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.

• Hasnat Ahmed vs The State and another2021 LHC 322, 2023 YLR 585 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-17
  Qatl-i-Amdchance witnessesfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubtcriminal appealrecovery of weaponburden of proofdying declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for Qatl-i-Amd under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony from "chance witnesses," the validity of the recovery of the weapon, and the applicability of the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus following the acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the ocular witnesses were "chance witnesses" who failed to justify their presence at the scene, and the recovery of the weapon violated section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court applied the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus rule, noting that the witnesses were previously disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused. The Court established that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution and cannot shift to the accused based on mere suspicion. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of witnesses be discarded entirely if they are found to have lied regarding the role of acquitted co-accused?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused if a crime occurs within their residence?
  • Is a recovery of a weapon valid if it violates the mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a dying declaration that lacks medical endorsement or independent attestation?
  Read full judgment →
• Haroon Farooq vs Government of Punjab & others2021 LHC 4226 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-09Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State2022 YLR 721 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-30
  Qatl-i-Amdmitigating circumstancesunproven motiveocular accountmurder referencecommutation of sentencerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the appellant, Haq Nawaz, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony from related witnesses, the legal effect of unproven motive, and the validity of weapon recoveries violating section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses were natural, prompt in reporting, and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the charge beyond reasonable doubt despite the failure to prove motive and defects in weapon recovery. However, the court ruled that the unproven motive and the obscure immediate cause of the incident constituted mitigating circumstances justifying the commutation of the death sentence. The court laid down the principle that the failure of the prosecution to establish an asserted motive, coupled with uncertainties surrounding the immediate altercation, serves as a mitigating factor warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether related eyewitness testimony can form the basis of a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is a weapon recovery admissible in evidence when mandatory provisions regarding independent locality witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are violated?
  • Whether a solitary firearm injury on a vital part of the body is sufficient to establish intent to cause death under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Bashir and others vs Pakistan Medical Commission through President and others2021 PLD Lahore 654 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09
  medical admissionsPakistan Medical Commissiondue processnatural justiceconstitutional petitioncancellation of admissionregulatory powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment addresses petitions filed by medical and dental students challenging an advertisement and orders issued by the Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC) calling for a re-admission process in certain private colleges and suspending existing admissions. The core legal question revolves around whether the PMC is authorized under the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 and its regulations to pass omnibus orders suspending student admissions and cancelling interview marks without conducting individualized inquiries or affording a right of hearing to the affected students. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned orders and advertisement were in violation of the principles of natural justice, due process, and the statutory mandate, as the PMC failed to adjudicate individual complaints on merit and penalized students without a hearing. The court set aside the impugned orders and advertisement, laying down the principle that regulatory bodies must strictly adhere to due process, conduct specific factual inquiries into complaints, and provide an opportunity of being heard to all adversely affected parties before taking any adverse action affecting student admissions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Pakistan Medical Commission pass an omnibus order suspending student admissions without deciding individual complaints on merit?
  • Whether students admitted to medical and dental colleges are entitled to a right of hearing before their admissions are suspended by the regulator?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a general order of the regulatory body where statutory remedies are not efficacious for the specific grievance?
  • Does the Pakistan Medical Commission have the authority under its statutory framework to issue blanket re-admission advertisements without establishing specific irregularities against individual students?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Aslam vs I.G. Police, etc2021 KLR Civil Cases 78 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-15Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ullah vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 579 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-11
  murdercompromiseacquittalcompoundable offencedeath sentencemurder referencelegal heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal and a murder reference following a judgment by the Sessions Judge, Chakwal, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder and sentencing him to death. During the pendency of the appeal and murder reference, a compromise application was filed stating that the legal heirs of both deceased persons had resolved the matter. The veracity of the compromise was verified through an inquiry by the Sessions Judge, which confirmed that all legal heirs of the victims had forgiven the appellant in the name of Allah Almighty, with financial safeguards and land transfers executed for the minor legal heir. The Lahore High Court held that the offense under Section 302(b) is compoundable and that the compromise was genuine and voluntary. Consequently, the High Court accepted the compromise application, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellant convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be acquitted on the basis of a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • How is the interest of a minor legal heir safeguarded during a compromise in a murder case?
  • What is the effect of a genuine compromise between the parties on a pending murder reference and criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Hayat vs D.G. Excise and Taxation etc2021 KLR Civil Cases 333, 2021 LHC 1256, 2021 [M] CLR 1376, 2021 PLC (C.S.) · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-24
  constitutional petitionservice tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicedisciplinary proceedingsinquiry officer transfercivil servantbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a civil servant challenging an order passed by the Director General Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab, declining the petitioner's application to transfer a departmental inquiry from Hafizabad to Lahore due to alleged bias against the inquiry officer and violation of the right to fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether an order refusing to transfer a disciplinary inquiry or change an inquiry officer constitutes an administrative or executive action falling outside the jurisdictional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that disciplinary proceedings, including the appointment or change of an inquiry officer, form an integral part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. The court established the principle that the bar under Article 212 is absolute and inflexible, and interlocutory steps in disciplinary proceedings cannot be carved out as independent executive actions to bypass the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order refusing to transfer a disciplinary inquiry from one region to another falls within the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the appointment or change of an inquiry officer constitute an independent administrative action outside the scope of disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to examine allegations of mala fide and the authority of an officer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Haleema Shuja vs Mst. Syeda Mehmooda Begum (Deceased) through L.R.2021 PLD Lahore 533 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-19
  Section 12(2) CPCfraud and forgeryconsent decreelimitationmixed question of law and factconstitutional petitionsummary dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the summary dismissal of an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought to set aside a consent decree allegedly obtained through fraud. The core legal question was whether such an application, involving serious allegations of forgery and misrepresentation, could be summarily dismissed on the ground of limitation without a full trial, and whether multiple applications challenging the same decree should be adjudicated jointly. The High Court held that the lower courts erred by dismissing the application summarily. The ratio is that allegations of fraud and forgery constitute mixed questions of law and fact that cannot be determined without framing issues and recording evidence. The court laid down the principle that when an application under Section 12(2) raises complex factual disputes, such as the date of death of a party, it must be decided on merits after a due trial. Furthermore, where multiple proceedings challenge the same decree, they should be consolidated to prevent inconsistent findings, and limitation issues in fraud cases require trial determination rather than summary rejection.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be summarily dismissed on the ground of limitation without recording evidence?
  • Should multiple applications under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenging the same decree be decided jointly?
  • Is the question of limitation in a case involving allegations of fraud a mixed question of law and fact?
  • Does the High Court have the power under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to set aside a revisional order that suffers from a patent error of fact or misapplication of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Asif Sehar and another vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance Islamabad and 11 others2021 CLC 1310 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-05Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Amin and 3 others vs Lahore Development Authority2021 PLJ Lahore 378 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Mehr Khan vs Government Of Punjab and others2021 PLJ Lahore 622 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Haji Bashir Ahmed vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1348 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10
  dishonoured chequenatural justiceappellate courtremandadditional evidenceright to be heardcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an appellate judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, which acquitted the respondent in a case under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his conviction by a Judicial Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused without impleading the complainant as a party, failing to issue notice to him, and deciding the appeal in a hasty manner without allowing the production of the original cheque as additional evidence. The High Court held that the appellate court acted against the principles of natural justice by condemning the complainant unheard and failing to provide an opportunity to produce the original cheque, which had been previously withheld due to pending civil litigation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case to the appellate court with directions to allow both parties to adduce additional evidence and decide the appeal afresh. The judgment reaffirms the principle that no adverse order can be passed against a party without notice, and that courts should prioritize substantial justice over technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate court required to implead and hear the complainant in a criminal appeal against conviction?
  • Can an appellate court decide an appeal without providing the complainant an opportunity to produce additional evidence?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contain a provision for summoning judicial records similar to Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Bashir Ahmad vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1545 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-10
  dishonoured chequeacquittal appealnatural justiceadditional evidenceprocedural fairnessremandSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, which acquitted the respondent in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused without notifying the complainant and without allowing the production of the original cheque as additional evidence. The High Court held that the appellate court acted in a hasty manner by deciding the appeal without impleading the complainant, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, which mandate that no adverse order be passed without notice to the affected party. Furthermore, the court held that the appellate court should have provided an opportunity to produce the original cheque, especially given the ongoing civil litigation regarding the same instrument. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal, remanded the case to the appellate court, and directed that the parties be permitted to adduce additional evidence to ensure a fair adjudication. The principle established is that appellate courts must ensure procedural fairness and allow for the production of necessary evidence rather than dismissing cases on technical grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate court required to implead and notify a complainant in an appeal against a conviction?
  • Can an appellate court in a criminal case allow the production of additional evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contain a provision for summoning judicial records similar to Order XIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Bashir Ahmad Ch vs Bashir Ahmad Deceased through L.Rs. Etc2021 CLC 1696, 2021 LHC 1380 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Haq, etc vs Abdul Latif, etc2021 [M] C L R 266 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-20Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Syed Muhammad Usman vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1232 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-12
  post-arrest bailpolice encountermurderprohibitory clauseDolphin Forcecriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for post-arrest bail filed by police officials of the Dolphin Force seeking pre-trial release in case FIR No. 430 dated 13.03.2020 registered under sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Iqbal Town, Lahore, relating to the extrajudicial killing of the complainant's son. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given the gravity of the accusations, prima facie connection to the crime, and recovery of matching weapons. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the material available on record sufficiently connects the petitioners to the commission of the alleged offense, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that law enforcement personnel misusing official authority do not deserve leniency. The key principle laid down is that police officials involved in grave offenses acting outside the law are not entitled to bail when prima facie evidence and recoveries connect them to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Are police officials involved in an alleged staged encounter entitled to post-arrest bail when prima facie evidence and weapon recoveries connect them to the murder?
  • Does an offense falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail under the circumstances of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Shahid Pervez Ahmad vs Director, Anti Corruption Establishment and others2021 KLR Criminal Cases 68 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-25Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Ashraf Advocate High Court vs Province Of Punjab, through Secretary Epo Punjab, and others2021 PLJ Lahore 358 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-31Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Kaleem ud Din vs Province of Punjab etc2021 LHC 4838, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 999 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-13
  pro forma promotioncivil servicesuperannuationpending inquirydepartmental promotionpensionary benefitswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a retired civil servant challenging the refusal of the respondent department to grant him pro forma promotion from BS-18 to BS-19. The petitioner’s promotion had been deferred during his service due to a pending inquiry and incomplete service record, despite his juniors being promoted. Although the inquiry was subsequently dropped and a cancellation report prepared, the department denied his request for pro forma promotion post-retirement. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, whose promotion was deferred due to pending allegations that were later cleared, is entitled to pro forma promotion after superannuation. The Court held that the department’s refusal was unjustified, as the mere pendency of an inquiry does not constitute a valid ground to deprive a civil servant of their lawful right to promotion. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner pro forma promotion from the due date and release all consequential pensionary benefits, establishing that an employee cannot be penalized by withholding promotion without established charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be denied promotion solely on the basis of a pending inquiry that is subsequently dropped?
  • Is a retired civil servant entitled to seek pro forma promotion for the period they were in service?
  • Does the mere pendency of an FIR or departmental inquiry justify withholding a civil servant's promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 577 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-30
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clauserule of consistencydelay in FIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 294 dated 15.05.2020 registered under Sections 380, 354, 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337L(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari, after his similar relief was declined by the subordinate court. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in view of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, attribution of injuries, rule of consistency with a co-accused, and the bailable or non-prohibitory nature of the alleged offences. The Court held that the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that several offences are bailable while others fall outside the prohibitory clause, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle established is that where a co-accused's bail has been confirmed and the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry without attracting the prohibitory clause, pre-arrest bail should be granted to protect the liberty of a person.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR constitutes grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when the case of a petitioner is not distinctly different from a co-accused whose bail has already been confirmed?
  • Are offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally considered fit for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Bibi vs The State & another2021 PLD Lahore 392, 2021 LHC 477 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ahmad and 3 others vs Province Of Punjab through Secretary2021 PLJ Lahore 778 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Habib Construction Services Limited vs LDA through its Chief Engineer, etc2021 MLD 1109, 2021 PLJ Lahore 529, 2021 LHC 293 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Saqib Mahmood and another2021 PLC (C.S.) 1495, 2021 LHC 1538 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-25
  master and servantconstitutional jurisdictionprivatizationservice ruleswrit petitionintra-court appealdisciplinary inquirynon-statutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenges a single bench judgment that ordered the reinstatement of a dismissed employee of Habib Bank Limited. The core legal questions concern whether an employee of a privatized bank, governed by non-statutory service rules, can invoke constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the Federal Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to impose a mandatory time-line for completing disciplinary inquiries. The Court held that the appeal must be allowed, as the bank, following its privatization, does not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, rendering it a private entity outside the scope of Article 199. Consequently, the relationship between the bank and its employees is governed by the rule of master and servant, precluding constitutional remedies. Furthermore, the Court established that time-lines set by Tribunals for administrative inquiries are generally directory rather than mandatory, absent specific statutory penalties for non-compliance. The single bench erred in fact and law by failing to recognize the bank's private status and the directory nature of the inquiry time-line.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee of a privatized bank governed by non-statutory rules invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to impose a mandatory time-line for the completion of administrative disciplinary inquiries?
  • Is a direction by a court or tribunal to complete an inquiry within a specified period directory or mandatory in the absence of a prescribed penalty for non-compliance?
  • Does a privatized bank qualify as a person or authority performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation for the purposes of constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Common Traders (Pvt.) Limited and others2022 CLD 229, 2022 PCTLR 1443 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-06Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Hussain vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore2021 LHC 7706, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 57 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-17
  misconductjudicial ethicsservice appealproportionality of penaltyPunjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1999improper contact with litigantremoval from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenges the removal from service of a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, imposed following allegations of misconduct, including harassment, trial delay, and receipt of illegal gratification. The core legal question concerns whether the established interaction between the judicial officer and a litigant warranted the major penalty of removal from service, given that the specific charges of corruption and intimidation remained unproven. The Court held that while the prosecution failed to substantiate the allegations of illegal gratification and criminal intimidation, the evidence confirmed the appellant maintained improper contact with a litigant, constituting misconduct under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999. The Court emphasized that judicial officers must avoid any liaison with litigants to preserve the appearance of propriety. Finding the extreme penalty of removal disproportionate to the proven misconduct, the Court converted the punishment to a reduction to three lower stages in the appellant's pay scale. The judgment affirms that disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct and the officer's service record.

  Questions settled

  • Does maintaining contact with a litigant by a judicial officer constitute misconduct under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999?
  • Is the major penalty of removal from service proportionate when charges of illegal gratification are unproven but improper contact with a litigant is established?
  • What criteria must a competent authority consider when determining the severity of a disciplinary penalty for a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad, etc vs Ayesha Naz Sarwar, etc2021 LHC 5299, 2022 CLC 675, 2022 PLJ Lahore 14 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-11Read full judgment →
• Gull Tabassum alias Wairi vs Inspector General (Prisons), Punjab, Lahore2021 KLR Civil Cases 425, 2021 PLD Lahore 479 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
• Gujranwala Electric Supply Company Limited (GEPCO) through CEO vs NEPRA through Chairman and 2 others2021 PLJ Lahore 855 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab & others vs M/s Muhammad Asad & Co.2021 CLC 2135, 2021 LHC 1853 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-08Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab & 3 others vs Muhammad Kamran Jamil2021 [M] CLR 1522 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
• Hasnain Asghar vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 900 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-11
  murder trialbenefit of doubtdelay in FIRocular accountmedical evidence contradictionprivate complaintcapital sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise out of a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death, along with a conviction under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, the effect of an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the presence of material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, and the proof of motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond a shadow of doubt due to an unexplained four-day delay in reporting the crime, dishonest improvements made by eye-witnesses, contradictions regarding the place of occurrence, and a direct conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence. Consequently, the court laid down that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt, leading to the acceptance of the appeal, the setting aside of the conviction and death sentence, and the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting a crime to the police damages the veracity of the prosecution version?
  • Does an injury on the body of an eye-witness automatically make them a truthful and reliable witness?
  • What is the legal effect when there is a direct conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence in a murder trial?
  • Is the prosecution required to stand on its own legs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt without taking benefit from the weaknesses of the defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Gohar Zaman and another vs The State2021 YLR 2160 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-26
  explosive substancesanti-terrorismbenefit of doubtcontradictory evidenceinvestigation by unauthorized officercriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, rendered by the trial court. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery and analysis of the alleged explosive substances beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether procedural mandates regarding investigation were duly followed. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious flaws, including material contradictions in the testimony of the bomb disposal commander regarding the date of inspection, failure to prepare samples at the spot for forensic analysis, lack of evidence linking the appellants to any proscribed organization, and violation of the statutory requirement that the investigation be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Inspector. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, and ordered their immediate acquittal. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions regarding the date of inspection of recovered explosive material by the bomb disposal commander vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prepare and send samples to the forensic science agency from the spot create a fatal dent in the recovery story?
  • What is the legal effect of an investigation conducted by an officer below the rank mandated under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Gohar Nawaz Sindhu vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc2021 [M] C L R 256 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yasin Bhatti vs Federation of Pakistan & another2021 PLD Lahore 605, 2021 PLJ Lahore 687, 2021 LHC 1038 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ullah deceased through L.Rs vs Ghulam Hassan and others2021 LHC 6847, 2022 CLC 404 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs The State Etc2021 KLR Criminal Cases 104 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-14
  sentence enhancementrevision petitiondouble jeopardyjuvenile offenderexpectancy of liferapejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to Respondent No. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, for an offence under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether a sentence can be enhanced after the convict has served out the full term of imprisonment, and whether the trial court exercised its discretion perversely in sentencing. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while an appellate or revisional court has the power to enhance a sentence and serving out a sentence does not inherently violate the doctrine of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, enhancement is a matter of judicial discretion depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the juvenile status of the offender at the time of the offence. The court established that the trial court's discretion in awarding a ten-year rigorous imprisonment to a juvenile offender was judicious and not perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the enhancement of a convict's sentence after they have served out the original sentence is barred by the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does an appeal or revision seeking sentence enhancement constitute a fresh prosecution or a continuation of the trial?
  • Can the sentence of a juvenile offender convicted of rape be enhanced when the trial court exercised its sentencing discretion judiciously based on the offender's age?
  • What are the relevant principles and factors to be considered by an appellate or revisional court when deciding whether to enhance a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs The State and others2021 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-14
  sentence enhancementdouble jeopardyjuvenile offenderrevisional jurisdictionexpectancy of liferapequantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of a ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to the respondent for rape under section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent, a juvenile at the time of the offense, had already served the full sentence and been released from jail. The core legal question was whether the court could enhance a sentence after the convict had already served the full term imposed by the trial court, and whether such enhancement would violate the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that while an appellate or revisional court possesses the legal power to enhance a sentence, and the serving of a sentence does not per se constitute a bar to enhancement or violate the doctrine of double jeopardy, the exercise of this discretion depends on the facts of each case. Finding that the trial court exercised its discretion appropriately given the respondent's juvenile status, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the sentence was not perverse or wrong in principle.

  Questions settled

  • Does the serving of a sentence by a convict during the pendency of an appeal or revision constitute a legal bar to the enhancement of that sentence?
  • Does the enhancement of a sentence by an appellate or revisional court violate the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the principle of expectancy of life applicable in cases where the state or complainant seeks to enhance a sentence of imprisonment for life to death?
  • Can a revisional court enhance a sentence if the trial court's sentencing discretion was not exercised perversely?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs Mst. Abbas Bibi and others2022 CLC 963 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-30
  Nikah NamaClause 19unreasoned divorcealimonyspousal supportcivil contractright to divorceIslamic Injunctionsconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts enforcing a condition under Clause 19 of the Nikah Nama, wherein the petitioner husband had mutually agreed to provide gold ornaments and financial compensation to his wife in the event of an unreasoned divorce. The petitioner contended that such a financial condition was contrary to law, Islamic injunctions, and amounted to an illegal clog on his right to divorce. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the terms settled in a Nikah Nama constitute a valid civil contract between the parties. The Court determined that financial support stipulated under Clause 19 possesses the attributes of spousal support or alimony aimed at ensuring the ex-wife lives a dignified life post-separation. Such a condition does not restrict or encumber the husband's statutory or religious right to divorce, nor is the concept of alimony alien to Islam. Consequently, the condition was lawful, binding, and fully enforceable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a condition in Clause 19 of a Nikah Nama requiring the husband to pay financial compensation upon an unreasoned divorce is legally valid and enforceable?
  • Does a mutual agreement in a Nikah Nama providing financial support or alimony to a wife upon divorce constitute an illegal restriction or clog on the husband's right to divorce?
  • Is the concept of post-divorce financial support or alimony alien to Islamic law and the teachings of the Quran?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs Javed Ahmad & others2021 LHC 3212, 2022 CLC 1368 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim and others vs Member Board of Revenue Punjab and others2021 LHC 8002, 2022 CLC 1060 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa etc vs Muhammad Nazir2021 PLJ Lahore 142 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1390 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-15
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtchance witnessdelayed post-mortemweapon recoveryocular accountcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's husband, along with Murder Reference No. 112 of 2016 for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given the contentions regarding delayed post-mortem examination, the status of the eye-witnesses as chance witnesses, delayed recording of statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and uncorroborated weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to numerous glaring doubts, including the likelihood of an unwitnessed murder, doubtful presence of eye-witnesses, and lack of blood stains on the alleged recovery. The court laid down the key principles that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt where multiple circumstances cast suspicion on the prosecution story, that chance witnesses cannot be relied upon without convincing explanations, and that medical and corroborative evidence cannot substitute for primary ocular proof of identity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delayed post-mortem examination creates a possibility of an unwitnessed murder and concoction of a prosecution story?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses be accepted without a convincing explanation of their presence at the crime scene?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the recovery memo fails to mention blood stains?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to establish the identity of the assailant in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad etc vs Muhammad Akbar etc2021 [M] C L R 307 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and others vs National Bank of Pakistan and others2021 LHC 179, 2022 [M] CLR 956, 2022 PCTLR 947 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jilani vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 187 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-10
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecriminal procedurebail bonds
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Ghulam Jilani, sought post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 612 dated 13.12.2018, registered at Police Station Fatehpur, District Layyah, for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the issuance of a dishonoured cheque amounting to Rs. 8,50,000/-. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the nature of the offence and the statutory framework governing bail. Upon review, the Court observed that the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, in the absence of material justifying the refusal of bail, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought. The Court granted bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within five months.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain, etc vs Muhammad Hussain, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 179 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain etc vs Iqbal Hussain through his legal heirs etc2021 PLJ Lahore 194 · Lahore High Court · 2020-06-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hassan vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1789 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-07
  dying declarationbenefit of doubtQatl-i-Amdocular evidencerecoverycriminal appealmurder referenceprocedural defect
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the murder of his wife. The core legal questions concern the admissibility and reliability of the deceased’s alleged dying declaration, the sufficiency of the ocular evidence, and the validity of the weapon recovery. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the dying declaration was deemed fabricated as it was recorded without proper medical attestation or procedural compliance, and the deceased was in a state of shock, rendering her unfit to make a lucid statement. Furthermore, the ocular evidence was unreliable due to the absence of a proven light source at the scene, the motive remained unproven, and the recovery of the weapon violated mandatory procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, and that tainted evidence cannot corroborate other tainted evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dying declaration admissible if it is not recorded in the presence of a doctor or independent witness despite the availability of such persons?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of a weapon violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the existence of a light source at the scene of a night-time occurrence?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a legal right of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hassan vs Federation Of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 5 others2021 PTD 1379 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-15
  sales taxsearch and seizuresearch warranttax fraudconstitutional petitioninland revenuestatutory interpretationillegal search
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding a notice issued under Sections 37 and 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, following a raid and seizure of records by tax authorities. The core legal question is whether tax officials can conduct a search and seizure of business premises under the authority of Section 38 without obtaining a search warrant as mandated by Section 40. The Court held that the raid and subsequent seizure were illegal. It established that Section 38 is an enabling provision for inspection and access to records, but it does not authorize search and seizure, which is a specific power governed exclusively by Section 40. The Court laid down the principle that Section 38 and Section 40 must be read conjunctively, where the specific procedural requirements of Section 40—requiring a warrant and adherence to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—control the general powers of access in Section 38. Consequently, evidence obtained through an illegal search is inadmissible, and the department cannot rely on such records.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 authorize tax authorities to conduct a search and seizure of business premises?
  • Can evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure be used against a taxpayer?
  • Is Section 40 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 a specific provision that controls the general powers of access provided under Section 38?
  • Must tax authorities obtain a search warrant under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before searching business premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid, etc vs Ahmad Khan, etc2021 LHC 6528 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid etc vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 370 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-09
  murder appealbenefit of doubtocular testimonymedical evidence conflictfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusdishonest improvementscorroborationrecovery from open place
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal, murder reference, and petition against acquittal arising from a conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Minchinabad. The appellants were convicted under Sections 302(b) and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following a private complaint regarding a fatal shooting. The core legal questions pertained to the credibility of ocular testimony, the effect of dishonest improvements, the applicability of the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, and the requirement of independent corroboration where co-accused with identical roles are acquitted. The Lahore High Court observed significant conflicts between the medical evidence and the ocular account, unexplained omissions in the injured witness's medical records, unproven motive, and the recovery of a weapon from an un-demarcated open place. Applying established jurisprudence, the High Court held that testimony disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused cannot support conviction of others without independent corroboration. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellants on benefit of doubt, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the petition against acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can ocular testimony that has been disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused be relied upon to convict other accused persons without independent corroboration?
  • Does deliberate and dishonest improvement by a prosecution witness render their testimony unreliable?
  • Does the presence of injuries on a prosecution witness automatically stamp them as a truthful witness?
  • Is a weapon recovery effected from an open and accessible place sufficient to corroborate a doubtful ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastgeer vs The State and another2021 LHC 8201, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 710 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15
  murderself-defencebenefit of doubtsection 342 statementappreciation of evidenceocular accountcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Ghulam Dastgeer, for murder under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, or if the trial court erred by relying on the inculpatory portion of the appellant's statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while rejecting the exculpatory portion regarding self-defence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt, noting significant contradictions in the ocular evidence and the failure to produce a key witness. The court reaffirmed the principle that an accused's statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected in its entirety; a court cannot pick and choose to convict based solely on admissions while ignoring the accompanying defence plea. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution must prove its case independently, and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court convict an accused by accepting only the inculpatory part of their statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while rejecting the exculpatory part?
  • Is it legally permissible to rely on the defence's statement to fill gaps in the prosecution's case when the prosecution has failed to prove its case independently?
  • Does the failure to produce a natural witness during trial warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs The State and others2022 YLR 99 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-17
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of the doubtchance witnessante-timed FIRinquest reportacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions involved the reliability of chance witnesses, the existence of an ante-timed First Information Report, unproven motive, doubtful recovery, and the application of the principle of benefit of the doubt. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions, delayed post-mortem, absence of FIR details in the inquest report, and suspect recovery rendered the prosecution's case highly doubtful. The court established that when ocular testimony is disbelieved regarding a co-accused on the same evidence, it cannot be safely used against another without strong corroboration. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an FIR can be considered ante-timed when the inquest report lacks its detailed description?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses who are closely related to the deceased be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of evidence create a legal barrier to convicting another accused without strong corroboration?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas and others vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1604 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-17
  criminal appealmurderreasonable doubtbenefit of doubtocular accountchance witnessante-timed FIRacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while a connected revision petition seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering significant discrepancies regarding the time of the occurrence, the timing of the FIR, the reliability of the eye-witnesses, and the recovery of the weapon. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the FIR appeared to be ante-timed, the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses with unproven motives, and the recovery of the weapon was highly suspicious. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement. The judgment reaffirms the principle that if prosecution evidence is disbelieved regarding a co-accused, it cannot be relied upon against another without strong corroboration. Furthermore, it emphasizes that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the FIR is found to be ante-timed and the prosecution's ocular account is inconsistent with the medical evidence?
  • Is it permissible to rely on the testimony of chance witnesses who are related to the deceased and have an unproven motive for false implication?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused in the absence of strong corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of a significant delay in the preparation of an inquest report and the absence of FIR details therein?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazanfar Ali, etc vs Malik Muhammad Ansar2021 LHC 1906 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
• Ghaffar alias Kali vs The State and others2021 MLD 2058 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09
  right of cross-examinationdefence counsel at State expensecapital trialrapefair trialremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, recorded by the trial court. The core legal question was whether closing the unrepresented accused's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and failing to provide counsel at State expense in a capital or heinous case violated due process and vitiated the trial. The Lahore High Court held that conducting a Sessions trial without ensuring representation or providing a defence counsel at State expense, and closing the valuable right of cross-examination merely because the accused lacked a counsel, caused a gross miscarriage of justice. The court laid down the principle that in capital or heinous cases, it is the mandatory duty of the trial court under the relevant rules and jurisprudence to provide a competent defence counsel at State expense to an unrepresented accused, and that cross-examination is an indispensable tool for discovering the truth which cannot be arbitrarily curtailed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether closing the right of cross-examination of an unrepresented accused solely on the ground of not having a lawyer vitiates the trial?
  • Is it mandatory for the trial court to provide a defence counsel at State expense to an unrepresented accused in a Sessions trial for an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
  • Can the conviction of an accused be sustained when the testimony of key prosecution witnesses has not been subjected to cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Gam Corp. (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Admin Executive vs National Highways2021 CLC 1755 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-10
  advertisement taxNational Highway Authorityprivate propertyultra viressubordinate legislationright of waywrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged notices issued by the National Highway Authority requiring the petitioner to pay an advertisement tax for a pylon installed on private property near a restaurant. The core legal question was whether the National Highway Authority has the statutory authority under the National Highway Authority Act, 1991 and its subordinate rules to levy a fee or tax on advertisement boards located on private premises outside its jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that subordinate legislation cannot go beyond the parent statute, and neither the parent Act nor Rule 12 of the National Highways and Strategic Roads Control Rules, 1998 grant the Authority power to levy fees on advertisement boards installed on privately owned properties not forming part of the Right of Way. The impugned notices were declared illegal and without lawful authority, and the petition was allowed with directions for the refund of deposited amounts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Highway Authority can levy a fee or tax on advertisement boards installed on private properties?
  • Do subordinate rules framed under a parent statute create substantive rights and obligations not envisaged by the Act?
  • Does the jurisdiction of the National Highway Authority extend to private premises located along the building line of highways for the purpose of charging advertisement fees?
  • Can the National Highway Authority utilize its rule-making powers to generate revenue through commercial use of private properties not acquired as Right of Way?
  Read full judgment →
• Fozia Mazhar vs Additional District Judge and 2 others2021 CLC 270 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain vs State, etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1352 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-03
  criminal revisiondismissal for non-prosecutioncriminal appealdecision on meritsfugitive from lawremand of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Minchinabad, dismissing the petitioner's criminal appeals for non-prosecution and subsequently rejecting his application for their restoration. The petitioner had been convicted and sentenced by a Magistrate Section-30 under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including Sections 337-F(vi) and 337-D. Upon admission of his appeals, sentence was suspended, but the appeals were subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution when he and his counsel failed to appear.

  The core legal question was whether a criminal appeal, once admitted for regular hearing, can be dismissed for non-prosecution or default under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  The Lahore High Court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the appeals for decision afresh on merits. It held that the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contains no concept of dismissing a criminal appeal for non-prosecution; under Section 423 and relevant High Court Rules, admitted criminal appeals must be adjudicated on merits, with limited exceptions concerning absconding fugitives.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal appeal that has been admitted for regular hearing be dismissed for non-prosecution under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an appellate court have the power to decide a criminal appeal without examining the merits of the case when the appellant fails to appear?
  • Under what conditions may the appeal of an absconding convict or fugitive from law be dismissed without an adjudication on the merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain and 3 others vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 174 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-14
  benefit of doubtocular evidencematerial contradictioncross-versionprivate complaintcriminal appealacquittalmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a private complaint concerning a murder and injuries incident, challenging the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the complainant repeatedly changing versions and the existence of a cross-version by the accused. The Lahore High Court observed that the prosecution’s ocular evidence was riddled with material contradictions, improvements, and conflicts with medical evidence, while the defense also failed to establish its version. The Court held that both parties had suppressed the truth and attempted to minimize their own roles, rendering it impossible to discern the actual facts. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down, following the precedent of Rajmeer Khan v. Noor-ul-Haq, is that when both rival parties in a criminal case suppress the truth and present fabricated versions, the court cannot reconstruct the story and must instead extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a prosecution witness automatically render their testimony truthful?
  • Can a court convict an accused when both the prosecution and the defense have suppressed the truth and presented fabricated versions of the incident?
  • What is the effect of material improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Should an adverse inference be drawn when the prosecution withholds material witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• FESCO through Director, HR & a, Faisalabad vs Muhammad Ozair etc2021 PLJ Lahore 835 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-23Read full judgment →
• Federation Of Pakistan vs Ex. Naik Mumtaz Hussain2021 MLD 2095 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain Shah and anothers vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1511 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-15
  Qatl-i-Amddeath sentence commutationocular evidencebenefit of doubtmitigating circumstancesDamancriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of appellants Fazal Hussain Shah and Qaiser Shah for murder and attempted murder. The trial court sentenced Fazal Hussain Shah to death for the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased and Qaiser Shah to imprisonment for attempted murder and causing injuries. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence regarding the ocular account, the reliability of motive and recovery evidence, and the appropriate quantum of sentence given the circumstances. The Lahore High Court upheld the convictions, finding the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses consistent, trustworthy, and corroborated by medical evidence, despite discarding the motive and recovery evidence. Regarding sentencing, the Court held that where the motive is unproven and the recovery evidence is unreliable, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance. Consequently, the Court commuted the death sentence of Fazal Hussain Shah to life imprisonment and reduced the imprisonment term of Qaiser Shah, while maintaining his conviction and Daman requirements, establishing that mitigating factors regarding motive and evidence can necessitate sentence reduction even when guilt is proven.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the motive for the crime is not proven?
  • Does the discarding of recovery evidence and motive require the acquittal of an accused if the ocular account remains credible?
  • Can an appellate court grant the benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance when determining the quantum of sentence?
  • Is an accused entitled to pay Daman in installments under Section 337-Y of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ameer vs Muhammad Ameer, etc2021 PLJ Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-25Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Limited vs M/s. Wahid Sons Manufacturing Corporation (Pvt.)2021 P C T L R 440, 2021 [M] C L R 322 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Limited vs Government Of The Punjab etc2021 PLJ Lahore 929 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-02Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Limited through Authorized Attorneys vs The Government Of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 8 others2021 PLD Lahore 746 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-02Read full judgment →
• Fatima Abdul Wadood vs Additional District Judge Khanewal etc2021 PLJ Lahore 849 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-05Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Mahtab Ahmed and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1615 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-08
  pre-arrest bailembezzlementbank fraudrule of consistencycriminal breach of trustpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second pre-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an FIR concerning offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail when they were not the beneficiaries of the alleged financial embezzlement, lacked a forensic report connecting them to the crime, and co-accused who were primary beneficiaries had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioners did not gain monetary benefit, no forensic evidence linked them to the offense, and similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail, sending the petitioners to jail would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners, laying down that personal liberty cannot be curtailed on bald allegations without supporting material.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second pre-arrest bail petition maintainable if the earlier one was withdrawn due to the investigating officer finding the accused not connected with the crime?
  • Does the lack of monetary benefit and absence of forensic reports support the grant of pre-arrest bail in a white-collar crime case?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed on the rule of consistency when co-accused who are primary beneficiaries of the alleged scam have already been admitted to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Shah vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 713 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-06
  acid attackcorrosive substanceanti-terrorismsite-planocular evidencecriminal appealconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Farooq Shah, who was found guilty by the Anti-Terrorism Court of causing acid burn injuries to the victim, Mst. Shaista Bibi, and her father, Ashiq Hussain. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's identity, whether the medical evidence regarding the substance used was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the site-plan discrepancies warranted acquittal. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prompt registration of the FIR, the consistent ocular testimony of the victims, and the corroborating medical evidence proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that the term 'corrosive substance' under Section 336-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is broad, encompassing any chemical causing such harm. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a site-plan is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used to impeach witness credibility unless the witnesses are specifically confronted with its contents during cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Is a site-plan a substantive piece of evidence that can be used to impeach a witness without confronting them with it?
  • Does the definition of 'corrosive substance' under Section 336-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require specific identification of the chemical used?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony of victims who suffered acid burn injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad vs Rashid Ahmad etc2021 LHC 174, 2021 YLR 1184, 2021 [M] CLR 1132 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
• Faraz Ahmed Qureshi vs Jahanzeb Khan etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 770 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-01
  acquittal appealcircumstantial evidencedouble presumption of innocenceperverse judgmentcriminal appealburden of proofmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving charges of kidnapping, rape, and murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, and whether the prosecution had successfully established a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence to overcome the double presumption of innocence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting significant discrepancies: the complainant’s unexplained delay in reporting the abduction, the recovery of the deceased's personal belongings from the residence, and the fact that the funeral was conducted openly rather than secretly. The Court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain to sustain a conviction. Furthermore, it affirmed that an acquittal order carries a double presumption of innocence, and appellate interference is only warranted if the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, which was not established in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • What is the evidentiary standard required for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does an acquittal by a trial court create a double presumption of innocence for the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad Rana vs Commissioner Lahore Division Lahore and 32021 PLJ Lahore 380 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-10Read full judgment →
• Faqeer Muhammad vs The State, etc2021 LHC 829, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 69, 2022 [M] CLR 126 · Lahore High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• Famous Brands (Pvt.) Limited vs The Customs Appellate Tribunal Bench, Lahore and others2022 PTD 569, PTCL 2022 CL. 608 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Famous Brands (Private) Limited vs Samsonite Ip Holdings S.a.r.l.and others2021 CLD 107 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-28Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 335 · Lahore High Court · 2020-12-02
  criminal revisionquantum of sentenceocular accountfirst offenderhurtdamanarsh
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court regarding an incident of physical assault. The petitioners were convicted under Sections 337-A(i) and 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries to the complainant party. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the charges against the petitioners through ocular and medical evidence, and whether the sentences imposed were proportionate given the circumstances. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the petitioners through consistent testimony from injured witnesses and medical corroboration, which remained unshaken during cross-examination. While maintaining the convictions, the Court exercised judicial discretion regarding the quantum of sentence. Considering that the petitioners were first-time offenders with no prior criminal record and had already served a substantial portion of their imprisonment, the Court reduced the sentences to the period already undergone, while upholding the requirement to pay the imposed daman and arsh. The principle established is that in cases of minor injuries where the accused are first-time offenders, the period of incarceration already served may suffice to meet the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can the sentence of a first-time offender be reduced to the period already undergone if the injuries caused were not serious?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused in the same incident automatically invalidate the conviction of other accused persons?
  • Is the testimony of injured witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Fakhar Islam vs Superintendent District Jail & another2021 [M] C L R 1296 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-10Read full judgment →
• Fakhar alias Fakhro vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 697 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-19
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtchance witnessdelayed FIRforensic evidencemotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for murder, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the implications of an inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting the crime, the status of chance witnesses, the substantiation of motive, and the evidentiary value of forensic weapon matching when the crime empty and weapon are dispatched together after the accused's arrest. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to delayed FIR registration, doubtful presence of chance witnesses, unproven motive, and compromised forensic recovery. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay in reporting a crime to the police without plausible explanation vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses be relied upon without convincing explanations for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a positive forensic report lose its evidentiary value if the crime empty is sent to the forensic laboratory together with the alleged weapon of offense after the arrest of the accused?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ullah vs P.P.S.C., etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 1091, 2021 PLD Lahore 284, 2021 LHC 153 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-03
  transgender rightspublic service commissionlecturer recruitmentdiscriminationconstitutional petitionequal treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an advertisement and subsequent order by the Punjab Public Service Commission rejecting the petitioner's application for the post of Lecturer (Female) on the ground that the posts were earmarked exclusively for male and female candidates, excluding transgender persons. The petitioner, a transgender person, applied under Section 3 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018. During the proceedings, the respondents conceded to the petitioner's claim and agreed to allow participation in the recruitment process. Consequently, the Lahore High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned rejection order, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application. Additionally, the Court expressed grave concern over discriminatory practices against transgender persons and directed the relevant authority to formulate a comprehensive policy for the strict implementation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018.

  Questions settled

  • Can a transgender person apply for a public service post designated for male or female candidates under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018?
  • Whether the exclusion of transgender persons from public recruitment processes violates constitutional guarantees and statutory protections?
  • Is a government department obligated to implement the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018 in letter and spirit?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad vs Haji Abdul Sattar2021 LHC 7993 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-09Read full judgment →
• Faisal vs The State etc2021 LHC 4466, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 211 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-20
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionwajtakkarres gestaeacquittal of co-accusedbenefit of doubtmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, while acquitting five co-accused. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, including wajtakkar (res gestae), extra-judicial confession, medical testimony, and recoveries, as well as the principle of applying the same evidence against a convict when co-accused similarly situated have been acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case through an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, noting that the wajtakkar evidence was weak, the extra-judicial confession lacked material particulars and credibility, and the recoveries were inconclusive. The Court laid down that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be connected without gaps from the dead body to the accused, and that evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused cannot be utilized against a remaining accused without strong and independent corroboration. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence when links in the chain of evidence are missing?
  • Can an extra-judicial confession lacking specific details of time, date, and manner of the offense form the basis of a capital conviction?
  • Whether evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused can be relied upon to convict another co-accused without independent and strong corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of wajtakkar or res gestae in an unseen crime where the report to the police suffers from inordinate delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Riaz, etc vs The State, etc2021 KLR Criminal Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-25
  post-arrest bailcybercrimecredit card fraudwhite-collar crimefurther inquirycorroborationforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications arising from FIR No. 67/2014, involving allegations of credit card hacking and financial fraud under the Electronic Transaction Ordinance, 2002, and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence collected during the investigation. Regarding the petitioner Rashid Bashir, the Court held that bail should be refused because forensic analysis of seized devices provided substantial incriminating evidence linking him to the crime, establishing reasonable grounds to believe he committed the offense. Conversely, regarding petitioners Faisal Riaz and Aakash Patrick, the Court granted bail, holding that their implication rested solely on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused. The Court emphasized that while courts must adopt a pragmatic approach toward white-collar crime, bail decisions require a tentative assessment of evidence. Where independent corroboration is absent, the involvement of an accused may constitute a matter of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused in cybercrime cases where forensic evidence provides reasonable grounds to connect the accused to the offense?
  • Is the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused sufficient to deny bail to other accused persons?
  • Does the absence of independent corroborative evidence regarding an accused's involvement constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Afzal through Attorney vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, (Residual2021 PLJ Lahore 491 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Faisal Afzal through Attorney vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, (Member2021 YLR 977 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-19Read full judgment →
• Fahmeeda Younas through L.Rs vs Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura2021 [M] C L R 1248, 2021 YLR 1550 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ullah vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1148 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-11
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesfurther inquirypossession of narcoticscriminal procedurebail in non-bailable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from the refusal of the trial court to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner was apprehended alongside a co-accused in a vehicle from which a substantial quantity of narcotics (94.500 kilograms of Charas) was recovered. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was a passenger and not the driver, and from whose personal possession no narcotics were recovered, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish a direct nexus between the petitioner and the vehicle or the contraband. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Emphasizing that the investigation was complete, the petitioner was a first-time offender, and continued incarceration would serve no punitive purpose, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that mere presence in a vehicle carrying contraband, without evidence of exclusive possession or control, warrants the grant of bail for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is a passenger in a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered automatically liable for the offence of possession?
  • Does the absence of exclusive possession of contraband entitle an accused to post-arrest bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • When does a criminal case qualify for the grant of bail on the grounds of 'further inquiry' under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Shahid vs Muhammad Nawaz2021 CLC 1338 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-19Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad vs The State and another2021 KLR Criminal Cases 309, 2021 LHC 443, 2022 SCMR 1742 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-02
  recall of witnessSection 540 Cr.P.C.cross-examinationcriminal trial procedurere-examination of witnessQanun-e-Shahadatjust decision of the case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Model Criminal Trial Court, Multan, which allowed the prosecution's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to recall and re-examine a prosecution witness (PW-13) while the cross-examination was still pending. The core legal question was whether a trial court can invoke Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to recall a witness for re-examination before the initial examination process, including cross-examination, has been fully concluded. The High Court set aside the trial court's order, holding that the power under Section 540 cannot be exercised while the witness's testimony is still in progress. The court established the principle that the term 'already examined' in Section 540 implies that the entire sequence of examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination, as prescribed by Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, must be completed before a witness can be recalled under Section 540. Consequently, the trial court erred by interrupting the ongoing cross-examination to allow a recall.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court invoke Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to recall a witness before the conclusion of their cross-examination?
  • What is the legal meaning of 'already examined' in the context of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the order of examination prescribed by Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, preclude the use of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 during ongoing cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad Butt vs Samreena2021 LHC 4396, 2022 CLC 233 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-24Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Shah vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 569 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-01
  murder appealbenefit of doubtocular and medical conflictdishonest improvementscriminal jurisprudencedeath sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Ehsan Shah, awarded by the trial court under Sections 302(b)/149, 324/149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The prosecution case arose from an altercation involving a dispute where the appellant and co-accused allegedly opened fire, resulting in two deaths and injuries to others. Upon review of the record, the Lahore High Court noted major contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, as well as material dishonest improvements made by key eyewitnesses to align their court statements with medical reports. The court also held that the alleged motive was unproved and the weapon recovery was inconsequential without corroborative forensic reports. Emphasizing that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between ocular account and medical evidence create a doubt sufficient for the acquittal of an accused?
  • What is the legal effect of material improvements made by eyewitnesses during trial testimony when confronted with their previous police statements?
  • Is an uncorroborated weapon recovery sufficient to sustain a conviction without a positive forensic match report?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Dua Aneeqa vs Adnan Jahangeer, etc2021 LHC 2454 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-25Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shamim Akhtar vs Principal Secretary to Chief Minister Punjab etc2021 [M] C L R 1360, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 318, 2021 LHC 2679, 2022 PLC (C.S.) · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-28
  repatriationdeputationcivil servantservice tribunalconstitutional barArticle 212tenure of deputationjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged an order dismissing a writ petition against the appellant's repatriation from her deputation as Chairperson of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, to her parent department. The core legal questions were whether the appellant, a civil servant on deputation, retained her status as a civil servant, and whether the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, precluded the High Court from exercising jurisdiction over her repatriation. The Court held that a civil servant on deputation does not lose their status as a civil servant, and the repatriation order issued by the parent department is a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service, thus falling squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212. The Court further established that a deputationist has no vested right to serve the full tenure of their deputation, and the parent department may repatriate them at any time without the necessity of a show-cause notice, provided no adverse action is taken against them.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation to an autonomous body lose their status as a civil servant?
  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to complete the full tenure of their deputation?
  • Is a repatriation order of a civil servant from a deputation post challengeable in a writ petition under Article 199, or is it barred by Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Is a show-cause notice required before the repatriation of a civil servant from a deputation post where no adverse action is taken?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sarfraz Deputy District Officer Health and others vs Malik Muhammad2021 CLC 2152 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nisar Ahmed Chaudhary through Special Attorney vs Government Of Punjab through Secretary Colonies, Lahore and 12 others2022 YLR 209 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-24
  constitutional petitionstate landallotment cancellationbreach of undertakingestoppelresumption of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed to challenge an order of the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue declining the restoration of an allotment and conveyance deed regarding State land originally granted to the petitioner for establishing a charitable hospital. The core legal question concerned the legality of the resumption of State land due to the petitioner's prolonged failure to construct the hospital despite multiple undertakings given before courts and extensions granted over decades. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's failure to honor voluntary judicial undertakings to complete the project invoked the doctrine of estoppel and revived the penal clauses of the original grant leading to valid resumption of the land. The court laid down the principle that the conduct of a litigant who breaches solemn undertakings given to a court disentitles them to discretionary constitutional relief, and that public property cannot be locked up indefinitely through protracted litigation and unfulfilled promises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner who fails to fulfill solemn undertakings given to a court to complete a project on State land is entitled to discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the breach of an undertaking given to a court revive the penal clauses and conditions regarding the time limit for construction attached to a State land grant?
  • Can a litigant claim protection or extension of time on grounds of non-demarcation when such a plea was never raised during prior judicial proceedings where unconditional extensions were sought and granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nadeem Kiani vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 CLD 33 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Yousaf vs The State, etc2021 LHC 815 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Jawad Jan Arif vs Dr. Ayesha Chaudhary, etc2021 LHC 3957, 2022 CLC 89 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Eshfaq Gujjar and another vs Additional District Judge2021 LHC 5486, 2022 [M] CLR 655 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →