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.

• Shahida Adnan vs Additional District Judge and others2021 YLR 1915 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-01
  custody of minorvisitation rightswelfare of the minorGuardians and Wards Actwrit jurisdictionMuslim Personal Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which dismissed the respondent-father's application for the custody of his minor daughter under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, but established a visitation schedule. The petitioner-mother argued that the visitation schedule was illegal, asserting the minor lacked attachment to the father and that the father failed to maintain the child. The core legal question was whether the father should be denied visitation rights when custody is awarded to the mother. The High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing that the paramount consideration in custody matters is the welfare of the minor. The Court held that a father cannot be denied the right of access to his child, as the minor requires the love, affection, and guidance of both parents. Denying such access would lead to emotional deprivation. Consequently, the Court affirmed the visitation schedule, ruling that the lower courts correctly applied the law and evidence, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a father entitled to visitation rights with his minor child even if custody is awarded to the mother?
  • What is the paramount consideration for courts when determining custody and visitation matters under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  • Does the denial of a father's access to his minor daughter constitute emotional deprivation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs The learned Judge Family Court, etc2021 [M] C L R 850 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-05Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs Islamia University Bahawalpur etc2021 LHC 4791 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs Islamia University Bahawalpur and others2022 PLC (C.S.) 956 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-14
  writ of quo warrantoappointment of registraruniversity syndicatestatutory autonomyconstitutional jurisdictionservice lawpublic advertisement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the notification dated 29.01.2021 appointing Respondent No. 3 as Registrar (BS-20) of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur. The petitioner, an Additional Treasurer (BS-19), argued that the appointment was made without proper public advertisement and in violation of recruitment regulations. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether the University Syndicate acted within its statutory powers under the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act 1975 when appointing the Registrar and whether judicial interference was warranted under constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 16 of the Act, the Syndicate is the competent appointing authority for the post of Registrar and is empowered under Section 33 to frame rules governing university affairs. The Court observed that prior advertisements yielded no suitable candidates, prompting the Syndicate to frame relevant rules in 2020 and appoint an eligible candidate. Reaffirming established precedent, the Court held that internal administrative procedures and appointments of an autonomous statutory university cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction absent concrete proof of mala fides, bias, or statutory illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction can interfere with administrative decisions and appointments made by a university Syndicate absent proof of mala fides or illegality?
  • Whether the Syndicate of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur has the statutory power under Section 16 and Section 33 of the Islamia University of Bahawalpur Act 1975 to appoint a Registrar pursuant to framed university rules?
  • Are autonomous statutory universities subject to general government service recruitment rules regarding mandatory re-advertisement when governed by their own statutory enactments?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Iqbal vs Chairman Evacuee Trust Board and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 606 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-05
  constitutional petitionregularization of servicetemporary employeework charge basiscontract employmentvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a quasi-judicial order that rejected his request for regularization of his service as a security guard on a daily wages and temporary work-charge basis. The core legal questions involved whether a temporary contract employee whose term has expired can claim regularization as a matter of right and whether self-marked attendance entries can confer vested rights to continuous employment. The Court held that an employee appointed on a purely temporary or work-charge basis, who accepts the specific contractual terms explicitly barring regularization, has no vested right to claim extension of contract or permanent employment upon expiry of the term. The Court laid down the principle that a person who accepts the terms and conditions of a temporary or contractual employment cannot resile from them at a belated stage, and a contract employee whose services automatically terminate upon expiry of the stipulated period cannot seek regularization through constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee appointed on a purely temporary or work-charge basis has a vested right to claim regularization of service upon the expiry of his contract?
  • Can an employee who accepted the terms and conditions of a temporary employment contract resile from them at a belated stage to demand permanent employment?
  • Does unauthorized marking of attendance after the expiry of a temporary contract create a legally enforceable right to continuous service?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Farooq vs Additional District Judge-Shah Kot, District Nankana2021 PLJ Lahore 446 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahid Aziz vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Multan and 42021 PLC 118 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-17
  termination of serviceeligibility criterialocus poenitentiaecontractual appointmentconstitutional petitionvoid ab initioregular inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioner's grievance against his termination from service as a driver (BS-04). The core legal questions are whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications, specifically an LTV driving license and two years of experience, at the time of his appointment, and whether his termination without a regular inquiry was unlawful. The Court held that the petitioner failed to meet the eligibility criteria at the time of recruitment, as he lacked the mandatory LTV license and experience on the closing date for applications. The Court ruled that an appointment made without fulfilling basic eligibility criteria is void ab initio, and subsequent service does not cure this initial defect. Furthermore, the Court held that where the termination is based on a lack of initial qualification, a regular inquiry is unnecessary as there is no factual controversy to resolve. The principle of locus poenitentiae does not protect appointments obtained through misrepresentation or lacking basic eligibility. The petition was dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect an appointment obtained by a candidate who lacked the basic eligibility criteria at the time of recruitment?
  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory before terminating a service contract where the termination is based on the lack of initial eligibility qualifications?
  • Can an appointment made without fulfilling the prescribed eligibility criteria be cured by subsequent service or the attainment of qualifications after the appointment?
  • Does the court have the authority to interfere in administrative policy matters regarding the fixation of appointment criteria?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Akhtar vs Muhammad Azam Abbas2021 LHC 7427, 2022 CLD 949, 2022 PLJ Lahore 731 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Merchant vs Federation Of Pakistan/National Tariff Commission2021 PTD 2126 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-14
  anti-dumping dutieswrit of mandamusexpeditious justicedoctrine of ripenessdoctrine of stop-gapstatutory appealtime-bound legislationNational Tariff CommissionAppellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal to decide a pending appeal within the statutory timeframe. The petitioner, an importer of Polyester Filament Yarn, challenged a final determination by the National Tariff Commission (NTC) under the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015. The core legal question concerned the effect of non-adherence by a special tribunal to time-specific legislative mandates and whether the High Court could grant interim relief under the 'Doctrine of Ripeness' and 'Doctrine of Stop-Gap' while an appeal is pending. The Court held that the State is constitutionally mandated under Article 37(d) to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice. It ruled that where a statute provides a time-bound appellate mechanism, the tribunal is bound to decide matters within that period to prevent the frustration of legal remedies. Consequently, the Court directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal within two months and ordered that any stay application be resolved within two weeks, applying the principle that recovery should not be finalized while a matter has not yet 'ripened' through the appellate process.

  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Arif vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1306 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-02
  narcotics controlcriminal appealsentencing reductionchemical analysisconsolidated samplesheroin recoveryAmeer Zeb principle
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Shahbaz Arif, who was found guilty by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing heroin at Islamabad International Airport. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the quantity of narcotics recovered, given that the investigating officer amalgamated heroin from multiple capsules into consolidated samples rather than testing each unit individually. The Court maintained the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery and chemical analysis sufficient to establish guilt. However, applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), the Court held that when narcotics are recovered in separate physical forms (such as capsules), a separate sample must be taken from each unit for chemical analysis. Failure to do so limits the quantity attributable to the accused to only the tested samples. Consequently, the Court reduced the appellant's sentence from seven years to six years, adjusting the fine accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally permissible to amalgamate separate narcotic capsules into a single sample for chemical analysis?
  • What is the consequence of failing to take separate samples from each individual packet or container of recovered narcotics?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be maintained if the quantity of narcotics proven is less than the total amount recovered?
  • Does the failure to follow proper sampling procedures for narcotics necessitate a reduction in the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz and others vs Muhammad Farooq Zahid, etc2021 [M] C L R 165 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-15Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz alias Raju vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 128 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-01
  post-arrest bailrobberyunnamed accusedsupplementary statementrecovery of cashcriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 402/2019 registered under Sections 392, 397, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ghallah Mandi, District Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when he was not named in the initial crime report, was implicated belatedly through a supplementary statement without a stated source, and the sole recovery against him was a cash amount. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that in the absence of sufficient incriminating material connecting the petitioner to the crime, delayed supplementary implication and the pendency of other criminal cases do not justify withholding bail. The key principle laid down is that delayed implication without a disclosed source and minor recoveries, coupled with a lack of direct incriminating evidence, entitle an accused to further inquiry under post-arrest bail considerations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not named in the initial crime report is entitled to post-arrest bail when implicated through a belated supplementary statement without a disclosed source?
  • Can the pendension of other criminal cases of a like nature be used as a sole hurdle to withhold the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the mere recovery of a nominal cash amount from an accused constitute sufficient incriminating material to deny post-arrest bail in a robbery case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ahmad vs The State etc2021 LHC 1560 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-23
  mental incapacityinsanity defenceCode of Criminal Procedure 1898procedural fairnessmedical boarddue processde novo trialbail for mentally disordered accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order by the Additional Sessions Judge regarding an accused who claimed mental incapacity during a murder trial. The core legal questions concern whether the trial court followed the mandatory procedure under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for determining the mental incapacity of an accused to stand trial, and whether the refusal to release the accused under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was legally sound. The Court held that the trial court failed to adhere to the mandatory procedural requirements of section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which necessitates a structured inquiry, including the examination of the head of the medical board as a court witness and the opportunity for cross-examination by both parties. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, the proceedings were quashed, and the matter was remanded for a de novo determination of the accused's mental capacity. The Court affirmed that determining an accused's mental incapacity is a mandatory procedural step that must be based on objective assessment and medical evidence, emphasizing that international human rights standards regarding persons with disabilities must inform domestic judicial interpretation.

  Questions settled

  • What is the mandatory procedure for a Sessions Court to determine if an accused is of unsound mind and incapable of making a defence under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court rely on a medical report regarding an accused's mental health without examining the head of the medical board as a court witness?
  • Does the failure to follow the procedure for determining mental incapacity under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the quashing of trial proceedings?
  • Is the discretion to release an accused of unsound mind under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to the prior determination of mental incapacity?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ahmad vs The State and others2021 P Cr. L J 1100 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-23
  unsound mindmental disorderinsanity defencede novo trialcriminal proceduremedical boardbail pending trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application for release under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during his trial under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the mandatory procedure to be adopted by a trial court when an accused person appears to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the determination of an accused's mental capacity. The Court set aside the impugned orders, quashed the proceedings, and remanded the matter for a de novo determination of the petitioner's mental health status and a fresh decision on his release application. The key principle laid down is that an inquiry into an accused person's unsoundness of mind must strictly follow the procedural safeguards and medical evaluation protocols established by law before any orders regarding postponement of trial or detention can be legally sustained.

  Questions settled

  • What is the mandatory procedure for a Court of Session when an accused appears to be of unsound mind and incapable of making a defence?
  • Can a trial court postpone criminal proceedings without properly determining the mental capacity of the accused in accordance with law?
  • Under what circumstances can an accused person of unsound mind be released or detained pending trial under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of parties to raise the issue of an accused's mental incapacity debar the trial court from forming an opinion on its own?
  Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Sarwar Adpp vs Special Judge Anti Terrorism Court2021 LHC 7050, 2022 P Cr. L J 1594 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-15
  prosecutorial independencejudicial restraintphysical remandanti-terrorism courtprosecution departmentexpunction of remarksabuse of judicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a writ petition and a criminal revision assailing certain remarks and recommendations made by a Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) against an Assistant District Public Prosecutor (ADPP) and the Prosecution Department. The core legal question concerns the scope of powers and the legal role of prosecutors under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, particularly whether a prosecutor can legally offer an opinion on the applicable provisions of law while handling a request for physical remand, and whether an ATC judge can issue sweeping disciplinary directives against prosecutors for such opinions. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution service enjoys an independent statutory status, with prosecutors acting as gatekeepers required to be on board from day one of an FIR, and that prosecutors are fully empowered to offer legal opinions. The Court ruled that the ATC judge exceeded his jurisdiction and violated the doctrine of judicial restraint by making derogatory, insulting, and offensive remarks without any supporting material. Consequently, the Court allowed both matters and expunged the objectionable remarks and recommendations from the impugned order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether it is within the domain of a prosecutor to give an opinion on the application of specific provisions of law while forwarding an accused for physical remand?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court judge issue directives for disciplinary action against prosecutors for interpreting legal provisions in opinions submitted to magistrates?
  • What is the statutory scope of powers and functions of public prosecutors under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006?
  • When can disparaging remarks made by a judge against government functionaries or departments be expunged by a high court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali vs Chairman, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, etc2021 LHC 8186, 2022 CLC 1473 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1381 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtidentification paraderecovery evidencedelayed FIRsupplementary statementmurder referenceocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court for offences under Sections 302, 394, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. Key factors included an unexplained delay in FIR registration, the absence of medical evidence for the deceased, and a flawed identification parade conducted after the accused were already known. Furthermore, the Court found that the ocular evidence was unreliable, particularly as it had been rejected regarding an acquitted co-accused. The Court also ruled that recovery evidence was inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the lack of independent witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement, emphasizing that supplementary statements naming suspects after significant delays are viewed as afterthoughts.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR undermine the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Is an identification parade legally valid if conducted after the accused has already been nominated by the prosecution?
  • Can recovery evidence be relied upon if the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are violated?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on specific evidence render that same evidence unreliable against other co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs The State etc2021 KLR Criminal Cases 190, 2021 LHC 672 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-02
  extra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealterrorismburden of proofocular evidencerecoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Anti-Terrorism Court for his alleged involvement in a terrorist attack on a police check post, resulting in the death of four policemen. The prosecution relied on ocular evidence, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and various recoveries. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, and the admissibility of recoveries not properly put to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge. It found the ocular account contradictory, the extra-judicial confession unreliable and uncorroborated, and the recoveries tainted or inadmissible due to procedural failures, including the failure to confront the accused with incriminating evidence during his examination. The court emphasized that the seriousness of a crime does not absolve the prosecution from its burden of proof. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, affirming the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to confront an accused with incriminating evidence during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render that evidence inadmissible?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession made while an accused is in police custody admissible in evidence?
  • Does the seriousness of a criminal charge shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1398 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-20
  criminal appealcompromiseQisas and Diyatacquittalmurderminor legal heirscompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, along with a connected revision petition for enhancement of compensation. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was filed reporting a genuine compromise between the convicts and all the legal heirs of the deceased, including safeguards for the minor heirs regarding Diyat. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be set aside based on a voluntary and verified compromise between the parties. The Lahore High Court held that since the compromise was genuine, free from coercion, and safeguarded the interests of minors, and as the appellants were not hardened criminals or involved in an honor killing, the compromise must be accepted. The court laid down the principle that a genuine compromise in a murder case, where legal heirs waive Qisas and Diyat adequately, warrants the acquittal of the convicts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be set aside on the basis of a compromise between the convicts and the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • How is a compromise verified when some of the legal heirs of the deceased are minors?
  • What constitutes valid waiver of Qisas and Diyat by legal heirs in a criminal appeal involving murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Sepcoiii Electric Constructions Co. Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan etc2021 LHC 7689, 2022 PCTLR 1672, 2022 CLD 1035, 2022 PLD Lahore 628 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-13
  bank guaranteeconstitutional jurisdictiontender procurementcontractual disputewrit petitionbid securityencashment of bank guarantee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the encashment of a bank guarantee by the National Transmission and Despatch Company (NTDC) following a tender procurement dispute. The appellant, SEPCOIII, participated in a tender but failed to provide an unconditional credit line after two financial institutions annulled their commitments. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, could intervene in a contractual dispute involving disputed facts and whether the appellant’s failure to maintain bid conditions justified the encashment of the bank guarantee. The Court held that the appellant’s failure to provide the required financial instruments effectively constituted a withdrawal from the bid. Crucially, the Court ruled that bank guarantees are autonomous contracts independent of the underlying agreement, requiring banks to honor them upon demand. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving complex, disputed questions of fact arising from contractual obligations, which must instead be adjudicated through ordinary civil litigation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to establish grounds for constitutional intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to resolve disputed questions of fact arising from a contractual dispute?
  • Are the obligations arising under a bank guarantee independent of the underlying contract between the parties?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of contractual rights and obligations?
  Read full judgment →
• Senior Air Hostess Samina Saleem Qureshi vs Pakistan International2021 LHC 8221, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 642 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-23
  master and servant rulerejection of plaintwrongful dismissalsuit for declarationstatutory corporationterms and conditions of servicecivil suit for damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the courts below rejecting the petitioner's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner, an air hostess for Pakistan International Airlines, was dismissed from service for submitting a fake degree. She subsequently filed a suit for declaration challenging her dismissal. The core legal question was whether a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 is maintainable for an employee of a statutory corporation lacking statutory service rules. The Court held that in the absence of statutory rules, the relationship between the corporation and its employee is governed by the master-servant rule. Consequently, an unwilling employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee, and the employee cannot seek a declaration for the subsistence of service. The Court affirmed that the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved employee in such circumstances is a suit for damages, not a suit for declaration. As the petitioner failed to claim damages, the rejection of the plaint was upheld, and the revision petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 maintainable for an employee of a statutory corporation not governed by statutory service rules?
  • Does the master-servant rule preclude an employee of a statutory corporation from seeking a declaration for the subsistence of service upon dismissal?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for an employee of a statutory corporation who claims wrongful dismissal in the absence of statutory service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Sohail Hasan Gilani vs Election Commission Of Pakistan through Secretary Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others2021 PLJ Lahore 552 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
• Sawera Ikram vs Amir Naveed2021 LHC 7744, 2022 PLJ Lahore 608 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sawan Masih alias Bodi vs The State and another2021 YLR 125 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-05
  blasphemycapital sentencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealfalse accusationappreciation of evidenceSection 295-C PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged blasphemy. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the significant inconsistencies in the ocular account and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the FIR's registration. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's evidence lacked judicial certainty and credibility. The Court observed that the FIR was registered after a substantial delay, following a violent incident involving the complainant and witnesses, suggesting a motive to frame the appellant to deflect from their own criminal liability. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged blasphemous remarks were inserted into the record only after Supreme Court intervention. Emphasizing that capital cases require strict scrutiny and that the benefit of doubt is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained in a capital case where the prosecution evidence is inconsistent and lacks judicial certainty?
  • Is evidence that was not put to an accused during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible against them?
  • Does the registration of an FIR after a significant delay, following a separate violent incident involving the complainant, create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarosh Sikander and others vs Guardian Judge, Lahore and others2021 YLR 1989 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-23Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad, etc vs Muhammad Maalik2021 [M] C L R 1466 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sardaran Bibi etc vs Rehma etc2021 LHC 6784, 2022 YLR 1536 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-11Read full judgment →
• Sardar Talib Hassan Nakai vs Returning Officer Na-140, etc2021 [M] C L R 1505 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-27Read full judgment →
• Sardar Rehman Jameel vs Muhammad Nadeem etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1890 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-06
  appeal against acquittalfraudforgerypower of attorneymisreading of evidencecriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent, Muhammad Naeem, by the Trial Court in a case involving allegations of fraud and forgery under Sections 468, 420, 471, and 424 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the respondent misused a revoked power of attorney to fraudulently transfer property. The core legal question was whether the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal was based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence, thereby warranting interference by the High Court. Upon reviewing the record, the High Court found the Trial Court’s reasoning to be cogent, persuasive, and well-justified, noting that the prosecution failed to establish grounds for overturning the acquittal. Furthermore, the Court observed that the respondent had endured the ordeal of the trial since 1999. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment unless it is shown to be based on a misreading or non-reading of material evidence, or results in a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Does the misuse of a revoked power of attorney to transfer property constitute fraud under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the long duration of a criminal trial a relevant factor for an appellate court when considering an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Imtiaz Khan vs Commissioner Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and 52021 PLJ Lahore 176 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs Abdul Ghafoor and others2021 LHC 7380, 2022 CLC 1925, 2022 PLJ Lahore 702 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-10Read full judgment →
• Saqib Ramzan vs The State & another2021 LHC 872 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-29
  narcotics recoveryplanted evidencecomplainant as investigating officersearch warrantbenefit of doubthabeas corpusjuvenile trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 504 grams of Charas. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether a conviction can be sustained when the investigating officer is also the complainant and bears a personal grudge stemming from a habeas corpus petition, whether the mandatory provisions regarding search warrants under Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 were violated, and whether non-compliance with statutory provisions vitiated the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to proven police malice, blatant violation of search warrant requirements, contradictions in recovery witnesses, and failure to comply with mandatory trial procedures. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where a police officer acts as both complainant and investigating officer in a backdrop of demonstrated hostility and fails to follow mandatory statutory procedures for search and seizure without justification, the resulting recovery is tainted and cannot form the basis of a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant police officer also investigates the case despite proven hostility and malice against the accused?
  • Is it mandatory to obtain a search warrant under Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 before searching residential premises in non-emergency situations?
  • Does the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial of an accused?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when material witnesses to the dispatch of a complaint are withheld without explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Khan vs The State, etc2021 LHC 6720, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 355 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-09
  illegal dispossessionappeal against acquittalmaintainability of appealstatutory right of appealacquittal under section 265-K Cr.P.C.revisional jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, whereby respondents were acquitted under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from charges under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of an appeal against an acquittal under section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The court held that a right of appeal is strictly a creature of statute and that section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 provides an appeal solely against convictions and orders under section 8(1), deliberately omitting any right of appeal against an acquittal. Consequently, the criminal appeal against acquittal was held to be not maintainable. The key principles laid down are that the right of appeal cannot be inferred by implication from statutory provisions, the term 'any' in section 8-A does not extend to orders of acquittal, and an acquittal under the Act cannot be challenged via an appeal or revision where barred by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, leaving constitutional petitions as an alternate remedy where no other efficacious remedy exists.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal maintainable against an order of acquittal passed in a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
  • Does the word 'any' in Section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 include an order of acquittal?
  • Can a right of appeal be inferred by implication from the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under Section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
  • What is the appropriate remedy to challenge an order of acquittal under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 when no appeal is provided by the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Khan and another vs Assistant Collector Anti Smuggling2022 PTD 626, PTCL 2022 CL. 603 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-28Read full judgment →
• Samman Ghee Mills (Pvt) Ltd vs Federal Board of Revenue etc2021 LHC 7620 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-01Read full judgment →
• Samina Farooq vs Govt. of Punjab etc2021 [M] C L R 623, 2021 PLD Lahore 271, 2021 LHC 157 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
• Samia Anwar and another vs Nasir Hussain and 2 others2022 MLD 731, 2022 [M] CLR 1677, 2022 PLJ Lahore 815 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-10Read full judgment →
• Salman Mujahid vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1699 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-14
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryplea of alibiconflicting versionsmurdercommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the murder of the complainant's husband. The petitioner was alleged to have caused a fatal firearm injury to the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of the prosecution: the initial FIR naming the petitioner as the shooter, versus the Investigating Officer's subsequent finding that the petitioner had a valid plea of alibi and that a co-accused was the principal offender. The Court held that the existence of these two contradictory versions rendered the case one of further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, noting the petitioner's prolonged incarceration and the fact that his physical custody was no longer required for investigation, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The judgment affirms that where investigation yields conflicting accounts, the case warrants further inquiry, favoring the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of conflicting versions between the FIR and the police investigation regarding the identity of the shooter constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a plea of alibi accepted by the Investigating Officer provide a basis for granting post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Is the continued incarceration of an accused justified when the police no longer require physical custody for investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Khan vs Mst. Zeenat, etc2021 [M] C L R 1257 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
• Sajjid Rasul vs Arsalan Zain-Ul-Abidin and others2021 MLD 2088 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-20
  juvenile justicedetermination of ageossification testschool leaving certificatebirth certificatecriminal revisionbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Section 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge declaring the accused respondents as juveniles under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The core legal question revolved around the proper determination of the accused's age at the time of the alleged offence where conflicting evidence existed between documentary school/union council/NADRA records and an ossification test report. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that reliable documentary evidence of age, recorded promptly and prior to the incident, takes precedence over a medical ossification test report which is merely expert opinion. The court reinforced the settled legal principle that where two views regarding the age of an accused are possible, the view leaning in favor of the accused must be adopted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether documentary evidence of age overrides an ossification test report in determining juvenility?
  • Does the benefit of a view favoring the accused apply when determining age?
  • What constitutes a proper inquiry for age determination under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs District Coordination officer, Layyah and others2021 [M] C L R 249 · Lahore High Court · 2014-08-21Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs Adj etc2021 LHC 527 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 531 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-30
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaydelay in conclusion of trialsubsequent bail petitionconduct of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial in a case registered under Sections 302/109/147/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay when the delay in concluding the trial was attributable to the conduct of the defence. The Lahore High Court held that an accused is not entitled to bail on statutory grounds as a matter of right if the delay in the trial is a result of the non-cooperation and deliberate dilatory tactics of the defence. The court laid down the principle that where adjournments are sought and effective hearings are postponed by the accused or his counsel, the resulting delay disentitles the accused from claiming the concession of bail on the statutory ground.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay when the delay in the conclusion of the trial is caused by the defence?
  • Can a subsequent bail petition be maintained without any fresh grounds?
  • Does seeking frequent adjournments by the accused disentitle them from claiming bail on statutory grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad Saleem etc vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan etc2021 LHC 4315, 2022 CLD 137 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-23Read full judgment →
• Sajid Mahmood and another vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1590 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-02
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationocular evidenceunproven motivecriminal appealmurder referencecompensation enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for murder, a murder reference for the confirmation of a death sentence, and a criminal revision petition seeking the enhancement of compensation. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence despite the failure to prove the alleged motive and weapon recovery, and whether the death sentence remained appropriate. The Court held that the conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was sound, as the eye-witness testimony was consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence. However, the Court modified the sentence, commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment because the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive, which remained shrouded in mystery. The principle laid down is that while consistent ocular evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction, the failure to prove the motive behind a crime can constitute a mitigating circumstance justifying the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court also upheld the original compensation order under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular evidence when the motive and recovery of the weapon are not proven?
  • Does the failure to prove the alleged motive for a murder justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is a murder reference for confirmation of a death sentence maintainable if the prosecution fails to establish the motive?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Irtiza vs Justice Of Peace, Lodhran and 2 others2021 P Cr.LJ 1071, 2021 PLJ Lahore 199 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-01Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain vs State etc2021 PLJ Cr.C (Lahore) 787 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-18
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquirynon-vital part injurycriminal recordbail as a rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner Sajid Hussain under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of F.I.R. No. 172 registered at Police Station Fateh Shah District Vehari for offences under Sections 337-F(v), 337-L(2) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the attributed injury fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the injury was on a non-vital part of the body, carried a maximum punishment not falling within the prohibitory clause, and the petitioner had no previous criminal record, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the principle that in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, particularly where the accused has no criminal record and investigation is complete.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an injury inflicted on a non-vital part of the body attracting Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 make a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused who has no previous criminal record and whose case does not attract exceptions to the rule of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain and others vs Government Of Punjab and others2021 YLR 556 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali vs The State and others2021 PLJ Lahore 166, 2021 LHC 23 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sajawal, etc vs Secretary Local Government, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 294 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-07Read full judgment →
• Saiqa Anwar vs Secretary School Education and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 639 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-20
  contractual employmenttermination of servicedue processshow-cause noticepersonal hearingjudicial reviewadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges the termination of the Petitioner's contract as an ESE (Science-Math) by the Respondent education authorities. The core legal question was whether the Petitioner's contract was terminated in violation of due process, specifically regarding the right to a fair hearing and the absence of a proper inquiry. The Petitioner alleged that her absence from duty was due to security threats and that she was denied an opportunity to be heard. The Court found that the Petitioner had been issued show-cause notices and granted opportunities for personal hearing, which she failed to utilize effectively. The Court held that the concurrent findings of the administrative authorities were based on evidence of unauthorized absence and that the Petitioner failed to substantiate her claims of mala fide or provide evidence for her absence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that where an employee is afforded due process and fails to justify misconduct, administrative decisions regarding contract termination remain valid and immune from judicial interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contract employee is entitled to judicial interference when concurrent administrative findings establish unauthorized absence from duty?
  • Does the failure of an employee to respond to show-cause notices and attend personal hearings constitute a waiver of the right to due process?
  • Can allegations of mala fide against administrative authorities be sustained without tangible evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah vs The State, etc2021 LHC 6917 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah vs Adj & another2021 [M] C L R 348 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Syed Imran Haider vs Chairman Executive Committee, Punjab2021 PLJ Lahore 42 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-29Read full judgment →
• Safia Begum vs Additional District Judge etc2021 LHC 4811, 2022 PLD Lahore 833 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-03Read full judgment →
• Safdar Hussain vs Muhammad Afzal and another2021 PLJ Lahore 292 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-15Read full judgment →
• Saeed-ur-Rehman vs The State & another2021 MLD 1574, 2021 LHC 1154 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-21
  pre-arrest bailabetmentconspiracyplea of alibimerits of the casecriminal conspiracymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition by Saeed-ur-Rehman seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Nowshera Virkan, District Gujranwala. The petitioner was accused of abetment and hatching a conspiracy for the murder of four persons. The core legal question revolves around whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the prosecution's story regarding conspiracy and the presence of principal co-accused becomes doubtful during investigation, and whether merits of the case can be examined at the pre-arrest bail stage. The Lahore High Court held that where the presence of principal accused is disproved through pleas of alibi, the case of abetment against the petitioner also becomes open to serious doubt. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down that courts can examine the merits of the case at the pre-arrest stage, and the absence of explicit mala fide does not bar relief if the merits otherwise make out a case for bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the prosecution's allegations of conspiracy become doubtful due to the established alibis of principal co-accused?
  • Can courts examine the merits of the case while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the absence of positive proof of mala fide strictly bar the grant of pre-arrest bail if the merits otherwise support the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed-Ur-Rehman vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 950 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-11
  pre-arrest bailmala fidecriminal intimidationproperty disputeinvestigation reportFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of crop destruction, criminal intimidation, and robbery. The petitioner sought bail in FIR No. 373, registered under Sections 440, 447, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the FIR, the investigation findings, and the alleged mala fides. The Court observed an unexplained eight-day delay in the registration of the FIR and noted that the police investigation had declared the petitioner innocent regarding the specific allegation of pointing a pistol. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the primary actors accused of crop destruction and robbery were also found innocent during the investigation, and that the parties were involved in a pre-existing property dispute. Holding that the petitioner appeared to have been falsely implicated due to mala fides, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that pre-arrest bail is appropriate where the prosecution's case is marred by unexplained delay, investigation findings of innocence, and clear evidence of mala fide intent.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the police investigation has declared the accused innocent of the specific allegations?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate where there is evidence of mala fide intent arising from a pre-existing property dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed vs The State2021 KLR Criminal Cases 345, 2022 PCr. LJ 296 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-14
  murderbenefit of the doubtocular accountdelayed FIRmotivecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, delayed FIR and postmortem examination, corroborative value of weapon recovery, and the benefit of the doubt arising from contradictions and the acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that material contradictions in ocular accounts, delayed reporting indicating preliminary deliberations, unverified motive, withholding of best evidence under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and tainted recoveries render the prosecution's case doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination creates doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of an ocular account furnished by related and chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when co-accused facing the same set of evidence are acquitted and the main witnesses are disbelieved as to them?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive shifts the burden or requires greater caution in scrutinizing the ocular evidence?
  • Is recovery of a weapon from an accessible open place sufficient by itself to connect an accused with a capital crime without substantive evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Anjum vs State, etc2021 [M] C L R 329 · Lahore High Court · 2011-03-07Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs Bilal Zaib etc2021 PLJ Lahore 467 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs Additional District Judge etc2021 PLJ Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
• Sadiq & another vs The State & another2021 LHC 5825 · Lahore High Court
  private complaintself-defenceinjured witnessfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusstatement under Section 342 Cr.P.Cplea of alibibenefit of doubtappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction, a petition for special leave to appeal against acquittal, and a revision petition for enhancement of sentence, arising from a consolidated private complaint and State case involving Sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had disbelieved the prosecution case and convicted the appellants on the ground that they had exceeded their right of self-defence. The Lahore High Court examined whether the trial court could selectively rely on the defence plea after rejecting the prosecution evidence, and evaluated the ocular testimony in juxtaposition with the defence version under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the burden of proving guilt remains on the prosecution; injured witness testimony does not carry an automatic stamp of truth; and if the prosecution fails, an accused's Section 342 statement must be considered in its entirety without picking and choosing. Finding the prosecution's case marred by improvements, deliberate delays, and false implication, the High Court acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on an eyewitness confer an automatic stamp of truth on their testimony?
  • Can a trial court selectively rely on the inculpatory parts of an accused's statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while ignoring the exculpatory portions?
  • When the prosecution fails to establish its case, does the burden of proof shift to the accused to substantiate an alternate defence plea?
  • Can a court convict an accused on the presumption of exceeding the right of private defence when such a plea was never raised by the defence and the prosecution's version has been disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Saddam Hussain alias Babu vs The State and others2021 MLD 1705, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 332 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-25
  criminal appealnarcoticscharasreduction of sentencefirst offenderquantum of sentencecontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of 1530 grams of charas and sentencing him to four years and six months rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question revolves around whether the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant warrants reduction keeping in view mitigating circumstances such as being a first offender, remorse, and the nature of the narcotic substance. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent evidence and a positive forensic report. However, considering mitigating factors including the appellant's status as a first offender, remorse, and the period already served, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fine and default sentence. The key principle laid down is that while convictions for narcotics offences are maintained where evidence is sound, mitigating factors such as reformative objectives of the criminal justice system and time already served can justify a reduction in the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is maintainable when the prosecution proves recovery through consistent and confidence-inspiring evidence?
  • Can the sentence of imprisonment for a narcotics offence be reduced to the period already undergone keeping in view mitigating factors such as being a first offender and expression of remorse?
  • Whether charas being less harmful compared to other narcotics like heroin is a relevant consideration in determining the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadaf Younas vs Muhammad Usman Farooq2021 YLR 1731 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-09Read full judgment →
• Sadaf Aziz, etc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 KLR Criminal Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
• Sadaf Aziz and others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 KLR Criminal Cases 1, 2021 P Cr. L J 205 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-04
  virginity testingtwo-finger testmedico-legal examinationsexual violencefundamental rightsright to dignitygender discriminationforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the practice of virginity testing, specifically the two-finger test and hymen examination, conducted during medico-legal examinations of rape and sexual abuse victims. The core legal question was whether such tests possess scientific or forensic validity and whether they infringe upon the fundamental rights of victims. The Lahore High Court held that virginity testing is unscientific, medically irrelevant, and lacks forensic value in establishing sexual violence. The Court ruled that such practices violate the right to life, dignity, and privacy guaranteed under Articles 9 and 14, and constitute gender-based discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court declared that any guidelines or protocols mandating these tests are illegal and unconstitutional. The ratio established that the status of a victim's virginity is irrelevant to the investigation of sexual violence, and the state must adopt victim-sensitive, scientifically sound medico-legal protocols that align with international standards, ensuring that consent is informed and meaningful, while prohibiting the use of derogatory language in medical reports.

  Questions settled

  • Does the two-finger test or hymen examination have any scientific or forensic value in the investigation of rape or sexual abuse?
  • Does the practice of virginity testing violate the fundamental rights to dignity and privacy under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is the consent obtained for a medico-legal examination valid if the victim is not informed of the nature and purpose of the virginity test?
  • Can the past sexual history or virginity status of a rape victim be used to determine the veracity of a sexual assault charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabira Khatoon vs Government of the Punjab etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 1600, 2021 LHC 4695 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-08
  ripeness doctrineconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsouster of jurisdictioncivil servantterms and conditions of serviceshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Elementary School Teacher, challenged an inquiry order and show-cause notice issued by the Education Department regarding the alleged bogus nature of her appointment. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against preliminary disciplinary steps, such as an inquiry order or show-cause notice, when no final order has been passed. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that it was not maintainable. The court relied on the 'ripeness doctrine,' noting that judicial review should be reserved for concrete, finalized administrative decisions to avoid premature interference. Furthermore, the court emphasized that disciplinary matters concerning civil servants fall squarely within the terms and conditions of service. Consequently, under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in favor of the Service Tribunal. The court affirmed that even allegations of mala fide, lack of jurisdiction, or coram non judice do not bypass this constitutional bar, as such grievances must be agitated before the appropriate Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a show-cause notice or an order of inquiry before a final disciplinary order is passed?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a challenge to disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  • Can allegations of mala fide or lack of jurisdiction bypass the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the ripeness doctrine preclude judicial review of preliminary administrative actions?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 345 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-03
  murder trialdeath sentencebenefit of doubtocular accountimprovements in testimonymotiverecovery of weaponcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant awarded by the trial court under Section 302(h) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established its case through ocular testimony, reliable motive, and corroborative evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether discrepancies and improvements in statements of the eye-witnesses rendered the occurrence un-witnessed. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case as the eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements and were not present at the crime scene, the motive was unsubstantiated, and the recovery violated mandatory statutory provisions. The court laid down the principle that deliberate and malafide improvements by witnesses render their testimony unreliable, that an un-witnessed crime cannot be supported by medical evidence alone, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the deliberate and malafide improvement in the statements of eye-witnesses render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can medical evidence corroborate an un-witnessed murder to point towards the guilt of an accused?
  • Does the non-association of independent witnesses during the recovery of a weapon violate the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's story sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Ambreen vs District And Sessions Judge, Khushab and 2 others2021 CLC 1512 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25
  maintenance allowancepast maintenanceiddat periodnikah namaright of divorcefamily lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower family courts which partially decreed the petitioner-wife's suit for maintenance allowance, granting her maintenance only for the period of Iddat while dismissing her claim for past maintenance and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 based on a condition in column No. 19 of the Nikah Nama. The Lahore High Court examined whether a wife is entitled to past maintenance when living apart and whether monetary conditions restricting the husband's right of divorce in the Nikah Nama are enforceable. The Court held that a Muslim husband is under a legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife, and unless the husband proves active disobedience or that reconciliation efforts were made, the wife is entitled to past maintenance. However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the Rs. 3,00,000 claim, holding that a husband's vested right of divorce under Islamic law cannot be restricted by stringent monetary conditions. The petition was consequently partially allowed, modifying the lower courts' findings regarding past maintenance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Muslim wife is entitled to past maintenance when living apart from her husband?
  • Can a husband's right of divorce under Islamic law be restricted by monetary conditions in the Nikah Nama?
  • What is the effect of a husband's failure to make reconciliation efforts upon a wife's claim for past maintenance?
  • Is oral evidence sufficient to disprove entries in a Nikah Nama that have not been independently challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Roobi Shabana vs S.H.O. etc2021 PLJ Lahore 938, 2022 PLJ Lahore 313 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
• Rohail Rizwan Qureshi vs Globe Cosmetics Company through M.D.A. and others2021 PLC 30 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-03
  Constitutional jurisdictionPresumption of correctnessJudicial recordLabour Appellate TribunalRemand orderOmnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse actaRebuttal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which remanded a matter to the Labour Authority based on the petitioner's alleged consent. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal’s order incorrectly recorded his counsel's consent, relying on a certificate from said counsel. The core legal question was whether such a certificate could rebut the presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings and whether the High Court should interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that judicial proceedings are presumed to be correctly and solemnly performed, and a judge’s record of events is considered absolute verity. A mere certificate from a counsel is insufficient to rebut this presumption; strong, unimpeachable evidence is required. Furthermore, the Court determined that disputed questions of fact regarding what transpired in court cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the appropriate remedy for a party alleging an error in the recording of proceedings is to approach the original forum for correction, as that court is the best judge of its own proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a counsel's certificate alone rebut the presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings?
  • Is the High Court empowered to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding court proceedings in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a party claiming that a judicial order incorrectly records the proceedings?
  • Does the presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to the recording of consent by a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Hassan vs The State and another2021 MLD 157 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-19
  criminal appealillegal arms possessionexplosive substancesburden of proofdefence pleasentence reductionrecovery evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, for offences involving the possession of explosives and illicit arms. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of incriminating items and the validity of the appellant’s defence plea of prior illegal abduction by police. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent witness testimony and forensic reports, while the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding his specific defence plea. Under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the burden of proving a special defence lies on the accused, and the appellant’s failure to testify under section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or produce corroborative evidence, rendered his plea unsubstantiated. While upholding the convictions, the Court exercised judicial discretion to reduce the sentences to the period already undergone, noting the appellant's acquittal on terrorism charges and lack of prior criminal history.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving a specific defence plea, such as prior illegal abduction, rest upon the accused?
  • Can a conviction be upheld based on recovery evidence that remains consistent and corroborated by forensic reports?
  • Does the failure of an accused to appear as a witness under section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, impact the credibility of their defence plea?
  • May an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone if mitigating circumstances exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Baig Rubi vs Khurram Shahzad, etc2021 LHC 6774, 2022 MLD 1248 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-15Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ahmad & 3 others vs The State & another2021 LHC 1133 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-19
  criminal revisionsolitary injured witnessfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusappreciation of evidencematerial improvementsinimical witnessacquittalmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition calls into question the judgments of the lower courts convicting the petitioners for various offenses including causing injuries. The core legal question revolved around whether a conviction can be sustained on the solitary, uncorroborated testimony of an inimical and injured witness whose deposition contained material improvements and contradictions, and how the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies. The Lahore High Court held that while an injured witness's presence at the crime scene is generally presumed, their testimony is not automatically a stamp of truth and must be rigorously tested, especially when tainted by deep-seated enmity, material improvements, and deliberate falsehoods regarding the involvement of multiple accused. The Court established that where a witness is found to have resorted to deliberate falsehood, the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies, rendering their uncorroborated testimony unsafe for sustaining a conviction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgments of the courts below and acquitted the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be recorded solely on the statement of a solitary witness?
  • Does the presence of injuries on a witness automatically serve as a stamp of truth for their entire testimony?
  • Can the testimony of an inimical injured witness be safely relied upon without independent corroboration when material improvements are present?
  • How does the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to witness testimony in criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rida Fatima vs Pakistan Medical Commission, etc2021 LHC 5524, 2022 PLD Lahore 197 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20
  MDCATPakistan Medical Commissionmedical college admissionsdelegated legislationstatutory interpretationestoppelsingle admission testjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore High Court addressed a series of writ petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging the National Medical & Dental Colleges Admission Test (MDCAT) 2021. The petitioners, aspiring medical students, contended that conducting the examination over a thirty-day period (August 30 to September 30, 2021) violated Section 18(1) of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, which stipulates a 'single admissions test' on 'a date'. They further alleged procedural irregularities and technical hurdles. The Court held that the expression 'single admission test' denotes a single attempt per applicant rather than a test conducted on one specific day across the country. It clarified that 'a date' includes the plural under the General Clauses Act, 1897, to achieve the statute's object. The Court found the Pakistan Medical Commission Conduct of Examinations Regulations, 2021, to be valid delegated legislation consistent with the parent Act. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, though the Court allowed students to avail themselves of the PMC’s internal review mechanism for specific scoring grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase 'single admissions test' in Section 18 of the PMC Act, 2020, require the examination to be held on one specific day for all candidates?
  • Can the singular term 'a date' in a statute be interpreted to include multiple dates under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Under what circumstances can delegated legislation be declared ultra vires the parent statute?
  • Does the principle of estoppel apply to students who participate in an examination process without objection and only challenge it after failing?
  • Is the Pakistan Medical Commission empowered to conduct computerized exams over a period of time under its regulatory framework?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Khalid vs Adj, etc2021 CLC 1432, 2021 LHC 1063 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-17Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Maula Bakhsh2021 LHC 7803 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
• Rehman vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 590 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-24
  post-arrest bailattempted rapefurther inquirycriminal procedurepenal codebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by Rehman seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 109/2020 dated 14.04.2020, registered under Sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Saddar Shakargarh, District Narowal, on allegations of attempting to commit rape. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting the absence of a medico-legal examination certificate showing signs of violence, the doubtful credibility of the prosecution story given the circumstances of the escape, and a prior pending civil dispute over property between the families providing a potential motive for false implication. The court laid down the principle that where material aspects of the prosecution case require further inquiry and previous animosity over property exists, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a medico-legal certificate in an attempted rape case make the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether previous property disputes between the families of the complainant and the accused constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the credibility of the prosecution story requires determination by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman Ali etc vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 711 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-08
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryinvestigation reportfacilitationcriminal liabilitytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Rehman Ali and Salman Ali, who were implicated in a criminal case involving charges of murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the prosecution's investigative findings. The Court observed that while the FIR alleged the petitioners participated in the firing, the investigation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 concluded they were not present at the scene, identifying other individuals as the primary perpetrators. The prosecution alleged the petitioners only provided reconnaissance and facilitation. Finding no recoveries from the petitioners and noting they were no longer required for investigation, the Court held that their case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioners' continued incarceration served no useful purpose. The key principle laid down is that where investigation reports contradict the initial FIR regarding the presence and role of an accused, a case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investigation report concluding that an accused was not present at the crime scene constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution's investigation contradicts the initial FIR regarding the role of the accused?
  • Is the absence of recovery from an accused a relevant factor in determining entitlement to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Motor Industries vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 LHC 4972, 2022 PCTLR 1483, PTCL 2022 CL. 28, 2022 PTD 19 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-22
  income tax auditadministrative discretionwrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationtaxpayer rightsproviso interpretationself-assessment regime
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions challenging notices issued by the Commissioner Inland Revenue under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, for selecting taxpayers for audit. The core legal question is whether the Commissioner’s power to select a case for audit is restricted by the proviso to Section 177(1), specifically whether it mandates a two-stage process where records must be summoned before selection, and whether the Commissioner’s discretion requires structuring through rules. The Court held that the petitions were meritless. It determined that under Section 177, the selection for audit is the primary, antecedent act, and the summoning of records is a subsequent procedural step. The proviso does not curtail the Commissioner's power to select cases for audit, nor does it impose a mandatory pre-audit hearing. The Court affirmed that selection for audit does not constitute an actionable injury, as the taxpayer retains multiple opportunities to defend their position during the audit and subsequent assessment proceedings. The principle established is that administrative discretion in audit selection is not unbridled but is governed by the statute’s objectives, requiring reasons to be recorded and communicated without necessitating rigid, rule-based structuring.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, mandate a two-stage process requiring the Commissioner to summon records before selecting a taxpayer for audit?
  • Is the Commissioner's power to select a taxpayer for audit under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, subject to rigid, rule-based structuring of discretion?
  • Does the mere selection of a taxpayer for audit under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, constitute an actionable injury entitling the taxpayer to constitutional relief?
  • Is the Commissioner required to grant a hearing to a taxpayer at the pre-audit stage before issuing a notice for audit under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashida Bibi vs CPO and 5 othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1078 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-08
  habeas corpusminor custodyhizanatparental jurisdictionguardian and wardsillegal detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Lahore High Court through a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking the recovery and custody of her six-year-old minor son from the illegal and improper detention of the father. The core legal question revolved around whether the High Court, exercising parental jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, can restore the custody of a minor to a parent lawfully entitled to hazanat (custody) despite the availability of an alternate remedy before the Guardian Court. The Court held that while the Guardian Court is the final arbitrator for child custody, the High Court is not precluded from exercising its parental jurisdiction to protect the welfare of the minor and ensure that a parent unlawfully deprived of lawful custody is granted relief. The key principle laid down is that habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy to restore custody to a parent possessing the primary right of hazanat when abruptly deprived thereof, and that guardianship and custody are distinct legal concepts under Islamic law and statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore the custody of a minor to a parent?
  • Is custody synonymous with guardianship under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
  • Does the availability of a remedy before the Guardian Court bar the High Court from entertaining a habeas corpus petition for the custody of a minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Naeem etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1099 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-02
  Anti-Terrorism ActCriminal AppealMurderExtortionOcular evidenceCapital sentenceBhathaPillion riding
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, regarding offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The appellants were convicted for the murder of Muhammad Arshad and the attempted murder of Muhammad Attique, with the motive attributed to extortion (Bhatha). The core legal questions concern the reliability of the ocular account provided by the complainant and other witnesses, the impact of the prosecution's failure to produce an injured witness, and the credibility of the witnesses' presence at the scene. The court evaluates whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the consistency of the eye-witnesses and the corroboration provided by medical evidence. The judgment addresses whether witnesses residing in the same vicinity as the crime scene can be dismissed as chance witnesses. The court affirms the evidentiary value of consistent ocular testimony in a broad daylight occurrence, noting that the non-production of a witness allegedly won over does not inherently undermine the prosecution's case when other evidence remains reliable and consistent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-production of an injured witness who has allegedly been won over affect the prosecution's case?
  • Can the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of a crime be doubted if they reside in the same vicinity as the occurrence?
  • Is the testimony of eye-witnesses regarding a broad daylight occurrence in a busy area considered reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Iqbal vs Chancellor, etc2021 LHC 5149, 2022 MLD 1873 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-07
  constitutional petitionnatural justiceaudi alteram partemquasi-judicial powerdue processright to fair hearinguniversity appointmentsrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the validity of an order passed by the Chancellor of Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, setting aside the appointment of the petitioners to various university posts without providing them an opportunity for a hearing. The core legal question was whether the Chancellor’s revisional power under Section 11-A of the Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975, permits the cancellation of appointments without affording the affected appointees a right of audience. The Court held that the power of revision under Section 11-A is quasi-judicial in nature, and the proviso to the section explicitly mandates a fair hearing for affected parties. Consequently, the Chancellor’s failure to hear the petitioners violated the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule of audi alteram partem, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 10-A, and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court established that a post-decisional hearing cannot cure the initial procedural defect. Accordingly, the impugned order was declared to be of no legal effect and was set aside, emphasizing that the duty to hear is inextricably linked to the exercise of quasi-judicial power.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exercise of revisional power under Section 11-A of the Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975, require a mandatory hearing for the affected parties?
  • Is the power of revision exercised by the Chancellor under the Bahauddin Zakariya University Act, 1975, considered a quasi-judicial function?
  • Can a post-decisional hearing cure the failure to provide an opportunity of hearing to an affected party before passing an adverse order?
  • Does the failure to hear an appointee before cancelling their appointment violate the constitutional right to due process?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 944 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-29
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailstatutory delaycontinuation of trialtentative assessmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of sentences and release on bail for the petitioners, Muhammad Rashid, Tayyab Ahmad, and Muhammad Shehzad, who were convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending the adjudication of their main appeal, given the significant delay in the appeal process and their prior status on bail during the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail on statutory grounds, noting that the appeal had remained pending for over two years without fault on their part. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the appeal is a continuation of the trial and that the principles governing bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 serve as a guideline for exercising discretion under Section 426, allowing for a tentative assessment of evidence rather than a detailed appraisal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the delay in the adjudication of a criminal appeal entitle a convict to the suspension of sentence and release on bail?
  • Are the principles governing bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to the suspension of sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an appeal considered a continuation of the trial for the purpose of granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid alias Jhori vs The State and others2021 YLR 443 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-05
  narcoticschain of custodybenefit of doubtforensic reportcriminal appealsafe transmissionacquittal
  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 possession of 15 kilograms of 'Doday of Poast'. The core legal question before the Court was whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken and secure chain of custody for the narcotic sample from the point of recovery to its analysis by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The Court found significant discrepancies in the timeline of the sample's transmission, noting that the prosecution failed to explain the custody of the sample parcel between its collection and its eventual submission to the laboratory, which contradicted the dates recorded in the forensic report. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the contraband. Relying on established precedents, the Court ruled that any break in the chain of custody renders the forensic report unreliable and creates reasonable doubt, which must be resolved in favor of the accused. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy in the dates of sample transmission to a forensic laboratory create a fatal break in the chain of custody?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and transmission of a narcotic sample to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheeda Begum vs Ibrar Bi and 2 others2021 PLJ Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmed alias Pappu Baydeed vs The State and another2021 MLD 928 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03
  narcoticssafe custodysafe transmissionbenefit of doubtadverse inferencecriminal appealacquittalcharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1400 grams of Charas. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the recovery, safe custody, and safe transmission of the narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, and the effect of withholding a material witness. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered substance to the forensic science agency, and that the non-production of the constable who carried the complaint to the police station gave rise to an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered his acquittal. The key principles laid down are that the failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics is fatal to its case, and withholding a vital witness warrants an adverse presumption.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to prove safe custody and safe transmission of recovered narcotics to the forensic science agency?
  • Does the non-production of the police constable who carried the complaint to the police station warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained when material gaps exist in the chain of custody of the recovered substance?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad and others vs The State and others2021 MLD 1912 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-08
  pre-arrest bailtwo versionsfurther inquirymurderous assaultmedico legal certificateuninvestigated cross version
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.1691 of 2020 registered under Sections 440, 148, 149, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ghalib Market, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving two competing versions of the incident, where the cross-version brought by the accused was supported by a Medico-Legal Certificate but remained uninvestigated by the police. The court held that the presence of two conflicting versions, neither of which had been fully investigated despite supporting medical evidence, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering the false implication of the petitioners plausible. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners, laying down the principle that an uninvestigated cross-version supported by medical evidence can constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when a case involves two conflicting versions and the version presented by the accused is supported by a Medico-Legal Certificate but has not been investigated?
  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to probe the accused's version of events make the case one of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
  • Can false implication of the accused be inferred at the pre-arrest bail stage when competing versions exist between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashad Ali vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 752 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-02
  acid attackdying declarationsubstantive evidencecriminal appealmurder convictionSection 161 statementanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife through an acid attack, under Sections 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(a), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether a statement recorded by the police under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, from an injured victim who subsequently survived for several days before dying, qualifies as a valid dying declaration admissible as substantive evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. The Court held that the law prescribes no specific mode or forum for recording a dying declaration; it is admissible even if recorded by police under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, provided it is free from influence and trustworthy. The Court established that a statement need not be made under immediate apprehension of death to be valid, and the victim's survival for several days does not negate its status. Such a declaration constitutes substantive evidence, and while corroboration is a rule of prudence, it is not a strict rule of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by an injured person who survives for several days be treated as a valid dying declaration?
  • Is a dying declaration required to be made under immediate apprehension of death to be admissible as evidence?
  • Does the law require a specific forum or format for recording a dying declaration?
  • Is corroboration of a dying declaration a strict rule of law or a rule of prudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Khalid Iqbal vs State, etc2021 LHC 7894 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-07
  cross-examinationfair trialdue processright of cross-examinationcriminal revisiondelaying tacticsunrepresented accused
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal revision petition, the petitioner challenged the order of the Special Judge (Central), Multan, dismissing his application to recall an earlier order whereby his right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses was closed due to repeated adjournments and non-availability of his counsel. The core legal question was whether closing the right of cross-examination and failing to provide a meaningful opportunity for defense testing violates the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Lahore High Court held that while the accused delayed the proceedings, asking an unrepresented accused with no legal expertise to cross-examine witnesses himself is no substitute for defense counsel. Emphasizing that cross-examination is an essential ingredient of a fair trial and due process, the court set aside the impugned orders and granted one final opportunity to the petitioner's counsel to cross-examine the witnesses. The key principle laid down is that the right of cross-examination cannot be arbitrarily denied, and in the absence of a defense counsel, the trial court must ensure fairness rather than relying on un-rebutted testimonies.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be deprived of their right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses for delaying the trial?
  • Is asking an unrepresented accused to cross-examine witnesses himself a valid substitute for a defense counsel?
  • Whether the closure of the right of cross-examination prejudices the case of an accused person in criminal proceedings?
  • Does the right to a fair trial and due process mandate that an accused must be provided an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Imran Nasir vs Defence Housing Authority, Lahore and others2021 YLR 1819 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
• Rana Tahir Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad etc2021 PLJ Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
• Rana Sher Afzal vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1396 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-18
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequemala fiderendition of accountscriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged issuance of dishonoured cheques. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner made out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in view of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, police findings during investigation that the petitioner had paid excess amounts and nothing was outstanding, and a pending civil suit for rendition of accounts filed by the petitioner. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that mala fide on the part of the complainant for false implication could not be ruled out given the specific facts and circumstances. The key principle laid down is that the liberty of a person is a precious constitutional right, and courts can evaluate and consider mala fide from the surrounding facts and circumstances of a case while deciding pre-arrest bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when police investigation concludes that no amount is outstanding against the accused?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR support a finding of mala fide for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the pendency of a civil suit for rendition of accounts between the parties be a ground for establishing mala fide in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Sana Ullah Khan vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 1289 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-05
  pre-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureauassets beyond known sources of incomemala fidejurisdictional conflicttransfer of casesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a Call-Up Notice issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) regarding the petitioner's assets, which were already subject to freezing orders and ongoing proceedings before a Special Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether NAB could initiate an inquiry into assets already under the jurisdiction of another competent court without invoking the transfer provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Court held that NAB lacked the authority to take cognizance of the matter without first invoking Section 16-A(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, to transfer the case. Furthermore, the Court observed that the timing of the notice—issued immediately after the petitioner was granted bail in a separate narcotics case—suggested mala fide intent. Consequently, the Court confirmed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that NAB cannot bypass established judicial proceedings regarding the same assets without adhering to the statutory transfer mechanism provided under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

  Questions settled

  • Can the National Accountability Bureau initiate an inquiry into assets already subject to freezing orders and proceedings before a Special Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is the National Accountability Bureau required to invoke Section 16-A(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, to take cognizance of a matter already pending before another court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does the timing of a Call-Up Notice issued immediately after the grant of bail in a separate criminal case constitute evidence of mala fide intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Ilyas vs Lahore Electric Supply Company and others2021 PLC 75 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-30
  reinstatementlimitation periodgrievance petitionlabour lawconstitutional petitiondue diligenceindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside a Labour Court decision in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner, a former employee of the Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO), sought reinstatement following his acquittal in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's grievance petition was time-barred and whether his conduct demonstrated a failure to pursue his legal remedies with due diligence. The Court held that the petitioner failed to follow the mandatory grievance procedure prescribed under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, and instead engaged in protracted, unnecessary litigation to circumvent limitation periods. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was indolent and had not acted with the vigilance required by law. The key principle laid down is that the law of limitation is mandatory, not a mere formality, and courts will not extend a helping hand to litigants who remain in 'deep slumber' regarding their rights, as the law aids the vigilant and not the indolent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the law of limitation apply to grievance petitions filed under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Can a litigant bypass mandatory statutory grievance procedures by filing multiple writ petitions to avoid limitation bars?
  • Is a party who remains inactive regarding their legal rights for an extended period entitled to relief from the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Ikram Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1693 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-07
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequecriminal liabilitymala fideSection 489-F PPCproperty conversion fee
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 54/2020 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the dishonour of a cheque issued to the Metropolitan Corporation, Sahiwal, for property conversion fees. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was neither the signatory of the cheque nor a joint account holder, could be held criminally liable under Section 489-F, PPC. The Court held that liability under Section 489-F, PPC, is strictly limited to the person who issued the cheque. As the petitioner did not sign the instrument and the cheque was issued for a conversion fee rather than a loan or obligation repayment, the Court found the registration of the case against the petitioner to be mala fide. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim bail, establishing the principle that criminal liability under Section 489-F, PPC, cannot be extended to persons who are not signatories to the dishonoured cheque, particularly when the transaction involves a regulatory fee rather than a personal loan or obligation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who is neither the signatory nor a joint account holder be held liable under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the issuance of a cheque for a property conversion fee constitute an obligation under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to attract criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Ashraf vs Manzoor Ahmad and others2021 PLJ Lahore 549, 2021 MLD 794 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
• Rana Kashif Ali vs Chief Secretary, etc2021 LHC 4742, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1082 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-23
  interim injunctiondisciplinary proceedingsdoctrine of proportionalitydismissal from servicecivil servantcontributory negligenceservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves a series of consolidated constitutional petitions and contempt matters filed by an employee challenging orders of transfer, posting, suspension, and dismissal from service passed by the Local Government and Community Development Department of Punjab. The core legal questions involved the legal effect of an interim injunctive relief granted only until the next date of hearing when it is not explicitly extended, whether a department can benefit from its own illegality by passing adverse orders during such stay, and the proportionality of dismissing the petitioner given the department's own contributory negligence. The Lahore High Court held that time-bound injunctive relief remains in force until specifically vacated or modified by the court, and an administrative body cannot reap benefits from violating it. The court further held that the extreme penalty of dismissal was disproportionate and excessive under the circumstances. The key principles laid down include the continuing operational nature of interim stay orders despite efflux of time, the doctrine of proportionality in administrative disciplinary actions, and the court's inherent power to restore parties to their original position upon violation of an injunction.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of non-extension of an order granting injunctive relief when said relief was granted till the next date of hearing?
  • Can the respondent-department be allowed to reap benefits out of its own illegality by passing adverse orders during the pendency of a stay?
  • Whether the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case is proportionate or excessive?
  • Does an interim stay order lapse automatically if it is not expressly extended on subsequent dates of hearing due to court dockets?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Ghulam Abbas vs Sidra Ghaus etc2021 PLJ Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-04Read full judgment →