Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• The State vs Rizwan Akhtar alias Razi Bawa & another2021 YLR 2253, 2021 LHC 1163 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-18
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtWajtakkarmurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for the murder of a minor, Muhammad Nadeem, under Sections 367-A, 377, and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically last-seen evidence, Wajtakkar (witness of encounter), extra-judicial confession, medical evidence, and recovery of incriminating items. Upon review, the Court found the prosecution's evidence unreliable: the last-seen and Wajtakkar witnesses were interested parties whose conduct was improbable; the extra-judicial confession was weak and uncorroborated; the medical evidence failed to connect the appellants to the crime; and the recoveries were inconsequential due to lack of chemical analysis. The Court held that circumstantial evidence must be incompatible with innocence and incapable of any explanation other than guilt. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their convictions and sentences, and declined to confirm the death sentences in the Murder Reference.

  Questions settled

  • Can one tainted piece of evidence be used to corroborate another tainted piece of evidence?
  • What are the essential characteristics required for a statement to be admissible as res gestae?
  • Does medical evidence alone possess the capacity to connect an accused to the commission of a crime?
  • What is the standard of proof required for circumstantial evidence to sustain a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Raja Fahad2021 LHC 1741 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-20
  criminal appealmurder referencedeath sentencebenefit of doubtmedical evidenceCT scan reportQatl-i-Amdappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder and sentencing him to death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the appellant inflicted fatal knife blows on the deceased during a sudden altercation over a cup of tea at a hotel. Upon evaluation of the evidence, the High Court observed that the medical and ocular accounts failed to conclusively attribute the fatal injury to the appellant, and essential medical reports like the CT scan were not formally proved through the deposition of the radiologist or concerned technician pursuant to the rules of evidence and Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge of intentional murder beyond a reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction and death sentence, answered the murder reference in the negative, and partially allowed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a medical document such as a CT scan report be relied upon as substantive evidence without producing the radiologist or technician who prepared it?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to attribute the fatal injury to a specific accused warrants setting aside a conviction under Section 302 PPC?
  • Is a report other than that of a Chemical Examiner or Serologist per se admissible under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without formal proof?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Sarwar2021 LHC 4929 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-07
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtchance witnessmedical evidenceocular evidenceadverse inferencecapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the sentence. The core legal questions addressed whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the reliability of the ocular evidence provided by alleged chance witnesses, and the impact of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. The Court found the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was not justified, and noted a material contradiction between the ocular account and the medical report regarding the nature of the injuries. Furthermore, the Court drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for failing to examine the children present at the scene. It was held that while the burden of proof may shift under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in cases of unnatural death within a home, this does not relieve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove the case. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's ocular evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence?
  • Does the failure to produce available witnesses, such as children present at the scene, warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of the burden of proof shifting under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution's primary evidence is found to be unreliable?
  • When does a witness qualify as a 'chance witness' whose testimony requires independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Hanif2021 LHC 386 · Lahore High Court
  chance witnessbenefit of the doubtqatl-i-amdmurder referencedishonest improvementsdelay in post-mortemweapon recoverymotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Hanif, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd, along with an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused and a murder reference. The core legal questions pertain to the reliability of chance witnesses, the evidentiary value of delayed post-mortem examinations, uncorroborated motive, and recoveries made in violation of statutory provisions. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable chance witnesses who made dishonest improvements, lack of independent corroboration for the motive, unexplained delays in conducting post-mortem examinations, and recoveries tainted by legal non-compliance. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, and tainted ocular evidence cannot be corroborated by weak recovery or motive evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses who fail to satisfactorily explain their presence at the crime scene can be relied upon to sustain a capital conviction?
  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting post-mortem examinations create doubt in the prosecution's narrative?
  • Can tainted ocular evidence be corroborated by unverified motive and flawed weapon recoveries?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Aslam2021 LHC 6585 · Lahore High Court
  free fightsudden quarrelculpable homicide not amounting to murderself-defenceland disputemurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses criminal appeals and a murder reference arising from a trial court judgment regarding an armed clash between two parties over a land dispute, which resulted in the death of one person and injuries to several individuals on both sides. The core legal question was whether the accused acted in self-defence, whether the prosecution proved its case of premeditated murder, or whether the incident constituted a sudden free fight attracting mitigating exceptions. The Lahore High Court held that neither party came to court with clean hands, both sides were prepared for a confrontation over disputed land, and the incident occurred as a sudden free fight without premeditation or undue advantage. Consequently, the court altered the conviction of the main appellant from section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (punishable with death) to section 302(c) in view of Exception 4 to section 300, reducing his sentence to rigorous imprisonment, while upholding the convictions and sentences of the other appellants for causing hurt with modifications. The key principle laid down is that where a sudden fight occurs between two groups over a disputed property without premeditation and both sides sustain injuries, individual criminal liability applies and the offence falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder within Exception 4 of section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, warranting punishment under section 302(c).

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case of mutual armed conflict over a land dispute where both sides sustain injuries constitutes a free fight warranting the application of Exception 4 of section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to section 302(c) when a fatal injury is caused during a sudden fight without premeditation or undue advantage?
  • How should courts determine criminal liability when both the prosecution and defence suppress material facts and injuries sustained on both sides during an occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Afzal2021 LHC 1325 · Lahore High Court
  benefit of doubtocular accounttest identification paradechance witnesscriminal appealmurder referencerecovery evidenceQatl-i-Amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and robbery. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account provided by chance witnesses, the validity of the test identification parade, and the evidentiary value of alleged recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the ocular account unreliable as the witnesses were "chance witnesses" whose presence at the crime scene was not corroborated by physical evidence. Furthermore, the court held that the test identification parade was procedurally flawed, having been conducted jointly rather than separately, and without verifying the suspects' descriptions against the FIR. Additionally, the recoveries were deemed inadmissible due to violations of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and negative forensic reports. The court emphasized that medical evidence is merely confirmatory and cannot identify a culprit. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, reiterating that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene is uncorroborated?
  • Does a joint test identification parade for multiple accused persons render the identification evidence inadmissible?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to identify a culprit in a criminal case?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of incriminating items under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Haq Nawaz2021 LHC 841 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-30
  qatl-i-amddeath sentence commutationmitigating circumstancesunproved motiveocular testimonyrecovery defectcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case rested on an eyewitness account, medical evidence, and a recovered weapon. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eyewitnesses, the evidentiary value of uncorroborated recoveries, the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the non-proof of an alleged motive serves as a mitigating circumstance for altering the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that while the ocular account duly corroborated by medical evidence proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive and the rejection of defective weapon recoveries constituted mitigating circumstances. The court laid down the principle that failure to prove an asserted motive, coupled with uncertainties regarding the immediate trigger of the crime, warrants the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can related eyewitnesses be relied upon in a murder trial when their presence is natural and their testimony remains unshaken through cross-examination?
  • Is a weapon recovery rendered legally inconsequential and inadmissible if mandatory provisions regarding independent local witnesses are violated?
  • Whether the unproved motive and defective recovery together provide sufficient extenuating grounds to alter a sentence of death to imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ehsan Ullah2021 LHC 3163 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-03
  murderdeath sentencelast-seen evidenceWajtakkar evidencecircumstantial evidencemedical jurisprudenceskeletonized bodybenefit of the doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Ehsan Ullah, along with a connected murder reference, arising out of a case registered under Sections 302, 364, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of last-seen evidence, Wajtakkar evidence, circumstantial recoveries from open places, and the consistency of medical evidence with the prosecution timeline concerning a skeletonized body. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to untrustworthy ocular and corroborative evidence, unreliable recoveries from accessible public places, and medical evidence inconsistent with the established principles of medical jurisprudence regarding the time required for skeletonization. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellant on the benefit of doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Is last-seen evidence considered a weak type of evidence requiring independent corroboration?
  • Does the recovery of a dead body or incriminating articles from an open place accessible to the public inspire confidence without independent corroborative support?
  • Can medical evidence regarding the skeletonization of a human body within a few days be relied upon when contrary to established principles of medical jurisprudence?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient for granting the benefit of the doubt to an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore vs Muhammad2021 P Cr. L J 713 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailunregistered drugsexpired medicinesdrugs actmisreading of evidencemala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Drug Court in a case registered under sections 23/27, 27(1), and 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976. The core legal question concerned whether pre-arrest bail was rightly granted by the trial court based on findings of alleged mala fide and lack of notified inspection, and whether the High Court could directly entertain a bail cancellation petition. The Lahore High Court held that while bail once granted is normally not interfered with lightly, the High Court possesses jurisdiction to cancel bail under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. when the bail-granting order is perverse, ignores material evidence, or is based on misreading of the record. The court established that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring cogent and convincing reasons of mala fide, which cannot be granted on bald assertions or where the accused is prima facie nominated with specific roles involving major statutory violations like keeping unregistered and expired medicines.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court directly entertain a petition for cancellation of bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first approaching the trial court?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted on the basis of bald assertions of mala fide without cogent and convincing reasons?
  • Does the misreading of material evidence and police file records by a trial court justify the cancellation of bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the exceptional circumstances required for the grant of pre-arrest bail in criminal cases involving statutory offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General Punjab vs Ikram Ullah Khan, Duty2021 P Cr. L J 55 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-03
  discharge of accusedjudicial remandcontrol of narcotic substancesinformer privilegedual capacity of police officerrecovery witness
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed a petition against the order of a Duty Magistrate who had refused judicial remand and discharged respondent No.2 in a narcotics case under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, while also ordering the return of seized property. The core legal questions involved the legality of discharging an accused at the remand stage based on the non-mention of an informer's name, non-association of private witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the dual role of a police officer as complainant and investigator. The Lahore High Court held that the Duty Magistrate exercised powers illegally and arbitrarily, as section 103 Cr.P.C. is inapplicable to cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the complainant is not legally bound to reveal an informer's identity under Article 8 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and a police officer can act as both complainant and investigating officer unless prejudice is shown. The petition was allowed, setting aside the discharge order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Duty Magistrate can discharge an accused at the remand stage on the ground that the name of the spy or informer is not mentioned in the FIR?
  • Does the non-association of private local witnesses vitiate a search and arrest under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a police officer legally act as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a narcotics case?
  • Whether the provisions of section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 regarding the authority to arrest are mandatory or directory in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Joint Director (Assets) Regional Directorate, ANF, Lahore2021 MLD 1664 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09
  narcotic drugspsychotropic substanceschemical examiner reportburden of proofacquittal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Acttesting protocols
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a narcotics case involving the recovery of Buprenorphine injections, tablets, and intoxicant syrup. The core legal questions were whether the possession of branded pharmaceutical drugs constitutes an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and whether the prosecution sufficiently established the nature of the recovered contraband. The High Court held that the trial court erred in concluding that branded drugs fall outside the scope of the Act, as Buprenorphine is a psychotropic substance regardless of its brand name. However, the Court maintained the acquittal because the prosecution failed to substantiate the nature of the contraband. The key principle laid down is that a Chemical Examiner’s report must explicitly contain the protocols of the tests applied, as required by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analyst) Rules 2001. Without these protocols, the report is insufficient to prove the substance is a narcotic or psychotropic drug, thereby failing to meet the burden of proof required for conviction under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of branded pharmaceutical drugs containing psychotropic substances fall under the purview of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the prosecution required to contact manufacturing companies to verify the nature of seized pharmaceutical contrabands?
  • What are the consequences of a Chemical Examiner's report failing to specify the testing protocols applied to the seized material?
  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply to substances that are also regulated under other laws?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Apg Punjab Bahawalpur vs Additional Sessions Judge, Yazman & two others2021 LHC 1657 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10Read full judgment →
• The Chief Administrator Auqaf vs Syed Abid Hussain (deceased) through LRs., etc2021 PLD Lahore 377, 2021 LHC 462 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-18Read full judgment →
• The Bank Of Khyber through Branch Manager vs Messrs Kashmir Sugar2021 CLD 1220, 2022 PCTLR 1387 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
• The additional registrar company vs Al-Qaim Textile Mills Limited2021 CLD 931 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-03
  winding-up petitionCompanies Ordinance, 1984statutory complianceannual general meetingsaudit accountsdiscretionary remedycorporate survivalSecurities and Exchange Commission of PakistanSECPsubstratum of company
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a winding-up petition filed by the Additional Registrar of Company, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), against Al-Qaim Textile Mills Limited under sections 305, 309, and 321 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The petition was based on the company's failure to comply with statutory requirements, including not holding annual general meetings and non-filing of audit accounts. The core legal question was whether a public listed company should be wound up for such statutory defaults. The Lahore High Court, noting that the Company had revived its business and filed an application with SECP for compliance, disposed of the winding-up petition. The Court directed SECP to decide the Company's pending application dated 06.04.2021, seeking permission for holding Annual General Meetings and other compliance, within one month after providing an opportunity of hearing and verifying records. The judgment emphasized that winding-up is a discretionary and extreme remedy, and courts should endeavor for the survival of the corporate sector rather than its dismantling, and that default in statutory reporting or meetings does not automatically necessitate a winding-up order, with courts often extending time for compliance.

  Read full judgment →
• Tereze Hluskova vs The State etc2021 LHC 6856, 2022 PCRLJ 1846, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 758 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-01
  narcotics smugglingchain of custodysafe custody of sampleschemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtdrug traffickingrecovery witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two criminal appeals arising from a case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the appellant, a foreign national, was convicted and sentenced for allegedly smuggling 8.5 kg of heroin recovered from her suitcase at an international airport. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution evidence, proof of safe custody and an unbroken chain of custody of the narcotic samples, and the existence of material contradictions in police and customs testimonies. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish a safe and secure chain of custody, citing major gaps regarding the handling, deposition, and transmission of the sample parcels to the chemical examiner, alongside the withholding of crucial eyewitnesses and failure to collect mandatory corroborative evidence like CCTV footage. Consequently, the court laid down that any break or gap in the chain of custody renders the chemical examiner's report unreliable and fatal to the prosecution's case. The conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the state's appeal against a co-accused's acquittal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of a break or gap in the chain of custody of narcotic samples on the chemical examiner's report?
  • Does the non-production of essential recovery witnesses create a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether failure to prove safe transmission of narcotics to the forensic laboratory entitles the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood etc vs Siraj ud Din etc2021 CLC 1120, 2021 LHC 380 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood Bukhari vs Government Of The Punjab, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 504 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-16
  promotion defermentselection postcompetitive advantagefair considerationspeaking reasonsservice tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging his repeated deferment for promotion from BS-18 to BS-19 by the department. The core legal question was whether consistent deferment of an officer for promotion to a selection post without providing concrete, comparative, and speaking reasons constitutes fair consideration. The Lahore High Court held that mere boilerplate assertions that an officer lacks a competitive advantage compared to peers do not suffice as valid reasons for deferment, especially when repeated without comparative analysis. The Court laid down the principle that consideration for promotion, even to a selection post, must be fair, transparent, and supported by speaking reasons that identify specific areas of deficiency compared to others, and any extraneous information used outside of PERs must be authorized by law. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner's early consideration by the Departmental Promotion Board with proper speaking reasons if adverse decisions are made.

  Questions settled

  • Whether consistent deferment for promotion without giving cogent and comparative reasons constitutes fair consideration?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal barred in cases of deferment of promotion under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974?
  • Can the department rely on information outside PERs for promotion consideration without legal backing?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood alias Maqsood Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1449 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-17
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtabetmentdelayed FIRpost-mortem delaymurderacquittalprosecution burden
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for abetment in a triple murder case under Sections 302(b), 109, 114, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the delayed FIR, the suspicious transposition of the appellant from an eye-witness to an accused after three months, and the lack of motive or recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The court emphasized that the inordinate delay in reporting the crime and conducting post-mortem examinations indicated consultation and fabrication. Furthermore, the evidence against the appellant was deemed shaky and insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of doubt. The judgment reaffirms the axiomatic principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay in reporting a crime to the police without explanation undermine the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction for abetment be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish a motive or produce solid evidence against the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Masood Khan vs District Judge, Khanewal and 4 others2022 PLJ Lahore 364 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Tariq Masood & another vs Province of Punjab, etc2021 [M] C L R 718 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs Vice-Chancellor, University Of The Punjab, Lahore and another2022 MLD 155 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-02
  university examinationquashment of resultlimitation periodnatural justicedue processadministrative lawvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a letter issued by the University of the Punjab, which unilaterally quashed the petitioner's BA/B.Sc. examination result from 1991, nearly 24 years after the result was declared and the degree issued. The core legal question was whether the University possessed the authority to quash an examination result after such a significant lapse of time, and whether the impugned order complied with due process requirements. The Court held that the University's action was illegal and set aside the impugned letter. The ratio of the decision is that the University is bound by its own General Regulations, which impose a three-year limitation period for initiating proceedings to quash examination results. The Court established the principle that administrative bodies must act with vigilance and that the University cannot indefinitely reopen past results, especially when the result was previously verified by the institution itself. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an administrative order affecting a vested right must provide reasons, and the failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice and due process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the University of the Punjab have the authority to quash an examination result after the expiry of the three-year limitation period prescribed in its General Regulations?
  • Is an administrative order issued by a university valid if it fails to provide reasons for the cancellation of a student's degree or result?
  • Can a university initiate proceedings to quash a result decades after the result was declared and verified by the institution itself?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1447 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-15
  trial in absentiafair trialdue processNational Accountability Ordinancevoid judgmentlimitation periodnatural justiceabsconding
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, where the appellant was tried and convicted in absentia. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court could dispense with standard procedural requirements to convict an accused in absentia, whether statements recorded for proclamation under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, constitute valid evidence for conviction, and whether the limitation period applies to a void judgment. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, ruling that the trial court failed to record reasons for dispensing with established procedures, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial under Articles 9 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Furthermore, the Court clarified that proceedings to compel attendance cannot be conflated with trial evidence. Because the judgment was void ab initio, the Court held that the statutory bar of limitation did not apply. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted in absentia under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, without following the prescribed procedural requirements?
  • Can a statement of a process-server recorded for the purpose of proclamation under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be used as substantive evidence to convict an accused?
  • Does the statutory bar of limitation apply to an appeal filed against a judgment that is void ab initio?
  • Is an Accountability Court required to record reasons when dispensing with the procedural provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hameed and 4 others vs Lahore Development Authority and others2921 PLJ Lahore 519 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ali vs The State2021 YLR 505 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-23
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtunnatural conduct of eye-witnessesdelay in post-mortemmedical conflictcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Tariq Ali, for the murder of his ex-wife, Mst. Fozia Bibi, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The prosecution alleged that the appellant inflicted multiple knife blows on the deceased at a public park, witnessed by the complainant and his relative. The Lahore High Court evaluated the evidence and found significant flaws, including an unexplained forty-hour delay in conducting the post-mortem examination pointing toward a fabricated and ante-dated FIR, unnatural and improbable conduct of the alleged eye-witnesses who failed to intervene or rescue their close relative, material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding blunt weapon injuries, and weak corroborative recovery from an open public place. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction and sentence, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination casts serious doubt on the promptitude and veracity of the FIR?
  • Does the passive and unnatural conduct of close relative eye-witnesses who fail to intervene during an attack render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the ocular testimony is in direct conflict with the medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries?
  • Is a recovery of a weapon from an open, accessible public place sufficient to corroborate a weak prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of multiple lingering doubts and missing links in the prosecution's chain of evidence in a capital trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ali and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 328 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-05
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationocular accountinjured witnessescriminal appealmurder referencemedical evidenceextenuating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences handed down by the trial court for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the reliability of the ocular account, the validity of the motive, the impact of failed weapon recoveries, and the appropriateness of the death penalty. The Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular account of the injured witnesses consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, despite the failure to prove the alleged motive or link the recovered weapons to the crime. However, the Court held that the death sentence was not justified given the absence of a proven motive, the failure of weapon recovery, and the fact that the appellant fired only a single shot. Consequently, the Court converted the death sentence to life imprisonment, maintaining the other convictions. The judgment establishes that while a consistent ocular account can sustain a conviction even without motive or weapon recovery, the absence of aggravating factors like repeated firing or proven motive constitutes extenuating circumstances justifying the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove a motive or recover a weapon necessarily invalidate a conviction based on consistent ocular testimony?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the accused fired only a single shot and the motive remains unproven?
  • Are injured witnesses considered reliable witnesses in criminal trials?
  • Is the delay in reporting a crime to the police fatal to the prosecution's case when the priority was medical treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Ahmed vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1344 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-03
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailleave to appealqatl-i-amdappellate discretioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 426(2-B) and Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail pending the disposal of an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner, previously convicted for qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had his death sentence converted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The Supreme Court subsequently granted leave to appeal, noting significant contentions regarding the prosecution's case, including the non-production of an injured witness, unexplained delays in the FIR and postmortem, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. The Court held that while the grant of leave to appeal does not automatically entitle a convict to bail, the High Court possesses the discretion under Section 426(2-B), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to suspend a sentence in suitable cases. Given the substantial grounds for appeal and the petitioner's prolonged incarceration, the Court suspended the sentence and granted bail pending the final decision of the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court automatically entitle a convict to the suspension of their sentence?
  • Can the High Court suspend a sentence under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending an appeal before the Supreme Court?
  • Is the prolonged incarceration of a petitioner a relevant factor for the suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Taimoor Ahmad vs Judge Family Court, Sahiwal etc2021 [M] C L R 1462 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-28Read full judgment →
• Tahira Naseem vs Arshad Mehmood and othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 936, 2021 P Cr. L J 682 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-05
  office objectionsadministrative jurisdictionaccess to justicerestoration of appealministerial proceedingsappeal against acquittalHigh Court Rules and Orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against acquittal filed by the complainant, which was consigned to the record by an Administrative Judge due to non-compliance with office objections regarding missing documents. The core legal question is whether proceedings before an Administrative Judge concerning office objections are judicial or administrative, and whether such orders can be recalled or restored. The Court held that proceedings regarding office objections are ministerial and administrative in nature, not judicial. Consequently, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908, do not apply to these proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Deputy Registrar must specify a time for compliance with objections, and failure to do so, or to provide a fair opportunity, renders the dismissal unsustainable. Applying Sections 21 and 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1857, the Court ruled that it possesses the inherent power to recall or restore administrative orders to prevent the denial of access to justice based on technicalities. The application for restoration was allowed, and the matter was remanded for further administrative processing.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings before an Administrative Judge regarding office objections judicial or administrative in nature?
  • Does the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to administrative proceedings concerning office objections?
  • Can an Administrative Judge recall or restore an order passed on the administrative side?
  • Is the Deputy Registrar required to specify a time limit when raising office objections on a memorandum of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Naqash vs The State etc2021 LHC 1896 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-08
  narcotics controlsafe custody of case propertychain of custodyadmissibility of documentsprimary evidencepolice registercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of sixteen kilograms of heroin. The core legal questions involved the establishment of safe custody of the recovered narcotics, the admissibility and proof of police register entries, and the evaluation of minor discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that official records such as police registers must be duly proved through proper legal processes and primary evidence rather than improper admission, and that minor gaps in the chain of custody do not vitiate the prosecution's case when the foundational recovery is solidly established by credible witness testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor gaps in the chain of safe custody of narcotics samples vitiate the prosecution's case when not challenged through proper cross-examination?
  • How must police registers and official documents be formally proved and admitted into evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the improper admission of uncertified or unproved police register entries render them inadmissible as evidence?
  • What is the extent of the judge's power to summon and examine documents or put questions under Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Naqash vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1334 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-08
  narcotics possessionchain of custodyQanun-e-Shahadat Orderpolice registerevidentiary proofcriminal appealpublic documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 16 kilograms of heroin. The appellant contested the conviction, primarily alleging a broken chain of custody regarding the seized narcotics and discrepancies in the police station's Register No. 19. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the evidentiary value of police records, the Court established that documents like Register No. 19 must be formally proved as primary evidence in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court emphasized that simply producing a register without certification or proper authentication constitutes an improper admission of evidence. Furthermore, the Court clarified that when police claim privilege over official records, the court must first determine the validity of such privilege in camera before allowing the document to be proved through primary evidence. The judgment affirms that procedural deficiencies in record-keeping, if not properly challenged or proven, do not automatically vitiate the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police register admissible as evidence if it is produced in court without formal proof or certification?
  • What is the procedure for a court to determine if a police document is privileged?
  • Does a discrepancy in the chain of custody of narcotics automatically invalidate a conviction if the defense fails to challenge it through cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Hussain Khan vs Pirzada Muhammad Jahangir Bhutta, etc2021 KLR Civil Cases 192 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
• Tahir Abbas vs The State and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 504 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-21
  criminal revisionsupplementary statementexhibition of documentexamination-in-chiefFIRstatement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court whereby the supplementary statement of the complainant was exhibited during his examination-in-chief as PW-1. The core legal question is whether a supplementary statement of a complainant can be independently exhibited as a substantive piece of evidence or document during trial. The Lahore High Court held that once a crime report is lodged under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, any subsequent information gathered and placed before the Investigating Officer constitutes a statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which can be used by the defence for contradiction under section 162, and there is no provision in criminal law for the independent exhibition of such a supplementary statement. The court set aside the impugned order, laying down the principle that subsequent statements of a complainant cannot be independently exhibited during trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a supplementary statement of a complainant can be independently exhibited during trial?
  • How should information gathered by a complainant at a stage subsequent to the lodging of an FIR be treated under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • For what purpose can a subsequent statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used by the defence?
  Read full judgment →
• T.P. Associate 01-Tech Town through Sole Proprietor vs Province Of Punjab2021 CLC 921 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Syeda Tahira Begum, etc vs Malik Khalid Pervaiz, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 523 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Yasir Hassan vs Home Secretary etc2021 PLJ Lahore 593, 2021 LHC 581, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 45, PLD 2021 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Waseem Saqlain Gillani vs Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 638 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Tahwer Hussain Rizvi vs Syed Javed Ali Rizvi2021 [M] C L R 1352, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 354, 2022 CLC 1196 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Saeed Hussain Shah Humayun vs Mst. Asima Saeed etc2021 MLD 1027, 2021 [M] C L R 152 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Riaz Husain Shah vs Government of Punjab & 2 others2021 LHC 7528 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Nasir Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 414 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-11
  pre-arrest bailcross-versionaggressor and aggressedabscondancemedico-legal reportbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a cross-version criminal case arising out of FIR No. 453 registered under Sections 324/337-F(v)/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to an accused in a cross-version case where multiple members of the accused party also sustained injuries during the same incident, and whether mere abscondance disentitles an accused from bail. The Lahore High Court held that since it is a case of cross-versions with injuries on both sides, the determination of who was the aggressor is a matter for the trial court after recording evidence, making it a fit case for pre-arrest bail. Furthermore, the court held that mere abscondance does not disentitle an accused from bail if they are otherwise entitled on merits. The key principles laid down are that in cross-version incidents involving injuries to both parties, the question of aggression requires trial evidence, and abscondance alone is not a bar to bail if merits favor the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version case where both parties sustained injuries make out a case for pre-arrest bail?
  • Can mere abscondance of an accused disentitle him from the concession of bail if he is otherwise entitled on merits?
  • At what stage is it determined as to who was the aggressor in a cross-version criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Moabbar vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 976 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-23
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausefirst offenderdelay in FIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who is accused of issuing a bogus 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 circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in reporting the incident and the nature of the offence. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the incident was reported with an unexplained delay of over three months and that no recovery was effected from the petitioner during the investigation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception. As the petitioner is a first-time offender and the trial has not progressed significantly, the Court exercised its discretion to grant bail, emphasizing that continuous detention would not serve the interests of the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of issuing a dishonoured cheque 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 an unexplained delay of over three months in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Should bail be granted to a first-time offender when the trial has not witnessed material progress?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani vs Pakistan Bar Council through Secretary2021 PLJ Lahore 684 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Ibn-e-Ali Shah etc vs Sarwar Khatoon (deceased) through LRs etc2021 CLC 1098, 2021 [M] C L R 853, 2021 LHC 541 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Gul Hassan Gillani etc vs House Building Finance Corporation Ltd2021 LHC 7539, 2022 CLD 622 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Moin-Ul-Haq Gillani vs Province Of Punjab and others2021 CLC 1286 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Atif Zamurd Hussain vs Federation Of Pakistan through Chief2021 PLJ Lahore 803 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashfaq Ali Shah vs Maqtool Akhtar (Deceased) through Legal Heirs2021 CLC 76 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Haleem vs Family Judge, Faisalabad etc2021 PLJ Lahore 130 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Aakif Ali Shah vs Muhammad Ijaz, etc2021 LHC 2809, 2021 PLD Lahore 688, 2022 [M] CLR 1133 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
• Suraj Cotton Mills Limited etc vs Federation of Pakistan etc2021 [M] C L R 1004, 2021 P C T L R 1119, 2021 PLD Lahore 483, 2021 LHC 449 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-19Read full judgment →
• Superior College for Girls vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary2021 PLD Lahore 278, 2021 PLJ Lahore 401, 2021 LHC 417 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• Sunny Abbas vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 749 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-08
  post-arrest bailstatutory right to baildelay in trialnon-appearance of witnessescriminal procedurebail adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Sunny Abbas, in a case registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial, despite the petitioner having filed previous bail petitions. The Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated since December 2019, and the trial had been significantly delayed due to the persistent non-appearance of the complainant and prosecution witnesses, alongside procedural delays. The Court held that the petitioner had earned a statutory right to bail under the third proviso of Section 497(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. It was further established that mere involvement in other criminal cases, absent a record of previous conviction, does not constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, granting post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, emphasizing that an accused cannot be detained indefinitely without fault.

  Questions settled

  • Does the persistent non-appearance of prosecution witnesses and the complainant entitle an accused to bail on the ground of delay in trial?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the basis of an accused's involvement in other criminal cases where no previous conviction exists?
  • When does an accused earn a statutory right to be released on bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Summit Bank Ltd vs Tanveer Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd2021 LHC 2366 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-17Read full judgment →
• Summit Bank Limited vs Tanveer Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd2021 CLD 1351, 2021 LHC 2366, 2022 PCTLR 1392 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-17Read full judgment →
• Sumama Noor Mazhar vs The Pakistan Medical Commission (Erstwhile2021 LHC 1705 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
• Sultan (Deceased) through LRs vs Member Board Of Revenue and another2021 MLD 1341 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07Read full judgment →
• Suleman Haider and another vs The State and others2021 MLD 114 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-17
  explosive substancesillegal arms possessionsentence reductionfirst offenderofficial witnessescriminal appealanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, which convicted the appellants for possession of explosive substances and illegal arms. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency of evidence regarding the possession of explosive materials and the appropriateness of the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellants, who were first-time offenders. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellants' possession of explosive substances and illegal arms through consistent testimony of official witnesses and forensic reports, despite the absence of proof linking the appellants to a proscribed organization. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions but exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence for the explosive substances offence from five years to two and a half years, considering the appellants' status as first-time offenders. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of official witnesses is as credible as that of private witnesses in the absence of evidence of bias, and that while convictions based on solid evidence are upheld, appellate courts retain discretion to mitigate sentences for first-time offenders where aggravating circumstances like links to proscribed organizations remain unproven.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely because they are public functionaries?
  • Is a conviction for possession of explosive substances sustainable if the prosecution fails to prove a link to a proscribed organization?
  • Does an appellate court have the discretion to reduce a sentence for a first-time offender where the conviction is otherwise sound?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman alias Sula etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1834 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-20
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtchance witnesswithheld dying declarationimprovements in testimonyacquittal of co-accusedcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Suleman alias Sula, recorded by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a private complaint arising from a murder case. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of delayed FIR, reliability of chance and related witnesses, the impact of the acquittal of co-accused on the remaining case, the effect of withheld dying statements, and improvements made in ocular testimony. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unexplained delay in reporting, doubtful ocular testimony by related and chance witnesses without independent corroboration, failure to record the dying declaration of the deceased despite consciousness, and material improvements in statements. The court laid down the principle that once prosecution witnesses are disbelieved regarding co-accused, their testimony cannot be relied upon against others without unimpeachable independent corroboration, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the death reference answered in the negative, and the connected acquittal appeal dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses be accepted without convincing explanations and independent corroboration?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the remaining accused without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution withholding a dying declaration of an injured person who remained conscious in the hospital?
  • Whether material improvements made by witnesses during trial destroy the credibility of their ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. through General Manager (Distribution)2021 PLJ Lahore 208 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd vs M/s Aliz International (Pvt.) Limited &2021 LHC 7656, 2022 MLD 471 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-11Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd vs Muhammad Ramzan2021 PLJ Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-19Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2021 LHC 3715, 2022 MLD 1158 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-19Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited vs Shapphire Electric Company Limited2021 CLC 1244 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-24Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited through General Manager, SNGPL vs Taha Spinning Mills Limited (Captive Power Generation Unit) and another2022 YLR 536 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-31Read full judgment →
• Sufian Ahmad vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 80 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-23
  compounding of offenceQisas and Diyatcompromisedeath sentencecriminal appealfasad-fil-arzacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant was sentenced to death for the murder of two individuals. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant sought to compound the offence based on a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased. The Lahore High Court referred the matter to the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, to verify the genuineness and voluntary nature of the compromise and to ensure the protection of any minor heirs. The Sessions Judge reported that all legal heirs were major, had voluntarily entered into the compromise, and had waived their rights to Qisas and Diyat in the name of Allah Almighty. Finding no evidence of fasad-fil-arz and confirming the compromise was genuine and free from coercion, the Court allowed the compounding of the offence under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, establishing that a voluntary compromise between major legal heirs in a murder case warrants acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a murder conviction be set aside on the basis of a compromise between the convict and the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • What procedure must a High Court follow to verify a compromise in a criminal case involving death sentences?
  • Does the absence of minor legal heirs and the lack of fasad-fil-arz allow for the compounding of an offence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Suba through L.Rs and others vs Mst. Halima Bibi etc2021 LHC 7961, 2022 [M] CLR 518, 2022 MLD 929 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-13Read full judgment →
• Stiefel Laboratories Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs Appellate Tribunal, Customs, Federal Excise And Sales Tax and others2021 PTD 699 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-30Read full judgment →
• State vs Shahzada Faheem Irshad etc2021 PLJ Cr.C (Lahore) 821 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-14
  chemical analysis reportsummoning of analystnarcotic substancesadmissibility of evidencerebuilding prosecution casecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, which dismissed the State's application under Section 540 and Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for summoning a Forensic Scientist or Analyst to prove test protocols applied for chemical analysis reports. The core legal question was whether the prosecution can summon an analyst to explain test protocols when the chemical analysis reports are already per se admissible in evidence and were exhibited without objection from the defence. The Lahore High Court held that since the reports are per se admissible and no objection was raised at the time of exhibiting them, summoning the analyst would improperly allow the prosecution to rebuild its case and prejudice the accused. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution cannot be permitted to summon an analyst to clarify test protocols after reports have been admitted into evidence without objection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an analyst can be summoned to prove test protocols when chemical analysis reports are already per se admissible in evidence?
  • Does allowing the prosecution to summon an analyst to explain test protocols without prior objection amount to rebuilding its case?
  • Is a trial court justified in dismissing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when chemical reports have been exhibited without objection?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation, etc vs Mst. Syeda Muzhara Fatima2021 CLD 479, 2021 LHC 635 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation vs Mst. Bibi Reema2021 LHC 5373, 2022 PLJ Lahore 396 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan through Zonal Head, Lahore2021 MLD 1604 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
• Sona Chemicals through Chief Executive and 2 others vs Inspector General2021 MLD 901 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
• Sohail Shahzad vs Chief Election Commission of Pakistan, etc2021 LHC 7454 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
• Sohail Almas vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1138, 2021 YLR 1514 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-25
  narcoticsbenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportevidentiary valuemandatory protocolscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of eight kilograms of heroin at Benazir Bhutto International Airport. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully established the nexus between the appellant and the recovered luggage and whether the chemical examiner's report complied with mandatory statutory requirements. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary failures included the non-production of the baggage tag and off-load proforma, and the failure to secure CCTV footage. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, a Government Analyst must provide full protocols of the tests applied. The absence of these protocols renders the chemical report unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that a single reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case is sufficient to warrant an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce a baggage tag in a narcotics case create an adverse inference against the prosecution?
  • Is a chemical examiner's report admissible if it fails to specify the full protocols of the tests applied as required by Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Can an accused be convicted for narcotics possession based solely on oral assertions when the material evidence is doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• SNGPL vs Ghulam Mohy-Ud-Din2021 PLJ Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Mahmood (deceased) through legal heirs, etc vs Lahore2021 CLC 1201, 2021 PLJ Lahore 676, 2021 LHC 881 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• Sibtain alias Sippi vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1652 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-04
  post-arrest bailmedical groundsconflict of evidenceocular accountbenefit of doubtAcute Myeloid Leukemia
  Summary & questions settled

  This application for post-arrest bail concerns offences under Sections 324/109/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether a conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account entitles an accused to bail, and whether the petitioner’s diagnosis of Acute Myeloid Leukemia warrants release on medical grounds. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail. It established that when medical evidence contradicts the ocular account, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, even at the bail stage. Furthermore, the court affirmed the principle that bail on medical grounds is appropriate where an accused suffers from an ailment that cannot be adequately treated within jail premises, and where continued incarceration would be hazardous to the accused's life or health, requiring specialized care, isolation, or hygiene not ordinarily available in a custodial environment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account entitle an accused to bail?
  • What is the legal criteria for granting post-arrest bail on medical grounds in non-bailable cases?
  • Is it necessary for an ailment to be life-threatening to justify bail on medical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali etc vs Muhammad Anwar etc2021 PLJ Lahore 318 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-16Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Sohail vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1710 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausediscretionary reliefunder-trial prisonersSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 869/2020 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the dishonour of a cheque. The petitioner sought bail after lower courts dismissed previous applications. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, charged with an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was entitled to the concession of bail. The Court held that the offence under Section 489-F, PPC does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and therefore, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court emphasized that bail should not be denied based on mere apprehensions or the magnitude of the financial amount involved, nor should detention be used as a form of punishment. Relying on established precedents, the Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to bail, as his further detention served no useful purpose for the prosecution, and ordered his release upon furnishing bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be denied in non-prohibitory offences solely on the ground that the alleged financial amount involved is large?
  • Should the refusal of bail in non-prohibitory offences be based on mere apprehension of the repetition of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Aslam vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1697 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquiryhurt offencesdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 389 dated 18.04.2020, involving offences under Sections 337-F(v), 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Saddar, District Sialkot. The petitioner was accused of attacking the complainant party with co-accused, specifically causing an injury to the right foot of the injured with a brick. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the alleged injury and the statutory punishment prescribed. The Court observed that the injury attributed to the petitioner fell under Section 337-F(v), which carries a maximum punishment of five years, thereby excluding it from the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the Court noted a four-day delay in reporting the incident and that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation. Consequently, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable with a maximum of five years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a delay in reporting an incident to the police a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • When can a case be considered to fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Khan vs The State, etc2021 LHC 3627, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 310, 2022 PCr. LJ 203 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-27
  post-arrest bailcybercrimejoint trialprohibitory clausepredicate offencewhite collar crime
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 13, 14, and 16 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 read with sections 109, 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 can be investigated and tried jointly, and whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and coordinate offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 cannot be tried jointly by a special court constituted under the Act, as there is no specific provision for joint trial. The court laid down the principle that white-collar crimes committed using information systems must be distinguished from ordinary offences, and ordinary penal offences committed through information systems are to be tried by ordinary courts. Finding that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that the petitioner's further detention was unnecessary, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 be tried jointly by a court constituted under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016?
  • Do offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 committed through the use of an information system fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of courts constituted under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016?
  • To what extent does Section 28 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 make the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable?
  • When is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad alias Shero vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 760 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-18
  kidnapping for ransomanti-terrorismcriminal appealrecovery of ransomidentification of accusedappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Sher Muhammad alias Shero, who was convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court for kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the abduction of the victim and the subsequent receipt of ransom money. The Lahore High Court upheld the trial court's conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence consistent and credible. The court relied on the testimony of the abductee, who identified the appellant, and the recovery of ransom money from the appellant during the investigation. The court held that the prosecution had successfully proven the charge, noting that the defense failed to establish any enmity or motive for false implication. The judgment reinforces the principle that where prosecution witnesses provide consistent testimony regarding the commission of an offense and the recovery of incriminating evidence, such evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for kidnapping for ransom.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of an abductee sufficient to establish the identity of the kidnapper in a case of kidnapping for ransom?
  • Does the recovery of ransom money from an accused during investigation constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the defense fails to establish any motive for false implication by the prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad (deceased) through LRs, etc vs Mst. Sameeri Bibi2021 [M] C L R 628 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad (deceased) through LRs etc vs Mst. Sameeri Bibi2021 PLD Lahore 287, 2021 LHC 162 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Tanveer Ahmad vs United Bank Limited2021 PLJ Lahore 507 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-02Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Taimur Ali Mustafa vs Register, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others2021 CLC 529 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Shahid Jamal vs National Accountability Bureau and others2021 PLD Lahore 411 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-19
  freezing of propertyappointment of receivernational accountabilitydiscretionary powersreasonable grounds to believefundamental rightsright to property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 13(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 challenged an order of the Accountability Court confirming a freezing order and the appointment of a receiver over the appellant's immovable property. During the hearing, the appellant abandoned the challenge against the freezing of the property and restricted the objection to the appointment of the receiver, arguing it was unwarranted without any risk of waste or destruction. The core legal questions involved whether the appointment of a receiver under section 12(c)(ii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is mandatory upon freezing property, and whether the discretionary power to appoint a receiver was exercised reasonably and lawfully. The Lahore High Court held that the appointment of a receiver is directory rather than mandatory, and that such power must be exercised judiciously, fairly, and reasonably, requiring proof that the property is in danger of being wasted, dissipated, or misappropriated. The court set aside the receivership order due to mechanical exercise of discretion without valid grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appointment of a receiver under section 12(c)(ii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 mandatory upon the freezing of immovable property?
  • What constitutes 'reason to believe' for the purpose of freezing property under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Whether the discretionary power to appoint a receiver requires objective justification and proof that the property is in danger of being wasted or dissipated?
  • Does the appointment of a receiver without stating proper reasons violate the principles of fairness and Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ishtiaq Ahmad and 7 others vs Muhammad Usman Ali Sheikh2021 YLR 315 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• Shehzadan Mayi vs Area Magistrate, etc2021 LHC 1262 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-28Read full judgment →
• Shazia Khalid vs Higher Education Commission and others2021 MLD 868 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
• Sharaaf Khan vs The State2021 P Cr. J 1664 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-13
  Qatl-i-Amdabscondencemitigating circumstancestransposed evidenceunproven motivedeath sentence alterationnatural witnessessection 512 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference challenge the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Sharaaf Khan, who was tried and convicted by the trial court under sections 302(b), 449, and 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a death sentence, imprisonment for life, and rigorous imprisonment respectively, along with compensation and arsh. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and evidentiary value of statements of deceased eye-witnesses recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the impact of unproven motive and failed recovery on the prosecution's case, and the factors constituting mitigating circumstances for altering a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that the testimony of natural eye-witnesses transposed from section 512 proceedings was admissible under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and fully corroborated by medical evidence. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and the weapon recovery was flawed, the court maintained the conviction for Qatl-i-Amd but altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life, establishing that failure to prove an asserted motive serves as a mitigating circumstance against the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether depositions recorded during proceedings under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be transposed and read as substantive evidence in the main trial when the deponent witnesses have died?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive operate as a mitigating circumstance for altering a sentence of death to imprisonment for life under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether long-term abscondence of an accused acts as an incriminating piece of corroborative evidence when considered alongside direct ocular testimony?
  • Can related and injured witnesses be considered natural witnesses when an occurrence takes place inside their dwelling house?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsher etc vs Civil Judge Lalian Distt. Chiniot and others2021 PLJ Lahore 949 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-21Read full judgment →
• Shakeela Nazir vs Director Project Pakistan Bait-Ul-Mal, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others2021 PLJ Lahore 573 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Shahzana Kazmi vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Islamabad2021 PLD Lahore 823 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Waheed vs Agha Khan University and 2 others2021 MLD 1402 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
• Shahzad vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and 3 others2022 LHC 4905, 2025 PCRLJ 447 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-29
  Ex-officio Justice of Peaceres judicataregistration of FIRquasi-judicial proceedingsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissing an application for the registration of a criminal case. The petitioner had previously filed a similar application on the same facts before another Ex-officio Justice of Peace, which was dismissed on merits and attained finality. The core legal question was whether the principle of res judicata applies to quasi-judicial proceedings under section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, rendering a second application on the same facts not maintainable. The Lahore High Court held that since an Ex-officio Justice of Peace exercises quasi-judicial functions under section 22-A(6), the general principle of res judicata applies to such applications, prohibiting repetitious applications on the same cause of action, though an aggrieved person remains entitled to file a private complaint as an independent statutory remedy. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principle of res judicata applies to proceedings before an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a second application under section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 maintainable on the same facts after the dismissal of a prior application on merits?
  • What is the nature of the functions discharged by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Rafique vs Najaf Iqbal2021 CLC 569 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Hameed vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1829 · Lahore High Court · 2010-06-09
  criminal revisionframing of chargeabduction for murdercausing disappearance of evidencePakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge framing charges against the petitioner and his co-accused under Sections 364, 302, 201, 404, 408, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a murder case. The core legal question was whether a charge under Section 364 (abduction for murder) and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) can be legally sustained and framed alongside a murder charge when the victim was allegedly murdered and the dead body was recovered. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision, holding that whether Section 364 applies alongside a murder charge depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, such as the proximity of time and place between the abduction and the killing, and no fixed universal yardstick exists. The court affirmed that the trial court's framing of charges under Sections 364, 201, 34, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was correct and unexceptionable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a charge under Section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be framed alongside a murder charge when the abducted person is subsequently murdered?
  • Does the framing of a charge under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 become illegal merely because a dead body has been recovered?
  • Can a fixed universal rule be applied to determine whether an offence falls under abduction for murder or pure murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited through Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhary and 16 others2021 MLD 77 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →