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.

• Haji Abdul Majeed & Co. through Managing Partner vs Addl. District2019 CLC 1693, 2019 PLJ Lahore 68 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-12
  writ jurisdictionhandwriting expertspecific performanceopinion evidencerevisional jurisdictionprocedural irregularityQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the orders of the trial court and the revisional court, which had declined the petitioner's application to send the respondent's signatures to a handwriting expert for comparison during a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in refusing to appoint an expert when direct evidence was available and whether the high court should interfere in such procedural orders under its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the lower courts exercised their jurisdiction properly. The ratio of the decision is that a handwriting expert's opinion is merely confirmatory or explanatory and does not constitute conclusive proof; it cannot supersede direct, confidence-inspiring evidence. Furthermore, the court emphasized that expert reports are not binding on the court, and under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the court itself possesses the power to compare signatures. The court also affirmed that procedural orders passed by a revisional court in civil litigation are generally not amenable to challenge via writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the report of a handwriting expert binding upon a court of law?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against an order passed by a revisional court in civil litigation?
  • Does the availability of direct evidence render the opinion of a handwriting expert unnecessary?
  • Under what legal provision is a court empowered to compare signatures or thumb impressions itself?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Tahir vs State & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 76 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-27
  explosive substancesanti-terrorismbenefit of doubtacquitted co-accusedsafe custody of samplescriminal appealrejection of evidencepolice recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, handed down by the trial court. The core legal questions involve whether evidence disbelieved against an acquitted co-accused can sustain the conviction of the appellant without independent corroboration, and whether glaring contradictions and failure to prove safe custody of recovered explosive materials create reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to major discrepancies in recovery proceedings, lack of independent corroboration following the final acquittal of the co-accused based on the same set of witnesses, and failure to prove the safe custody and proper transmission of forensic samples. The court laid down the principle that a single material infirmity creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal, and that eye-witness testimony disbelieved against one accused cannot be used against another without independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether evidence disbelieved against an acquitted co-accused can be relied upon to convict another accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does failure to prove the safe custody and proper transmission of explosive material samples to the forensic science agency vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Can a single material infirmity creating a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's story form sufficient ground for the acquittal of an accused?
  • Whether inconsistencies in recovery memos and police proceedings are sufficient to reject the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad SALEEMand another vs Board of Revenue through Member (Judicial-v) and others2019 YLR 610 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-23Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Imran alias Abbas alias Hamza vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 1, 2019 LHC 3675 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-22
  criminal appealdeath sentenceidentification paradedishonest improvementreasonable doubtanti-terrorismocular evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses including abduction and terrorism. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the provided ocular evidence and identification parade. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case, citing multiple fatal flaws. The court found that the prosecution witnesses made dishonest improvements to their statements to fill evidentiary gaps, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the identification parade was deemed legally invalid due to the lack of adequate lighting at the crime scene, the possibility of the accused's identity being exposed prior to the parade, and the failure to produce key evidence like CCTV footage and forensic reports. Applying the principle that a single reasonable doubt is sufficient for acquittal, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reinforces that dishonest improvements by witnesses and the withholding of best evidence are fatal to the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the introduction of dishonest improvements by prosecution witnesses render their entire testimony unreliable?
  • Is an identification parade valid if the accused was not immediately sent to judicial lockup and had the opportunity to be exposed to witnesses?
  • Does the failure to produce available best evidence, such as CCTV footage and forensic reports, create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be maintained on a capital charge when the prosecution withholds material evidence and relies on witnesses who have made significant improvements to their statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Allah Ditta vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 507 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05
  post-arrest bailabductionfurther inquirystatement under section 164 Cr.P.C.consent of abductee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 09 dated 11.01.2019 registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Okanwala Bangla, District Sahiwal, on the allegation of abducting the complainant's sister to commit zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the victim stated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during cross-examination that she left her house with her own consent and was not medically examined, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The petition was consequently allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that inconsistent victim statements and lack of medical examination at the tentative assessment stage can constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statement by the victim denying abduction during cross-examination bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused is no longer required for investigation and the victim's statement contradicts the FIR?
  • Is the absence of a medical examination of the victim a relevant factor for granting post-arrest bail in an abduction case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hadayatullah vs the State & anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 310, 2019 LHC 2858 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs Addl. District Judge, etc2019 LHC 341 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-20Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs Additional DIstrict Judge and others2019 CLC 1432 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-20
  amendment of pleadingswritten statementCode of Civil Procedurealternative pleasliberal constructionconstitutional petitioncivil litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent orders of the trial and revisional courts, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to amend his written statement in a suit for declaration. The core legal question was whether the proposed amendment, which sought to elaborate on the details of a property sale agreement already referenced in the original pleadings, constituted an impermissible change to the nature or complexion of the suit. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in their assessment, as the proposed amendment merely elaborated on existing facts rather than introducing contradictory, mutually destructive, or inconsistent pleas. The Court emphasized that the power to allow amendments must be exercised liberally to resolve the real controversy between parties, provided the fundamental character of the suit remains unchanged. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the application for amendment was accepted, reinforcing the principle that parties should be permitted to clarify their pleadings to ensure a fair adjudication of the dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party amend their written statement to elaborate on facts already disclosed in the original pleadings?
  • Does the introduction of an alternative or inconsistent plea in a written statement automatically change the nature of the suit?
  • What is the test for determining whether an amendment to pleadings should be allowed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Are contradictory and mutually destructive pleas permissible through an amendment of pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulf Commercial Bank Limited vs Chaudhry Cables (Pvt) Ltd and Others2019 CLD 651, 2019 LHC 1161 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-04Read full judgment →
• Gul Sher and others vs Mst. Aslam Mai and others2019 CLC 978 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-09Read full judgment →
• Govt. of the Punjab etc vs Syed Muhammad Saleem Shah2019 LHC 3806, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 593 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-12
  promotionfitnesscivil servantsubjective evaluationconstitutional jurisdictionDepartmental Promotion Boardservice tribunalterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged an order of the learned Single Bench whereby a constitutional petition filed by the respondent against the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Board (DPB) denying his promotion to the rank of SP (BS-18) was allowed. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, can substitute its own opinion for the subjective evaluation of a civil servant's fitness for promotion made by the competent departmental authority, and whether such matters are barred from judicial review in the absence of mala fides, jurisdictional defects, or colourable exercise of power. The Lahore High Court held that the determination of fitness for promotion is exclusively within the domain of the competent authority based on subjective evaluation supported by objective criteria, and courts cannot sit in appeal over such assessment unless illegality, excess of jurisdiction, or mala fides is established. The Court laid down that while extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked if an order is passed without jurisdiction or in colourable exercise of power, courts must not substitute their own opinion regarding an officer's fitness for promotion, especially where departmental authorities and service tribunals lack interference powers regarding fitness determinations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can sit in judgment over the subjective evaluation of a civil servant's fitness for promotion by the competent authority under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be promoted to a higher grade under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Under what circumstances can extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction be invoked in matters relating to the promotion and fitness of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab through Secretary Planning and Development2019 PLC (C.S.) 220 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-15
  regularization of contract employeesdevelopment projectnon-development sidepromotion quotainitial recruitmentservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves interconnected intra-court appeals and writ petitions concerning the regularization of contract employees recruited for a development project of the Punjab Bureau of Statistics that was subsequently transferred to the non-development side (Schedule of New Expenditure). The core legal question is whether contract employees of a transferred project are entitled to unconditional regularization against all newly created permanent posts, or whether such regularization is subject to the existing service recruitment rules prescribing a specific quota for promotion versus initial recruitment. The Lahore High Court held that while contract employees of a transferred development project have a right to be considered for permanent absorption, their regularization must strictly adhere to the governing service rules, including any prescribed promotion-to-initial-recruitment ratios. The key principle laid down is that the conversion of a project from development to non-development does not override statutory service rules, and regularization of contract staff must accommodate the legitimate promotion rights of existing regular employees according to the established departmental quota.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees of a development project transferred to the non-development side are entitled to automatic permanent regularization against newly created posts?
  • Does the regularization of contract employees override the statutory quota prescribed for promotion of existing regular employees under service rules?
  • Are newly created permanent posts resulting from the transfer of a project subject to the existing recruitment rules and quotas of the department?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab through Secretary Health Department, Lahore2019 PLJ Lahore 53 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-19Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab though Secretary, Health Department, Lahore &2019 PLJ Lahore 538 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir alias Shabbira vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1629 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-13
  abductioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtabscondencehearsay evidenceidentification paradeAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for abduction and terrorism-related offences. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the primary evidence was hearsay and the co-accused had already been acquitted on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The testimony of the abductee was found unreliable, and the servant present at the scene could not identify the perpetrators. The Court emphasized that hearsay evidence is inadmissible and that abscondence, while a suspicious circumstance, is not conclusive proof of guilt and cannot substitute for substantive evidence of the crime. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, as the prosecution failed to provide sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Is abscondence of an accused person conclusive proof of guilt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on hearsay evidence?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 227 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-11
  pre-arrest bailcompromiseemigration offencebail confirmationcriminal settlement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 108/2016, registered under Section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station FIA Circle, Multan. During the proceedings, the complainant appeared before the Court and confirmed that a compromise had been reached between the parties. The complainant explicitly stated he had no objection to the confirmation of the petitioner's pre-arrest bail and submitted an affidavit to that effect, which was verified by the Court. The core legal question was whether the existence of a compromise between the parties justified the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Court held that since the parties had resolved their dispute, the compromise would foster peace and harmony in society. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that a compromise between the complainant and the accused in criminal proceedings can serve as a valid ground for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, provided the Court is satisfied with the authenticity of the settlement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the complainant and the accused serve as a valid ground for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a court empowered to confirm pre-arrest bail based on an affidavit of compromise submitted by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sabir vs The State etc2019 LHC 3534 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-03
  murder referencedeath sentence confirmationfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuschance witnessbenefit of doubtacquittalocular accountdelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment convicting the appellant Ghulam Sabir and his co-convict Ghulam Qadir for the double murder of Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and Muhammad Asif under Section 302(b) PPC. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account given by a chance witness, the implications of delayed FIR registration, the corroborative value of medical evidence and weapon recovery, and the application of the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case due to delayed and ante-timed FIR registration, untrustworthy eyewitness testimony, uncorroborated recovery, and discredited evidence against co-accused. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted both the appellant and the non-appealing co-convict, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses are found to have resorted to deliberate falsehoods, the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies, rendering the evidence unreliable for sustaining convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of acquittal granted to an appealing convict be extended to a non-appealing co-convict under similar circumstances?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to establish the identity of the assailant in a criminal trial?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when the sole eyewitness is found to be unreliable and a chance witness whose presence is doubtful?
  • Whether motive alone can form the basis of conviction when the ocular account has been completely disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool alias Gudda vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 331, 2020 YLR 212, 2019 LHC 2115 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-13
  kidnapping for ransomidentification paradebenefit of doubtfalsus in omnibusdelayed statementcriminal appealanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Ghulam Rasool alias Gudda, handed down by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences including kidnapping for ransom and related charges. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a belated identification parade, the evidentiary value of uncorroborated ransom payment claims without call data records, the unexplained delay in recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the application of the rule of falsus in omnibus following the acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the identification parade lost its efficacy due to the absence of descriptive features in initial statements, the delayed police statements were unreliable without explanation, and material flaws in the prosecution's case created serious, reasonable doubts. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and ordered the immediate acquittal of the appellant based on the fundamental principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to its benefit as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade loses its evidentiary value when the complainant fails to describe the physical features of unknown accused persons in the initial police report or statement?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording the statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on tainted eyewitness testimony when co-accused facing identical allegations have already been acquitted by the trial court?
  • Is a ransom payment claim credible in the absence of supporting bank records, call data records, or voice transcripts corroborating communication between the abductors and the witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim vs Government of Punjab etc2020 MLD 166, 2019 LHC 2992 · Lahore High Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1284 · Lahore High Court
  murder referencebenefit of doubtocular evidenceindependent corroborationacquittalcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction and death sentence for murder, alongside an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused and a murder reference for sentence confirmation. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the acquittal of co-accused based on the same ocular evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case, citing significant discrepancies in the ocular account, the lack of independent corroboration, and the failure to prove the alleged motive. The court emphasized that where eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding some accused persons attributed with effective roles, their testimony cannot be relied upon against others without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the court noted that the medical evidence was inconsistent and failed to connect the appellant to the crime. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, dismissed the appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused, and declined to confirm the death sentence, reiterating the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be relied upon against an accused if the same witnesses have been disbelieved regarding co-accused persons attributed with similar roles?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive and provide independent corroboration for ocular testimony entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Is a death sentence subject to confirmation by the High Court even if the underlying conviction is found to be based on doubtful evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Muhammad Rafi2020 CLD 265, 2020 MLD 772, 2019 PLJ Lahore 629 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohy-ud Din vs The State etc2020 MLD 502, 2019 LHC 3525 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-16
  qatl-e-amdextra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencecriminal appealforensic evidenceacquittalcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for qatl-e-amd and a criminal revision seeking sentence enhancement. The appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, based primarily on circumstantial evidence, including an alleged extra-judicial confession and the recovery of a weapon. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt given the nature of the evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found the extra-judicial confession unreliable, noting it was made to relatives of the deceased rather than neutral parties, and lacked corroboration. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was deemed inconsequential due to the significant delay in forensic analysis, rendering the blood evidence scientifically invalid. The court reiterated that extra-judicial confession is the weakest form of evidence and requires strong, independent corroboration. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained solely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon after a significant delay, where blood has disintegrated, provide valid corroborative evidence?
  • Can a prosecution witness who testifies to an extra-judicial confession also serve as the sole recovery witness to corroborate their own testimony?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession made to relatives of the deceased, rather than neutral parties, considered reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Muhammad Ali and another2021 [M] C L R 858, 2019 LHC 4344 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs D.G. NAB and others2019 CLC 1621 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain alias Bau alias Chuhi vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1043 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-04
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesfurther inquiryweight of contrabandcriminal recordbail entitlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1120 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the ambiguity regarding the net weight of the recovered narcotic and his prior criminal record. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to clarify whether the weight of the contraband included the packaging material, creating a possibility that the offence might fall under Section 9(b) rather than Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Consequently, the Court held that the case required further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court rejected the prosecution's argument that the accused's involvement in other criminal cases disentitled him to bail, affirming the principle that mere involvement in other cases, without a conviction, does not preclude the grant of bail. Finding that the investigation was complete and trial conclusion was uncertain, the Court accepted the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases, without a conviction, disentitle them to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Does ambiguity regarding whether the weight of a recovered narcotic includes its packaging material constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete and the trial is not likely to conclude in the foreseeable future?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hurr and 2 others vs District Collector Bhakkar, etc2020 PLJ Lahore 137, 2019 LHC 4169 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs Muslim commercial Bank, Ltd2019 CLD 437, 2019 PCRLJ 498, 2019 LHC 1422 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-12
  financial institutions recoveryexecution of decreeautomatic conversion of suit to executionbanking courtlimitation for executiondismissal for non-prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 assails the order of the Banking Court dismissing the appellant's objection petition against the execution of a recovery decree. The core legal questions involved whether a separate execution petition is required under the special banking law, whether the execution proceedings could be dismissed for non-prosecution, and whether the subsequent application was barred by limitation. The Lahore High Court held that under section 19(1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, a suit upon pronouncement of judgment and decree automatically stands converted into execution proceedings without needing a separate application or fresh notice to the judgment-debtor, and such proceedings must be taken to their logical end without being subject to dismissal for non-prosecution. The court laid down the principle that the statutory mechanism under the special law supersedes ordinary procedural hurdles, rendering execution continuous and activation requests immune to standard default dismissals.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit automatically stand converted into execution proceedings upon the pronouncement of a judgment and decree by a Banking Court without requiring a separate execution application?
  • Can execution proceedings initiated under section 19 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 be dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Is a fresh notice required to be issued to the judgment-debtor upon the conversion of a banking suit into execution proceedings?
  • What is the applicable period of limitation for filing subsequent applications for execution under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1048 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-05
  cross-examinationright to fair trialnarcotics controlforfeiture of rightcriminal proceduredefense counsel duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter concerns a challenge to an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karor, which forfeited the appellant's right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in a case involving the possession of contraband under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted correctly in closing the right of cross-examination due to the repeated non-availability of the defense counsel. The High Court held that while the right to cross-examine is a fundamental component of a fair trial, it is not absolute and cannot be held in abeyance at the accused's convenience. The court affirmed that an accused must avail of opportunities provided for defense and that counsel has a statutory duty to be present. However, considering the nature of the charge and the potential severity of the consequences, the court exercised its discretion to grant the appellant one final, solitary opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The principle laid down is that while the right to cross-examination is vital, it is subject to the diligent conduct of the defense and the court's authority to manage proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court forfeit the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses due to the repeated absence of defense counsel?
  • Is the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses an absolute right that cannot be curtailed by the trial court?
  • Does a fair trial require that an accused be given unlimited opportunities to cross-examine witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghouns Bukhsh and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 40 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-24
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtextra-judicial confessionmurderabductiondelayed FIRunidentified dead bodycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder following an alleged abduction, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment, alongside a criminal revision petition seeking the enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question revolves around whether a conviction for murder can be sustained entirely on circumstantial evidence when multiple crucial links—including timely reporting, eyewitness credibility, motive, extrajudicial confessions, body identification, and corroborative recoveries—are missing or unproven. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a continuous and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the crime, rendering the case against the appellant highly doubtful. The court laid down the principle that in cases resting exclusively on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must be conclusively linked to form an uninterrupted chain from the crime to the accused, and any missing link or significant doubt entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and the dismissal of the sentence enhancement petition.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession when it is joint and lacks specific details of the crime?
  • Does the failure to establish the identity and cause of death of a decomposed body weaken the prosecution's circumstantial case?
  • Can an accused be convicted on circumstantial evidence if there are missing links in the chain of events?
  • What is the effect of a delayed FIR without satisfactory explanation in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghani Global Glass Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2020 PLD Lahore 167, 2021 PLJ Lahore 309, 2019 LHC 3917 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
• Fiaz Ahmad and others vs Member Judicial-II, Board of Revenue and Muhammad Makki etc2019 CLC 1053, 2019 LHC 572 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-12Read full judgment →
• FESCO vs Muhammad Maqsood etc2019 LHC 324 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-14
  wrongful dismissalcompetent authorityvoid ab initiolimitation periodlabour lawconstitutional petitiondisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which reinstated a Bill Distributor without back benefits, reversing a Labour Court decision that had dismissed the employee's grievance petition as time-barred. The core legal questions were whether an Assistant Manager had the authority to dismiss the employee and whether the law of limitation applies to a void dismissal order. The Court held that the Assistant Manager lacked the legal competence to dismiss the employee, as the appointing authority (XEN) had not delegated this power. Consequently, the dismissal order was declared void ab initio. The Court established the principle that no limitation period runs against a void order passed by an incompetent authority. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, the power to impose major penalties, such as dismissal, must be exercised by the appointing authority or a specifically authorized officer of equivalent rank, and such authority cannot be assumed without explicit legal backing. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dismissal order passed by an incompetent authority be challenged regardless of the expiry of the limitation period?
  • Does the law of limitation apply to an order that is void ab initio?
  • Under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, is an Assistant Manager authorized to dismiss a Bill Distributor without specific delegation from the appointing authority?
  Read full judgment →
• FESCO vs Muhammad Akmal, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1164 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-03
  criminal appealacquittaltheft of electricitypresumption of innocenceappellate interferencemisreading of evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate in a case involving the theft of electricity under Section 39-A of the Electricity Act 1910. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence, noting that the respondent was named in the FIR and implicated by prosecution witnesses. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence warranting appellate interference. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case. The court noted a five-day delay in lodging the FIR, physical impossibilities regarding the recovered wire length versus the height of the main supply line, and contradictions among prosecution witnesses. The court affirmed that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and that appellate courts should only interfere if a judgment is perverse, capricious, or arbitrary, which was not established in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does an acquittal strengthen the presumption of innocence in favor of an accused?
  • Is a five-day delay in lodging an FIR without explanation a factor in evaluating the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan and others vs Nadia Iqbal and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 814 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-18
  intra-court appealwrit jurisdictionselection committeemerits reviewreserve listappointmentinterview process
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged an order passed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers that had allowed a writ petition filed by a candidate whose name appeared on the reserve list for the post of Corporal Female. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction, could substitute its own judgment for that of a selection committee by conducting interviews and interfering with subjective selection results, and whether recruitment orders could be based on suppositions regarding unfulfilled vacancies. The court held that the learned Single Judge misdirected himself by assuming the mantle of the selection committee and entering into a merits review rather than a process review, and that courts cannot interfere in subjective interview results or rely on suppositions when all advertised posts have been lawfully filled. The key principles laid down are that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 is strictly confined to reviewing the decision-making process rather than the merits, that courts cannot substitute their own evaluation for that of administrative selection authorities, and that candidates on a waiting or reserve list have no enforceable right to appointment when all sanctioned posts are duly filled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction can substitute its judgment for that of a selection committee?
  • Can a court interfere in the results of an interview conducted by administrative authorities?
  • Whether a candidate on a reserve or waiting list can be appointed when all advertised posts have been filled and other candidates are ahead on the list?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain vs The State2019 PLJ Cr. C. 920 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05
  abduction for ransombenefit of doubtcriminal appealAnti-Terrorism Actburden of proofacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for abduction for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of abduction for ransom beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the FIR lacked details regarding the source of the appellant's identification and failed to establish any demand for ransom. The court observed that the prosecution's narrative was inconsistent, particularly given the trial court's acquittal of the appellant on the related robbery charge and the lack of evidence regarding the alleged abduction purpose. The court reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits and cannot rely on defense weaknesses. Emphasizing that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a demand for ransom undermine a conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case on its own merits without relying on the weaknesses of the defense?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain vs Additional Sessions JUDGE/Justice of Peace Tehsil2019 PLJ Lahore 600 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-21Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Hussain vs State & anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1162 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-15
  suspension of sentencestatutory bailpendency of appealcriminal appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the trial court in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending the final adjudication of his appeal. The Court observed that the petitioner's appeal had been pending since 2016 without being decided on merits, and the petitioner had already undergone more than two years of incarceration following the filing of the appeal, thereby accruing a statutory right to bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's co-accused had been acquitted on the same evidence and the petitioner had no prior criminal record. Consequently, the Court held that the sentence should be suspended and the petitioner released on bail, establishing the principle that prolonged pendency of an appeal coupled with the accrual of statutory rights constitutes sufficient grounds for the suspension of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prolonged pendency of a criminal appeal entitle a convict to the suspension of their sentence?
  • Can a convict be released on bail if they have served more than two years after filing an appeal?
  • Is the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence a relevant factor for the suspension of sentence of a remaining convict?
  Read full judgment →
• Fatima Enterprises Limited through Chief Executive/Authorized Signatory2019 CLD 1056 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-27Read full judgment →
• Farooq etc vs State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 375 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-29
  pre-arrest bailcriminal trespassunlawful assemblycross-versionfurther inquirybail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous application seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 178 of 2018 registered at Police Station Seetpur, District Muzaffargarh, for offences under Sections 452, 354, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-A(z), 337-F(v), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioners have made out a case for pre-arrest bail in view of general imputations, debatable injury descriptions, and the existence of a cross-version. The court held that the application should be dismissed as withdrawn for certain petitioners, while pre-arrest bail is confirmed for the remaining petitioners either due to lack of specific roles, a potentially fabricated injury, or the existence of a cross-version rendering their culpability a matter of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that general attribution without specific roles, doubtful medical evidence, and a counter-version warrant the confirmation of pre-arrest bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when accused persons are nominated in the FIR without any specific role attributed to them?
  • Does the presence of a cross-version and simple injuries justify confirming pre-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • What is the legal effect of a medical board finding an injury to be potentially fabricated when assessing a pre-arrest bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Famir Asghar vs Asghar Ali and 2 others2019 MLD 79, 2020 [M] CLR 625 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-06Read full judgment →
• Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited (FESCO) vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad & others2019 PCTLR 431, 2019 PTCL .CL 467, 2019 PTD 1780, 2019 LHC 1471, 2019 PCTLR · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-14
  sales tax auditretrospective operationprocedural amendmentbeneficial legislationtaxpayer safeguardsexcessive powerconstitutional protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated writ petition and connected matters challenged the repeated selection of petitioners for tax audit under Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, notwithstanding the third proviso added to subsection (2) of Section 25 by the Finance Act, 2018, which mandated that audits be conducted only once every three years. The core legal question was whether the said proviso operates retrospectively to cover pending audit proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the amendment is procedural, beneficial, and curative in nature, aiming to curb the excessive and repetitive exercise of audit powers that erode taxpayers' constitutional safeguards. Consequently, the Court ruled that the proviso applies retrospectively to pending audit proceedings. The holding establishes that beneficial and procedural statutory amendments curtailing excessive regulatory powers apply retrospectively, protecting taxpayers from unending and arbitrary scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the proviso added to subsection (2) of Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 by the Finance Act, 2018 applies retrospectively to pending audit proceedings?
  • Is an amendment that curtails the excessive exercise of discretionary power by tax authorities considered procedural and beneficial in nature?
  • Can tax authorities subject a registered person to repeated and continuous audits without statutory protection?
  • Whether beneficial and curative statutory amendments should be made applicable to pending proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Mahmood vs The State and another2019 YLR 1454 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-05
  post-arrest bailtriple murdercriminal conspiracysupplementary statementfurther inquirybail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous matter involves petitions for post-arrest bail arising out of a triple murder case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given the contentions regarding a supplementary statement, a plea of alibi, delayed trial, and the grant of bail to a co-accused. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petitions, holding that despite ordinary circumstances tending toward further inquiry, the unique background involving a prior murder case, an antecedent conspiracy, numerous applications by the deceased victim apprehending danger, and an official inquiry report supporting the prosecution's allegations provided sufficient incriminating material against the petitioners. The court laid down the principle that each criminal case must be assessed on its own peculiar features, and where exceptional circumstances and prima facie material indicate a pre-planned conspiracy leading to multiple murders, post-arrest bail will be denied, especially after the commencement of trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail in a triple murder case when an antecedent conspiracy and prior enmity are prima facie established against them?
  • Does a supplementary statement implicating accused persons for abetment warrant post-arrest bail when supported by prior applications and official inquiry findings?
  • Is parity with a co-accused granted bail applicable when the co-accused's bail was uncontested by the complainant?
  • Whether superior courts should interfere in auxiliary matters like bail when the trial has already commenced and prosecution witnesses have been examined?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad Shah Nawaz Khan Khakwani and 2 others vs Soneri Bank Limited2019 CLD 1026 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-04Read full judgment →
• Ex-Colonel Khalid Rashid vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2019 PLC (C.S.) 370 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-06
  armed forcesconstitutional petitiondismissal from serviceservice record tamperinglacheswrit jurisdictionmilitary authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a former Colonel in the Pakistan Army challenging his dismissal from service resulting from military authorities' proceedings regarding the tampering of his confidential service record for promotion. The core legal questions involved whether the dismissal order was tainted with malice, coram non judice, or passed without jurisdiction, thus bypassing the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, and whether the petition was barred by gross laches due to a nine-year delay. The Lahore High Court held that the petition suffered from gross laches as it was filed nine years after the dismissal, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in similar matters, and that the petitioner failed to establish any mala fides, lack of jurisdiction, or coram non judice in the dismissal order passed by the competent authority under the relevant rules. The key principles laid down are that the constitutional bar under Article 199(3) regarding personnel of the Armed Forces can only be crossed if explicit and robust evidence of mala fides or absence of jurisdiction is shown, and that high standards of meritocracy and integrity must be strictly maintained within the military service.

  Questions settled

  • Does a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an Armed Forces personnel suffer from laches when filed after a delay of nine years?
  • Is the bar contained in Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 absolute regarding orders passed by military authorities?
  • Can a High Court reappraise evidence or substitute findings of a competent military forum in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  • Does the dispensation of a court of inquiry under Rule 269-A(c) of the Army Regulation Rules render a dismissal order by military authorities coram non judice or without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ewiz Khan vs The State etc2020 MLD 649, 2020 MLD 690, 2020 MLD 690, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 740, · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-02
  narcotics possessionsafe custodychain of custodyreasonable doubtcriminal appealdeath sentence confirmationheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the possession of 11 kilograms of heroin under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and integrity of the recovered contraband from the moment of seizure until its chemical analysis. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies regarding the timing of the FIR and the deposit of the recovered substance. Crucially, the prosecution failed to examine the warehouse in-charge or the individual responsible for transporting the samples to the chemical examiner, leaving a gap in the chain of custody. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution bears the burden of proving safe custody through cogent evidence. The principle laid down is that where the chain of custody is broken or doubtful, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, rendering conviction unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the warehouse in-charge and the person transporting samples to the chemical examiner break the chain of custody in narcotics cases?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions in the timing of FIR registration and the deposit of recovered contraband on the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction for narcotics possession sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody of the recovered substance?
  Read full judgment →
• Engineer Raja Qamar Ul Islam and others vs National Accountability2019 P Cr. L J 582 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-30
  post-arrest bailmisuse of authorityNational Accountability OrdinancePunjab Procurement Rulesprinciple of consistencywater filtration plantscorruption reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses multiple writ petitions filed by Engineer Raja Qamar Ul Islam, Waseem Ajmal, and others seeking post-arrest bail in NAB Reference No. 93 of 2018. The petitioners, former officials and members of the Punjab Saaf Pani Company (PSPC) South, faced allegations of misusing their authority under Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, by awarding a contract for water filtration plants to KSB Pumps at allegedly exorbitant rates, making post-bid changes in violation of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, and causing losses to the national exchequer. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations, the principle of consistency with co-accused already bailed, and the applicability of Section 9(a)(vi) regarding misuse of authority. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of consistency with co-accused, the absence of any personal pecuniary gain or kickbacks, compliance with procurement rules permitting post-bid negotiations for technical goods, and the fact that decisions were approved unanimously by the Board of Directors. The key legal principle laid down is that a mere procedural irregularity or proper exercise of corporate/official functions without dishonest intent or personal gain does not constitute the offense of misuse of authority under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and massive documentary evidence requiring a lengthy trial warrants pre-trial release.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted on the principle of consistency when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been released on bail?
  • Does a mere procedural irregularity in decision-making amount to the misuse of authority constituting an offence under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Are post-bid negotiations permissible for goods of a highly technical nature under Rule 57 of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014?
  • Whether the absence of any allegation regarding personal pecuniary gain, kickbacks, or bribery entitles an accused to post-arrest bail in NAB cases involving massive documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Textile Mills Limited etc vs Federation of Pakistan etc2020 PLD Lahore 261, 2019 LHC 4013 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
• Ehsanullah Khan etc vs Govt. of Pakistan etc2019 PLJ Lahore 510 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-09Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Elahi Industries Private Limited vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal2021 [M] C L R 483, 2019 PLC 263, 2019 LHC 1729 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-29
  industrial relationsremand of caseappellate tribunalgrievance petitionreinstatementback benefitsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from constitutional petitions challenging a common judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside a Labour Court's order and remanded a grievance petition regarding employee termination under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions concern the legality of remanding a case when sufficient evidence is already available on record, and the propriety of granting reinstatement as an interim measure while simultaneously remanding the matter for a fresh decision. The Lahore High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in remanding the case instead of deciding the appeal on merits based on the existing evidence, and further acted without lawful authority by granting the main relief of reinstatement prior to a final adjudication. The Court laid down the principle that appellate forums should avoid unnecessary remands and must decide cases on merits when adequate evidence is available on record, rather than shifting the adjudicative burden or issuing self-contradictory interim reliefs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate tribunal is justified in remanding a case to the trial court when sufficient evidence is already available on record to decide the matter?
  • Can an appellate court grant the main relief of reinstatement in a grievance petition while simultaneously remanding the case for a fresh decision?
  • Does an appellate tribunal possess the competence to decide an industrial appeal on its merits instead of ordering a retrial?
  Read full judgment →
• E-Vision Manufacturing Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2020 CL. 132, 2019 PTD 1565 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-07Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad and another vs State, etc2020 YLR 470, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 190 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-17
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtplea under section 342 Cr.P.C.grave and sudden provocationprosecution burden of proofocular accountacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellants murdered the deceased by beating him with sotas following a motive of a previous dispute over a passage. The trial court disbelieved the prosecution's ocular account and motive, but convicted the appellants based on their plea of grave and sudden provocation taken under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon appeal, the Lahore High Court held that once the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, an accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of a plea raised in a statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. The High Court found the defense version plausible, noted that the prosecution witnesses were not present at the spot, and that the FIR was the result of prior consultation with legal advice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants and acquitting them of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of a plea raised in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution has failed to prove its case?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish its case entitle the accused to an acquittal even if the accused has admitted to the killing?
  • Is an FIR lodged after consultation with legal experts and legal advice considered reliable for the safe administration of criminal justice?
  • Does the unnatural conduct of close relative witnesses who failed to rescue the deceased despite being greater in number render their presence at the scene doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Tahir Masud vs Amjad Ali Khan and 4 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1167 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-28
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantnon-statutory ruleslachescontractual employmentconstitutional petitionmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a single bench judgment that allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent, the former Managing Director of National Engineering Services Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited (NESPAK), against his retirement. The core legal question was whether the writ petition was maintainable given that the respondent’s service terms were governed by non-statutory rules, and whether the petition was barred by laches due to the respondent’s conduct. The Lahore High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The court ruled that where service conditions are regulated by non-statutory rules rather than statutory provisions, the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant, precluding the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the respondent’s acceptance of retirement benefits and the five-month delay in filing the petition constituted laches, disentitling him to discretionary relief. The court concluded that the appropriate remedy for a contractual employee in such circumstances is a civil suit for damages, not a constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a private limited company where the terms and conditions of service are governed by non-statutory rules?
  • Does the acceptance of retirement benefits and a delay in filing a petition constitute laches sufficient to dismiss a constitutional petition?
  • Can a contractual employee of a private limited company invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for reinstatement?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a contractual employee whose service is terminated in violation of non-statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahzad Niazi vs The Election Appellate Tribunal and 3 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1457 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-12
  election disputenomination papersservice of Pakistandisqualification of candidateadhoc employeecooling-off periodelection appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order of the Election Appellate Tribunal setting aside the acceptance of the petitioner's nomination papers by the Returning Officer. The core legal question was whether a person appointed on an adhoc basis as a Consultant Gynecologist governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1974 falls within the definition of being in the "service of Pakistan" and is thereby subject to the two-year cooling-off disqualification period under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution before contesting elections. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's service under the Provincial Government constituted being in the "service of Pakistan," rendering her disqualified under Article 63(1)(k) since two years had not elapsed since she ceased to be in that service upon her resignation. The court laid down the principle that adhoc or time-bound employment in connection with the affairs of a province constitutes service of Pakistan, attracting the mandatory two-year disqualification period for electoral candidates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an adhoc government employee falls within the definition of "service of Pakistan" for the purposes of electoral disqualification?
  • Does the two-year restriction under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution apply to a person who has resigned from government service prior to contesting elections?
  • Whether appointment as a Consultant Gynecologist under the Provincial Government constitutes holding an office of profit or service under Article 63(1)(k)?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahbaz Mujtaba Ghauri vs Punjab Public Service Commission through its Chairman, Lahore & others2020 PLC (C.S.) 127, 2019 LHC 1895 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-11
  special zone quotaprovincial civil servicedelegated legislationconstitutional discriminationfundamental rightspublic employmentquota system
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a notification issued by the Government of the Punjab, which reserved 20% of government vacancies (BS-16 and above) for residents of a designated "special zone." The core legal question was whether the executive could continue to reserve quotas based on residence or area after the expiry of the time limits prescribed by the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, and Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned notification was illegal and ultra vires. The court reasoned that the 20-year period for such reservations under Rule 20 of the 1974 Rules and the 40-year period under Article 27 of the Constitution had both lapsed. It established that delegated legislation cannot exceed the scope of the parent statute or conflict with constitutional provisions. Consequently, the court struck down the quota, emphasizing that while the state may address under-representation, it must do so through valid legislative amendments rather than administrative notifications that violate established constitutional and statutory timeframes.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government reserve quotas for specific geographical areas in public employment after the expiry of the time limits prescribed by Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does Rule 20 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, authorize the reservation of posts for specific areas beyond the 20-year period stipulated therein?
  • Can delegated legislation, such as a government notification, validly override the substantive provisions of the parent statute or the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sajjad Haider Shami vs Mst. Sadaf Pervaiz and others2019 CLC 562 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Riaz Qadeer Khan vs Presiding Officer, District Consumer Court, Sargodha and others2020 [M] C L R 802, 2019 PLD Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mujahid Kamran vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau2019 P Cr. L J 34 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-07
  post-arrest bailmisuse of authoritycontractual appointmentsprocedural irregularitymens reaNational Accountability OrdinanceUniversity of the Punjab Act
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the arrest of the Vice-Chancellor and other university officials by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for alleged illegal contractual appointments. The core legal question was whether the appointment of staff by a Syndicate-delegated sub-committee, without adhering to standard Selection Board procedures, constituted the criminal offence of 'misuse of authority' under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Lahore High Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners. The Court held that while the appointments may have involved procedural irregularities, the prosecution failed to establish mens rea, personal gain, or kickbacks. The Court affirmed that administrative actions taken under delegated authority, even if procedurally flawed, do not automatically equate to criminal misconduct. It was established that the fundamental principle of criminal law requires the prosecution to prove dishonest intention, and mere procedural deviations, without evidence of corruption or undue favouritism, do not justify continued detention. Consequently, the Court found that the petitioners' case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a procedural irregularity in the appointment of contractual employees, absent evidence of personal gain or dishonest intention, constitute the offence of misuse of authority under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can the Syndicate of the University of the Punjab delegate its powers of appointment to a sub-committee under the University of the Punjab Act, 1973?
  • Is the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish dishonest intention in cases of alleged misuse of authority under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the absence of evidence regarding kickbacks or illegal gains in administrative appointments warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mariam Raza Syed and another vs Pakistan Medical and Dental2019 PLD Lahore 558, 2020 [M] C L R 1109 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-22
  constitutional petitionright to educationlocus poenitentiaedegree recognitionmedical educationnatural justiceregulatory bodystudent registration
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, having completed an M.Phil. program in Science of Dental Materials at the University of Health Sciences, Lahore, filed a constitutional petition seeking recognition of their degrees by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC). The core legal question concerned whether the PM&DC could withhold registration of degrees for students who pursued their education in good faith, particularly when the University had attempted to secure recognition and the Council had previously issued a one-time dispensation for such students. The Court held that the PM&DC was obligated to register the petitioners. It reasoned that the right to education is a fundamental right, and the denial of recognition without fault on the part of the students violated principles of natural justice. Furthermore, invoking the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, the Court ruled that once a degree is awarded and a legal right has accrued, it cannot be rescinded or denied without due process. Consequently, the Court directed the PM&DC to register the petitioners in accordance with the Council's prior policy decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent a regulatory body from withholding the recognition of a degree once it has been awarded to a student?
  • Is the right to education a fundamental right protected under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a regulatory body refuse to register students who completed their education in good faith when the institution had previously been granted a one-time dispensation?
  • Does the power to issue orders under the General Clauses Act 1897 include the power to rescind a degree that has already taken legal effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad, etc vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar Hassan, etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1672, 2019 LHC 1800 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-29Read full judgment →
• Director, Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation vs Muhammad Ayaz2020 PTD 850, 2019 PCTLR 1004 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad vs Government of Punjab & others2019 LHC 1919 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
• Dilawar alias Usman vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 1531 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-10
  capital punishmentmitigating circumstancesmurdereyewitness testimonyinterested witnessprompt FIRunproved motivesentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference arise from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on five counts of murder alongside an award of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular evidence from related and independent witnesses, the implications of a prompt FIR, and whether the failure to prove motive or the presence of extenuating circumstances warrants commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent and natural eyewitness testimony, ruling that close relationship does not disqualify a witness. However, considering mitigating factors including prolonged incarceration of twenty-five years, inconsequential weapon recovery, and unproved sectarian motive, the Court maintained the conviction but converted the death sentence into life imprisonment on five counts while answering the capital sentence reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the close relationship of an eyewitness with the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a prompt First Information Report in a criminal trial?
  • Can failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the asserted motive serve as a mitigating circumstance against the imposition of the death penalty?
  • Does the non-production of an injured eye-witness invariably harm the case of the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Depilex Smileagain Foundation vs Security and Exchange Commission2019 CLD 861, 2020 PCTLR 109, 2019 LHC 1090 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-18Read full judgment →
• Daan Khan (deceased) through legal heirs vs Assistant Collector2019 CLC 483, 2019 PLJ Lahore 185, 2019 LHC 67 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-23
  constitutional petitiondoctrine of electiondismissal for defaultrestoration of petitionres judicatalachesallotment cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal arises from the dismissal of a second constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of land allotment originally made in 1956. The core legal question revolves around whether a suitor, having initially elected to seek restoration of a constitutional petition dismissed for non-prosecution, can subsequently file a fresh constitutional petition for the same relief. The Lahore High Court held that under the doctrine of election, once a party chooses one of two co-existent remedies, they are prohibited from subsequently launching another proceeding or resorting to the alternative remedy. Consequently, the second constitutional petition was incompetent. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of election, founded on waiver, abandonment, and estoppel, bars a litigant from pursuing an alternative procedural remedy after an initial election has been made and prosecuted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second constitutional petition is maintainable after the first constitutional petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Does the doctrine of election bar a litigant from filing a fresh constitutional petition after having already applied for the restoration of an earlier dismissed petition?
  • What remedies are available to a suitor under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a suit or petition is dismissed for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner, Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Large Tax-payer Unit, Lahore and another vs Berger Paints Pakistan Ltd., Lahore & others2019 PCTLR 687 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Super Fine Industry2019 PCTLR 1038 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Machine Crafts Pvt. Limited, Lahore2020 PTD 788, 2019 PCTLR 699 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Grays Leasing Ltd., Lahore2019 PCRLJ 655, PTCL 2020 CL. 358, 2020 PTD 153, 2019 LHC 1460 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-17
  Lease Key MoneyIncome TaxDouble TaxationSecurity DepositLeasing CompanyRevenue ReceiptResidual Value
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application addressed whether "Lease Key Money" (LKM) received by a leasing company is taxable as a revenue receipt under Section 12(19) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Commissioner of Income Tax argued that LKM should be taxed upon receipt. The Court held that LKM is not taxable as a revenue receipt. The ratio of the decision is that LKM functions as a security deposit or residual value for the leased asset. Taxing it upon receipt would result in double taxation, as the amount is already offered for tax as sale proceeds upon the maturity of the lease. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent is to tax payments attributable to leasing, not security deposits that are adjustable against the sale of assets at the end of the lease period. Consequently, the Court answered the proposed question in the negative, ruling against the applicant-department and affirming that LKM is not taxable under the cited provision.

  Questions settled

  • Is Lease Key Money taxable as a revenue receipt under Section 12(19) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the taxation of Lease Key Money upon receipt, in addition to its treatment as sale proceeds upon lease maturity, constitute double taxation?
  • Are security deposits adjustable against the sale of assets at the end of a lease period considered taxable revenue receipts under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs (M/s.) Punjab Poultry Feed (Pvt.) Ltd.2020 PTD 224, 2019 PCTLR 662 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Regional Tax Office, FaisalabadPTCL 2019 CL. 97, 2019 PTD 298 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-16
  input tax adjustmentsales taxblacklisted suppliersbanking channel paymentscredit transactionstax invoicereference application
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application was filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue against an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which had allowed the respondent assessee's claim for input tax adjustment. The core legal questions concerned whether input tax adjustment is permissible against invoices issued by suppliers who were subsequently blacklisted, and whether an assessee is disentitled to input tax adjustment if payments are made through banking channels but exceed the 180-day period stipulated for credit transactions under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Court held that input tax adjustment cannot be denied for invoices issued by suppliers who were not blacklisted at the time of the transaction, provided there is no nexus between the invoices and the subsequent blacklisting. Furthermore, the Court held that where payments are made via banking channels as prescribed, the mere delay beyond 180 days in a credit transaction does not disentitle the assessee to input tax adjustment; such a delay may at most attract a penalty under the Act, but does not invalidate the adjustment itself. The reference application was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can input tax adjustment be denied for invoices issued by suppliers who were not blacklisted at the time of the transaction?
  • Does a delay in payment beyond 180 days for a credit transaction automatically disentitle an assessee from claiming input tax adjustment under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Is an assessee liable to lose input tax adjustment rights if payment is made through banking channels but exceeds the 180-day period?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Faisalabad vs Messrs Magna2019 PCRLJ 609, 2019 PTD 594 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-04
  sales taxrevisional jurisdictiondelegation of powerssuo motuAppellate Tribunalreference applicationdelegatus non potest delegare
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application filed by the department impugned the order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which had accepted the taxpayer's appeal against the Commissioner Inland Revenue's order. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner, after reopening a case under Section 45A(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, is competent to delegate or refer the matter for fresh adjudication to a subordinate officer. The Lahore High Court held that the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the Commissioner under Section 45A(4) is exclusive and must be exercised personally, as the statute contains no provision empowering the Commissioner to delegate such powers to a subordinate officer. Applying the principle of 'delegatus non potest delegare', the Court ruled that the expression 'pass such order as he may deem fit' does not include the power to remand or refer the matter for fresh adjudication to a subordinate officer. Consequently, the High Court answered both proposed questions in the negative and dismissed the reference application, upholding the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Commissioner Inland Revenue in exercise of powers under subsection (4) of Section 45A of Sales Tax Act, 1990, is competent to delegate or refer the matter for adjudication afresh to any subordinate officer?
  • Whether the expression 'pass such order as he may deem fit' under Section 45A(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 can be construed to include the order to refer the matter for adjudication afresh to any subordinate officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Tro, Faisalabad vs Faqir Hussain & another2019 PCRLJ 472, 2019 PCTLR 995, 2019 PTCL .CL 444, 2019 PTD 1828, 2019 LHC · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-18
  Reference ApplicationIncome Tax OrdinanceUnexplained incomeUnexplained assetsNoticeSection 111Section 122(9)TaxationAppellate Tribunal Inland RevenueLawful authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses consolidated Reference Applications filed under Section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, concerning the necessity of a specific notice for adding unexplained income or assets. The core legal question was whether a separate notice under Section 111 of the Ordinance is required when the law mandates an explanation from the taxpayer, especially if a notice under Section 122(9) has already been issued. The Lahore High Court held that a specific notice under Section 111 is a prerequisite for including unexplained income/assets in a person's income chargeable to tax. The Court reasoned that for a taxpayer to "offer an explanation" as contemplated by Section 111, they must first be confronted with the proposed addition through a specific notice. Non-issuance of such a notice, even if a general notice under Section 122(9) was issued, constitutes a lack of substantial compliance and renders any subsequent addition without lawful authority. The Court answered the proposed question in the affirmative, deciding against the applicant-department.

  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lyallpur Zone, Faisalabad and 3 others2019 PTCL .CL 476, 2019 PTD 1213 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-14
  sales tax registrationdue processnatural justiceultra viresfair trialtax fraudadministrative lawfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Single Bench judgment that declared Rule 12 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, ultra vires the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner’s power to suspend a taxpayer's registration without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing violates fundamental rights. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that Rule 12, to the extent it permits suspension without notice, is unconstitutional. The Court held that administrative actions affecting a person's property or business rights must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice and due process. Emphasizing Articles 10A and 18 of the Constitution, the Court ruled that no adverse order, such as the suspension of sales tax registration, can be passed without confronting the affected person with the allegations and providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the power to suspend registration must be exercised in accordance with the principles of fair trial and due process.

  Questions settled

  • Is Rule 12 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, to the extent of suspending registration without notice, ultra vires the Constitution?
  • Does the power to suspend sales tax registration without a prior hearing violate the right to due process under Article 10A of the Constitution?
  • Can a statutory authority pass an adverse order affecting a person's business without providing an opportunity to be heard?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Gujranwala vs S.K. Steel Casting, Gujranwala2019 PTD 1493 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-03
  sales taxcompulsory registrationregistered persontax invoicenatural justicetax recoverytaxable suppliesreference application
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment resolves a reference application and connected constitutional petitions concerning the recovery of sales tax from persons who were liable to be registered but remained unregistered. The core legal question was whether the tax authorities could raise a tax demand and recover sales tax for periods prior to a person's formal registration or compulsory registration under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Lahore High Court held that while the definition of a 'registered person' under Section 2(25) includes those 'liable to be registered,' the charging and procedural provisions of the Act—including the issuance of tax invoices and filing of returns—presuppose formal registration. The Court ruled that the department must first register a person compulsorily or otherwise in accordance with Rule 6 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, before charging sales tax under Section 3. The key principle established is that tax authorities cannot bypass the mandatory procedural requirements of registration and natural justice (audi alteram partem) to fix liability and adopt coercive recovery measures against unregistered persons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Inland Revenue Department can recover sales tax from a person for a period prior to their formal registration under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Is the department required to compulsorily register a person under Rule 6 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, before raising a tax demand under Section 3 of the Act?
  • Can an unregistered person be legally required to file sales tax returns or issue tax invoices under Sections 23 and 26 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Does the definition of 'registered person' in Section 2(25) allow the department to bypass the procedural requirement of registration before fixing tax liability?
  • Whether the principles of natural justice require a show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing before a person is declared 'liable to be registered'?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Gujranwala vs M/s. S.K. Steel Casting2020 PCTLR 90, PTCL 2019 CL. 401, 2019 LHC 1245 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Faisalabad vs Messrs Nagra Spinning2019 PCRLJ 590, 2019 PTD 257 · Lahore High Court
  sales tax referenceinput tax adjustmentblacklisted suppliersuspended registrationzero-rated suppliestextile sectortax refund
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court disposes of a batch of reference applications filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 against the appellate orders of the Tribunal Inland Revenue in favor of the taxpayer. The core legal questions involved whether input tax adjustment and refunds could be denied, and zero-rating benefits revoked, on the grounds that suppliers or buyers were subsequently suspended, blacklisted, or exhibited return discrepancies. The Court held that once a blacklisting order against a supplier is set aside by a competent forum, it cannot be used to disallow input tax, and subsequent blacklisting does not invalidate invoices issued while the supplier was active and duly registered. Furthermore, a registered taxpayer making zero-rated supplies in terms of S.R.O. 1125(1)/2011 to active buyers cannot be penalized for subsequent defaults or inactivity of the buyers. The reference applications were accordingly dismissed, establishing that past valid transactions are protected and tax benefits cannot be denied retrospectively based on later irregularities of third parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does subsequent blacklisting of a supplier invalidate invoices issued at a time when the supplier was active and duly registered?
  • Can an input tax adjustment be denied on the basis of a blacklisting order that has already been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal?
  • Whether a registered person can be denied the benefit of zero-rated supplies due to subsequent defaults or inactivity on the part of the buyers?
  • Are reference applications maintainable against findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Tribunal that are based on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s.) Tetrapak Pakistan Limited2020 PTD 917, 2019 PCTLR 710 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s.) Ghani Glass Limited2020 PTD 937, 2019 PCTLR 993 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s.) Bridge Engineering Company2020 PTD 1994, 2019 PCTLR 1061 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Education Excellence LtdPTCL 2020 CL. 130, 2019 PTD 1994 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs lrfan Ahmad2020 PTD 2076, 2019 PCTLR 1084 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Emco Industries Limited2019 PCTLR 1088 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Bank of Punjab2019 PCRLJ 634, PTCL 2020 CL. 135, 2019 PTD 1022 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-27
  tax referenceassessment orderaudit proceedingsretrospective operationincome taxdeemed assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax reference application arises from an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue regarding the jurisdiction of a taxation officer to pass an assessment order under Section 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 during audit proceedings for the tax years 2004 to 2006. The core legal question concerns whether Section 121(1)(d) read with Section 177(10) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 applied retrospectively to cases where a return of total income had been filed prior to the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2010. The Lahore High Court held, following established precedents upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, that prior to the amendments brought about by the Finance Act, 2010, Section 121(1)(d) did not apply to cases where a return of total income had been filed and did not envisage a second assessment order. The key principle laid down is that amendments to Section 121 and the insertion of subsection (10) to Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 do not have retrospective effect, and actions taken under Section 121 prior to such amendments without statutory backing are without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 121(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 applied to cases where a return of total income had been filed prior to the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2010?
  • Do the amendments made to Section 121 and Section 177(10) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through the Finance Act, 2010 take effect retrospectively?
  • Does the legislative scheme prior to the Finance Act, 2010 provide for an assessment order under Section 121 during audit proceedings where a return has already been filed under Section 120?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Ameer Abdullah Khan Rokhari2019 PLJ Lahore 327, 2019 PTCL CL. 560, 2019 PTD 1278, 2019 LHC 819 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Z & J Hygienic Products (Pvt.) Ltd2020 PTD 948, 2019 PCTLR 716 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Ltd.2020 PTD 804, 2019 PCTLR 689 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Shaheen Cloth Processing MillsPTCL 2021 CL. 334, 2020 PTD 1722, 2019 PCTLR 706 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Naeem Brothers2020 PTD 821, 2019 PCTLR 676 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Malik Usman2020 PTD 968, 2019 PCTLR 980 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Interloop Limited, Faisalabad2020 PTD 752, 2020 PTD 772, 2019 PCTLR 927 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Hilal Chemicals2020 PTD 232, 2019 PCTLR 666 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Greenvelly Premium Super Market2019 PCTLR 719, PTCL 2020 CL. 287, 2020 PTD 260, 2019 PCTLR 369 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Formanite Housing Scheme,2020 PTD 799, 2019 PCTLR 694 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Descon Engineering Limited,2019 PCTLR 1050 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Bhalwal Kinnow Grading, Factory2020 PTD 1977, 2019 PCTLR 702 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s.) Akram industries LimitedPTCL 2021 CL.546, 2020 PTD 1700, 2019 PCTLR 1081 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs (M/s) Irfan Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.2020 PTD 810, 2019 PCTLR 683 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Income Tax vs Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd2019 PTD 2305 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-12Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority, through Director General, etc vs Ahmad Ammar2019 [M] C.L.R. 796, 2019 LHC 1434 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-07Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority, through Director General and others vs Ahmad2021 [M] C L R 502, 2019 LHC 1434, 2019 CLC 1584 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-07Read full judgment →