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.

• Tayyab Paper Mills vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Division, Islamabad and others2019 PTD 1674 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-14Read full judgment →
• Tasaddaq Hussain alias Idnan vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 712 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-22
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtplea of alibiocular evidencepolice investigationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given that multiple police investigations declared him innocent, the ocular evidence was inconsistent with medical findings, and the appellant raised a credible plea of alibi. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's involvement, noting significant delays in reporting the crime, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the fact that the injury attributed to the appellant was not clearly established as a firearm injury. Furthermore, the Court found the testimony of the eye-witnesses doubtful and the appellant's plea of alibi supported by defence witnesses. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution evidence is riddled with doubts, inconsistencies, and contradictions, and where the police investigation—while not binding—is based on sound material supporting the accused's innocence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police investigation report declaring an accused innocent be considered by the court in determining the guilt of the accused?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is the testimony of eye-witnesses reliable when it contradicts the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Nadeem vs Shakeel Ahmad2019 LHC 1369 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs The State etc2019 P Cr. L J 1039, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 365, 2019 LHC 257 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07
  pre-arrest bailbailable offencesmedical jurisprudenceShajjah-e-Khafifahbone deep injurymala fiderecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 342, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the alleged injury, initially categorized as 'bone deep' and charged under section 337-A(ii), truly constituted a non-bailable offence, and whether bail should be granted given the circumstances. The Court held that the medical evidence, specifically the radiologist report, confirmed no fracture was present, and the term 'bone deep' was improperly used by the medical officer contrary to established guidelines. Consequently, the injury was reclassified as 'Shajjah-e-Khafifah', which falls under the bailable section 337-A(i). The Court further held that recovery of the weapon ('sota') was unnecessary due to the significant passage of time and that bail cannot be refused in bailable offences merely due to alleged abscondance. The pre-arrest bail was confirmed. The key principle laid down is that medical officers must strictly adhere to defined terminology regarding injuries, and misclassification of injuries by medical staff can indicate mala fide on the part of the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does a 'bone deep' injury without bone exposure constitute an offence under section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be refused for the purpose of recovery of a weapon when significant time has elapsed since the incident?
  • Is bail liable to be refused in bailable offences merely on the ground of abscondance?
  • What is the correct legal classification for an injury where the bone is not exposed?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer vs The State etc2020 PLD Lahore 774, 2019 LHC 4305 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-27
  abduction for ransomrapeDNA evidencechain of custodycriminal appealwitness credibilitycorroboratory evidencereasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for abduction and rape under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the victim’s testimony, the admissibility and weight of DNA evidence, and whether the prosecution established the chain of custody for forensic samples. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the victim’s testimony was inconsistent and improved upon, rendering it unreliable. Furthermore, the Court ruled that DNA evidence is corroboratory rather than primary, and because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the forensic samples, the DNA report was inadmissible. Emphasizing that medical evidence cannot substitute for primary ocular testimony and that any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms that forensic reports require strict adherence to procedural safeguards to be considered credible evidence in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of DNA evidence without primary ocular testimony?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the transmission of forensic samples to a laboratory affect the admissibility of a DNA report?
  • Is a witness who consistently improves their statement during trial considered a reliable witness?
  • Must the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of custody for forensic evidence to be admissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Salamat vs Learned Addl. District Judge, etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1272, 2019 YLR 1862, 2019 PLJ Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Hussain vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 315 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-05
  criminal appealmurdercircumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtacquittalmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant, Tanveer Hussain, for the murder of a minor, as determined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence presented, specifically last-seen evidence, an alleged extra-judicial confession, medical reports, and recovery of incriminating items. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The court found the last-seen evidence unreliable due to the witness's delayed reporting and close relationship with the complainant. Furthermore, the extra-judicial confession lacked corroboration and credibility, and the medical evidence failed to substantiate the prosecution’s theory, particularly regarding alleged sodomy, which was negated by the Chemical Examiner’s report. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof. The key principle laid down is that where circumstantial evidence is inconsistent, uncorroborated, and fails to form a complete chain of events, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession reliable when it lacks corroboration and involves unexplained delays?
  • Does the failure of medical evidence to support a specific allegation, such as sodomy, undermine the prosecution's entire case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on 'last seen' evidence when the witness's conduct is inconsistent with natural behavior?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a confession allegedly made to police during investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmad alias Peeru vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 53 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-09
  narcotic substancesweight discrepancyforensic analysissentencing reductioncriminal appealrecovery memopossession of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing 1160 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether a significant discrepancy between the weight of the narcotic sample recorded at the time of recovery and the weight reported by the forensic laboratory necessitated a reduction in the conviction category. The court held that the discrepancy indicated an inaccurate scale used by the investigating officer. By calculating the percentage of deficiency observed in the sample and applying it to the total recovered quantity, the court determined the actual weight fell below the threshold for Section 9(c) and instead fell under Section 9(b). Consequently, the conviction was converted to Section 9(b), and the sentence was reduced. The key principle laid down is that where a weight discrepancy exists between field recovery and forensic analysis, the percentage of deficiency found in the sample must be applied to the total recovered narcotic substance to determine the accurate weight for sentencing purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the weight of a narcotic sample recorded at the scene and the weight reported by a forensic agency require a recalculation of the total recovered quantity?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be converted to Section 9(b) based on a finding of inaccurate weighing at the time of recovery?
  • Is the percentage of deficiency found in a forensic sample applicable to the total recovered narcotic substance for sentencing purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs State & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1340 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-19
  narcotic substancessafe custodychain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealforensic analysisnarcotics recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 2305 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the safe custody and chain of custody of the recovered contraband beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to glaring contradictions between the testimonies of the complainant and the police Moharrir regarding the dates the contraband parcel was submitted to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. Furthermore, the record failed to reconcile the timeline of the parcel's handling, creating a fatal gap in the chain of custody. The court reaffirmed the principle that the initial burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution, and where significant inconsistencies exist regarding the safe custody of recovered narcotics, the resulting doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between prosecution witnesses regarding the date of submission of contraband to a forensic laboratory create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish the safe custody of recovered narcotics beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove the chain of custody for recovered contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Talat Hafeez vs Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge ,Dera Ghazi2019 LHC 3862 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• Talat Ali vs Mrs. Durr-e-Shawar, etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1146 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-05Read full judgment →
• Taj Ahmad vs Muhammad Nawaz, Member of Provincial Assembly (Mpa), Punjab & others2019 KLR Civil Cases 88 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tahir vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1710 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-02
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailreappraisal of evidencevicarious liabilityacquittal of co-accusedcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca, in a private complaint involving offences under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence pending the final decision of his appeal. The Court observed that the petitioner was not attributed the role of inflicting any firearm injuries to the deceased, and notably, the co-accused who were attributed specific roles of causing firearm injuries had been acquitted by the trial court. Finding that the petitioner was not a hardened criminal and that his involvement required serious reappraisal of evidence during the appeal, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought. Consequently, the Court suspended the petitioner's sentence subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, establishing the principle that suspension of sentence is appropriate where the prosecution's case against the accused requires substantial re-evaluation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict entitled to suspension of sentence pending appeal when the co-accused attributed with the primary act have been acquitted?
  • Does the absence of a specific role in causing fatal injuries justify the suspension of a sentence under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the suspension of sentence be granted when the conviction requires a serious reappraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Pervaiz Director General Legal Affairs Pakistan Railways vs Federation2019 PLC (C.S.) 339, 2019 LHC 27, 2019 PLD Lahore 178, 2019 PLJ Lahore 149 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-08
  contractual employmentmaster and servantwrit jurisdictionex-post facto approvaltermination of servicemaintainability of petitioncompetent authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's contract as Director General/Legal Affairs (MP-II Scale) in Pakistan Railways. The core legal questions were whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for a contractual employee, whether the petitioner was estopped from challenging termination under specific contract clauses, and whether the termination order was issued by a competent authority. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner was a contract employee governed by the principle of master and servant, not statutory service rules. The Court affirmed that such employees cannot enforce contract terms in constitutional jurisdiction and, at best, may only claim damages for the unexpired period of service. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the termination, executed under the contract's notice provisions, was valid and that the Prime Minister's subsequent ex-post facto approval satisfied the requirement for approval, as the relevant rules did not mandate 'prior' approval. The principle established is that contractual service disputes are outside the scope of Article 199 jurisdiction, and 'approval' does not inherently require 'prior approval' unless explicitly stated.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for a contractual employee not governed by statutory service rules?
  • Can a contractual employee seek reinstatement in constitutional jurisdiction, or is the remedy limited to damages for the unexpired period?
  • Does the requirement of 'approval' by an authority inherently imply 'prior approval' in the absence of the word 'prior'?
  • Does the power to appoint include the power to dismiss under the General Clauses Act 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chairman, Lahore Gymkhana Club, Upper Mall, Lahore. Etc vs Basharat2019 PLC 162, 2019 LHC 1140 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-29
  jurisdictional factcommercial establishmentlabor court jurisdictionconstitutional petitionjudicial reviewworkman status
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed to impugn the concurrent orders of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain a grievance petition against a termination letter. The petitioner, Lahore Gymkhana Club, argued that as an association governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association and not operating for profit, it did not fall within the definition of a 'Commercial Establishment' under the relevant labor laws. The core legal question was whether a tribunal of limited jurisdiction is competent to decide jurisdictional objections regarding the amenability of parties or subject matter, and whether the High Court should interfere through judicial review while the matter remains pending. The Lahore High Court held that objections concerning whether a party or subject matter falls within a tribunal's jurisdiction can competently be investigated and decided by the special tribunal itself based on evidence and factual inquiry, rather than through premature constitutional petitions. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a special tribunal of limited jurisdiction is competent to decide objections regarding the amenability of parties or subject matter to its jurisdiction?
  • Can the High Court exercise judicial review jurisdiction to determine preliminary jurisdictional facts while the main matter is still pending adjudication before a Labour Court?
  • Does a club incorporated as an association limited by guarantee automatically fall outside the definition of a commercial establishment without recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mirza vs Saleha Mehmood, DCO and others2019 YLR 2852 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-30
  contempt petitionparallel proceedingscivil litigationprotection of lawoverseas pakistanisconstitutional obligation
  Summary & questions settled

  This contempt petition was filed alleging non-compliance with an earlier order of the court wherein respondents had stated they would not conduct parallel proceedings in light of pending civil litigation. The core legal question concerned whether contempt of court was made out against the respondents for initiating subsequent proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that no contempt was made out as no formal undertaking had been recorded by the respondent, and noted that alternative remedies were available to the parties under the relevant statutory framework. The court laid down the principle that under Articles 4, 5, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, all citizens—including overseas Pakistanis—are equally entitled to the protection of law and must be treated in accordance with law, and no person is above the law or permitted to take matters into their own hands.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contempt of court is made out when no formal undertaking was given to the court during the disposal of a constitutional petition?
  • Does an overseas Pakistani enjoy immunity from the ordinary legal process or civil litigation pending between the parties?
  • What is the scope of the right to be treated in accordance with law under Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Javaid vs Mst. Shahida Shafiq and others2020 MLD 277, 2019 LHC 1913 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Tahir Hussain vs The State, etc2020 YLR 576, 2019 LHC 3118 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-26
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustmala fidedelay in FIR registrationQarze-HasnaAmanat
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in connection with FIR No. 92 of 2019, registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging criminal breach of trust regarding a monetary transaction. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the circumstances surrounding the FIR. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that there was an unexplained two-year delay in registering the FIR, which cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court determined that the transaction, described as a loan (Qarze-Hasna) in substance, did not satisfy the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite the complainant's attempt to characterize it as 'Amanat' (trust). The key principle laid down is that the mere use of the word 'Amanat' in an FIR is insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the underlying transaction is essentially a civil loan, and such characterization may indicate mala fide intent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere use of the word 'Amanat' in an FIR automatically constitute an offence under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a transaction described as a loan (Qarze-Hasna) form the basis of a criminal charge for breach of trust?
  • Does an unexplained two-year delay in registering an FIR cast doubt on the reliability of the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Wajahat Ali through Special Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan2019 [M] C.L.R. 767, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 157, 2019 MLD 692 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Tayyab Hussain Rizvi vs Federation of Pakistan, Etc2019 LHC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Tayyab Hussain Rizvi vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PTD 1414 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Saleem Shah vs The State & 5 others2019 PLD Lahore 435, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1069, 2019 LHC 1737 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-23
  revisional jurisdictionanti-terrorism courtsummoning of witnessesinterim ordersCode of Criminal Proceduresuperintendence of High Courtjust decision of the case
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) dismissing the petitioner's applications under Section 227 and Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction over interim orders passed by an ATC and whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon investigating officers under Section 540, Cr.P.C. The Court held that an Anti-Terrorism Court is a court of criminal jurisdiction subordinate to the High Court, and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies mutatis mutandis to its proceedings unless expressly excluded. Consequently, the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. remains intact regarding interim orders of the ATC. The Court established that the jurisdiction of superior courts cannot be ousted except by express, clear, and unambiguous legislative intent. Regarding the merits, the Court held that summoning investigating officers is essential for the just decision of the case, allowing the petition and directing the trial court to record their testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 over interim orders passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Is an Anti-Terrorism Court considered a criminal court subordinate to the High Court?
  • Can a trial court refuse to summon investigating officers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Saleem Shah vs State and othersPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 510 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-06
  criminal revisionAnti-Terrorism Courtinterim ordersmaintainabilityjudicial conflictlarger benchprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal revision petition filed against an order dated 16.1.2019 passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court, which dismissed the petitioner's applications for the addition of a charge under Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and for the summoning of two Investigating Officers in a case involving FIR No. 247/2014. The core legal question addressed is the maintainability of a revision petition or writ petition challenging interim orders passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court, particularly in light of conflicting judgments from two Full Benches of the Lahore High Court. The Court observed that there is a divergence of opinion between the judgment dated 31.5.2018 passed by the Multan Bench and the judgment dated 6.7.2018 passed by the Principal Seat regarding the appropriate forum and procedure for challenging such interim orders. Consequently, the Court held that it is appropriate to transmit the petition to the Principal Seat and place the matter before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench to resolve the conflicting precedents and settle the legal position on the maintainability of such challenges.

  Questions settled

  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an interim order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • How should a court proceed when faced with conflicting judgments from two Full Benches of the same High Court regarding the maintainability of a petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajjad Hussain vs Judge Family Court, etc2019 CLC 1462, 2019 PLJ Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, etc. vs Addl. District Judhe, etc.2019 [M] C.L.R. 1680 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Qutab Ali Shah vs Mst. Sonia and 4 others2020 [M] C L R 391, 2019 MLD 1408 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Taqi Raza Naqvi vs Judge Family Court, etc2019 PLJ Lahore 404 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Taqi Raza Naqvi vs Judge Family Court and 4 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1276, 2019 PLJ Lahore 404, 2019 CLC 1261 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-10
  interim maintenanceFamily Courts Actconstructive res judicatarecurring cause of actionconstitutional petitioninterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Judge Family Court, Lahore, which fixed interim maintenance for the respondent-wife after having previously fixed interim maintenance for the minor children. The petitioner argued that under Section 17-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, the court was required to fix interim maintenance for both the wife and children on the first date of appearance, and failure to do so for the wife initially implied a refusal, rendering the subsequent order barred by constructive res judicata. The Court held that the Family Court retains jurisdiction to fix interim maintenance for the wife and children even if done on separate dates. The Court emphasized that no party should suffer due to an omission by the court, and the silence of an earlier order regarding a specific claim does not constitute a refusal. Furthermore, the Court clarified that maintenance is a recurring cause of action and that Section 17-A does not divest the court of jurisdiction to pass such orders subsequently. The petition was dismissed as the impugned order was interlocutory and no jurisdictional error was established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a Family Court to fix interim maintenance for a wife on the same date as the minor children constitute an implied refusal of that claim?
  • Is a Family Court barred by constructive res judicata from fixing interim maintenance for a wife on a date subsequent to fixing it for the children?
  • Does Section 17-A of the Family Courts Act 1964 divest a Family Court of jurisdiction to pass interim maintenance orders after the first date of appearance?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an interlocutory order of a Family Court regarding the quantum of interim maintenance?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Kaleem-ur-Rehman, etc. vs Secretary Cooperatives, Government of Punjab,etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1287 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Fida Hussain Shah vs The Election Appellate Tribunal & others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1281, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1293, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1449, PLD 2018 Lahore · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Atta Ul Hassan vs Ahmad Nawaz and others2019 MLD 1013 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Aoun Muhammad vs The State and another2021 P Cr.LJ 990, 2019 LHC 4102 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-12
  explosive substancesillegal armspolice witnessespublic witnessescriminal appealforensic evidenceterrorist attack preparation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Syed Aoun Muhammad, challenged his conviction and sentences under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and section 13-(2)(a) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, arising out of FIR No. 19 of 2018 registered at Police Station CTD Multan. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was apprehended red-handed in possession of illicit arms and explosive substances, and whether the testimony of police witnesses without public corroboration is sufficient for conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution established its case beyond a shadow of doubt through prompt FIR registration, reliable and consistent ocular testimony of police officials corroborated by recoveries, and positive forensic reports confirming the explosive nature of the seized items. The court laid down that police witnesses are as competent and credible as private witnesses unless their veracity is successfully impeached or mala fides is established, and that Section 19A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 dispenses with the mandatory requirement of public witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can form the sole basis for a criminal conviction without the association of private or public witnesses?
  • Does Section 19A of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding searches and arrests?
  • Is a promptly lodged First Information Report with detailed minor and material facts sufficient to exclude the possibility of deliberation and false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Naqi vs Government of The Punjab and others.2019 PLC (C.S.) 952 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-06
  constitutional petitiontermination of servicecontract employeeconfession of guiltregular inquirymisconductright to fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the termination of the petitioner's services as a contract employee following allegations of making and leaking unauthorized videos of female patients in a hospital operation theater, as well as the subsequent dismissal of his departmental appeal. The core legal question was whether a contract employee who has confessed in writing to serious misconduct can challenge his termination on the ground that a regular, formal inquiry was not conducted. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where an employee has explicitly confessed to the allegations during show-cause and personal hearing proceedings, a formal regular inquiry is dispensed with, and termination based on such admitted guilt is lawful. The court laid down the principle that a confessed wrongdoer cannot retract his admission by claiming his signatures or thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers, and serious misconduct of a shameful nature must be dealt with strictly without leniency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a regular inquiry is required when a public employee confesses in writing to the allegations against him?
  • Can an employee retract his written confession of guilt by alleging that his thumb impressions were obtained on blank paper?
  • Whether termination of a contract employee for serious misconduct involving the privacy of patients warrants interference under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the failure to conduct a regular inquiry violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution where guilt is admitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Manzar Zaidi etc. vs Syed Nafees etc.2020 CLC 369, 2019 PLJ Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Qadir Shah (Deceased) through his Legal Heirs and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 CLC 1920 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Abbas Mohy-Ud-Din and 3 others vs National Highway Authority2019 YLR 2770 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-16Read full judgment →
• SW Sugar Mills Limited through its Chief Executive vs Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad through its Chairman & others2020 PTD 925, 2019 PCTLR 947 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
• Sulaman Amjad & others vs Govt. of Punjab & others2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 1, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 168, 2020 PLJ Lahore 53, · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-20
  Rule 17-Acontract employmentregularization of servicesappointment on compassionate groundsPunjab Civil Servants Rulesgovernment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of a 2008 government directive requiring that appointments made under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974—intended to provide employment to the families of deceased or incapacitated government servants—be made on a contract basis. The core legal question was whether the government could mandate contract-based employment for Rule 17-A appointments despite the parent rules not providing for such a mechanism, especially after the government had reverted to a policy of regular recruitment. The Court held that the 2008 directive had become redundant and legally unsustainable following the 2009 policy shift toward regular recruitment. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that Rule 17-A appointments must be made on a regular basis, as the parent rules do not authorize contract-based induction. Consequently, the Court declared the 2008 letter ineffective, ordered the immediate regularization of all employees appointed under Rule 17-A, and mandated that all future appointments under this rule be made on a regular basis.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government mandate contract-based appointments under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
  • Does the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, authorize the appointment of employees on a contract basis?
  • Are appointments made under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, required to be on a regular basis?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited vs Wafaqi Mohtasib and others2019 PLD Lahore 169 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-18Read full judgment →
• Sughran Bibi vs Munawar Akram and 2 others2020 [M] C L R 759, 2019 MLD 2036 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-10Read full judgment →
• Sufiyan alias Sufyani vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 505 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-31
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilitymurderous assaultfabricated injurycriminal trial delaycommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 580 registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara, concerning offences under Sections 324, 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of participating in a murderous assault alongside co-accused persons, resulting in the death of one victim and injury to another. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific role attributed to him and the evidentiary value of the injuries. The Court observed that the petitioner was not alleged to have caused the fatal injury to the deceased, and the injury attributed to him on the complainant was medically noted as potentially fabricated. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's relationship to the co-accused and the lack of trial progress since his arrest. Holding that the petitioner's vicarious liability required further determination at trial, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution. The principle established is that where the prosecution's case rests on potentially fabricated injuries and the petitioner's specific role is distinct from the fatal act, bail may be granted pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the injury attributed to them is medically suspected of being fabricated?
  • Can bail be granted when the petitioner is not alleged to have caused the fatal injury in a murder case?
  • Does the lack of progress in a criminal trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sudheer Ahmad alias Chan vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 26 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-15
  post-arrest baildacoityidentification paradeFIR delaycriminal procedurebail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Sudheer Ahmad alias Chan, in connection with FIR No. 04 dated 02.1.2018, registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Muzaffarabad, Multan, regarding an alleged dacoity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail given the circumstances of the investigation and the evidentiary gaps. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting an unexplained five-hour delay in lodging the FIR, the fact that the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR, and serious questions regarding the legality of the identification parade, as his name appeared in a newspaper prior to the parade. Furthermore, the court observed that the alleged recovery was not supported by a memo of identification and that the petitioner had no previous criminal convictions. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail, emphasizing that indefinite detention without sufficient evidence would be unfair.

  Questions settled

  • Is an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the appearance of an accused's name in a newspaper prior to an identification parade cast doubt on the legality of the parade?
  • Can bail be granted when the recovery of stolen property is not supported by a memo of identification?
  Read full judgment →
• Subay Khan vs Secretary, Labour, Government of the Punjab2019 [M] C.L.R. 1413, 2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 223, PLD 2019 Lahore · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-25
  domestic workersfundamental rightsforced labourchild domestic labourminimum wagespublic interest litigationlabour welfare
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the enforcement of fundamental rights of domestic workers by directing the government to initiate proper legislation to regulate their minimum wages and working conditions. Initially raised in a writ petition, the matter was later pursued through a contempt petition which the court converted into a writ petition due to its significant public importance concerning workers' rights and protection from exploitation. The court examined international conventions, constitutional provisions including Articles 3, 4, 11, and 25, and landmark judgments concerning forced labour and fundamental rights. During the proceedings, the Punjab Government enacted the Punjab Domestic Workers Act, 2019, which provides comprehensive protections, including wage regulations, limitations on working hours, prohibitions on child domestic labour under fifteen years of age, and social security benefits. The court disposed of the petition while issuing directions for the effective implementation, rule-making, and administration of the new legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can convert a contempt petition into a writ petition when it involves matters of significant public importance concerning fundamental rights?
  • Are domestic workers entitled to fundamental rights and protections against exploitation under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • What are the statutory protections and prohibitions introduced under the Punjab Domestic Workers Act, 2019?
  • Does the right to life under the Constitution include the right to livelihood and the elimination of exploitation in employment?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab, Multan vs MuhammadPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 241 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-13
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailgang rapemisreading of evidenceperverse order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to Respondents No. 1 and 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, in connection with FIR No. 225 registered under Sections 365-B, 376(ii), and 371-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether grounds existed to recall the bail already granted to the respondents. The Court held that the considerations for the cancellation of bail are significantly different from those for its grant and are akin to grounds for an appeal against acquittal, requiring a showing that the bail-granting order was perverse or resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Finding no such perversity or overlooked material substance, the High Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that bail once granted will not be cancelled unless the petitioner demonstrates that the granting order is perverse, leaves no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused, or suffers from unconsidered material substance amounting to a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • What are the legal considerations and standards required for the cancellation of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled merely on the grounds of misreading of evidence without showing perversity?
  • Are the grounds for the cancellation of bail akin to the grounds for an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Attorney vs Additional District Judge and others2019 CLD 144 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-25Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation and others vs Mst. Safia Akhtar2019 CLD 310 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• State etc vs Muhammad Ramzan, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 11 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-05
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtinjured witnessocular accountmedical evidenceappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 302(b), 337-A(i), and 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence for one appellant and terms of imprisonment for others, alongside an acquittal of a co-accused. The core legal questions involve the assessment of ocular and medical evidence, the reliability of an injured witness whose presence and testimony showed significant contradictions, and the sufficiency of proof regarding a night-time occurrence without reliable sources of light. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material discrepancies in the sole eye-witness account, delayed reporting, withholding of material witnesses, and lack of corroborative forensic evidence. Consequently, the convictions and sentences were set aside, the appellants were acquitted of the charges, and the murder reference for the confirmation of the death sentence was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction when there are material contradictions regarding his presence and medical condition?
  • Does the withholding of material witnesses by the prosecution attract an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction for murder be upheld in a night-time occurrence where identification of the accused from a distance under moonlight is highly doubtful?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the forensic ballistic report is absent or inconclusive?
  Read full judgment →
• Standard Chartered Bank Limited vs Nice N Easy (Pvt.) Limited, etc2019 CLD 840, 2020 PCTLR 59, 2019 LHC 1283 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
• Soneri Bank Limited through Principle Officer/General Attorney vs Messrs2019 CLD 1004 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-12Read full judgment →
• Sohail Iqbal vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 105 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-08
  pre-arrest bailtheft of electricitybailable offenseloss to exchequercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 280/2018, registered under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act, 1910, for the alleged theft of electricity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including the payment of the outstanding dues. Upon review, the Court observed that the F.I.R. lacked a specified time of occurrence and that the petitioner had already paid the outstanding electricity bills, thereby causing no loss to the exchequer. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offense under Section 39-A carries a maximum punishment of three years and is considered bailable. Since no recovery was required from the petitioner, the Court held that incarceration would serve no useful purpose and would be counterproductive to the administration of justice. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that sending the accused to jail under these circumstances would be unnecessary. The principle established is that where the alleged loss to the exchequer has been satisfied and the offense is bailable, pre-arrest bail should be confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offense under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act 1910 considered bailable?
  • Does the payment of outstanding electricity bills constitute a valid ground for confirming pre-arrest bail in a theft of electricity case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmad etc vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 281 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-28
  benefit of doubtunwitnessed murdercircumstantial evidencecustodial confessionDNA test report admissibilitymurder referenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his step-mother. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of custodial confessions, the evidentiary value of DNA test reports, and the application of the benefit of the doubt in unwitnessed murder cases. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the FIR was based on mere suspicion, the custodial confession was inadmissible, co-accused with identical roles were acquitted, and the DNA report lacked statutory backing under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court established that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and suspicion cannot substitute for proof. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made by an accused while in police custody admissible in evidence under Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Whether suspicion, howsoever grave or strong, can be a proper substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is the report of a biochemical expert on DNA covered under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as an admissible piece of evidence without formal proof?
  • Can evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused be relied upon against the remaining accused without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hameed vs Muhammad Aslam Kamboh & others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1683 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
• Shozab Shah and others vs State etc.PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1263 · Lahore High Court
  capital punishmentbenefit of doubtmurder referenceprivate complaintocular accountmotiveappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions and death sentences under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, recorded by the trial court in a private complaint for the double murder of two brothers. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through the ocular account, motive, and corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case was fraught with serious doubts, contradictions, and unnatural circumstances, including improbable witness presence, an unconvincing motive, and the absence of weapons recoveries. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, set aside their convictions and sentences, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the connected petition for special leave to appeal against acquittal and revision for enhancement of compensation. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution case suffers from inherent improbabilities, unnatural witness presence, and doubtful corroboration, it is unsafe to maintain capital convictions, and the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether uncorroborated ocular testimony by related witnesses whose presence at the crime scene is unnatural can form the basis of a capital conviction?
  • Does the failure of the investigating agency to recover crime weapons and conduct forensic comparisons warrant drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution?
  • Can a vague and unsubstantiated motive involving third parties sustain a murder charge against the accused?
  • Whether the benefit of the doubt must be extended when the prosecution narrative is fraught with contradictions and delayed autopsies allowing room for deliberation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali vs The State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1709, 2019 YLR 1961, 2019 LHC 1530 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-09
  narcotics recoverychain of custodysafe custodychemical analysisbenefit of doubtcriminal appealnarcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1130 grams of heroin. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of safe custody for the recovered narcotic substance and the sample sent for chemical analysis. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of the evidence. Significant discrepancies were noted regarding the number of parcels received by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency compared to those allegedly sent, unexplained delays in the delivery of the sample, and a failure to account for the return of the remaining sample portion. Consequently, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that in narcotics cases, establishing an unbroken chain of safe custody from the point of recovery to the chemical examiner and subsequent production in court is mandatory, and failure to do so entitles the accused to an acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is the prosecution required to prove an unbroken chain of safe custody for recovered narcotics from the point of recovery to the chemical examiner?
  • Does a discrepancy in the number of parcels received by a forensic agency compared to those allegedly sent undermine the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali vs The State and others2019 P Cr. L J 1622 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-19
  quashment of FIRcriminal breach of trustinvestment versus entrustmentcivil disputeabuse of processpartnership business
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks the quashment of an FIR registered under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a business dispute between the petitioner and the complainant concerning a joint hotel business and monetary investment. The core legal question revolves around whether a civil dispute involving an investment partnership and money recovery can legitimately be converted into a criminal case for criminal breach of trust under the garb of the word 'trust'. The Lahore High Court held that the transaction constituted a civil investment rather than an entrustment of specific property, and the mere mention of 'trust' in the FIR without the requisite ingredients does not attract penal provisions. The court further held that utilizing criminal proceedings to exert pressure in civil matters amounts to an abuse of process. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned FIR was quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an investment of money in a joint business transaction attracts the provisions of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 and Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the mere insertion of the word 'trust' in an FIR suffice to constitute an offense under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the underlying transaction is a civil investment?
  • Can a purely civil or business dispute regarding money recovery and rendition of accounts be pursued through criminal prosecution?
  • Are vague and unspecific allegations of life threats sufficient for prosecution and framing of a criminal charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Shikra vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1514 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-21
  murderdeath sentence commutationocular evidencequantum of sentenceextenuating circumstancescriminal appealbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for the murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account and the appropriateness of the capital punishment imposed by the trial court. The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, finding the eyewitness testimony consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, despite the close relationship between the witnesses and the deceased. However, the Court modified the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The ratio established is that while a conviction may be sustained on credible ocular evidence, the quantum of sentence must be carefully evaluated against extenuating circumstances. The Court held that where the prosecution fails to substantiate the motive, the recovery of the weapon is inconsequential, and the accused committed only a single act of firing without repetition, the maximum penalty of death is not justified. Consequently, the Court ruled that the ends of justice are better served by life imprisonment, extending the benefit of doubt regarding the severity of the sentence to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the prosecution fails to prove the motive?
  • Is the testimony of closely related eyewitnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does the absence of repetition of fire constitute an extenuating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Can a conviction be maintained if the recovery of the murder weapon is deemed inconsequential?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Pervaiz Mustafa vs The Special Judge (Rent), Lahore and others2019 MLD 2095, 2019 LHC 2465 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-27
  rent tribunal jurisdictionlandlord and tenant relationshipex-parte eviction orderleave to contestoral tenancypunjab rented premises actdue processfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses multiple writ petitions arising from rent disputes, specifically challenging orders dismissing appeals against ejectment on the ground of limitation under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, as well as an order concerning an application for leave to contest. The core legal questions involve the applicability of limitation provisions, the necessity of establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant before assuming jurisdiction, and the standard required for passing ex-parte eviction orders. The court held that while the Rent Tribunal has summary powers, it must positively ascertain and establish the relationship of landlord and tenant through unimpeachable evidence, especially in ex-parte proceedings or when dealing with oral or non-compliant tenancies, rather than relying on mechanical or perfunctory scrutiny. Consequently, the appellate and ex-parte eviction orders were set aside, and the ejectment applications were remanded for fresh determination in accordance with the law and judicial guidelines. The key principle laid down is that the existence of a valid tenancy and default must be independently and consciously satisfied by the Tribunal before assuming jurisdiction and ordering eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Tribunal assume jurisdiction and pass an eviction order without positively ascertaining the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Whether the payment of a fine under Section 9 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, automatically confers jurisdiction on the Rent Tribunal to order eviction without proof of tenancy?
  • Is a Rent Tribunal required to independently evaluate and satisfy itself regarding the existence of tenancy and breach when proceeding ex-parte against a tenant?
  • Do the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to setting aside ex-parte orders apply to proceedings before a Rent Tribunal where express provisions are absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 155 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-03
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionrecovery of weaponopen place recoverymedical evidencemurder appealcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the judgment dated 28.03.2009 of the trial court convicting him under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, comprising an alleged extra-judicial confession before witnesses, the recovery of a bloodstained wooden rod and wrist watch, and medical evidence. The core legal questions before the Lahore High Court were whether an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether recoveries made from an open, accessible place possess evidentiary value. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The Court held that an extra-judicial confession is inherently a weak form of evidence requiring independent corroboration, particularly when made to persons who are neither village elders nor relatives and who failed to apprehend the accused. Furthermore, recoveries made from an open place accessible to the public carry no legal value, and medical evidence alone cannot identify the perpetrator of a crime.

  Questions settled

  • Is an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does a recovery made from an open and accessible place hold evidentiary value against an accused?
  • Can medical evidence alone establish the identity of the perpetrator in a case based on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali vs D.G. Pakistan Rangers, etc2019 PLD Lahore 474, 2019 LHC 1658 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-23
  service benefitsinheritanceTarkanomineebenevolent fundintra-court appealPakistan Rangers
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the father of a deceased Pakistan Rangers Constable, seeking a share in the service benefits paid to the deceased's widow as the designated nominee. The core legal question was whether post-death service benefits, such as welfare funds, compensation, and six-month pay, constitute inheritable estate ('Tarka') distributable among all legal heirs under Sharia, or whether they are non-inheritable grants payable solely to the nominated beneficiary pursuant to relevant service rules. The Lahore High Court held that financial benefits which an employee could not claim or receive during their lifetime, being in the nature of grants or compensation arising after death, do not form part of the deceased's estate and are not heritable by all legal heirs, but are instead payable strictly in accordance with applicable service regulations to the designated nominee or entitled family members. The court reaffirmed that only benefits receivable by the employee during their lifetime constitute part of the estate. The appeal was consequently dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-death service benefits such as compensation and welfare funds form part of the estate ('Tarka') of a deceased employee to be distributed among all legal heirs under Sharia?
  • Can financial benefits that did not become payable to an employee during their lifetime be treated as heritable assets?
  • Does the nomination of a specific person for service benefits override the general law of inheritance regarding amounts payable only after an employee's death?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Nadeem vs The State & another2019 MLD 790, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 252, 2019 LHC 60 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-18
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory orderfreedom of expressionright to peaceful protestobstruction of public movementwrit of the State
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Sheikh Muhammad Nadeem, who apprehended arrest in a case registered under sections 188 and 341 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ganj Mandi Rawalpindi, following allegations that he and his co-accused violated a prohibitory order issued under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and obstructed public movement. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail should be granted in anticipation of arrest for offences allegedly committed during a protest that disrupted civic life and challenged the writ of the State. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the grant of pre-arrest bail in cognizable offences is an extraordinary measure where arrest remains the rule, and that no cause can justify disrupting civic life or challenging the state's writ. The key principle laid down is that freedom of expression and peaceful protest are subject to law and do not permit the disruption of public life, and pre-arrest bail cannot be claimed merely because an offence is bailable or carries a minor penalty when statutory functions are prima facie supported by a presumption of regularity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted merely on the ground that an offence is bailable or carries a minor penalty?
  • Is the exercise of the right to peaceful protest subject to law and the primary responsibility of loyalty to the State?
  • What is the legal standard for granting pre-arrest bail in cognizable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Asim Farooq vs Federation of Pakistan etc2019 LHC 3025, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 106, 2019 PLD Lahore 664 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-30Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Iqbal Malik vs Additional District Judge, Lahore, etc2019 KLR Civil Cases 180 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-29Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Iqbal Malik vs Additional District Judge and 2 others2019 CLC 1320 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
• Shehbaz Ahmad and another vs State & anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 347, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1186 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-05
  post-arrest bailProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Orderrecovery witnessexclusive possessionnon-bailable offencesstatutory interpretationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 29 of 2019, involving allegations of manufacturing liquor under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the recovery and the statutory provisions involved. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting that the contraband was recovered from a room not in their exclusive possession, and the prosecution failed to establish the charge of selling intoxicants. Furthermore, the Court observed that the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding independent recovery witnesses were violated. Relying on the principle established in Tariq Bashir v. The State, the Court emphasized that for offences punishable by less than ten years, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception. As the investigation was complete, the petitioners were non-convicts, and no exceptional circumstances existed to justify continued detention, the Court granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences punishable by imprisonment of less than ten years?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during recovery proceedings violate the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused in the absence of exceptional circumstances such as likelihood of abscondence or tampering with evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shazia Parveen vs Additional District Judge and others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1300, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1308, 2019 CLC 1475 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-24Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Khan vs Federation of Pakistan & others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1527, 2019 LHC 1904 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-08
  leave preparatory to retirementleave encashmentcivil servantsuperannuationdiscretionary powersconstitutional petitiondiscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Deputy Director at the Pakistan Central Cotton Committee nearing retirement, applied for encashment in lieu of leave preparatory to retirement (L.P.R.) under Rule 18-A of the Revised Leave Rules, 1980. The competent authority instead forced him to proceed on L.P.R. The core legal question was whether encashment in lieu of L.P.R. is a right of an employee or the sweet discretion of the competent authority, and whether the authority can refuse an option for encashment duly exercised under Rule 18-A. The Lahore High Court held that once a civil servant opts for leave encashment under Rule 18-A, the competent authority has no discretion to refuse it and must issue a formal sanction for cash compensation. The court established that leave encashment is a normal statutory entitlement rather than a concession, that discretionary powers must be exercised fairly and not arbitrarily under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and that forcing an employee on L.P.R. against their option amounts to discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether encashment in lieu of leave preparatory to retirement is a right of an employee or discretion of the competent authority under the Revised Leave Rules, 1980?
  • Can a competent authority refuse an option for leave encashment validly exercised by a civil servant under Rule 18-A of the Revised Leave Rules, 1980?
  • Does an order forcing a retiring civil servant to proceed on leave preparatory to retirement instead of granting leave encashment violate Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Is a civil servant discriminated against under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, when similarly situated colleagues are granted leave encashment but he is forced to take L.P.R.?
  Read full judgment →
• Shams Uddin vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1041 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-12Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed Bhatti vs Government of Punjab, etc2019 KLR Civil Cases 130, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 61, 2019 PLC (C.S) 729, 2018 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-09
  civil servantdeputationconstitutional petitionservice matterjurisdictional bartransfer ordermaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant on deputation to the Lahore Development Authority (LDA), challenged his transfer order via a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether a civil servant on deputation to an authority ceases to be a civil servant, thereby exempting them from the jurisdictional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution regarding service matters. The Court held that the petitioner remained a civil servant for all intents and purposes. It reasoned that the exclusion clause in Section 2(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 applies only to individuals sent on deputation to the province from the Federation, another province, or an authority, not to a provincial civil servant sent on deputation to an authority. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable, affirming that transfer is a term and condition of service governed by service laws, and the constitutional bar under Article 212 remains applicable. The Court also noted that even if the petitioner were not a civil servant, the LDA rules are non-statutory, further barring constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation to a local authority cease to be a civil servant under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the transfer of a civil servant serving on deputation?
  • Does the exclusion clause in Section 2(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 apply to a provincial civil servant sent on deputation to an authority?
  • Are the service rules of the Lahore Development Authority considered statutory or non-statutory?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Sohail Kamran Khan and 2 others vs Chairman of State Life2019 PCRLJ 587, 2019 PTD 128 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-03
  writ jurisdictioncommission agentsemployee statusadvance income taxmaintainabilityState Life Insurance Corporationtax deduction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, claiming to be employees of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, sought a declaration of their employment status and a restraining order against the Corporation to prevent the deduction of advance income tax from their commissions under Section 233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether commission agents of the Corporation qualify as 'employees' and are thus exempt from such tax deductions. Relying on precedent established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Court held that commission agents do not fall within the definition of 'employees' as prescribed by the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973, which requires full-time employment on a monthly salary. Consequently, the Court determined that the Corporation is legally entitled to deduct advance income tax from the petitioners' commissions. The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioners failed to establish the status of 'aggrieved persons' necessary to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, rendering the petition not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Are commission agents of the State Life Insurance Corporation considered employees for the purpose of tax exemption?
  • Is a constitutional petition filed by commission agents seeking a declaration of employment status maintainable?
  • Does the State Life Insurance Corporation have the legal authority to deduct advance income tax from the commissions of its agents under Section 233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad alias Sajjad vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1390 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-27
  post-arrest bailControl of Narcotic Substances Actchars recoverybilateral blindnessfurther inquiryprevious involvementlack of conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arose out of FIR No. 381/19 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 at Police Station Sanda, Lahore. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was apprehended on spy information carrying 1510 grams of chars in a shopper bag, after he attempted to flee upon seeing the police and was encircled. The petitioner argued that this account was implausible because he suffered from complete bilateral blindness. A jail medical report confirmed the diagnosis of bilateral blindness with non-viable eyes due to macular dystrophy and chorioretinal abiotrophy. Addressing the State's objection regarding the petitioner's prior involvement in six narcotics cases, the Lahore High Court noted he had not been convicted in any case. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution's narrative of an attempted flight became doubtful, bringing the case squarely within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The bail petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical diagnosis of bilateral blindness render a prosecution narrative of the accused attempting to run away upon seeing police a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • Can past involvement in criminal cases without any conviction serve as a ground to refuse post-arrest bail when the case otherwise falls within further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahvaiz alias Shoaibi vs State & another2020 KLR Criminal Cases 138, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1017 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-14
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseattempt to commit qatl-e-amdShajjah-i-mudihahpre-arrest vs post-arrest bailcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 139 of 2018, involving charges under Sections 324, 337-A(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the injury and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the injury, categorized as Shajjah-i-mudihah, and the absence of repeated blows suggested a lack of intent to kill, rendering the application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 questionable at this stage. Consequently, the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that for non-bailable offenses punishable by less than ten years, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, absent extraordinary circumstances like risk of abscondence, evidence tampering, or prior conviction. The Court also clarified that considerations for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail are distinct, allowing the petition and granting bail subject to sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense punishable by less than ten years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are the legal considerations for granting pre-arrest bail the same as those for post-arrest bail?
  • Does the failure to repeat a blow with a deadly weapon negate the intent required for an attempt to commit qatl-e-amd under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Saleem vs Bank Al-Falah Limited2019 CLD 181 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-20Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain etc vs Member (S&R)/CSC/Administrator (RP), Punjab2020 KLR Civil Cases 86, 2020 YLR 118, 2019 LHC 3572 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-30Read full judgment →
• Shahid Akhtar vs Khalida Parveen and others2019 CLD 520 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• Shahdost Dashti vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry2019 CLC 1750 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-30
  constitutional petitiondisqualificationpublic servantsports bodyelection schedulestatutory body
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the declaration of disqualification of the petitioner as a public servant to contest elections for the Regional Cricket Association (Quetta), along with the subsequent notification de-notifying him and announcing a fresh election schedule. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the petitioner's disqualification from holding office in a cricket association on the ground of being a public servant. The Lahore High Court examined the status of the Pakistan Cricket Board as a statutory body and the legality of the proceedings resulting in the petitioner's disqualification. The court considered whether an initial void act could sustain subsequent administrative actions. The holding and key principle established is that actions built upon a void ab initio foundation cannot lawfully form the basis for subsequent disqualifications or administrative superstructures, thereby invalidating the impugned notifications affecting the petitioner's electoral status.

  Questions settled

  • Can a superstructure raised on the basis of a void act serve as a valid basis for subsequent disqualification?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable against the disqualification of a sports association official?
  • Is the Pakistan Cricket Board considered a statutory body established under the Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance, 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 1719, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1140, 2019 LHC 759 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-16
  qatl-e-amdsudden provocationright of self-defensealteration of sentencedeath sentence confirmationcriminal appealappraisal of evidenceres gestae
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 302(b), 324, and 337F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a sentence of death and imprisonment terms. The core legal question concerned the true mode and manner of the occurrence, specifically whether the appellant acted in the exercise of the right of self-defense or premeditated murder, and whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt against all co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution and defense both suppressed parts of the true story, and since co-accused were acquitted and independent witnesses supported aspects of the appellant's version of a sudden altercation, the case did not attract Section 302(b). The court laid down the principle that in sudden fights where parties do not come with clean hands and the accused acts without preplanning or premeditation during a sudden flare-up, the conviction is properly altered from premeditated murder to qatl-e-amd under Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, adjusting the sentence accordingly while maintaining concurrent running and extending the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be altered to Section 302(c) when the incident occurs during a sudden flare-up without preplanning?
  • Is the statement of an accused person immediately after the occurrence relevant as part of the transaction under Article 27 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be extended when a death sentence is converted to a term of imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 106 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-07
  post-arrest baildacoityidentification parademuffled facesfurther inquiryrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 395, 397, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding an armed dacoity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was connected to the crime through a doubtful identification parade and recovery of alleged stolen items, warranting further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that since the culprits' faces were muffled during the incident, the identification parade was open to question, and the recovery of items without proper identification memos was insufficient at this stage. The court decided to admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the initial identification of unknown accused with muffled faces is doubtful and recoveries lack formal identification memos, the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail, especially when the investigation is complete and trial is delayed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the identification parade of accused with muffled faces is open to question?
  • Is the recovery of alleged stolen items without an identification memo sufficient to incriminate an accused for purpose of bail?
  • Does a delayed trial combined with a completed investigation qualify a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Behram and another vs The State, etc2019 P Cr. L J 1743, 2019 KLR Criminal Cases 306 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-13
  Qatl-e-Amdbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencechance witnessmurder referenceappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences imposed by the trial court for Qatl-e-Amd. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, and the prior acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses whose testimony was inconsistent with the medical report regarding the absence of blackening on the deceased and the nature of injuries. Furthermore, the court applied the principle that if eye-witnesses are disbelieved against co-accused attributed similar roles, they cannot be relied upon against others. The court emphasized that motive and recovery are merely corroborative and lose significance once the primary ocular account is rejected. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and declined to confirm the murder reference, reiterating that the benefit of doubt is a fundamental right of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular testimony is inconsistent with the medical evidence?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused with similar roles render the testimony of eye-witnesses unreliable against remaining accused?
  • Can motive and recovery evidence sustain a conviction if the primary ocular account is rejected?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad Khan and 3 others vs Director General, Lahore2019 YLR 1488 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed and others vs Cholistan Development Authority and others2020 CLC 243, 2019 LHC 2959 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-06Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The State & another2020 P Cr. L J 45, 2019 LHC 3203 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-23
  criminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencedying declarationidentificationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of night-time ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of an injured witness, and the impact of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the identification of the appellants in the dark via torchlight unreliable and noted that the alleged motive of theft remained unproven. Crucially, the court observed that the prosecution withheld the deceased's statement, invoking an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the court determined that the ocular account was belied by medical evidence regarding the distance of the shots. The court established that injuries on an eyewitness indicate presence but not necessarily truthfulness, and that any material lacuna in the prosecution's case, such as a conflict between ocular and medical evidence, mandates the benefit of the doubt for the accused. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of firearm injuries on an eyewitness constitute affirmative proof of the witness's credibility?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution withholds a statement made by the deceased to the police?
  • Is an identification made in the dark via torchlight sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration?
  • Does a material conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabaz Wali Khan, etc vs Govt. of Pakistan Establishment Division Regional2019 PLC (C.S.) 1467, 2019 LHC 1169 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07
  tarkainheritance of service benefitsbenevolent fundgroup insurancegratuityhouse rent allowancelegal heirscivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the legal heirs (adult sons and married daughters) of a deceased employee of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), challenging the refusal of their claims for gratuity, Federal Employees Benevolent Fund, Group Insurance Fund, and House Rent Allowance, seeking a declaration that these claims constitute 'Tarka' (part of the estate of the deceased). The core legal question was whether post-death service benefits and allowances payable under applicable rules are heritable as 'Tarka' and distributable among all legal heirs, or restricted to specified family members. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that financial benefits and grants which do not become payable during the lifetime of the employee, but accrue upon or as a consequence of death—such as the Benevolent Fund, Group Insurance, gratuity, and specific allowances—are not part of the deceased's estate and cannot be treated as 'Tarka'. Instead, they are payable only to designated nominees or defined family members in accordance with service rules and regulations, as laid down in authoritative jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service benefits and allowances accruing upon the death of an employee form part of the estate as 'Tarka'?
  • Can the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance claims be treated as heritable assets distributable among all legal heirs?
  • Whether gratuity payable after the death of a government servant is heritable under general inheritance law?
  • Are adult sons and married daughters entitled to claim House Rent Allowance as part of the deceased employee's estate?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Saeed ul Hassan vs Sh. Mohammad Imran etc2020 YLR 854, 2019 LHC 3776 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-09Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Health Department vs Dr. Muhammad Khalid Masood and others2019 MLD 390, 2019 PLJ Lahore 481, 2019 LHC 72 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-22Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Industrial & Agricultural Investment Company Ltd vs Chenab2019 LHC 3983 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz, etc vs Senior Member Bor, etc2019 PLJ Lahore 671, 2020 YLR 1232, 2019 LHC 2243 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad vs Muhammad Yousaf and 2 others2019 MLD 415 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-23Read full judgment →
• Saqib Subhani Bhatti and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and 6 others2019 MLD 1255 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-21Read full judgment →
• Saqib Jameel, etc vs State, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1401 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-28
  post-arrest bailprocuration of minorfurther inquirycriminal procedureadvance punishmentdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in a criminal case registered under Section 366-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of the procuration of a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the investigation and the evidence presented. Upon review, the Court observed an unexplained 21-hour delay in reporting the incident, the absence of any recovery from the petitioners, and the lack of specific overt acts attributed to them. Furthermore, the medical report indicated no attempt of rape, and the investigation was complete. The Court held that the petitioners' culpability required further inquiry at trial, and their continued incarceration would amount to advance punishment. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the prosecution's case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the accused within the meaning of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where investigation is complete, the accused should not be detained indefinitely pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in reporting an incident justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the investigation is complete and no recovery has been effected?
  • Is the detention of an accused pending trial considered advance punishment when the case requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Iqbal and others vs The State and others2019 P Cr. L J 316 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-18
  pre-arrest bailmala fideFIR delaycivil litigationfraud and forgeryinvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in relation to FIR No. 289/2018, registered for offences under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the seven-year delay in FIR registration, the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same subject matter, and the lack of incriminating evidence found during the investigation. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of parallel civil litigation, and the Investigating Agency's opinion that no evidence existed against the petitioners established a case for mala fide. The key principle laid down is that at the pre-arrest bail stage, the element of mala fide need not be proven by positive, solid evidence but can be deduced and inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the element of mala fide at the pre-arrest bail stage be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case?
  • Does a significant and unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the subject matter of the criminal case is already the subject of pending civil litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Khan Atiq vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore2019 [M] C.L.R. 28 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-13Read full judgment →
• Samar Hayat vs The State2020 P Cr.L J 477, 2019 LHC 3948 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-24
  narcotic substancesrepresentative sampleenhanced sentenceprevious convictioncriminal procedurecontraband recoverysentencing procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing 2115 grams of Charas. The core legal questions concerned whether a sample taken from bulk contraband consisting of multiple pieces is representative of the whole for conviction purposes, and whether an enhanced sentence for a previous conviction can be imposed without strictly following the procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that where contraband is recovered in multiple pieces, a sample is not representative of the bulk; thus, conviction is limited to the quantity actually tested. Furthermore, the trial court erred in awarding an enhanced sentence without complying with the mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 221(7) and 265-I of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court clarified that Section 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, is inapplicable to offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Consequently, the conviction was modified from Section 9(c) to Section 9(a) of the Act, reflecting the quantity of the tested sample.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sample taken from bulk contraband consisting of multiple pieces considered a representative sample for the purpose of conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the mandatory procedure for imposing an enhanced sentence based on a previous conviction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does Section 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 apply to offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can an accused be convicted for the entire bulk of recovered contraband if only a small portion was sent for forensic analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Fazal vs Judge Family Court, Sheikhupura etc.2019 PLJ Lahore 579 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Salman Fazal vs Judge Family Court, Sheikhupura and another2019 CLC 1915 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Salman Farooq vs The State & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1196, 2019 LHC 1508 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-08
  post-arrest bailabductionrapeNikahjactitation of marriagefurther inquirymatrimonial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising from FIR No. 302 of 2018 registered under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the alleged victim contracted a Nikah with the petitioner, subsequently instituted a suit for jactitation of marriage, and the dispute stems from a matrimonial issue transformed into a criminal case. The court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allowing the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where a matrimonial dispute involving a love marriage is criminalized by parents out of vengeance and the alleged abductee has acknowledged a Nikah and filed a suit for jactitation of marriage, the accused makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when a criminal case arises out of a matrimonial dispute involving a disputed marriage?
  • Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the alleged abductee has contracted a Nikah with the accused?
  • Can a petitioner be denied bail merely on the gravity of the offence under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when tentative assessment suggests a case of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Khan vs State & another2020 MLD 194, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1332 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-27
  murderocular evidenceinterested witnesspartial compromiseta'zirforensic evidenceunnatural deathcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the murder of his wife under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence from related witnesses, the impact of a partial compromise among legal heirs, and the sufficiency of evidence in the absence of a proven motive. The court held that the conviction was sound, finding the prosecution's ocular account consistent with medical reports and forensic evidence regarding the weapon of offense. The court affirmed that a partial compromise in a ta'zir case does not warrant acquittal but may influence sentencing, which had already been mitigated to life imprisonment. Furthermore, the court established that relatives are not automatically interested witnesses absent evidence of an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused. Additionally, it held that when an unnatural death occurs within the accused's residence, the burden lies on the accused to provide a plausible explanation, failing which they are held responsible for the homicidal death.

  Questions settled

  • Does a partial compromise among legal heirs in a case of ta'zir entitle the accused to acquittal?
  • Is a relative of the deceased automatically considered an interested witness in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to prove the motive for a crime automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • What is the evidentiary burden on an accused when an unnatural death occurs within their own residence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs State2019 YLR 2617, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 644 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-27
  murder referencedeath sentencebenefit of doubtchance witnessocular accountcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal appeal against a conviction and death sentence for murder, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the credibility of eye-witnesses, the motive, and the evidentiary value of the recovery of the weapon. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The eye-witnesses were determined to be 'chance witnesses' who failed to provide a plausible reason for their presence at the crime scene, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the alleged motive was unsubstantiated, and the recovery of the weapon was deemed inconsequential due to the absence of blood-stain descriptions in the recovery memo. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits without relying on defence weaknesses. If a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the failure to mention blood stains on a recovered weapon in the recovery memo render the recovery evidence inconsequential?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case independently without relying on the weaknesses of the defence?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs HBL, etc2019 CLD 824, 2019 LHC 1573 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-21Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad & others vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1493 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-23
  narcotics possessionchemical examiner reportburden of proofreasonable doubtevidentiary presumptioncriminal appealacquittalprocedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for narcotics possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question is whether a conviction can be sustained based on a Government Analyst's report that fails to specify the protocols and tests applied, in violation of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The ratio decidendi is that a chemical examiner's report lacking detailed protocols and test methodologies is inconclusive, unreliable, and inadmissible, thus failing to meet the evidentiary presumption under Section 36(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms that while the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 shifts certain burdens, the prosecution retains the initial onus to prove its case, and any failure to provide a valid, compliant laboratory report creates reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Government Analyst's report failing to detail the protocols and tests applied meet the evidentiary presumption under Section 36(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained if the prosecution's chemical analysis report is found to be inconclusive and non-compliant with Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Does the prosecution retain the initial burden of proof in cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 despite the provisions of Section 29 of the Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State etc2019 PCRLJ 1436, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 701, 2019 LHC 499 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-06
  summoning of witnessadditional evidencecriminal revisionjust decision of the caseprivate complaintfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Section 435 read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon an unlisted witness in a private complaint. The core legal question was whether a trial court is obligated under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon a witness whose testimony appears essential for the just decision of the case, notwithstanding inadvertent omission from the witness list or procedural delays. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing the trial court to summon the witness. The court held that Section 540 comprises a discretionary first part and a mandatory second part, obligating the court to summon any witness whose evidence is essential to the just decision of the case regardless of technical omissions, in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 imposes a mandatory obligation on the court to summon a witness whose evidence is essential for the just decision of the case?
  • Can a witness whose name was inadvertently omitted from the list of witnesses be summoned under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the power of the court to summon additional evidence under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 depend strictly upon formal applications by the parties?
  Read full judgment →