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.

• Bahawalpur Medical And Dental College vs Pakistan Medical Commission2022 CLC 775, 2022 PLJ Lahore 587 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-08Read full judgment →
• Babu Khan vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 979 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-22
  false informationcognizance of offencepublic servantsummary trialjurisdictionbar to cognizance
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for filing a false complaint, which was rendered by the District and Sessions Judge, Hafizabad through summary proceedings initiated under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a formal written complaint by the concerned public servant under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether Section 476 applies to such offences. The Lahore High Court held that Section 195(1)(a) imposes an absolute bar preventing courts from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 except upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned or their subordinate, and that Section 476 applies exclusively to offences under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 195(1), not clause (a). Consequently, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to initiate summary proceedings and convict the appellant directly, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the discharge of the appellant's bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code without a written complaint from the public servant concerned?
  • Does Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar Rasool vs Addl. District Judge etc.2022 LHC 1938 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →
• Babar Nawaz and 3 others vs Muhammad Riaz2022 PLJ Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-24Read full judgment →
• Azmat Jahan vs Additional District Judge, etc.2022 LHC 1927 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-08Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali vs Khalid Iqbal etc2022 LHC 2768, 2024 MLD 1455 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-30Read full judgment →
• Azhar Abbass vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 104 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-28
  criminal appealrapeZina bil jabrprosecution burden of proofreasonable doubtacquittalmedical evidencecontradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the offense of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial court judgment that sentenced him to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant contradictions in the prosecution's narrative and the medical evidence presented. The Lahore High Court found that the prosecution's story was inherently doubtful, noting inconsistencies between the initial application to the Magistrate and the FIR, as well as implausible circumstances regarding the alleged commission of the crime. Furthermore, the medical evidence provided by the Lady Doctor contradicted the prosecution's timeline and allegations. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the fundamental principle that the burden lies entirely upon the prosecution to establish a criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to do so entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of legal right, not as a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between the initial application to a Magistrate and the FIR regarding the number of perpetrators and the nature of the incident undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction?
  • Can an accused be convicted for rape when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's timeline and narrative of the occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Abbas Haideri vs Government Of The Punjab and others2022 PLD Lahore 278 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-05Read full judgment →
• Azgard Nine Limited and others vs Registrar Of Companies and others2022 CLD 114 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Azeem Khan and another vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary2022 LHC 7172 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Sajid vs Federation of Pakistan through Finance Secretary and 32022 CLC 1188 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-16Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Sadiq vs Govt. of Punjab and others2022 LHC 3746 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ahmad vs The State and another2022 LHC 2010 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-03Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1480 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-03
  post-arrest bailabductionnon-prohibitory clausefurther inquirybenefit of doubtdelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Ayaz Ahmad, in a case registered under Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of abduction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances surrounding the FIR and the evidentiary material. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the fourteen-day delay in lodging the FIR, the complainant's status as a hearsay witness, and the discharge of a co-accused based on the complainant's affidavit rendered the case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that since the offence fell under the non-prohibitory clause, bail should be the rule rather than the exception. The Court also held that the non-recovery of the alleged abductee did not justify continued incarceration and that the benefit of doubt could be extended at the bail stage. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail, with the Court clarifying that these observations were tentative and limited to the bail proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR, without explanation, constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is the non-recovery of an alleged abductee a sufficient ground to deny post-arrest bail to an accused?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  • Does the principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception apply to offences falling under the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Attock Petroleum Limited (Apl) vs National Highway Authority and another2022 PTD 222 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-09
  promotional displaynational highway authoritytax levyquid pro quosubordinate legislationprivate propertylicense feeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an oil marketing company challenging demand notices issued by the National Highway Authority (NHA) and its private contractor for the collection of fees and charges on the display of promotional material and hoardings on private properties alongside National Highways. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the NHA or the Federal Government possesses the legal mandate under the parent statute to levy taxes, fees, or license fees on promotional displays on private land without statutory backing or a quid pro quo. The Court held that the impugned demand notices were issued without lawful authority, declaring that neither the parent statute nor subordinate legislation (such as rules or regulations) authorizes the levy of a tax, fee-simplicitor, cess-fee, or license fee on promotional displays on private premises. The ratio decidendi is that subordinate legislation cannot expand the scope of a parent statute to create a tax or fee without clear legislative backing, and any such levy lacking statutory authorization and the requisite quid pro quo is void ab initio. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned notices were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Highway Authority has the statutory power under the National Highway Act, 1991 to levy a fee or charge on the display of promotional material on private property?
  • Can subordinate legislation like rules and regulations impose a tax or fee in the absence of an explicit enabling provision in the parent statute?
  • Does the levy of a fee for promotional displays require the element of quid pro quo and a direct correlation between the service rendered and the charge collected?
  • Whether a bald and unsubstantiated plea of factual controversy can oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Atif Riaz vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary Ministry of Religious2022 LHC 1743 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Asma Parveen vs Secretary School Education, and others2022 PLJ Lahore 963 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-25Read full judgment →
• Askari General Insurance Company Limited through President/Chief2022 CLD 425 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
• Asif Naeem vs Mst. Balqees Fatima and others2022 LHC 6940 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Asif Khan and others vs State & anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 453 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-22
  terrorism financingproscribed organizationbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalanti-terrorism courtinsufficient evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence under Sections 11-H(3), 11-I, 11-J(2) and 11-N of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, recorded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for allegedly providing financial support for purchasing land and constructing a seminary for a proscribed organization, Jaish-e-Muhammad. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges of terrorism financing and association with a proscribed organization beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to produce any incriminating evidence establishing a nexus between the appellants and the proscribed organization, or proving that they collected funds, especially considering that the seminary's control had already been taken over by the government prior to the alleged date of the offence. The court laid down the principle that when the prosecution fails to establish foundational facts and substantial gaps exist in evidence, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, resulting in their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for terrorism financing can be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce evidence of fund collection or a nexus with a proscribed organization?
  • Does the benefit of doubt apply when material contradictions and temporal impossibilities exist in the prosecution's case?
  • Whether failure to prove foundational allegations under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 warrants the setting aside of a conviction and an immediate acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Hussain vs Election Commission of Pakistan etc2022 LHC 8269 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-21
  election officialdisciplinary proceedingsfunctus officiodeputationistjurisdiction of ECPPEEDA Act 2006Elections Act 2017show cause noticeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated batch of constitutional petitions challenged the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against various government officials and employees who had been deputed for election duties during the bye-elections for a National Assembly constituency. The core legal questions involved whether the ECP retains jurisdiction to conduct disciplinary proceedings against deputed staff after the election in the constituency has been declared null and void, and whether such proceedings can bypass the statutory procedures and prior approvals required under applicable service laws like the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The Lahore High Court held that upon the annulment of the election and declaration of its fate, the staff ceased to be 'election officials' under the Elections Act, 2017, rendering the ECP functus officio regarding disciplinary control over them. The Court laid down that the ECP lacks jurisdiction to initiate independent departmental proceedings against deputationists outside their parent departments after the conclusion of the election process, and that any such disciplinary action must be routed through their respective parent departments under the relevant efficiency and discipline laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Election Commission of Pakistan retains jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against deputed election staff after the election results in a constituency have been annulled?
  • Do persons deployed for election duties continue to remain election officials under the Elections Act, 2017 after the conclusion or scrapping of an election process?
  • Can a show-cause notice or inconclusive executive action be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction?
  • Whether disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant on deputation can be initiated by a borrowing agency without seeking prior permission from the parent department as mandated by the PEEDA Act, 2006?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Oulakh etc vs Provincial Police Officer etc2022 LHC 3803 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-26
  probationary appointmentcivil servantservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of servicebar of jurisdictionpolice service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of the petitioners' appointments as temporary Sub-Inspectors (T/SI) while they were on probation. The core legal question was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition, or if such jurisdiction was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, due to the petitioners' status as civil servants. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that individuals appointed on probation, including those recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission, fall within the definition of civil servants under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Consequently, the cancellation of their appointments constitutes a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court established that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court through the consent or undertaking of parties if it is otherwise barred by law. Thus, the petitioners were directed to approach the appropriate departmental hierarchy or the Punjab Service Tribunal for redressal.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees appointed on probation considered civil servants under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge the cancellation of a probationer's appointment?
  • Can jurisdiction be conferred upon a court through the consent or undertaking of the parties if it is otherwise barred by law?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over the cancellation of an appointment that relates to the terms and conditions of a civil servant's service?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif @ Loosi and others vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 704 · Lahore High Court
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubteye-witness testimonyrecovery evidenceFIR delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the eye-witness accounts, the suspicious timing of the FIR registration, and the lack of credible corroborative evidence. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubt, particularly regarding the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses, the unnatural conduct of the complainant, and the failure of the recovery evidence to link the appellants to the crime. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants. The key principle laid down is that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right, not grace or concession. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that motive is a double-edged weapon and that the failure to join independent witnesses during recovery proceedings renders such evidence unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Does the failure to join independent witnesses from the vicinity during recovery proceedings render the recovery evidence unreliable?
  • Can the prosecution's case be considered doubtful if eye-witnesses claim to be present during a fatal attack but remain unhurt by the assailants?
  • Is the motive for a crime considered a double-edged weapon in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali Chaudhary vs Federal Board of Revenue and others2022 PTD 1627 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-07Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad vs Station House Officer and 4 others2022 PLJ Lahore 74 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-29Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad and others vs Mst. Khurshid Begum2022 YLR 1373 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-25Read full judgment →
• Asad Mahmood and 4 others vs Government of Punjab through Chief2022 LHC 2838, 2022 CLD 1430 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-26Read full judgment →
• Asad Arfeen vs Province of Punjab and Others2022 PTD 1441 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• Arshad Altaf Tahir and others vs Tariq Mahmood Hashmi (Deceased)2022 CLC 547 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-08Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali Qadri vs Additional District Judge, Khanewal and others2022 PLJ Lahore 416 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-01Read full judgment →
• Arsalan Raza vs Justice of Peace, etc2022 LHC 6953, 2024 PCRLJ 351 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-07
  First Information Reportregistration of criminal casecognizable offenceJustice of Peacepolice powersconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the dismissal of his application by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace, who had refused to direct the registration of a criminal case under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether a Station House Officer can use Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Rule 24.4 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, to inquire into and refuse the registration of an information regarding a cognizable offence under Section 154 before registering a criminal case. The Lahore High Court held that the SHO has a mandatory statutory duty to register a criminal case upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, and that Rule 24.4 and Section 157 apply only at a post-registration stage. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was allowed with directions to register the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Station House Officer refuse to register a criminal case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by conducting an inquiry prior to registration?
  • Whether Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, read with Rule 24.4 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, can be invoked before the registration of an FIR?
  • Is the reasonableness or credibility of information a condition precedent for recording a first information report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Arooj Asghar vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil2022 LHC 6743, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 222 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-26
  government accommodationallotment policyexecutive discretionconstitutional petitionadministrative lawvested rightrule of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Commissioner, Faisalabad, which cancelled the petitioner's allotment of a government residence and re-allotted it to the previous occupant, respondent No. 5. The core legal question was whether the executive authority could arbitrarily withdraw a valid, unconditional allotment of government accommodation in favor of a former occupant who had previously vacated the premises and whose prior allotment had been cancelled. The Court held that the impugned order was illegal and without lawful authority. It found that the Allotment Policy did not support the cancellation of the petitioner's valid allotment, nor did it justify the respondent's retention of the property. The Court emphasized that executive authorities must act fairly, independently, and strictly in accordance with the law, avoiding arbitrary decisions based on whims. It further highlighted the lack of clear, approved criteria for allotment categories in the existing policy, directing the Chief Secretary to harmonize the policy and ensure future allotments are made purely on merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a government servant have a vested right to the allotment of government-owned residential accommodation?
  • Can an executive authority cancel a valid, unconditional allotment of government housing without specific policy authorization?
  • Is a government servant entitled to choose between multiple official residences based on personal preference?
  • Does the pendency of litigation before a court of law automatically debar executive authorities from performing their statutory functions?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Mehmood vs Additional District Judge etc2022 PLJ Lahore 85 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-16Read full judgment →
• Arif Mahmood vs Azhar Iqbal2022 PLJ Lahore 499 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-28Read full judgment →
• Arif Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court vs State Life Insurance2022 CLC 577 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-19Read full judgment →
• Aqil Zaman alias Aqeel vs The state and another2022 PCRLJ 1576 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-22
  criminal appealqatl-i-amdmaterial improvementsocular and medical contradictionacquittal of co-accuseddelayed post-mortemfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of reasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for qatl-i-amd. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account in the face of material improvements and supplementary statements, contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the effect of co-accused's acquittal on similar allegations, and the evidentiary value of a delayed post-mortem and weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that material improvements and contradictions between the ocular testimony and medical evidence rendered the prosecution witnesses untrustworthy. Applying the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and noting that co-accused facing identical allegations had already been acquitted, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material improvements in the testimony of an eye-witness to align with medical evidence make the witness untrustworthy?
  • What is the evidentiary effect of a delayed post-mortem examination where prosecution fails to explain the delay?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of a weapon recovery when the ocular account has been disbelieved?
  • Whether an accused can claim acquittal on the basis of parity when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqeela Abid vs Ch. Bashir Ahmad through Legal Heirs and 2 others2022 YLR 675 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
• Aqeel Hussain vs The State and another2022 YLR 999 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-25
  acid attackvitriolagebenefit of doubtocular accountmaterial improvementsacquittal of co-accusedpresumption of innocencefair trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the trial court under sections 336, 336-B, and 450 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 7(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through reliable ocular account, medical evidence, and motive, particularly in view of material contradictions, improvements, and the acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular testimony was replete with major improvements and discrepancies, and ran contrary to the initial crime report, rendering it untrustworthy. The court ruled that where the testimony of prosecution witnesses is discarded against acquitted co-accused, a conviction cannot be sustained against another co-accused in the absence of strong, independent corroboration. The court laid down that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, and that the practice of widening the net of implication by falsely involving individuals destroys the veracity of the prosecution case. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the same set of ocular testimony that has been disbelieved for the acquittal of co-accused in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Does a material and deliberate improvement in the statements of eyewitnesses render their testimony untrustworthy for maintaining a conviction?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical evidence and motive in a criminal trial when the direct ocular account is found to be unreliable?
  • What is the effect of false implication and widening the net of accused persons on the overall credibility of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Baig vs Muhammad Imran Khan and 2 others2022 MLD 775 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-02Read full judgment →
• Anjum Sarwar Butt and another vs Additional District Judge, Gujranwala2022 YLR 1077 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-09Read full judgment →
• Anjum Latif vs The State, etc2022 LHC 2931 · Lahore High Court
  deaf and dumb witnessbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder referenceprocedural safeguardsforensic evidenceinterested witnessSection 161 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and death sentence awarded by the trial court for murder and causing injuries. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of statements from deaf and dumb witnesses, the impact of belated police statements, and the necessity of independent corroboration when co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court established that recording evidence of deaf and dumb witnesses requires strict procedural compliance, including assessing the witness's intelligence, administering an oath, and ensuring the interpreter is not an interested party or a witness in the case; the Court must record the actual signs, not merely the interpreter's conclusions. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that unexplained delays in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the acquittal of co-accused on identical evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining appellants. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • What procedural safeguards must a trial court follow when recording the evidence of a deaf and dumb witness?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused without independent corroboration?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the safe transmission of forensic evidence to the laboratory?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjum Latif vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1365 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-09
  benefit of doubtdeaf and dumb witnessappreciation of evidencecriminal appealmurder referenceforensic evidenceinterested witnesssafe transmission
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentence awarded by the trial court in a murder case. The appellants were convicted under Sections 302(b), 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), 337-F(iv), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of deaf and dumb witnesses whose statements were recorded with the assistance of an interpreter who was also a prosecution witness, the effect of a twenty-five-day delay in recording police statements, the failure to prove safe transmission of crime empties to the forensic laboratory, and the impact of acquitting co-accused on the same evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to multiple lacunae, including the improper recording of evidence from deaf and dumb witnesses, unexplained delays in police statements, and lack of independent corroboration after the acquittal of co-accused. The Court laid down that when examining deaf and dumb witnesses, the trial court must verify the witness's intelligence, record the actual signs/gestures (not just interpretations), and ensure the interpreter is not an interested party or witness in the case.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct procedure for a trial court to record the evidence of a deaf and dumb witness?
  • Can the conviction of remaining accused be sustained when co-accused have been acquitted on the same set of evidence without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to prove the safe transmission of crime empties to the forensic laboratory render the forensic report inconsequential?
  • Is a statement recorded by an interpreter who is also a prosecution witness admissible in evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• ANF vs Muhammad Faizan and 2 others2022 PLD Lahore 700 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-22
  joint trialsame transactionAnti-Terrorism CourtSpecial Court CNSjurisdictionjoinder of chargesnarcotics and murderextended jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) to challenge an order passed by the Judge Special Court (CNS), Rawalpindi, which directed that the case file of FIR No. 24/2020—registered for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, and the Anti-Terrorism Act—be remitted to the Anti-Terrorism Court for a joint trial. The core legal question was whether offences arising from a single transaction involving both narcotics recovery and a murder committed during an escape attempt should be tried jointly by an Anti-Terrorism Court or separately by the Special Court (CNS). The Lahore High Court held that where multiple offences by the same accused persons form part of the same transaction based on a continuous thread of purpose and action, they must be tried together. The Court ruled that while the CNS Court possesses exclusive but limited jurisdiction, the Anti-Terrorism Court has extended jurisdiction under sections 17 and 21-M of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 to try connected offences. The appeal was consequently dismissed, and the Court ordered a joint trial before the Anti-Terrorism Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether multiple offences committed during the same transaction can be tried jointly by an Anti-Terrorism Court when some of the offences fall under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • What constitutes the same transaction under Section 235 and Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the Special Court established under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 possess limited or extended exclusive jurisdiction?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court try non-scheduled offences together with scheduled offences if they are connected as part of the same continuous transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• ANF vs Muhammad Faizan & 2 others2022 LHC 3528 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-22
  joint trialsame transactionAnti-Terrorism Court jurisdictionControl of Narcotic Substances Actjoinder of chargesexclusive jurisdictioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order by the Special Court (CNS), Rawalpindi, which remitted a case involving offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to the Anti-Terrorism Court for a joint trial. The core legal question was whether offences arising from the same transaction, involving different special enactments, could be tried jointly and which forum possessed the requisite jurisdiction. The Court held that the offences, stemming from a single raid where narcotics were recovered and an official was killed during the accused's escape, constituted a single transaction characterized by continuity of action and purpose. Applying Sections 235 and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court determined that joint trial was necessary to avoid conflicting decisions. Furthermore, it ruled that while the CNS Court possesses limited exclusive jurisdiction, the Anti-Terrorism Court holds extended jurisdiction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, allowing it to try connected offences alongside scheduled offences. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the joint trial before the Anti-Terrorism Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 be tried jointly in a single trial?
  • What constitutes the 'same transaction' for the purpose of joinder of charges under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the Anti-Terrorism Court possess the jurisdiction to try non-scheduled offences connected to a scheduled offence?
  • Is the jurisdiction of a Special Court constituted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 limited or extended in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Aneela Irshad vs Additional Sessions Judge and 3 others etc2022 PLJ Lahore 325 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
• Amna Arshad vs Government of the Punjab etc2022 LHC 3214, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1523 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-10
  reasonable accommodationpersons with disabilitiestransfer policyfundamental rightsservice matterswrit jurisdictionmainstreaming
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a visually impaired Senior Special Education Teacher, challenged the rejection of her transfer request to Lahore, where her husband is posted. The Secretary Special Education had rejected her application citing a general ban on transfers and the Transfer Policy-2020, which requires three years of service at the current station. The core legal question was whether the state is obligated to provide 'reasonable accommodation' to persons with disabilities in employment matters, notwithstanding rigid departmental transfer policies. The Court held that while transfer matters generally fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, this case involved the interpretation of fundamental rights concerning persons with disabilities, rendering the petition maintainable. The Court emphasized that the State is under a constitutional obligation to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities to ensure their mainstreaming and equality. The Court directed the Chief Minister to expeditiously consider proposed amendments to the transfer policy to better accommodate the needs of disabled employees, effectively mandating a more sensitive, case-specific approach to disability-related employment barriers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to hear a service matter involving the fundamental rights of a person with a disability?
  • Does the principle of 'reasonable accommodation' require the State to adjust employment policies for persons with disabilities?
  • Are international human rights conventions, such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, enforceable in domestic courts even in the absence of specific implementing legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Shahzad vs Deputy Commissioner, etc2022 LHC 6091, 2022 [M] CLR 1613 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-12Read full judgment →
• Amjad Saeed & another vs Muhammad Saeed and 2 others2022 LHC 4375 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 653 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-08
  post-arrest bailtheftprohibitory clausecriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Amjad Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 182/2021 registered under Sections 458, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Taunsa Sharif, D.G. Khan, relating to the theft of cattle. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that the primary offence under Section 380 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the submission of the challan, and the rule that bail in such offences is a norm while refusal is an exception. The court held that since the punishment for Section 380 does not attract the prohibitory clause, investigation is complete with the submission of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and a co-accused has already been granted bail, the petitioner's continued detention serves no useful purpose. The petition was accordingly allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the submission of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the continuous detention of an accused unnecessary?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been released on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs Agricultural Development Bank now ZTB and others2022 LHC 1763 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
• Amir Shahzad etc vs Federation of Pakistan etc2022 LHC 2290 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-22
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityNADRA employeespromotion policystatutory rulesnon-statutory regulationsterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by regular employees of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) seeking a direction to respondents to consider them for promotion in terms of the promotion policy notification dated 22.01.2004, and challenging fresh recruitments against promotion quota posts. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for the enforcement of NADRA's service regulations and promotion policies, which were framed under Section 45 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that while rules framed by the Federal Government under Section 44 of the Ordinance possess statutory force, the regulations and promotion policies framed by the Authority under Section 45 without Federal Government approval are non-statutory in nature. Relying on binding precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked for the enforcement of non-statutory service rules or policies of a corporate body.

  Questions settled

  • Whether regulations framed by NADRA under Section 45 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 are statutory or non-statutory?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan be maintained for the enforcement of non-statutory service regulations or promotion policies of NADRA?
  • Do rules framed by the Federal Government under Section 44 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 possess statutory force?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Manzoor vs Naeem Javed etc2022 PLJ Lahore 149 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
• Amir Hayat vs The State2022 LHC 4393 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-06
  criminal misconductcriminal breach of trustmisappropriation of fundstemporary embezzlementdisciplinary proceedingspublic servantPEEDA Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of a public servant for criminal misconduct regarding the delayed deposit of government funds. The appellant, a cashier, retained public money for a period before depositing the full amount prior to the registration of the FIR. The core legal question was whether such temporary retention constitutes criminal misconduct under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, or criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that to establish misappropriation, the prosecution must prove the funds were used for unauthorized purposes, which was absent here. The Court determined that temporary retention of government money, without evidence of actual misuse or dishonest conversion, does not satisfy the ingredients of criminal offences. Consequently, the conviction was set aside. The Court emphasized that while such conduct may warrant disciplinary action under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, it does not automatically attract criminal liability, particularly when the funds are restored before criminal proceedings commence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the temporary retention of government funds by a public servant constitute criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?
  • Is the element of entrustment required to establish criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Can a public servant be criminally prosecuted for misappropriation if the funds were deposited before the registration of the FIR?
  • Does the definition of misconduct under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, encompass the temporary retention of government money?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Bakhsh vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2022 PCRLJ 1188 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-24
  ZinaIddahIrregular marriageKhulaJustice of PeaceCriminal procedureProtection of Women Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order of the ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissing his application under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which sought the registration of a criminal case against his former wife and her new husband for the offence of Zina. The petitioner alleged that the respondent wife contracted a new marriage immediately after obtaining a Khula decree, without observing the mandatory Iddah period, thereby rendering the marriage void. The core legal question was whether a marriage contracted during the Iddah period constitutes a void (batil) marriage amounting to Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that such a marriage is irregular (fasid) rather than void (batil). Furthermore, the Court clarified that following the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006, which removed the word 'validly' from Section 4 of the Ordinance, parties to an irregular marriage cannot be prosecuted for Zina. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's application, establishing that an irregular marriage does not constitute a cognizable offence under the Zina Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a marriage contracted during the Iddah period constitute a void (batil) marriage or an irregular (fasid) marriage under Islamic law?
  • Can parties to an irregular (fasid) marriage be prosecuted for the offence of Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • What is the legal effect of the omission of the word 'validly' from Section 4 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 by the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Ali vs S.E. West Circles Motor Canal, etc2022 LHC 6212, 2022 [M] CLR 1345, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 380 · Lahore High Court · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah Shah etc vs The State, etc2022 LHC 2904, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1342 · Lahore High Court
  murderbenefit of doubtacquittal of co-accusedmedical evidencedelayed post-mortemappellant convictioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial court under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference and a revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, considering discrepancies in ocular and medical evidence, withheld injured witnesses, unproven motive, and the acquittal of multiple co-accused on the same set of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case due to delayed post-mortem examinations, inconclusive weapon recoveries, and lack of independent corroboration following the acquittal of co-accused. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants on the basis of the benefit of the doubt, dismissed the revision, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and the acquittal of the majority of co-accused on identical evidence necessitates strong independent corroboration to sustain remaining convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of remaining accused can be sustained without strong independent corroboration when the majority of co-accused are acquitted on the same set of evidence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create a serious dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right if a single reasonable doubt appears in the prosecution evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of weapon recovery when safe transmission to the forensic laboratory is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs FPSC through Chairman and another2022 PLC (C.S.) 92 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-26
  service tribunalinterview panelviva vocepast and closed transactionsubjective testfederal public service commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal assails the order passed by the Federal Public Service Commission dismissing the appellant's review petition against the rejection of his representation regarding the Section Officers Promotional Exam-2012. The core legal question is whether the composition of the interview panel rendered the interview process illegal and whether a candidate can challenge it after participating and failing. The court held that the appellant participated in the interview without objection and raised the issue after more than a year upon securing low marks, rendering the matter a past and closed transaction; furthermore, an interview is a subjective test and a court of law cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Interview Committee. The key principle laid down is that a candidate cannot turn around to challenge the composition of an interview panel after remaining unsuccessful in the examination, and courts will not interfere with the subjective assessment and evaluation of candidates by expert viva voce boards.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate can challenge the composition of an interview panel after participating in the interview and failing to qualify?
  • Can a court of law substitute its own opinion for the marks awarded by a Viva Voce Board or Interview Committee?
  • Does a belated challenge to an interview process after the posts have already been filled constitute a past and closed transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain etc vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 658 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtocular and medical conflictexit and entry woundcriminal appealacquittalweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Altaf Hussain, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased, alongside connected acquittals and a murder reference. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically addressing conflicts between ocular and medical evidence, the credibility of injured witnesses, the dual-edged nature of the alleged motive, and the reliability of weapon recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions between the eyewitness accounts and the medical testimony regarding entry and exit wounds shattered the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, creating a strong and reasonable doubt regarding the participation of the accused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the complainant's appeal against acquittal. The key legal principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused entitles them to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding injury attribution create sufficient doubt to warrant an accused's acquittal?
  • Does the mere presence of an injury on an injured witness automatically establish their truthfulness?
  • How does a motive involving the previous registration of a criminal case operate in the evaluation of criminal liability?
  • Is a weapon recovery credible when the investigating officer fails to specify the place of recovery and the preparation of the recovery parcel?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain and others vs Mst. Saban and others2022 CLC 563 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ahmad vs Muhammad Anwar and 04 others2022 LHC 8093 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-26Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore & others2022 LHC 7421 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-20Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs The State and another2022 MLD 350 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-02
  attempted murderfirearm injuriesmedical evidenceocular accountsubstitution of accusedcriminal revisionnon-vital part
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision arises from concurrent findings of lower courts convicting the petitioner under Section 324 and Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for firing at and injuring the complainant. The core legal question centered on whether the ocular account was consistent with the medical evidence and whether the ingredients of attempted murder were established given that the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body. The Lahore High Court held that the repeated firearm injuries, corroborated by medical testimony and corresponding holes in the victim's clothing, firmly established the petitioner's guilt, and the fact that the shots hit non-vital parts fortuitously does not negate the applicability of Section 324 when multiple shots are fired. The court affirmed the conviction, laying down that the absence of blackening or burning around entry wounds does not contradict the prosecution story when the victim was wearing layered clothing and was not a static target, and that substitution of real culprits is a rare phenomenon.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of burning or blackening around firearm entry wounds contradicts the prosecution ocular account when the victim was wearing clothing with corresponding holes?
  • Does an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fail when injuries are inflicted on non-vital parts of the body?
  • Can substitution of the real culprit by the complainant be readily accepted without plausible motive for sparing actual offenders?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasai (deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Khuda Bukhsh2022 YLR 1598 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Allah Rakha, etc vs Atta Muhammad, etc2022 LHC 3466 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 620 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-05
  circumstantial evidencemurderbenefit of doubtchain of custodypost-mortem delayprivate complaintcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under a private complaint for murder arising from FIR No. 323 registered at Police Station Sadar Khanewal. The core legal question revolves around the sufficiency, reliability, and proper appreciation of circumstantial evidence in a criminal trial where direct evidence is absent. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt, noting severe contradictions regarding the time of recovery, police arrival, medical evidence delays, and discredited witness testimonies. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant, reiterating that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and any gap in the chain of circumstantial evidence must result in the benefit of doubt being extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • What are the core legal principles governing the appreciation and reliability of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials?
  • Does a delay in conducting a post-mortem examination raise a strong possibility that the FIR was not lodged at the stated time?
  • What is the consequence of a broken link in the chain of circumstantial evidence in a capital charge?
  • Whether the prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt without shifting the burden of proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Amjad Iqbal etc2022 KLR Civil Cases 38 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Ali Shah (deceased) through Legal Heirs & others2022 LHC 8152, 2024 CLC 106 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and others vs Muhammad Anwar and others2022 YLR 336 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachaya alias Bachoo vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 635 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-21
  narcotic possessionforensic analysissampling protocolcriminal appealconviction modificationevidentiary weightcharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 4100 grams of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the entire quantity of recovered narcotics can be attributed to the accused when the recovery consisted of multiple pieces and samples were improperly drawn and mixed into a single parcel. The High Court held that because the prosecution failed to establish that the entire bulk was tested, only the weight of the sample actually transmitted to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency could be legally attributed to the appellant. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under Section 9(c) and substituted it with a conviction under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The key principle laid down is that where narcotic substances are recovered in multiple pieces, the prosecution must strictly adhere to forensic sampling protocols; failure to do so limits the evidentiary weight of the recovery to the specific quantity of the sample analyzed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the entire bulk of a narcotic recovery be attributed to an accused if the samples were improperly drawn from multiple pieces?
  • Does the failure to follow proper sampling protocols for narcotics require the reduction of a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 sustainable when only the weight of the forensic sample is proven?
  Read full judgment →
• All Pakistan Textile Mills Association (Aptma) and others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2022 PLJ Lahore 63 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Zar vs The State and another2022 P Cr. L J 240 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21
  criminal revisionappellate judgmentspeaking orderprocedural requirementsjudicial reasoningremandCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under sections 279, 320, 427, and 337-G of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the appellate judgment met the mandatory procedural requirements for a valid judgment under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the impugned judgment was legally deficient because it failed to articulate the points for determination, failed to provide a reasoned analysis of the arguments presented by both sides, and lacked the necessary transparency and depth required of a judicial decision. The Court emphasized that a judgment must be a speaking order that clearly explains the reasons for the decision to the parties and the public. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment for non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which constitutes an incurable illegality, and remanded the case for a de novo decision by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential requirements for a valid judgment by an appellate court under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a curable irregularity?
  • Is a judgment that fails to articulate points for determination and provide reasoned analysis legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Mukhtar Chaudhry vs Inspector General of Police, etc2022 LHC 3647 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-25
  illegal detentionhabeas corpuspersonal bondpolice custodyMaintenance of Public Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed concerning the alleged detention of several individuals by police authorities. Upon the Court's inquiry, the Capital City Police Officer, Lahore, appeared and submitted a report clarifying that only two individuals, Hamza Butt and Bahadar Khan, were detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, while the remaining alleged detainees were neither required nor held in custody. The Capital City Police Officer provided an assurance to the Court that all detainees, including those not specifically named in the petition, would be released upon furnishing an undertaking or personal bond. The petitioner's counsel accepted this proposed mechanism for the release of the detainees. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition based on this undertaking and the mechanism established for the release of the individuals in question.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition concerning alleged illegal detention be disposed of based on an undertaking provided by police authorities?
  • Is the release of detainees permissible upon the furnishing of a personal bond as assured by the Capital City Police Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ikram vs Mian Muhammad Ikram and 3 others2022 PLD Lahore 559 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-17
  Protection of Parents Ordinanceeviction of childDeputy Commissioner jurisdictionspecial lawcivil vs criminal procedurependency of civil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision challenged an appellate order that remanded a matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad, with instructions to follow the procedure under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in a dispute under the Protection of Parents Ordinance, 2021. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner, when exercising powers under the Protection of Parents Ordinance, 2021, must follow the trial procedure prescribed in Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the pendency of civil litigation bars the Deputy Commissioner from exercising jurisdiction. The Court held that the Protection of Parents Ordinance, 2021 is a special law. It clarified that while penal provisions under the Ordinance might attract criminal procedure, the Deputy Commissioner's power to order eviction under Section 4(2) is a civil-side function that does not require the recording of evidence under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court established that the Deputy Commissioner must exercise jurisdiction regardless of pending civil suits, as the Ordinance explicitly overrides defences regarding property title or construction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the procedure under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to eviction orders passed by a Deputy Commissioner under the Protection of Parents Ordinance 2021?
  • Can a Deputy Commissioner decline to exercise jurisdiction under the Protection of Parents Ordinance 2021 due to the pendency of civil litigation between the parties?
  • Does the Protection of Parents Ordinance 2021 allow the Deputy Commissioner to order eviction irrespective of the child's defence regarding property ownership or construction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain Manzoor vs Federation Of Pakistan, etc2022 PLJ Lahore 226 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain Manzoor vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2022 MLD 361 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Husnain vs Inspector General of Punjab Police, Lahore etc.2022 LHC 7670, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 333 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-10
  police recruitmentcharacter verificationcriminal recordacquittal on compromisepublic service commission recommendationswrit jurisdictiondisciplined forceappointment eligibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by the Additional Inspector General of Police, Special Branch, Punjab, rejecting the petitioner's representation for appointment as a Supervisor (BS-14) despite his selection by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The core legal question was whether the respondent-department could lawfully refuse to appoint a candidate recommended by the Commission due to the candidate's prior involvement in criminal cases and poor service record. The Court held that the respondent-department acted within its jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner. It reasoned that for a disciplined force like the Police, integrity and an unblemished character are essential prerequisites. The Court found that the petitioner's prior acquittal in a criminal case was based on a compromise rather than merit, casting doubt on his character, and that he had a history of habitual absenteeism and misconduct. The key principle laid down is that recommendations by a public service commission are not absolute; the appointing authority retains the discretion and duty to verify a candidate's character and may refuse appointment if the candidate fails to meet the requisite standards of integrity, especially where criminal involvement or material concealment is evident.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department refuse to appoint a candidate recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission based on character verification?
  • Does an acquittal based on a compromise in a criminal case satisfy the character requirements for appointment to a disciplined police force?
  • Is a candidate who conceals or has a history of criminal involvement entitled to appointment in the police department as a matter of right?
  • Does the appointing authority have the jurisdiction to formulate policies to sift out candidates with unblemished records for police service?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan vs The State etc2022 LHC 4314 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-31
  pre-arrest bailrash and negligent drivingtraffic accidentstrict construction of penal statuteshurt by rash and negligent driving
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner seeking confirmation of his pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 337-F(i) and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with sections 279, 334, 336, and 337-G subsequently added during the investigation, arising from a road accident where the petitioner allegedly drove an improvised vehicle negligently, resulting in grievous injuries and the amputation of the complainant's son's right leg. The core legal question revolved around the proper application of penal provisions relating to rash and negligent driving, the definition of a vehicle, and whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's alleged act fell squarely under section 337-G of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while other hurt sections added in the FIR were unwarranted, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The court laid down the principle that penal statutes must be strictly construed, that driving offences must be examined based on attending circumstances, and that the existence of a driving licence or an improvised vehicle does not expand the scope of a penal provision beyond its literal text.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offender can be simultaneously charged under section 279 and section 320 or 337-G of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the same transaction?
  • Does the term vehicle under section 279 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 include an improvised vehicle or non-motorized transport?
  • How should rash and negligent driving be determined in road accident cases?
  • Are penal statutes to be construed strictly in favour of the liberty of the individual?
  Read full judgment →
• Aleem Ahmad and another vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C.1208 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-26
  last seen evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealdelayed FIRkidnappingmurderburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the kidnapping and murder of a three-year-old child. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on 'last seen' evidence, significant delays in reporting the crime, and the absence of corroborative proof. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. It found the 'last seen' evidence unreliable, as the witnesses failed to intervene or report the matter promptly, and their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were delayed without explanation. Furthermore, the Court noted the inordinate delay in FIR registration and the lack of credible evidence regarding the alleged ransom calls. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits without relying on defence weaknesses, and that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is 'last seen' evidence sufficient for conviction without corroboration?
  • Does a delayed statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the credibility of a witness?
  • What is the effect of an inordinate delay in the registration of an FIR on the prosecution's case?
  • Can the prosecution rely on the weaknesses of the defence to prove its case?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamdar etc vs State etcPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 639 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-04
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular accountchance witnessmurder convictionburden of proofappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a private complaint regarding a murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular account, motive, and recovery evidence presented. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The Court found the ocular testimony unreliable due to significant delays in medical examinations, discrepancies between the FIR and medical evidence regarding injury locations, and the status of witnesses as chance witnesses without satisfactory explanations for their presence. Furthermore, the alleged motive remained unproven, and the recovery evidence lacked forensic verification. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal, regardless of the defence's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of an injury on a witness automatically render their testimony truthful?
  • Is a chance witness's testimony acceptable without a satisfactory explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Can the prosecution rely on the weaknesses of the defence case to secure a conviction?
  • Is a single circumstance creating doubt sufficient to acquit an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Hadi Rice Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., etc vs MCB Limited, etc2022 LHC 7050 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Akmal Aziz and 3 Others vs Habib Bank Limited and another2022 LHC 7982 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs Post Master General2022 LHC 4542, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 234 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-23
  military pensionpension suspensioncriminal convictiongood conductbail pending appealservice benefitsforfeiture of pension
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired army personnel, challenged the withholding of his pension by the respondent following his conviction for murder and sentencing to life imprisonment. Although the petitioner’s sentence was subsequently suspended by the High Court and he was released on bail pending his criminal appeal, the respondent refused to restore his pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether the suspension of a sentence and release on bail pending appeal entitles a pensioner to the restoration of pension benefits withheld due to a criminal conviction. The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the restoration of his pension while his appeal remains pending. The ratio is that pension is granted subject to the implied condition of "future good conduct," and conviction for a serious crime justifies withholding pension. The Court established that restoration of pensionary benefits is contingent upon a final acquittal by a higher court; mere suspension of a sentence and release on bail does not satisfy this requirement, as the conviction remains in force until the appeal is decided.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suspension of a sentence and release on bail pending appeal entitle a convicted pensioner to the restoration of their pension?
  • Is future good conduct an implied condition for the continued receipt of military pension?
  • Under what circumstances can a military pensioner's pension be restored after being withheld due to a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Akeel Ahmad vs Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore, etc.2022 LHC 7414, 2024 PLD Lahore 228 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
• Aisha Rahman vs Allied Bank Limited and others2022 CLD 981 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
• Aina Bano vs Pakistan Medical Commission and others2022 LHC 8190, 2024 MLD 867 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-14Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Khan vs Government of the Punjab etc2022 LHC 7862 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Sher etc vs Khuda Bakhsh etc2022 LHC 2015 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Khan and another vs Director General, LDA, etc.2022 PLJ Lahore 504 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Waqas etc vs Ishtiaq Ali etc2022 PLJ Lahore 129 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Waqas and others vs Ishtiaq Ali and others2022 PLD Lahore 313 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Waleed Adnan and 28 others vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Education Punjab, Lahore and 5 others2022 PLJ Lahore 567 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Adj, etc2022 LHC 6817 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Fraz vs The State2022 YLR 1777 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-14
  criminal appealattempt to commit rapebenefit of doubtdelayed FIRacquittalevidence evaluation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Ahmad Fraz, who was found guilty by the trial court for the offence of attempting to commit rape under sections 376/511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the evidentiary gaps. The High Court observed that there was an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, which proved fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the victim failed to undergo a medical examination, and the complainant explicitly stated he had no objection to the appellant's acquittal. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The Court reaffirmed the settled legal principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right, not as a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a fatal defect in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of right for an accused when reasonable doubt exists?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant consents to the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Faran Sabir vs The State etc2022 LHC 7910, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 469, 2024 CLD 30, 2024 PCRLJ 165 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-26
  dishonoured chequecash chequebearer chequeacquittalinvestigating officer reportholder in due coursequashing of proceedingsnegotiable instrument
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking acquittal in a criminal case registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a dishonoured cheque, and further prayed for quashing of proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether a 'cash or bearer' cheque falls within the definition of a cheque or bill of exchange under section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, thereby attracting criminal liability under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether an investigating officer's opinion favoring the accused warrants acquittal under section 249-A. The Lahore High Court held that a cheque reading 'pay cash or bearer' is a valid negotiable instrument under the law, as Pakistani law extends the definition of a bill of exchange to the bearer of the instrument. The court further held that an investigating officer's report is not substantive evidence and cannot preempt a regular trial, and statutory presumptions under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding a holder in due course must be tested through evidence. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a cash or bearer cheque is a valid cheque or bill of exchange under section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  • Does the dishonour of a cash or bearer cheque attract criminal liability under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused be acquitted under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the basis of a favorable opinion or finding by the investigating officer?
  • What is the scope of statutory presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 regarding a holder in due course?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Baksh vs Adj etc2022 LHC 4532 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh vs Imam Bakhsh & others2022 LHC 8148 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and another vs Manzoor Ahmad2022 LHC 4369 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-31Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Abbas vs Additional District Judge and others2022 CLC 1296 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-15Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan & another vs The State2022 LHC 1525, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 871 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-18
  defective chargeremand for retrialqatl-i-amdappellate jurisdictionautrefois convictautrefois acquitmurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for multiple murders arising from a single incident. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether a defective charge sheet that omitted the name of one of the deceased victims vitiated the trial and how an appellate court should rectify such a material error. The court held that the omission of a victim's name from the charge amounted to a serious defect, meaning the accused were never legally tried for that specific murder, and that the appropriate remedy under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is to set aside the conviction and remand the case for a retrial. The key legal principle laid down is that a material error in framing a charge that misleads the defence requires the appellate court to set aside the conviction and remand the matter to the trial court for fresh indictment and further proceedings in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • What are the legal consequences under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a trial court omits the name of a murder victim from the formal charge sheet?
  • Can an appellate court remand a criminal case for a fresh trial under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to a material defect in the charge?
  • Does the omission of a victim's name in the initial indictment attract the constitutional bar against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What powers does an appellate court possess when it discovers a material error in the framing of a charge during the hearing of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzal Ahmad vs City Police Officer, Faisalabad, etc2022 LHC 5942, 2022 PLD Lahore 721 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-21Read full judgment →