022 PCTLR 1595 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• Parveen Rani vs Chief Executive Officer and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 338 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-29
  regularization of servicecontract employeeposthumous benefitsdeceased government servantconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the wife of a deceased contract educator seeking regularization of her late husband's service posthumously and entitlement to consequential benefits. The core legal question was whether a government employee, whose case for regularization was processed and who was found eligible during his lifetime under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, can be denied regularization merely because he passed away before the issuance of a formal notification. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that an eligible employee cannot be prejudiced by the delay or acts of public functionaries in issuing formal orders, and that accrued rights and benefits survive a government servant's death for the benefit of their legal heirs. The Court laid down the principle that the right to regularization, once accrued upon statutory promulgation and established by departmental scrutiny during the employee's lifetime, does not abate upon death, and failure of authorities to formalize it cannot prejudice the legal heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a government employee's right to regularization abates upon his death if his case was already processed and he was found eligible during his lifetime?
  • Can legal heirs claim the benefit of regularization of a deceased employee whose formal notification was delayed by public functionaries?
  • Are public functionaries permitted to prejudice an individual's rights through administrative delay in issuing formal orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Pan Islamic Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Additional District Judge and others2022 CLC 247 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways through CEO/G.M vs Dilawar Hussain and others2022 PLJ Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Muslim League vs Sardar Dost Muhammad Mazari etc2022 LHC 2789, 2022 PLD Lahore 469 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-15
  Deputy SpeakerProvincial Assemblyelection of Chief Ministerinternal proceedingsArticle 69 immunityjudicial reviewRules of Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses Intra Court Appeals arising from a judgment passed in writ petitions concerning the powers of the Deputy Speaker of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab to preside over a session scheduled for the election of the Chief Minister. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of Article 53(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 regarding the Deputy Speaker acting as Speaker when the Speaker is unable to perform functions, the justiciability of such matters under Article 69 of the Constitution, and whether a Speaker's order withdrawing delegated powers from a Deputy Speaker constitutes internal parliamentary proceedings immune from judicial review. The court held that since the Speaker was a candidate for the Chief Minister portfolio, he was unable to perform his functions, thereby automatically empowering the Deputy Speaker under operation of law and the relevant Rules of Procedure to preside over the assembly session. Furthermore, administrative actions and orders affecting the constitution of the House do not enjoy immunity under Article 69 and are amenable to judicial review. The appeals were disposed of with directions to the Deputy Speaker to ensure a fair and transparent election strictly in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Deputy Speaker is empowered to act as Speaker under Article 53(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan when the Speaker is contesting the election for the office of Chief Minister?
  • Does an order passed by the Speaker withdrawing powers delegated to the Deputy Speaker fall within the ambit of internal parliamentary proceedings barred from judicial scrutiny under Article 69 of the Constitution?
  • Can a Deputy Speaker against whom a motion of no-confidence has been moved legally preside over a session of the Provincial Assembly where such no-confidence resolution is not under consideration?
  • Whether the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution has the jurisdiction to examine the validity of administrative actions and rulings issued by the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the Provincial Assembly?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Air Traffic Controllers' Guild vs Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority, etc2022 LHC 3759 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-26
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitylocus standiaggrieved personservice matterssuspension orderinquiry boardassociation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by the Pakistan Air Traffic Controllers' Guild, challenging an order dated 07.06.2021 suspending the services of one of its members, Ms. Rizwana Akram, and an order dated 29.09.2021 constituting a board of inquiry against her. The petitioner contended that the inquiry proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction, coram non judice, and void. Conversely, the respondents raised objections regarding the non-statutory nature of the service rules and contended that the association lacked locus standi because the affected employee had not challenged the orders herself. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable. The Court held that to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in service matters, the aggrieved or affected party must file the petition in her own name, and an association cannot represent or act on behalf of an individual employee to challenge personal disciplinary and suspension orders absent applicable exceptions.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employees' association maintain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution on behalf of an individual member to challenge disciplinary proceedings?
  • Must an aggrieved or affected party in a service matter file a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution in their own name?
  • Does an association have locus standi to challenge a suspension order and the constitution of an inquiry board when the affected employee has not challenged them?
  Read full judgment →