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.

• Falak Sher vs Government of the Punjab etc2022 LHC 3844, 2022 PLJ Lahore 659 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Government of the Punjab and Others2022 MLD 1900 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Fakhar Abbas vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1159 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-13
  criminal appealmurderfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuschance witnessesbenefit of doubtmedical evidencepost-mortem delayocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the ocular account was provided by chance witnesses whose testimony was disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is an integral part of Pakistani criminal jurisprudence; if a witness is found to have committed deliberate falsehood on a material aspect, their entire testimony must be rejected. Furthermore, the Court established that medical evidence is merely confirmatory and cannot identify a culprit in unobserved incidents. Additionally, unexplained delays in post-mortem examinations and the failure to establish the source of light during night-time occurrences create reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a witness be relied upon if it has been disbelieved regarding other co-accused in the same case?
  • Does the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to identify a culprit in an unobserved incident?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs State and 3 othersPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1137 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-28
  breach of peacedispute concerning landactual physical possessionquashing of proceedingsjurisdictional requirements
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner approached the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the concurrent orders of the lower courts whereby proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were initiated and the disputed property was ordered to be sealed. The core legal question was whether the mandatory jurisdictional requirement of an apprehension of a breach of the peace existed to warrant proceedings under Section 145. The High Court held that the existence of an apprehension of a breach of the peace is a sine qua non for invoking Section 145, which must coexist with a land dispute, and that mere existence of a property dispute without imminent threat to peace does not justify such proceedings, especially when parties are already litigating before a civil forum. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside, establishing the principle that a Magistrate lacks jurisdiction under Section 145 in the absence of a verified and imminent apprehension of a breach of the peace.

  Questions settled

  • Is the apprehension of a breach of the peace a mandatory jurisdictional requirement for initiating proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate exercise jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based solely on the existence of an immovable property dispute without any threat to public peace?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation between the parties affect the maintainability of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Shabbir, etc vs SHO, etc2022 LHC 1544 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-18Read full judgment →
• Engineer Bismillah Kakar vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production and 3 others2022 PLC 141 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitytransfer orderNational Industrial Relations Act 2012workman vs employeralternate remedyunfair labour practiceservice grievance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a transfer order issued by the Pakistan Industrial Technical Assistance Centre (PITAC) against the petitioner, an engineer, from Lahore to Quetta. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction to set aside a transfer order when the petitioner’s service terms were non-statutory and there were disputed questions of fact regarding his status as a 'workman' or 'employer' under the National Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court held the petition not maintainable, declining to adjudicate the disputed status of the petitioner or the alleged violation of Section 17 of the Act. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is not available where there are disputed questions of fact requiring evidence or where an alternate efficacious remedy exists. Specifically, if the petitioner is a workman, the National Industrial Relations Commission provides a statutory forum for grievances regarding unfair labor practices under Section 33 of the Act, and if the petitioner is an employer, the protections of Section 17 are inapplicable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a transfer order when the petitioner's terms and conditions of service are non-statutory?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to determine disputed questions of fact regarding whether an employee falls within the definition of 'workman' or 'employer' under the National Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Where a special law provides a specific remedy for unfair labor practices, can a litigant bypass that forum to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Election Commission Of Pakistan through Secretary and others vs Appellate Authority, District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others2022 CLC 701 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-23Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Iqbal vs Additional District Judge and others2022 CLC 947 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
• Ejaz alias Jajji and others, Faiz Ahmed vs The State etc, Muhammad2022 LHC 2078 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmed vs Abdul Hameed2022 YLR 2354 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-01Read full judgment →
• Ehtisham Basharat vs D.I.G., etc2022 LHC 4863 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-14Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah, etc vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 LHC 5600 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah vs The State2022 YLR 503 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-03
  murderdeath sentencelast seen evidenceWajtakkar evidencepointation recoverymedical jurisprudencebenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Ehsan Ullah, under sections 302(b), 364, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence and terms of imprisonment for the murder, kidnapping, and concealment of evidence regarding the deceased Bilal Yasin. The core legal questions before the Lahore High Court involved the reliability and corroboration of last-seen evidence, Wajtakkar evidence, the evidentiary value of pointation recoveries from open and accessible places, the consistency of medical evidence with the ocular account regarding the state of decomposition, and the standard of proof required in criminal trials. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the last-seen and Wajtakkar witnesses untrustworthy, the recoveries from open spaces uncorroborated, and the medical testimony regarding skeletonization inconsistent with established medical jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court laid down the principle that weak ocular and circumstantial evidence cannot sustain a conviction, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether last-seen evidence requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Is the recovery of a dead body or incriminating articles from an open and accessible place sufficient to connect an accused with the crime without independent corroboration?
  • Does an expert medical opinion regarding the time of death and putrefaction processes that contradicts established medical jurisprudence remain worthy of reliance?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution case when ocular evidence is irreconcilably inconsistent with medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah Chaudhry vs The State, etc2022 LHC 7240 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Efu Life Insurance Limited through Chief Manager vs Labour Appellate2022 PLC 162 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-23
  group insuranceworkmen's compensationjurisdiction of commissionerlabour appellate tribunalwrit petitionactive employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the orders passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, whereby the petitioner insurance company was directed to pay group insurance benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. The core legal questions involved whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction over the insurance company and whether the deceased employee was covered under the insurance policy at the time of his death. The Lahore High Court held that the Commissioner possessed the requisite jurisdiction to decide the compensation claim and that the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim of non-employment through evidence, having omitted to cross-examine the employer's witness and failing to discharge the burden of proof. The Court laid down the principle that claims regarding workmen's compensation fall within the domain of the Commissioner, while the tribunal under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 is intended for policyholders, and concurrent factual findings based on unchallenged evidence cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim against an insurance company regarding group insurance?
  • Can an insurance company challenge the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for the first time when it failed to raise such an objection in its written reply before the Commissioner?
  • Whether a policyholder alone is entitled to approach the tribunal created under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does the failure to cross-examine a material witness on crucial facts render the opposing party's case binding regarding those facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zahid Hussain Zahid vs The Executive Director, Imperial College of Business etc2022 LHC 2277, 2024 YLR 238 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-21Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahid Mahmood Bokhari vs Government Of Punjab through Chief2022 PLJ Lahore 218 · Lahore High Court
  civil servantwrit jurisdictionArticle 212suspension orderdeputationterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunalmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Medical Superintendent (BPS-20) serving on deputation, challenged his suspension order issued by the Secretary, Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, and whether the petitioner, while on deputation, ceased to be a "civil servant" subject to the bar of Article 212. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction as the matter pertained to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. The Court affirmed that Article 212 constitutes an absolute, non-obstante bar against the High Court’s interference in service matters, which must be adjudicated by the departmental hierarchy and the Service Tribunal. It further clarified that a civil servant on deputation does not lose their status, and that a suspension order is an administrative act rather than a penalty. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable, emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory service remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition regarding the suspension of a civil servant?
  • Does a civil servant lose their status as a 'civil servant' while serving on deputation in an autonomous body?
  • Is an order of suspension of a civil servant considered a penalty that allows for judicial intervention?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from interfering in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi vs The State etc.2022 LHC 1948 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01
  post-arrest bailpetroleum quota allocationOGRA jurisdictionFIA jurisdictionfurther inquiryanti-money laundering
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010, relating to alleged illegalities in the allocation of petroleum import quotas, issuance of provisional licenses, and marketing of petroleum products. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners had a direct criminal role, whether the Federal Investigation Agency possessed jurisdiction in light of the exclusive mechanism provided under the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002, and whether the case warranted further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners' involvement called for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the petitioners acted in an official capacity according to established rules and recommendations, that the Federal Investigation Agency lacked prima facie jurisdiction, and that the accused were no longer required for investigation. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Investigation Agency has jurisdiction to investigate matters falling under the regulatory framework of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002?
  • Does the allocation of petroleum import quotas by public servants on the recommendations of the Oil Companies Advisory Committee constitute an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the case of the petitioners falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rana Zceshan vs Government of Punjab, etc2022 LHC 4900, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1300 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-18
  ad-hoc employeetermination of serviceprofessional misconductregular inquirynatural justicestigmawrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order recommending the termination of his services as a Medical Officer on ad-hoc basis due to alleged professional misconduct, negligence, and inefficiency, along with a consequential relieving order. The core legal question was whether an ad-hoc or contract employee could be terminated or relieved on grounds amounting to a stigma of misconduct without conducting a regular inquiry and providing an opportunity of hearing. The Lahore High Court held that when an employee's termination or adverse action is founded on allegations of misconduct carrying a stigma, it is mandatory to hold a regular inquiry affording a fair opportunity of defense, regardless of the nature of employment. The court set aside the impugned and relieving orders for being passed without lawful authority and in violation of natural justice, while permitting the competent authority to proceed against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law by holding a regular inquiry. The key principle laid down is that stigmatized termination of any employee, including ad-hoc or contract appointees, necessitates a regular inquiry and adherence to procedural fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ad-hoc or contract employee can be terminated on grounds of misconduct without holding a regular inquiry?
  • Is a relieving order passed on the basis of unproven allegations of professional misconduct sustainable without affording an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does termination carrying a stigma of misconduct against a temporary or contract employee require adherence to the rules of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Jehangir Akbar vs State, etc.2022 PLJ Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mehmood Ayaz vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Health2022 LHC 3479, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 352 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-13
  appointment of administratormerit listexecutive discretioncogent reasonsjudicial reviewtransplantation of human organsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a notification issued by the Government of the Punjab appointing respondent No. 5 as Administrator of the Punjab Human Organs Transplantation Authority (PHOT A). The petitioner had secured the top position on the merit list prepared by the Monitoring Authority after a rigorous evaluation process, but the Chief Minister approved the appointment of respondent No. 5 instead. The core legal question was whether the Chief Minister has unbridled discretion to override the merit list and appoint a candidate lower in merit without providing cogent reasons. The Lahore High Court held that while the competent authority has the prerogative to differ with recommendations, such departure must be grounded in valid, fair, and cogent reasons subject to judicial review, and the arbitrary supersession of the top-ranking candidate is illegal. The court laid down the principle that executive discretion in appointments made upon structured evaluation must be exercised transparently and cannot be used to arbitrarily bypass candidates highest on merit without justifiable cause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Minister has unbridled discretion to appoint a candidate lower on the merit list over the candidate ranked highest by a selection or monitoring authority?
  • Does the bypassing of a top-merit candidate require cogent and justifiable reasons subject to judicial review?
  • Can the High Court interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when executive discretion in public appointments is exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner?
  • Whether recommendations of a statutory monitoring authority regarding appointments must be given due weight by the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hassan Shahryar vs Sana Waqar and 2 others2022 LHC 7304 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Dr. Akbar Anjum vs Bahauddin Zakariya University etc2022 LHC 824, 2024 MLD 1410 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
• Doud Khan vs Muhammad Rashid, etc2022 LHC 1837 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-20Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad Khan (deceased) through L.Rs vs areed Muhammad2022 LHC 2660, 2024 YLR 793 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad etc vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 864 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-02
  murderbenefit of doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusprivate complaintriotingocular evidencemedical evidence contradictionalibi
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased in a private complaint, following a rioting incident. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the acquittal of fourteen co-accused on the same evidence and the presence of significant contradictions. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge, noting that the ocular witnesses were unreliable, their testimony contradicted the medical evidence, and the appellant’s plea of alibi was supported by the Investigating Officer’s admission. Applying the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, the Court found the prosecution’s case to be based on presumptions rather than substantive evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, holding that the benefit of the doubt is a right of the accused, not a matter of grace. The Court emphasized that where a reasonable doubt exists in a prudent mind, the accused must be acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's ocular witnesses are found to be unreliable and contradict medical evidence?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence entitle the remaining accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt a matter of grace or a legal right of the accused?
  • Can a conviction be based on presumptions in the absence of substantive evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Doctor Yasmin Rashid vs Election Commission of Pakistan, etc2022 LHC 5661, 2022 PLJ Lahore 878 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-16Read full judgment →
• Director (Aso) Customs Intelligence and Investigation vs Taimur Tariq Butt, etc2022 LHC 5735, 2022 PLJ Lahore 810 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-19Read full judgment →
• Director (Aso) Customs Intelligence and Investigation vs Awais Khalid2022 LHC 5741 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
• Director (Aso) Customs Intelligence and Investigation through Deputy2022 PTD 1755 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-21Read full judgment →
• Dilshad Akbar vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore & others2022 LHC 6475, 2025 PLD Lahore 137 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain vs Pakistan Railways through Chief Executive2022 PLJ Lahore 505 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority Lahore through Secretary DHA and another vs Mst. Shaukat Ara and another2022 PLJ Lahore 322 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-18Read full judgment →
• Danish Farooq vs Station House Officer, etc.2022 LHC 6452 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Dad Khan vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1371 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-27
  post-arrest bailsmugglingassault on public servantprohibitory clausecustoms offencebail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner Dad Khan in case FIR No.160 registered under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, but involve violent assault on customs officials engaged in intercepting smuggled goods. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that despite the offenses falling outside the prohibitory clause, the petitioner's violent and desperate conduct—including attacking the customs staff, firing weapons, and causing injuries while being caught red-handed—constitutes exceptional circumstances disentitling him to bail. The court laid down the principle that the normal rule of granting bail in cases outside the prohibitory clause is ousted where the accused is prima facie connected to a grave and violent assault on law enforcement officials discharging their public duties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail as a rule when the alleged offenses under the Customs Act, 1969 do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.?
  • Does violent and aggressive conduct resulting in an assault on customs officials constitute exceptional circumstances to deny bail?
  • Can an accused caught red-handed at the spot of a scuffle involving firearms claim post-arrest bail merely because the offense falls outside the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• D.G. Khan Cement Company Limited etc vs The Federal Board of Revenue2022 LHC 3288, 2025 PTD 199 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-27Read full judgment →
• Crescent Educational Trust vs Registrar of Trade Unions Lahore & another2022 LHC 2253, 2022 PTD 1384, 2022 PLC 180 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-18
  trade union registrationcollective bargaining agenteducational institutioncommercial basisnon-profit organizationtax exemptioncharitable trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore, which determined that the petitioner, Crescent Educational Trust, was running its educational institution on a commercial basis and was therefore subject to the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether an educational institution operated by a non-profit trust maintaining a financial surplus constitutes an establishment run on commercial basis under Section 1(3)(h) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Lahore High Court held that the mere generation of a financial surplus or profit does not render an educational institution commercial if the surplus is not distributed to trustees or individuals for private benefit but is exclusively plowed back into charitable and educational purposes. The court laid down the principle that the term 'commercial basis' requires an enterprise to have financial profit as its primary aim with benefits flowing to private individuals, and recognized that non-profit educational trusts holding valid non-profit organization status under tax laws are exempt from the provisions of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an educational institution operated by a non-profit trust can be considered as being run on commercial basis merely because it maintains a financial surplus?
  • Does the generation of surplus funds over expenditures in a charitable trust constitute trade or business carried on for profit under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • What factors determine whether an educational institution is exempt from the applicability of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 under Section 1(3)(h)?
  • Is a trust holding a non-profit organization status and 100% tax credit eligibility under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 subject to labor laws applicable to commercial establishments?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Legal Division, Regional Tax Office, Lahore vs M_s. Rafaqat Marketing, Lahore & another2022 LHC 8615 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Legal Division, Lahore vs M/s Wire2022 LHC 3997, 2025 PTD 386 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Grays Leasing LtdPTCL 2022 CL. 811 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Messrs Grays Leasing Ltd.2022 PTD 951 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Legal Division, Rto, Lahore vs Messrs Meco2022 PTD 809 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09
  reference applicationincome tax assessmenttime limitationservice of ordercommunication of decisiontax referenceappellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application filed under section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the interpretation of time limitation for making an assessment and whether it encompasses the service of the order. The core legal question revolved around whether the time limitation for assessment requires not just the passing of the order but also its communication or service to the taxpayer. The Lahore High Court, relying on the precedent established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of M/s. Mujahid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Customs Appellate Tribunal, held that an adjudicatory decision must be duly declared and communicated to the parties to be effective within the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the reference application was decided against the applicant-department and in favour of the respondent-taxpayer, affirming that time limitation includes proper communication of the assessment order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the time limitation for completing an income tax assessment include the service or communication of the order to the taxpayer?
  • Whether an adjudicatory decision takes effect from the date of conclusion of hearing or from the date it is communicated to the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-VII, Regional Tax Office-II, Lahore vs Messrs Techlogix Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd2022 PTD 893, 2022 PCTLR 1139 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-Ii, Regional Tax Office, Lahore vs Messrs Daewoo Pakistan Motorway Services (Pvt.) Ltd2022 PTD 1019 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Lahore vs Shazia Zafar2022 LHC 4360, 2022 PTD 1942 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II Regional Tax Office, Lahore vs M/s.PTCL 2022 CL. 852 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Faisalabad vs M_s. Ahmad Straw Board Private Limited, Faisalabad2022 LHC 6656, 2023 PTD 1528, 2022 PCTLR 1587 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Ltu, Lahore vs M/s Marwat2022 LHC 7209 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Sialkot vs M_s Chaudhry Steel Mills S.I.E., Daska2022 LHC 3042, 2025 PTD 101 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lyallpur Zone, Rto, Faisalabad. vs M/s. Ideal2022 LHC 7665 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone, Lto, Multan vs : M/s Usman2022 LHC 8015 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore vs M_s. Monnoowal Textile Mills Ltd., LahorePTCL 2022 CL. 430 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore vs M_s Descon Engineering Limited, Lahore2022 LHC 3034 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore vs Messrs Tariq & Sons, Lahore2022 PTD 1455 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore vs Coca Cola Pakistan Limited, Lahore2022 LHC 4794, 2022 PTD 1400 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-16
  withholding taxroyaltyservicesapportionment of deductionssubordinate legislationreference applicationincome taxrebate
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 addresses two core legal questions: whether a rebate paid for exclusive product sales at outlets constitutes 'services' subject to withholding tax under Section 153 or 'royalty' under Section 2(54), and whether Rule 13 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002 is mandatory for apportioning expenses under Section 67 of the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the payment made as a rebate for acquiring exclusive sale rights does not constitute 'services' rendering it liable to withholding tax under Section 153(1)(b), but rather falls within the definition of royalty and a deduction against sales, and further noted that tax withholding is impracticable where no actual payment occurs. On the second question, the Court held that Rule 13 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002 is mandatory and provides the proper mechanism for the apportionment of common expenditures under Section 67 based on gross receipts, affirming that subordinate legislation validly advances the parent statute without inconsistency. The Court answered the first question in favor of the taxpayer and the second in favor of the revenue department.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amount paid as a rebate for acquiring exclusive sale rights of a brand at outlets constitutes 'services' subject to withholding tax under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Is Rule 13 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002 mandatory for the apportionment of common expenditures under Section 67 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can tax withholding under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 be legally required where no actual, physical, or practical payment takes place and the transaction is merely a rebate?
  • What is the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court while hearing a reference application under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 regarding the vires of statutory provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Faisalabad vs M/s. Engineers AssociatedPTCL 2022 CL. 569 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Corporate Zone, Regional Tax Office, Faisalabad vs Messrs Niagra Mills (Pvt.) Ltd2022 PTD 978, 2022 PCTLR 1459 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-II, Rto, Gujranwala vs M/s Crystal2022 LHC 6750 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Toyota Walton Motors and others2022 PTD 1035 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited2022 PTD 1135, 2022 PCTLR 1463 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Standard Ice & Cold Storage, Lahore2022 LHC 2164, 2025 PTD 35 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Lahore Rubber Store2022 LHC 7179 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Be Be Jan Fabrics (Pvt) Ltd2022 LHC 2300, 2025 PTD 51 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Nishat Chunian Power Limited2022 PTD 1180 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Master Tiles and Ceramic2022 PTD 1433 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Descon Engineering Limited2022 PTD 1209 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Legal Zone, Lto vs M/s Sapphire Dairies2022 LHC 6849 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Large Taxpayer Unit, Legal Division, Lahore2022 PTD 1161 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-1), Rto, Rawalpindi vs Tariq2022 PTD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Multan vs Aman Ullah2022 PTD 678, PTCL 2022 CL. 786 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs vs Messrs Assas Enterprises2022 PTD 1485 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
• Civil Revision No.216/2022 vs Nizam-ud-Din etc2022 LHC 1724 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
• Christopher Qayyum vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 443 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-26
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencedying declarationdelayed FIRacquittalmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and attempted murder under Sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidentiary inconsistencies. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to an unexplained seventeen-hour delay in lodging the FIR, unreliable ocular testimony where witnesses repeatedly changed their accounts regarding the identity of the assailants, and a procedurally defective dying declaration lacking proper medical authentication. Furthermore, the Court determined that the motive was unsubstantiated and the recovery of the weapon was inconclusive. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits and cannot rely on the weaknesses of the defense. Consequently, finding the evidence shaky and replete with doubts, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon if it lacks proper medical authentication?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon sufficient to sustain a conviction when the ocular account is unreliable?
  • Does the presence of injuries on a complainant's body automatically render them a truthful witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Pervez Elahi vs Governor Punjab etc2022 LHC 8389 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-23Read full judgment →
• Chanan alias Channu and others vs Hassan Raza and others2022 LHC 7356, 2024 CLC 2084 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Saleem vs Ch. Abdul Razzaq2022 LHC 7824 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Saddique vs The Secretary Cooperative etc2022 LHC 1606, 2022 MLD 1081 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-10Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ashraf vs Malik Muhammad Muzaffar Khan etc2022 LHC 6166, 2022 CLC 2045 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-18
  election appealnomination papersscrutiny of nominationdisclosure of assetsrectification of defectbye-electionReturning Officersubstantial defect
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns election appeals challenging the acceptance of a candidate's nomination papers for a bye-election by the Returning Officer. The core legal question is whether a candidate may rectify omissions in their nomination papers, specifically regarding the disclosure of a spouse's assets, during the scrutiny process, and whether such an omission constitutes a "substantial" defect requiring rejection under the Election Act, 2017. The Election Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that the Returning Officer correctly exercised their discretion under Section 62(9)(d)(ii) of the Election Act, 2017. The Tribunal determined that the omission was not of a substantial nature and that the candidate had voluntarily sought to rectify the error within the prescribed timeframe. The judgment affirms the principle that the Returning Officer has the authority to allow candidates to remedy non-substantial defects in nomination papers. The legislative intent behind these provisions is to prevent the disenfranchisement of candidates for inadvertent errors, provided such corrections are made promptly and do not stem from dishonest concealment or fraudulent intent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate rectify omissions in their nomination papers during the scrutiny process?
  • Does the failure to disclose a spouse's assets in nomination papers constitute a substantial defect requiring rejection under the Election Act, 2017?
  • Does the Returning Officer have the authority to allow the remedy of non-substantial defects in nomination papers during the scrutiny stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board, Sargodha through Executive Officer Cantonment2022 YLR 1171 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-23Read full judgment →
• Bushra Bibi and others vs Additional District Judge and others2022 CLD 900 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-30Read full judgment →
• Bushra Bibi alias Buchu vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1060 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-31
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsheroine recoveryprevious convictionprohibitory clauseControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Bushra Bibi alias Buchu seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 1311 dated 11.11.2021, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station City Hafizabad, involving the alleged recovery of 1250 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry and post-arrest bail given the slight excess over one kilogram, the pending forensic report, and her status as a previous convict on probation. The Lahore High Court held that the case fell within the prohibitory clause as it swung between Section 9(b) and 9(c) due to potential wrapper weight reduction, the forensic report was awaited, and previous conviction did not bar bail. The court laid down the principle that uncertainty in contraband weight, awaiting forensic reports, and prolonged incarceration without prospect of early trial warrant the grant of post-arrest bail, even where the accused has a previous conviction on probation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the recovered narcotic weight slightly exceeds the threshold and the wrapper weight is in question?
  • Does a previous conviction on probation strictly debar an accused from being released on post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the absence of a forensic report at the bail stage entitles the accused to further inquiry under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Brig (R) Ghulam Hafeez through his legal heirs, etc. vs Brig (R) Abdul Hadi, etc2022 LHC 8499 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Multan through Chairman2022 LHC 7195 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bilal Moeen Butt Alias Bilal Hussain Butt vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1657 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-30
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequefurther inquiryprohibitory clausebusiness relationshipdishonest intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, who is accused of issuing a dishonoured cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the nature of the business relationship between the parties and the evidentiary status of the alleged dishonest intention. The Court observed that the petitioner had made substantial payments to the complainant, indicating a regular and smooth business relationship, which renders the element of dishonest intention at the time of cheque issuance a matter requiring further inquiry by the trial court. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the petitioner has been incarcerated since July 2021 without a trial conclusion in sight. Consequently, the Court held that further incarceration would serve no useful purpose and granted bail, establishing the principle that where the element of dishonest intention is debatable due to prior business dealings, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a regular business relationship between parties render the element of dishonest intention in a Section 489-F case a matter of further inquiry?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can previous criminal cases where no conviction was secured be sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Azam vs Muhammad Haq Nawaz, etc2022 LHC 4751, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1549, 2024 PCRLJ 645 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-17
  post-arrest bailconditional bailarshcriminal revisionjudicial discretionbail conditions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by an Additional Sessions Judge that granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to the condition of depositing 'arsh' (compensation). The petitioner contended that the law does not permit imposing financial conditions for bail. The core legal question was whether a criminal court possesses the authority to impose conditions, such as the payment of compensation, when granting bail, given that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not explicitly provide for such conditions. The Court held that criminal courts have the authority to impose reasonable conditions while granting bail. Relying on Section 401(4-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court reasoned that criminal courts can pass conditional orders that restrict liberty or impose liability. The Court affirmed that such conditions are permissible if they are not illegal or unreasonable, and either accepted by the accused or independent of their will. The petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's authority to impose the condition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal court have the authority to impose conditions, such as the payment of compensation, when granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can a criminal court pass a conditional order that restricts the liberty of an accused or imposes liability upon their property?
  • Is the imposition of a condition while granting bail permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Ahmed vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 469 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-16
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequenon-prohibitory clausedocumentary evidencebail principles
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Bilal Ahmed, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with the dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs. 10,000,000. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the nature of the offence and the evidentiary status of the case. The Court held that the prosecution's case rested entirely on documentary evidence already in its possession, eliminating any risk of tampering. Furthermore, the Court determined that the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, reiterating the established legal principle that in cases falling outside the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court emphasized that the mere involvement of a large financial amount does not constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail, absent exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the involvement of a large financial amount sufficient ground to refuse post-arrest bail in a case involving a dishonoured cheque?
  • Should bail be granted when the prosecution's case is based entirely on documentary evidence already in its possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Ahmed vs Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 1472 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08
  Intra-Court Appealdowngradingperformance evaluationArea Managerservice regulationsestoppelterms of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an Intra-Court Appeal against a single judge's judgment dismissing his writ petition, which had challenged his downgrading from Area Manager Category "A" to Category "B" by the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan due to failure to meet the annual First Year Premium quota. The core legal question was whether such downgrading was permissible under the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973 and the express terms of the appellant's appointment letter. The High Court dismissed the Intra-Court Appeal, upholding the Judge-in-Chambers' decision. The Court held that Regulation 4 of the Regulations explicitly empowers the employer to review employee performance and take measures, including emolument reduction or curtailment, if performance falls short of prescribed standards. Furthermore, as the appellant accepted his appointment with express terms allowing potential downgrading based on performance evaluations, he was estopped from challenging those agreed conditions of service.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer downgrade an employee based on performance evaluation pursuant to service regulations and express terms of appointment?
  • Is an employee who accepts an appointment letter specifying conditions for performance-based downgrading estopped from challenging such action?
  • Does Regulation 4 of the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973 authorize performance review and consequential re-classification of Area Managers?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Ahmad vs The State and another2022 MLD 1577 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15
  criminal appealdying declarationocular accountmurder convictionevidentiary valueacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for murder. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the ocular account and the admissibility and evidentiary value of the alleged dying declaration. The trial court had convicted the appellant primarily based on the dying declaration, despite rejecting the ocular testimony due to material contradictions between the FIR and the trial statements. The High Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. It found the ocular account unreliable due to significant deviations from the initial FIR regarding the number of assailants. Furthermore, the court ruled the dying declaration suspicious, noting the presence of interested witnesses during its recording and evidence suggesting it was obtained on a blank paper. The court reaffirmed the principle that a dying declaration is a weak form of evidence requiring careful scrutiny for physical capacity, absence of prompting, and opportunity to identify the assailant. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dying declaration considered a strong or weak type of evidence in criminal proceedings?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on medical evidence alone if the direct ocular evidence is disbelieved?
  • What are the essential considerations for a court when evaluating the reliability of a dying declaration?
  • Does the presence of interested witnesses during the recording of a dying declaration affect its credibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Beacon House School System vs Commissioner Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala etc2022 PLJ Lahore 317 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bashir Masih vs Suneela Nadeem, Etc2022 LHC 3442, 2024 CLC 863 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-29Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Shahid Nadeem2022 MLD 1955 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Khadim Hussain and others2022 CLC 1300 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-16Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad (deceased) through L.Rs vs Muhammad Amin Akhtar and another2022 LHC 2520 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bashed alias Chand, etc vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 24 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25
  capital sentence referencejudicial confessionidentification paradeterrorismmitigating circumstancesocular evidenceres gestaecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference arose from the murder of a judicial officer. The appellants were convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from related witnesses, the validity of identification parade proceedings, and the admissibility of retracted judicial confessions. The Lahore High Court upheld the convictions, finding the prosecution's evidence—specifically the judicial confessions, identification parade, and forensic reports—sufficient to establish guilt. However, the Court exercised judicial discretion regarding sentencing. While confirming the death sentence for the appellant who fired the fatal shot, the Court converted the death sentences of the other two appellants to life imprisonment, citing their presence without active participation in the firing as a mitigating circumstance. The judgment reaffirms that testimony of related witnesses is admissible if credible, and that retracted judicial confessions, if voluntary and corroborated by other evidence, can sustain a conviction. Additionally, it emphasizes that strict adherence to identification parade protocols is essential for the reliability of such evidence in criminal trials.

  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 eyewitness to the deceased render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is the presence of an accused at the crime scene without firing the fatal shot a valid mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does the murder of a public servant in relation to their official duties constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali, etc vs Muhammad Arif, etc2022 LHC 6944 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs The State, etc2022 LHC 3878 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-17
  suspension of sentencejuvenile convictdelay in decision of appealpost-arrest bailjuvenile justicestatutory ground for bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a second application filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant Basharat Ali, seeking suspension of his execution of sentence of life imprisonment awarded under a private complaint arising out of FIR No. 439 of 2015. The core legal questions involved whether the sentence of a juvenile convict can be suspended on merits without pointing out legal infirmities, and whether the statutory ground for bail during trial under Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 can be extended for suspension of sentence during appeal, or whether recourse must be had to Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that no case for suspension on merits was made out as medical evidence corroborated ocular testimony, and that the statutory two-year delay period under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to juvenile convicts seeking suspension of sentence during appeal, as trial provisions cannot be read into appeal stages. The key principle laid down is that courts cannot read unprovided provisions into statutes, and juvenile convicts must rely on the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for suspension of sentence during appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court read into a statute a provision for suspension of sentence that the legislature has omitted?
  • Does Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 apply to the suspension of execution of sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
  • What is the applicable statutory period of delay for considering the suspension of sentence of a juvenile convict whose appeal is pending before the High Court?
  • Whether the opinion of the police favoring an accused in a private complaint overrides a judicial verdict of guilt recorded by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs Subedar Khan and 2 others2022 CLC 2126 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-20Read full judgment →
• Bakhtawar Bibi vs Additional District Judge & two others2022 LHC 7466 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
• Bakhsha (deceased) through legal heirs etc vs Sh. Qadir Bakhsh2022 LHC 3232, 2024 YLR 482 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
• Bahria Town Private Limited vs District Consumer Court and others2022 PLJ Lahore 199, 2022 PLD Lahore 488 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-12
  consumer court jurisdictionimmovable propertysale of plotsservice providerbreach of contractconstitutional petitionproduct definition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited challenging an order of the District Consumer Court, Rawalpindi, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 35 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 read with Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding the maintainability of a complaint concerning the non-delivery of possession of plots. The core legal question was whether a dispute relating to the purchase of immovable property and the non-delivery of its possession falls within the jurisdiction of a Consumer Court as a matter of 'services' or 'products'. The Lahore High Court held that land and immovable property do not constitute a 'product' under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, nor does a pure sale-purchase agreement of plots amount to the hiring of 'services' under the Act. Consequently, the court ruled that disputes arising from the breach of contractual obligations regarding immovable property fall outside the domain of Consumer Courts, and complainants must instead approach a court of competent civil jurisdiction. The petition was accepted and the consumer complaint was rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the purchase of immovable property or plots falls within the definition of a 'product' under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005?
  • Does a dispute concerning the non-delivery of possession of plots constitute the hiring of 'services' under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005?
  • Does a District Consumer Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matters arising from the breach of contractual obligations regarding the sale and purchase of land?
  • Can a complaint regarding the non-fulfillment of a contract for immovable property be maintained before a Consumer Court under Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →