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.

• Packages Limited through Factory Manager/Personnel Manager vs Punjab2022 PLC 79 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-22
  labor lawgrievance noticelimitation periodmisreading of evidenceconstitutional petitiondismissal from serviceappellate remand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate order that had remanded a labor dispute to the Labour Court for a decision on merits. The underlying dispute involved a security guard dismissed for misconduct, whose initial grievance petition was dismissed by the Labour Court due to the failure to serve a grievance notice within the statutory limitation period. The appellate authority subsequently set aside this dismissal, reasoning that the employer had admitted in its written reply to receiving the grievance notice on a specific date, thereby waiving the limitation defense. The High Court, upon reviewing the pleadings, found that the employer’s written reply merely acknowledged receipt of a notice without admitting the specific date of service. The Court held that the appellate authority had misread the record by inferring an admission of timely service where none existed. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the Labour Court's original judgment, affirming that admitted facts require no proof, but courts must not misinterpret the scope of such admissions regarding statutory limitation periods.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court remand a matter based on a misinterpretation of a party's written pleadings?
  • Does an employer's admission of receiving a grievance notice constitute an admission of the date of service?
  • Is a grievance notice served after the statutory limitation period valid for maintaining a grievance petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Outfitters Stores (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2022 LHC 8442, 2024 PTD 8 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-28Read full judgment →
• Omer Nazeer vs The State etc2022 LHC 2884, 2022 PLJ Lahore 642, 2025 MLD 724 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Aftab vs Rabeah Hussain and 4 others2022 LHC 3139, 2025 PLD Lahore 366 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-06Read full judgment →
• Numan alias Nomi, Asif, Awais, Muhammad Akbar vs The State2022 LHC 7201 · Lahore High Court
  forensic evidenceelectronic documentvideo recordingde novo trialfair trialsupply of copiesgang raperemand
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions under sections 376(ii) and 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before the Lahore High Court. During the appeal proceedings, it was discovered that a video and photographs generated from an accused's cell phone by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency had been exhibited through the investigating officer without being played in court or provided to the accused, yet were relied upon by the trial court after being put to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the admissibility and proper procedure for bringing on record electronic and forensic evidence when procedural safeguards regarding supply of copies and exhibition had been bypassed. The Lahore High Court held that while digital recordings constitute both electronic documents and real evidence requiring strict adherence to fair trial standards and supply of copies under sections 162 and 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a limited remand rather than a complete de novo trial is appropriate. The court laid down principles governing electronic evidence under Articles 139, 162, and 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, setting aside the judgment and remanding the case for proper exhibition of the forensic evidence after supplying copies to the defence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal status of audio and video clips under the law of evidence as electronic documents and real evidence?
  • Whether improper admission of forensic evidence warrants a complete de novo trial or a limited remand for rectifying procedural defects?
  • Can digital forensic evidence be used against an accused without supplying copies of the same during the trial process?
  • How must electronic or video evidence be properly exhibited and brought on record through witness testimony and court inspection?
  Read full judgment →
• NRSP Micro Finance Bank Ltd vs Ex-officio Justice of Peace, etc2022 LHC 2455 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• Noor Zaman vs Mst. Gullan (deceased) through L.Rs2022 PLJ Lahore 993 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
• Noman Maqsood vs Appellate Authority & four others2022 LHC 2547 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-29Read full judgment →
• Noman Amanat, Advocate vs Government of Punjab through Chief2022 PLC (C.S.) 1594 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-07
  quo-warrantoProvincial Police OfficerInspector General of PolicePolice Order 2002constitutional petitionappointment validitysubstantial compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking a writ of quo-warranto against the appointment of respondent No. 3 as the Provincial Police Officer (PPO) of Punjab. The core legal questions revolved around whether the appointment violated the procedure outlined in Article 11 of the Police Order 2002 by failing to provide a panel of three officers, whether an officer in basic scale 21 (BS-21) holding the rank of Additional Inspector General of Police could be appointed to the post, and whether the appointment infringed upon provincial autonomy by being initiated federally. The Lahore High Court held that consensus between the Federal and Provincial Governments constituted substantial compliance with Article 11 of the Police Order 2002, that neither the Police Act 1861, the Police Order 2002, nor the Police Rules 1934 restrict the office strictly to a Grade-22 officer, and that the terms Provincial Police Officer and Inspector General of Police are used synonymously upon appointment. The petition was consequently dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a consensus between the Federal and Provincial Governments regarding the appointment of a Provincial Police Officer amount to substantial compliance with Article 11 of the Police Order 2002?
  • Can an officer of basic scale 21 (BS-21) holding the rank of Additional Inspector General of Police be appointed as a Provincial Police Officer under the Police Order 2002?
  • Are the terms Provincial Police Officer and Inspector General of Police used as synonymous under the Police Order 2002?
  • Whether a writ of quo-warranto can be issued against a public official when the appointing authority and the provincial government are satisfied with the appointment procedure.
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad Afzal vs D.G. Anti-Corruption, etc2022 LHC 5645 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-15Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad & 03 others vs Muhammad Riaz & 09 others2022 LHC 2396 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-10Read full judgment →
• Niaz Khan vs The State2022 LHC 4296, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 209 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01
  mental incapacityfair trialschizophreniacriminal proceduremedical boardremandinsanity defensedue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a mandatory inquiry into the appellant's mental capacity to stand trial, despite the court's own initial observation of the appellant's abnormality and medical reports suggesting schizophrenia. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted with undue haste and failed to comply with the procedural requirements for determining mental incapacity. The court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter for a fresh, comprehensive inquiry. The key principle laid down is that once a court forms a prima facie opinion that an accused may be incapable of understanding trial proceedings, it is legally obligated to conduct a structured inquiry under Sections 464 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. This process must include a detailed medical board report and the examination of the board's head as a court witness to ensure the constitutional right to a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court obligated to conduct an inquiry into an accused's mental capacity if it forms a prima facie opinion that the accused is incapable of understanding the proceedings?
  • What is the mandatory procedure for a trial court to follow when an accused raises a plea of mental illness during trial?
  • Can a trial court reject an application to examine the head of a medical board as a court witness when the accused's mental capacity is in question?
  • Does the failure to determine an accused's capability to stand trial violate the constitutional right to a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamat Bibi, etc vs Muhammad Rafique, etc2022 LHC 6959, 2024 MLD 1522 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-29Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan vs Sub Registrar, Nishtar Town, Lahore etc2022 LHC 7089, 2024 PLD Lahore 94 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-24Read full judgment →
• Nemat Ullah Khan vs Province of the Punjab, etc2022 LHC 7950 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and another vs District Officer (Revenue), Vehari and others2022 PLJ Lahore 5 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Afzal vs The State etc2022 LHC 2136 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-17
  criminal breach of trustpublic servantindependent contractormisappropriationSection 409 PPCcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a private contractor, under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged misappropriation of imported wheat. The core legal question was whether an independent contractor, who is not a government employee, can be convicted for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 PPC, and whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of entrustment and misappropriation. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the appellant, as an independent contractor, did not qualify as a public servant under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is a prerequisite for the application of Section 409 PPC. The Court laid down the principle that Section 409 PPC requires the accused to be a public servant entrusted with property in that capacity; independent contractors employed casually by government departments do not meet this definition. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can an independent contractor be convicted under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does an independent contractor fall within the definition of a public servant under Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the essential ingredients that must be established to secure a conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazim Ali Shah vs Addl. District Judge etc2022 [M] CLR 1102 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-08Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmad etc vs Nazeer Ahmad etc2022 LHC 4154, 2024 MLD 172 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-07Read full judgment →
• Nazar Abbas @ Babo vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 509 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-12
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryfurther inquirymala fidesrecovery memopolice harassment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Nazar Abbas, who was charged under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 5000 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and allegations of mala fides. The Court observed that the recovery memo, while listing specific police officials as witnesses, lacked their signatures, thereby casting doubt on the recovery proceedings and rendering the case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had previously filed a harassment petition against the local police, suggesting potential mala fides and personal grudge as the basis for the petitioner's involvement in the instant case. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of further inquiry and granted post-arrest bail. The key principle established is that discrepancies in recovery documentation, combined with evidence of prior animosity or harassment complaints against the complainant, can justify the grant of bail on the grounds of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of signatures of recovery witnesses on the recovery memo render a narcotics case one of further inquiry?
  • Can evidence of prior harassment petitions filed by an accused against the police establish mala fides for the purpose of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution's recovery proceedings are procedurally defective?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Abba vs Addl. District Judge, etc2022 LHC 2881, 2022 MLD 1784, 2022 PLJ Lahore 712 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
• Naveed Khalid Butt and another vs The Bank of Punjab and others2022 LHC 7010, 2024 CLD 626 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority vs Senior Civil Judge, (Referee Court), Lodhran2022 LHC 4733, 2022 CLC 1798, 2022 PLJ Lahore 921 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• National Engineering Services Pakistan (Nespak) and 2 Others vs Muhammad Nawaz Cheema and 13 Others2022 LHC 8637 · Lahore High Court
  Intra Court Appealmaster and servantnon-statutory rulesconstitutional jurisdictionNESPAKmaintainability of writ petitiontermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal addresses the maintainability of constitutional petitions filed by employees of National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK) against the termination of their services. The core legal question revolves around whether NESPAK's service rules possess statutory force, thereby allowing its employees to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under the principle of master and servant. The court held that NESPAK is a private limited company incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act 1913, and its service rules, framed by its Board of Directors without statutory backing or approval of the Federal Government, are non-statutory in nature. Consequently, the relationship between NESPAK and its employees is strictly governed by the principle of master and servant, rendering constitutional petitions against termination non-maintainable. The key principle laid down is that limited companies lacking statutory service rules cannot be treated at par with statutory bodies, and their employees cannot enforce non-statutory service terms through a writ petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK) can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against termination of service?
  • Do the service rules of National Engineering Services Pakistan (NESPAK) possess statutory status?
  • Does the non-adherence to the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013 render a constitutional petition maintainable against a private limited company?
  • What is the governing legal principle for employment relationships in entities where service rules are non-statutory in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• National Command Authority & 2 others vs Miskeen Shah and others2022 [M] CLR 1147 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-14Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Data Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. etc2022 LHC 4307, 2022 CLD 1374 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan vs Station House Officer, Police Station Saddar, Mianwali, etc2022 LHC 7503 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nasrullah Bhalli vs Muhammad Nawaz2022 PLJ Lahore 98 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-09Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Bibi vs Station House Officer etc.2022 LHC 6597, 2022 [M] CLR 1648, 2024 PCRLJ 2058 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-30
  Christian Marriage Act 1872child marriagehabeas corpusparental consentwrit jurisdictiondisputed questions of factnullity of marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a mother seeking the recovery of her minor daughter, alleging abduction and forced marriage. The core legal questions were whether a Christian marriage is void for lack of parental consent under the Christian Marriage Act 1872, whether the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 invalidates such marriages, and whether the High Court can adjudicate disputed facts regarding consanguinity in writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the marriage was not void for lack of parental consent, as the Christian Marriage Act 1872 does not explicitly invalidate marriages on this ground. Furthermore, the Court held that the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 is a penal statute that criminalizes child marriage but does not render the marriage itself void. Finally, the Court determined that disputed questions of fact, such as allegations of consanguinity, cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that while child marriage is prohibited and punishable under municipal law, it remains valid unless specific statutory provisions declare it void, and writ jurisdiction is inappropriate for resolving complex factual disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of parental consent under Section 19 of the Christian Marriage Act 1872 render a marriage void?
  • Does the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 render a marriage contracted by a minor void?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding consanguinity and affinity in proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Akhtar Siddiqui vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc2022 LHC 7905 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Nasir vs State etc.PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 817 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-27
  post-arrest bailmurderfirearm injuryprohibitory clauseforensic evidencecriminal conspiracybail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 305/2019 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, 337F(vi), 337F(i), 337A(i), and 37L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kur, Tehsil Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific role attributed to him in the murder and firearm injuries caused to the deceased and injured witnesses, supported by medical evidence and forensic reports. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR with a direct role of firing at a vital part of the deceased's body, which was corroborated by the postmortem report and forensic match of the recovered weapon with crime empties, and that the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused assigned a specific firearm role resulting in a fatal injury on a vital part of the deceased is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does an offense under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Is a positive forensic match of recovered empties with a pistol recovered on the pointation of the accused sufficient to decline post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Mahmood vs Zafar Iqbal and another2022 LHC 3541, 2025 PLD Lahore 171 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-18Read full judgment →
• Nasir Abbas and another vs The State and another2022 P. Cr. L J 109 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-27
  benefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencecriminal appealmurder referenceappraisal of evidenceinjured witnessdelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, which convicted the appellants for murder and related offences, sentencing one to death and the other to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged discrepancies between the ocular account, medical evidence, and the investigative process. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court identified significant lapses, including an unexplained delay in reporting the crime, the absence of credible corroboration for the eye-witnesses, and a critical conflict between the ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the distance of firing, as evidenced by the lack of blackening or tattooing on the deceased. Furthermore, the motive was found to be unsubstantiated. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down is that where there is a glaring conflict between ocular and medical evidence, or where the presence of eye-witnesses is doubtful, the benefit of such lacuna must automatically be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of firearm injuries on an injured witness constitute conclusive proof of their credibility and truthfulness?
  • What is the legal consequence when there is a glaring conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence?
  • Can identification of accused persons in the headlights of a vehicle be considered reliable evidence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in reporting a crime to the police undermine the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs The State and two others2022 LHC 5389 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• Najib Aslam (deceased) through his legal heirs etc vs The State through District Collector, Faisalabad etc2022 LHC 8570 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-07Read full judgment →
• Naeem Shehzad vs Mst. Sarran Bibi & others2022 LHC 8242 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
• Naeem Shehzad vs Additional District Judge, Arifwala and 2 others2022 LHC 4510, 2022 PLJ Lahore 667 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar vs The State and others2022 YLR 2415 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-03
  murderdeath sentence commutationunproven motiveinjured witnessocular accountmedical corroborationbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Naeem Akhtar, under section 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and injuries inflicted on his daughter, sentencing him to death and various terms of imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related and injured eye-witnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence and weapon recovery, and the legal effect of an unproven motive on the death penalty. The Lahore High Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, and forensic reports connecting the recovered weapon, the failure to prove the alleged motive rendered the death penalty inappropriate. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal with a modification, commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life while maintaining the remaining convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and injured eye-witnesses is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive necessitate the acquittal of the accused in a capital case?
  • Under what circumstances can a death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life when the conviction itself is upheld?
  • Whether the recovery of a weapon matched by forensic reports provides sufficient corroboration to ocular evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan vs The State etc.2022 LHC 2105 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-09
  production of documentscriminal trialdiscretionary powersummoning of recordsCode of Criminal Procedurefailure of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaranwala, which refused the appellant's request to summon specific police records, namely registers No. 19, 21, and a Roznamcha entry dated 24.08.2021. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in declining the appellant's application for the production of these documents under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that the appeal was misconceived and devoid of merit. It observed that the appellant failed to provide any specific reason or purpose for summoning the documents in the original application, nor could counsel demonstrate any jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the trial court's order. The Court affirmed that while Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants the court discretionary power to issue summons for the production of documents, this power is not mandatory. The Court emphasized that such applications must be supported by a clear purpose to ensure the just decision of the case, and where no such necessity is shown, the court is not obligated to compel production.

  Questions settled

  • Is the court under an absolute obligation to issue summons for the production of documents under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the use of the word 'may' in Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant the court discretion in compelling the production of documents?
  • Can a trial court refuse an application for the production of documents if the applicant fails to demonstrate the necessity or purpose of such production?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Sadiq vs Dewan Masih Gulraiz and 3 others2022 YLR 2151 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-12Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Sadiq Bhatti vs President National Bank of Pakistan and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 1399 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-14
  departmental proceedingscriminal acquittalmisconductconcealment of factsconstitutional petitionemployment fraudNational Bank of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 18.09.2017, whereby his departmental appeal against removal from service as Officer Grade-III in the National Bank of Pakistan was rejected. The core legal question revolved around whether an employee's acquittal in criminal cases exonerates him from departmental proceedings initiated for the concealment of a criminal record at the time of securing employment. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that criminal prosecution and departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct, operate under different standards of proof, and are not mutually exclusive. The court laid down the principle that the acquittal of an employee in a criminal trial does not bar or affect independent departmental proceedings, nor does it excuse the initial fraudulent concealment of material facts regarding a criminal record, which constitutes grave misconduct and breaches the employer's trust.

  Questions settled

  • Does acquittal in criminal proceedings automatically invalidate or affect ongoing or concluded departmental proceedings against an employee?
  • Whether the concealment of a criminal record at the time of securing public or corporate employment constitutes actionable misconduct?
  • Does the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan apply when an employee faces departmental action following a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Iqbal vs State, etc.PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 811 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-03
  rapecriminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtretraction of testimonyaffidavitmisunderstanding
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Nadeem Iqbal, who was found guilty by the trial court for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. During the pendency of the appeal, the complainant and the alleged victim submitted sworn affidavits stating that the appellant had been implicated due to a misunderstanding and that the allegations were factually incorrect. Both parties personally appeared before the High Court, affirmed the contents of their affidavits, and expressed no objection to the appellant's acquittal. Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Zulfiqaruddin v. The State, the High Court held that where the complainant and victim retract their allegations and testify that the charges were based on misunderstanding, the prosecution's case as a whole must be rejected. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt, and ordered his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for rape be set aside on appeal based on affidavits from the complainant and victim stating the case was a result of misunderstanding?
  • Does the retraction of allegations by the complainant and victim in a rape case necessitate the rejection of the prosecution's case as a whole?
  • Is the High Court bound by the principle that if a complainant's affidavit negating the prosecution's case is accepted, the appellant should be acquitted rather than merely having the sentence reduced?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Iqbal vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1259 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-08
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessappreciation of evidencecriminal appealdeath sentenceforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon of offense. The Lahore High Court observed that the alleged eyewitnesses were chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was contradicted by the testimony of a Rescue 1122 official, who confirmed no such persons were present. Furthermore, the court found the recovery of the crime weapon suspicious, noting that the crime empty was dispatched for forensic analysis after the appellant's arrest, creating a possibility of evidence fabrication. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court reaffirmed the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding an accused's guilt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a chance witness require corroboration to be considered reliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the recovery of the crime weapon is procedurally suspicious?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • Does the testimony of an independent official witness override the claims of alleged eyewitnesses regarding their presence at the scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Arshad vs The State etc2022 LHC 3015 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-30
  narcotics smugglingchemical examiner reportheroinbenefit of doubtcriminal appealnarcotic substancesconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the possession of 10.110 kilograms of heroin under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the nature of the recovered substance beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the validity and sufficiency of the chemical examiner's report. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fatally flawed due to a defective chemical analysis report. The report relied solely on a 'Marquis reagent test,' which is insufficient to definitively differentiate heroin from other opiates like morphine or codeine. The Court emphasized that for heroin confirmation, multiple tests—specifically Marquis, Mecke, and Nitric Acid tests—are required to substantiate the nature of the contraband. Because the chemical examiner failed to perform the necessary protocols and left critical columns in the report blank, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, granting him the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is a chemical examiner's report based solely on a Marquis reagent test sufficient to prove the presence of heroin in a criminal trial?
  • What specific chemical tests are required to definitively identify heroin in a narcotics case?
  • Does a failure to follow prescribed protocols in a chemical analysis report constitute a fatal defect in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Akhtar vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 492, 2022 YLR 1238 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-13
  narcotics controlchain of custodycriminal appealsafe custodybenefit of doubtforensic analysisnarcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of safe custody for the recovered contraband, particularly when the police official allegedly entrusted with the case property was not produced as a witness at trial. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody beyond reasonable doubt, as the absence of the key witness created a fatal gap in the evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving an unbroken, secure, and transparent chain of custody for narcotics from the point of recovery to the forensic laboratory. Any break in this chain renders the Chemical Examiner’s report unreliable, and because harsher sentences require stricter standards of proof, such failures necessitate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce a police official who handled the recovered narcotics as a witness break the chain of custody?
  • Is an unbroken chain of custody a prerequisite for relying on a Chemical Examiner's report in narcotics cases?
  • What is the standard of proof required for establishing the chain of custody in cases involving stringent punishments?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmad vs Shafqat Pervaiz, etc2022 LHC 8214 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-12
  criminal revisionfalse evidencepending civil suitcognizance of offencerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal revision petition, the petitioner sought to set aside an order dismissing his application to initiate proceedings against respondent No.1 under sections 193, 420, and 419 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 476 and section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in connection with a pending civil recovery suit. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings for allegedly false documents or statements produced in a pending civil suit can be initiated before the final disposal of that suit. The Lahore High Court held that the pendency of the main civil suit acts as a bar to the initiation of such proceedings, as the trial court is competent to decide upon the nature and truth of the documents only at the time of the final disposal of the suit. The court affirmed that documents must be proved through evidence and cannot be relied upon merely by being filed in court. Consequently, the revisional petition was dismissed for lacking substance.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be initiated while the main civil suit involving the disputed documents is still pending adjudication?
  • Does the mere filing of documents in a court amount to proof of their truth under the Qanoon-e-Shahdat Order 1984 without being formally produced and marked in evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with an interlocutory order in the exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Abbas vs Punjab Public Service Commission and others2022 PLC (C.S.) 319 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-16
  intra-court appealpublic service commissioncandidature cancellationconcealment of factsgovernment serviceno objection certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal was filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, challenging the Single Judge's dismissal of the appellant's constitutional petition. The appellant had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector through the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) and was recommended, but his candidature was subsequently cancelled due to his failure to disclose his previous government service and provide a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in his online application form. The appellant contended that the omission was an inadvertent mistake rather than willful concealment. The Division Bench examined whether a candidate who suppresses mandatory information in an application form can challenge the cancellation of their candidature. The Court held that under Regulation 26 of the PPSC Regulations 2016, a candidate's eligibility must be maintained throughout, and any deficiency or concealment of material facts at any stage justifies the cancellation of candidature. Finding no illegality in the Single Judge's order, the Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate who conceals or suppresses material information regarding previous government service in an application form can challenge the cancellation of their candidature?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to disclose previous employment and failing to provide a No Objection Certificate during the public service selection process?
  • Does the subsequent provision of a No Objection Certificate cure the initial non-disclosure of government employment in an online application under the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations 2016?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s., Gibraltar (SMC-Pvt.) Limited etc vs M/s., Samad Rubber Works (Pvt.)2022 LHC 2778 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Reliance Insurance Company Limited vs M/s Ahsan Ikram Textile2022 LHC 3939 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Malik Mazhar Hussain Goraya vs Govt. of Punjab, etc2022 LHC 8584 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. Don Cable TV Network and 4 others vs Regional General Manager2022 PLJ Lahore 800 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Agmore International (Pvt.) Limited, etc vs Bank of Punjab. etc2022 LHC 4017, 2022 CLD 1412 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-31Read full judgment →
• M/s Zafar Hafeez vs United Bank Limited2022 LHC 3416 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-10Read full judgment →
• M/s Worldcall Telecom Ltd vs Govt. of the Punjab & others2022 LHC 2871 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-15Read full judgment →
• M/s Three Star Hosiery Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs Mubarak Ali and others2022 LHC 1368, 2024 PLC 217 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-23
  payment of wagesdeposit of decretal amountcondition precedentlabour court appeal18th amendmentArticle 270AAdevolution of powersconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of seven connected constitutional petitions filed by an employer company challenging orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, as well as orders of the Punjab Labour Court dismissing the petitioner's appeals for failure to deposit the decretal amount. The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and argued that the Act lapsed after 30.06.2011 following the 18th Constitutional Amendment. The High Court held that deposit of the decretal amount is a mandatory condition precedent for maintaining an appeal under Section 17(1)(a) of the Act, which is a beneficial labor statute, and the proviso is not unconstitutional. The Court further ruled that under Article 270AA(6) of the Constitution, existing laws on devolved subjects continue in force until expressly altered or repealed, and 30.06.2011 was not a cutoff date for statutory invalidity. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement under Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 to deposit the decretal amount a mandatory condition precedent for filing an appeal?
  • Does the proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 violate Articles 2A or 227 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a law on a devolved subject automatically lapse after the devolution cutoff date specified under Article 270AA(8) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Pride Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. etc vs JS Bank Ltd2022 LHC 4439 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Presson Descon International (Pvt.), Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 LHC 4144 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Premium Developers vs Muhammad Tariq2022 LHC 1890 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan General Insurance Limited vs Securities & Exchange2022 LHC 3883 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Ohad Motors (Pvt) Ltd vs Govt. of Punjab and others2022 LHC 2860, 2022 PLD Lahore 569 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-04Read full judgment →
• M/s Masco Spinning Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 LHC 2784, 2022 PTD 1570 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Makkah Traders etc. vs MCB Bank Limited2022 LHC 7493 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
• M/s Kot Addu Power Company Limited vs The Commissioner Inland2022 LHC 3627, 2025 PTD 77 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
• M/s It Comm Private Limited vs Collector, Collectorate of Customs2022 LHC 8476 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-26Read full judgment →
• M/s Instaclear (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Head, Karachi & another vs Malik2022 LHC 8248, 2024 PLC 292 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-13
  regularization of servicespermanent workmancontract employmentindustrial relationsconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsretrospective operation of statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging concurrent orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) allowing grievance petitions filed by respondents for the regularization of their services with Pak Arab Refinery Limited (PARCO). The core legal questions relate to whether workers employed through contractors or on a temporary basis for permanent nature jobs are entitled to regularization, the maintainability of grievance petitions under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 for security, fire service staff, and supervisors, and the applicability of the principle of equal treatment. The Lahore High Court held that outsourcing permanent jobs through contractors constitutes a sham device, and workers engaged in jobs of a permanent nature are entitled to regularization. The Court further ruled that the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 has retrospective/retroactive application to pending proceedings, bringing security, fire service staff, and supervisors within the definition of workmen. The constitutional petitions were dismissed, establishing that long-term temporary or contract employment on permanent posts creates a right to regularization and that similarly placed employees must be treated equally pursuant to constitutional mandates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees hired through a contractor for permanent nature posts are entitled to regularization?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 apply retrospectively to pending proceedings commenced under the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Are security guards, fire fighters, and supervisors included within the definition of workman under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Whether long-term temporary or daily-wage employment on permanent posts creates a presumption of regular service need?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Haji Mehdi Hassan & Sons & others vs Allied Bank Limited2022 LHC 8030, 2024 CLD 137 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-28Read full judgment →
• M/s Crescent Jute Products Ltd vs Bank Alflah Ltd. & another2022 LHC 2738 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
• M/s Best Way Cement Ltd. Best Way Building, 19-a College Road, F 72022 LHC 7165 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Asian Food Industries Limited and others vs Federal Board of Revenue2022 LHC 2486, 2022 PTD 1069 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Ghani Chain Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2022 LHC 7659 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-29Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Barkat Seed Corporation and 3 others vs Silk Bank Limited etc.2022 LHC 6281 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Barkat Seed Corporation and 3 others vs Silk Bank Limited etc2022 LHC 6281 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Masood vs Defence Housing Authority, Lahore, etc.2022 LHC 7599 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited through Manager vs Mst. Nusrat2022 MLD 973 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-10Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed vs Ishfaq Ahmed and others2022 LHC 2556 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Mohsin Iqbal2022 LHC 3754, 2022 CLC 1461 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-07
  specific performanceagreement to sellcivil revisioncross-objectiondoctrine of estoppeladmission of liabilityconditional decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision and connected cross-objection arise out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent-plaintiff, but the lower appellate court partly accepted the defendant's appeal, making the decree contingent upon the payment of an enhanced consideration amount within thirty days, failing which the appeal would stand accepted as a whole. The respondent failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time and later filed an application seeking permission to deposit it, which was dismissed for unexplained delay. Subsequently, the respondent filed a cross-objection in the High Court while concealing the dismissal of his application. The Lahore High Court held that the respondent's voluntary act of filing an application to deposit the enhanced amount constituted a clear admission of liability and operated as a legal estoppel under the equitable doctrine of estoppel, preventing him from blowing hot and cold. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the cross-objection and, due to the non-compliance with the conditional appellate decree, dismissed the revision petition as infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of an application to deposit an enhanced consideration amount ordered by an appellate court operate as an admission of liability and create a legal estoppel against the party?
  • Can a party challenge an appellate judgment and decree through a cross-objection after having voluntarily sought implementation of the same decree before the lower forum?
  • What is the legal effect of a party's failure to comply with a conditional appellate decree requiring payment of an enhanced consideration amount within a specified timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Mureed Hussain vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 570 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-06
  criminal appealocular accountmedical evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibusprivate complaintacquittalmurderwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a private complaint regarding a murder incident. The core legal questions concerned whether the ocular account could be relied upon despite significant contradictions with medical evidence regarding the distance of firing, and whether the testimony of witnesses, who were previously disbelieved in the acquittal of co-accused, could sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the presence of blackening on the wounds contradicted the alleged firing distance, rendering the ocular account unreliable. Furthermore, applying the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the Court determined that witnesses found to have resorted to deliberate falsehoods on material aspects cannot be credited. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reinforces that oral evidence inconsistent with established medical jurisprudence regarding injury patterns is insufficient to support a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of blackening on a wound contradict an ocular account alleging a long-distance firing?
  • Can the testimony of witnesses be relied upon to convict an accused if those same witnesses were disbelieved in previous trials regarding the same occurrence?
  • Is the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' an integral part of criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Munshi Intizar Hussain Alias Gappu vs The State2022 MLD 2006 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-30
  compromisecompounding of offenceSection 302(c) PPClegal heirsacquittal on compromiseFasad-fil-Arzcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant against his conviction and seven-year sentence under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. During the appeal's pendency, the appellant filed an application under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking permission to compound the offence based on a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased. The High Court directed the Sessions Judge, Lahore to verify the compromise and ensure no minor interests were affected. The report confirmed that the deceased was unmarried and survived solely by three adult legal heirs, who recorded statements forgiving the appellant in the name of Almighty Allah without coercion. Finding the compromise genuine, voluntary, and free of any element of 'Fasad-fil-Arz' under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the High Court granted leave to compound under Section 345(2)(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant pursuant to Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can surviving legal heirs compound an offence where conviction has been passed under Ta'zir?
  • Whether an offence under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is compoundable by legal heirs under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What effect does a valid compromise approved by the appellate court under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have on a convict's conviction and sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Government Of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 19 others2022 PLD Lahore 108 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-29
  price controlessential commodities18th Amendmentfundamental rightsjudicial reviewsugar price fixationadministrative lawwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition addressed the State's duty to control prices of essential commodities, specifically wheat and sugar, amidst rising inflation. The core legal question concerned whether the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, divested the Federal Government of its authority to regulate prices under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977. The Court held that the Federal Government retains its power to regulate essential commodities, as the 18th Amendment did not create a legislative vacuum in this regard. Furthermore, the Court declared the Gur Control Order, 1948, ultra vires and void for violating fundamental rights. Regarding the specific challenge to sugar price notifications, the Court determined that since a statutory appellate forum was established under the newly framed Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Order, 2021, the petitioners must exhaust this remedy rather than seeking judicial intervention. The judgment emphasizes that while the State is constitutionally obligated under Article 38 to ensure the availability of basic necessities, the judiciary should not substitute its discretion for administrative price-fixing mechanisms.

  Questions settled

  • Did the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, divest the Federal Government of its power to regulate prices under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977?
  • Is the Gur Control Order, 1948, ultra vires and void under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, substitute its own discretion for administrative price-fixing mechanisms?
  • Does the existence of a statutory appellate forum under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Order, 2021, render petitions challenging price notifications infructuous?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad Bhatti vs Director, FIA Cybercrime Wing, etc.2022 LHC 2222 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-16Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad Bhatti vs Director, FIA Cyber Crime Wing, Lahore and 3 others2022 PLD Lahore 664 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-15
  cyber-crimeEx-officio Justice of PeaceFIR registrationcognizable offenceFederal Investigation Agencypreliminary inquiryPrevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace, who declined to direct the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to register an FIR regarding alleged defamatory statements. The core legal question was whether the FIA is mandatorily required to register an FIR immediately upon receiving a complaint, and whether the Ex-officio Justice of Peace possesses jurisdiction over the FIA. The Court held that the FIA constitutes a "police authority" amenable to the jurisdiction of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. However, the Court determined that the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Investigation Rules, 2018, act as lex specialis, prevailing over the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, preliminary inquiries are permissible and necessary to classify cyber-crimes before FIR registration. As the alleged offence was non-cognizable, the Court upheld the Justice of Peace's order directing the completion of the inquiry rather than immediate FIR registration.

  Questions settled

  • Are officers of the Federal Investigation Agency considered 'police authorities' subject to the jurisdiction of an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and its associated Investigation Rules, 2018, prevail over the general procedure for FIR registration prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a preliminary inquiry permissible for cyber-crimes before the registration of an FIR?
  • Does the Ex-officio Justice of Peace have the discretion to decline a request for the registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad alias Muna vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 797 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-13
  murderqatl-i-amddeath sentenceextra-judicial confessionidentification paraderecoverybenefit of the doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 302(b)/34 and 394/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to death and imprisonment for life respectively, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved the credibility of an uncorroborated extra-judicial disclosure by the accused's father, the necessity of an identification parade where the FIR names unknown accused, the evidentiary value of recoveries made pursuant to information given by a third party rather than the accused, and the rule of benefit of doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and guilt of the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt due to material discrepancies in witness statements, lack of an identification parade, inadmissible recoveries under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and negative ballistic reports. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant on the benefit of doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement made by a third party, such as the father of an accused, be legally classified and used as an extra-judicial confession against the accused?
  • Is an identification parade mandatory when an FIR is registered against unknown accused without specific descriptions?
  • Can a recovery of an object made upon the information provided by a third party rather than the accused in police custody be held admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to connect an accused with the commission of a crime in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muneer Ahmad vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 200 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-23
  post-arrest bailmurdermedical evidenceipse dixit of policeprohibitory clauseweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the murder of the complainant's son. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific allegations and the police's investigative opinion. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the First Information Report with a distinct role of firing a pistol at the deceased's abdomen, which was fully corroborated by medical evidence and witness statements. The Court laid down the principle that the ipse dixit of the police is not binding upon courts of law, and where reasonable grounds exist to connect an accused with a capital offense falling within the statutory prohibition of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail cannot be granted in the absence of proven malice or mala fide on the part of the complainant.

  Questions settled

  • Is the ipse dixit of the police regarding the innocence or guilt of an accused binding upon the courts during bail proceedings?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted in a murder case where there is a specific role of direct firing attributed to the accused, supported by medical evidence and witness statements?
  • Does an offense carrying the death penalty fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Munazir Ali Ranjha vs Muhammad Ahmad Saqib and others2022 PLJ Lahore 497 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-16Read full judgment →
• Munawar Iqbal alias Lalu vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1318 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-24
  concurrent sentencesnarcotics controlsentencing discretionbeneficial interpretationcriminal appealCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple criminal appeals filed by the appellant against convictions under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. While the appellant did not challenge the merits of the convictions, the core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to have his various sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively. The Lahore High Court held that Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, confers wide, unfettered discretion upon the court to direct that sentences of imprisonment awarded in separate trials run concurrently. Emphasizing that this provision is a beneficial statute intended to mitigate hardship, the Court ruled that it must be interpreted in favor of the accused to prevent excessive and ruthless incarceration. Consequently, while dismissing the appeals on merits, the Court ordered that the appellant's sentences in all cases shall run concurrently, maintaining the original fines and the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The principle established is that courts should exercise their discretion under Section 397 to align sentences concurrently to serve the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower a court to order that sentences from multiple trials run concurrently?
  • Is the discretion under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to be exercised in favor of the accused in cases of hardship?
  • Can a court direct that sentences run concurrently even if the convictions occurred in separate trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain, Ex. Junior Clerk (Anti-Encroachment Inspector), Lahore2022 PLJ Lahore 160 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain and 5 others vs Govt. of the Punjab, Through District2022 LHC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-07Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain vs Additional District Judge and 8 others2022 CLC 2030 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmed and another vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 117 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-22
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtchance witnessdelay in FIRmedical evidenceocular accountconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with an unknown person, waylaid the deceased and inflicted multiple injuries resulting in his death. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony of chance witnesses, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence, and the proof of motive. The Lahore High Court held that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the venue was doubtful, the complainant was a chance witness who sustained no injuries despite witnessing a brutal assault, and significant delays in the FIR and post-mortem undermined the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants and dismissing the enhancement revision petition. The key principles laid down include that once the intrinsic value of an ocular account is disbelieved, corroboratory evidence automatically collapses, and medical evidence cannot independently sustain a conviction without a reliable ocular foundation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eye-witness who sustains no injuries during a brutal assault on a close relative can be relied upon to establish presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the collapse of the ocular account lead to the automatic failure of corroboratory pieces of evidence such as recoveries and medical reports?
  • Can medical evidence alone sustain a conviction in the absence of a reliable and credible ocular account?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Multan Electric Power Company and another vs M_s Grit (Pvt) Limited and another2022 LHC 8395 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Multan Development Authority vs Muhammad Abdullah Shah (deceased)2022 LHC 4712 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Multan Development Authority & 2 others vs Malik Saleem Ullah & 6 others2022 LHC 1734 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mulazim Hussain vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 140 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-30
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytest identification paradesupplementary statementscriminal procedurerecoveryreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks post-arrest bail under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding offences under Sections 394 and 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, initially unidentified in the FIR, is entitled to bail given the prosecution's failure to establish the source of his subsequent identification and the absence of a test identification parade. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, determining that the case falls under the category of 'further inquiry' pursuant to Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The ratio establishes that where supplementary statements naming an accused lack a disclosed source of knowledge, and where an injured witness fails to identify the accused, reasonable grounds exist to doubt the prosecution's narrative. Additionally, the failure to associate independent witnesses with the recovery of incriminating items further weakens the case. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's continued incarceration serves no beneficial purpose when the investigation is complete and the case requires deeper judicial scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to conduct a test identification parade for an accused initially named as an unknown person in the FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry?
  • Can supplementary statements under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, be relied upon for bail purposes if they fail to disclose the source of the complainant's knowledge regarding the accused's identity?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses during the recovery of stolen property entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Addl. District Judge, etc.2022 LHC 6517, 2022 [M] CLR 1631 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zohaib Shahid vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 112 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10
  criminal appealattempted sodomyjuvenile offenderreduction of sentenceeyewitness testimonyjuvenile justiceconviction maintained
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge/Judge Juvenile Court, Toba Tek Singh, convicting the appellant under Section 511 read with Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempting to commit sodomy, sentencing him to three years of simple imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question concerns the sustainability of the conviction based on ocular testimony and whether the quantum of sentence warranted reduction given the appellant's status as a juvenile. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction, holding that the testimonies of the complainant, the victim, and eyewitnesses were consistent, trustworthy, and unshaken during cross-examination. However, considering that the appellant was a juvenile tried under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 and had already served a substantial portion of his sentence amounting to approximately two and a half years, the court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unshakeable and consistent testimony of eyewitnesses is sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 377 read with Section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the appellate court reduce the sentence of a juvenile offender to the period already undergone keeping in view the reformative object of juvenile laws?
  • Whether the parents of a victim can be considered reliable natural witnesses in cases of sexual assault against a minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zeeshan etc vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-24
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealcapital punishmentappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 364-A, and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while a connected criminal revision seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions concern the reliability of circumstantial evidence, specifically 'last seen' testimony and an alleged extra-judicial confession, in the absence of direct evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It determined that the 'last seen' evidence was delayed, contradictory, and uncorroborated, while the extra-judicial confession was inherently weak and lacked any logical motivating factor. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that heinous crimes do not lower the standard of proof required for conviction. The judgment reaffirms that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain connecting the accused to the crime, and that the civil law doctrine of 'admission' by failure to cross-examine is inapplicable in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure to cross-examine a witness on a specific fact in a criminal trial equivalent to an admission of that fact?
  • Can a conviction for a capital offence be sustained solely on uncorroborated circumstantial evidence such as 'last seen' and extra-judicial confession?
  • What are the essential criteria for relying on 'last seen' evidence in criminal cases?
  • Does the heinous nature of a crime justify a lower standard of proof for conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zawar Hussain vs Province of Punjab and others2022 PLD Lahore 445 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zameer and another vs The State and another2022 MLD 1059 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-29
  pre-arrest bailmala fidehouse trespassFIR delayulterior motivecriminal proceduremalicious prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought pre-arrest bail for the petitioners accused of offences under sections 337-A(i), 354, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including the delay in lodging the FIR and allegations of mala fide. The Court held that the 19-day delay in registering the FIR, coupled with the lack of evidence that the petitioners were armed, rendered the application of section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 highly doubtful. Furthermore, the Court noted the existence of pending civil litigation between the parties, which indicated that the complainant acted with ulterior motives and mala fide intent. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioners had joined the investigation and that no recovery was required. The key principles established are that pre-arrest bail may be granted where mala fide is inferred from the facts and circumstances, and that the merits of the case can be considered at the pre-arrest bail stage to prevent malicious prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Can the merits of a case be considered when deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR suggest mala fide on the part of the complainant?
  • Is the provision of section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable when the accused are closely related to the complainant and have access to the premises?
  • Can the existence of pending civil litigation between parties be a ground to infer mala fide in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs State etc.2022 PLJ Lahore 472 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs Additional Sessions Judge, etc2022 [M] CLR 447 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →