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.

• Abdul Hadi vs The Secretary Finance and 4 others2019 PLJ Lahore 624, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1286 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-18
  Voluntary Severance Schemewithdrawal of resignationconstitutional petitionservice matterfundamental rightssuperannuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the acceptance of the petitioner's application for a Voluntary Severance Scheme (VSS) and the subsequent rejection of his representation by the respondents. The core legal question was whether an employee can validly withdraw an option or application for a voluntary severance scheme before its acceptance or before it comes into effect. The Lahore High Court held that an employee has the right to withdraw a voluntary severance or retirement option prior to its acceptance and before it is acted upon, and that public authorities are obligated to decide a withdrawal application prior to acting on the initial request. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner's withdrawal application afresh. The key principle laid down is that options for voluntary retirement or severance can be retraced and withdrawn before they become effective, and rigid clauses barring withdrawal cannot override this principle when invoked in time.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee withdraw an application for a Voluntary Severance Scheme before its acceptance by the employer?
  • Whether an employer is legally bound to decide a withdrawal application prior to accepting an initial voluntary separation request?
  • Does a clause in a severance policy barring the alteration or withdrawal of an option apply if the withdrawal is submitted before the option has been accepted?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2021 CL. 240, 2019 PTD 764 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-06Read full judgment →
• Aatif Mehmood etc vs Govt. of Punjab etc2019 LHC 1235 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-16Read full judgment →
• (Syed) Hussain Haider vs Government of the Punjab through Chief2019 KLR Civil Cases 118 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s.) Standard Manufacturing Company (Pvt.) Limited vs Collector ofPTCL 2020 CL. 278, 2020 PTD 269, 2019 PCTLR 673 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-14Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Saudagar, Eps Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Inland2019 PCTLR 722 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Imran Ali Lubricants vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 P.C.T.L.R. 76 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-08Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Abdul Rauf Butt Proprietor of M/s Protech vs The Commissioner ofPTCL 2021 CL. 540, 2020 PTD 1402, 2019 PCTLR 969 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-12Read full judgment →
• (Malik) Ghulam Yasin vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 362 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-07
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceunlawful assemblycommon objectcriminal appealmisreading of evidencesudden fight
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 4 by the trial court regarding charges under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, particularly concerning the existence of an unlawful assembly and common object. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the common object or pre-planning, as the incident arose from a sudden dispute over water turns. The court affirmed that in cases where the common object fails, individuals are responsible only for their specific acts. Furthermore, the court reiterated the principle that an acquittal grants the accused a double presumption of innocence, and appellate courts should not interfere unless the judgment is shocking, perverse, or based on a misreading of the record. The judgment underscores the high threshold required to overturn an acquittal, emphasizing that appellate courts must be slow to interfere if the trial court's conclusion is reasonably possible.

  Questions settled

  • What is the threshold for an appellate court to interfere with an acquittal judgment?
  • Does the failure of a common object charge in a criminal case absolve the accused of vicarious liability?
  • Can an appellate court overturn an acquittal merely because it might reach a different conclusion upon re-appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Province of the Punjab and 3 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 842 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-09
  contractual employmentmaster and servantconstitutional petitioncontract extensiontermination of servicevested rightservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner’s contract as a Laboratory Technician (BS-10) by the provincial government. The petitioner alleged that his termination for poor performance and inefficiency was arbitrary, mala fide, and violated natural justice, as he had not been granted a proper hearing. The respondents contended that the termination was in accordance with the terms of the employment contract, which the petitioner had accepted, and that he possessed no vested right to contract extension or regularization. The core legal question was whether a contractual employee could invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the termination of their service. The Court held that the relationship between the parties was governed by the principles of master and servant, and that the petitioner had no vested right to claim an extension of his contract. Consequently, the Court ruled that the constitutional petition was not maintainable, finding no illegality in the impugned orders, as the petitioner’s performance and qualifications had been duly assessed by the competent committee.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the termination of a contractual employee?
  • Does a contractual employee have a vested right to claim an extension of their contract?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to contractual employment in the public sector?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Muhammad Iqbal2018 MLD 1547 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-28Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Yaqoob Chaudhry vs Military Estates Officer and others2018 PLD Lahore 295, 2018 PLJ Lahore 168 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Yaqoob Chaudhry through Special Attorney vs Military Estates2018 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Zia vs State, etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 734 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-17
  suspension of sentencelife imprisonmentfatal injurydeeper appreciation of evidencemurdercriminal miscellaneous
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner Zia seeking the suspension of his sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, District Sahiwal on 26.05.2016 in a private complaint under Sections 302 and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the suspension of his sentence pending appeal given the specific fatal injury attributed to him. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was attributed a specific injury on the head of the deceased which the medical evidence termed as contributing to the cause of death, and as deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the stage of suspension of sentence, the petitioner was not entitled to relief. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that suspension of sentence will be refused where a convict is attributed a specific fatal injury supported by medical evidence and trial court evaluation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict entitled to suspension of sentence when attributed a specific fatal injury supported by medical evidence?
  • Can a deeper appreciation of evidence be undertaken at the stage of deciding an application for suspension of sentence?
  • Does the attribution of a fatal injury disentitle a petitioner from seeking suspension of life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 1104 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-07
  criminal appealjudicial confessionextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtocular evidencerecovery of weaponQatl-i-amdretracted confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt through ocular evidence, judicial and extra-judicial confessions, and the recovery of the weapon, despite the appellant's claims of innocence and coercion. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the ocular account was unreliable due to the absence of proven light sources and significant distance, the judicial confession was inadmissible as it was recorded on oath in the presence of police, and the extra-judicial confession lacked credibility. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was invalidated by the failure to associate independent witnesses. The Court reaffirmed that a judicial confession recorded on oath is inadmissible, and that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused where the prosecution's case is riddled with material contradictions and procedural lapses.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judicial confession recorded on oath in the presence of police officials admissible in evidence?
  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted judicial confession without material corroboration?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of a crime weapon render the recovery evidence inadmissible under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can medical evidence be used to identify the culprits in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia alias Mithu vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 919 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting versionsjuvenile offenderqatl-i-khatabenefit of doubtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged with murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of conflicting versions of the incident presented by the complainant and the investigating agency, and the petitioner's status as a juvenile at the time of the occurrence. The Court held that the discrepancy between the FIR, which alleged intentional murder, and the investigation, which suggested qatl-i-khata under Section 319, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that when the prosecution itself presents conflicting versions, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's status as a previous non-convict and the lack of progress in the trial. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident necessitates further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to bail as a matter of right rather than concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident between the FIR and the investigation report constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the heinousness of an offence a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it under the law?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the post-arrest bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Zawar Hussain vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 453 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-20
  post-arrest bailzina-bil-jabrvalid marriagebenefit of doubtfurther inquirydelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest given the existence of a disputed marriage contract, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and conflicting statements by the alleged victim. The court held that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, granting bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where a valid nikah-nama and statements indicating free-will marriage exist alongside an unexplained delay in the FIR, reasonable doubt is created at the bail stage, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt, particularly when disputes of this nature are primarily within the domain of Family Courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when a valid nikah-nama exists between the accused and the alleged victim despite subsequent allegations of zina-bil-jabr?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR create reasonable doubt warranting the grant of bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Whether disputes concerning the validity of a marriage and matrimonial matters are best adjudicated by Family Courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Zawar Hussain vs Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 5 others2018 PLJ Lahore 1137 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiat Bank Ltd. vs Faiz Bakhsh2018 PLJ Lahore 554 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Zakia Shaukat Rizvi vs Controller Military Accounts, etc2020 [M] C L R 139, 2018 LHC 1493 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-21Read full judgment →
• Zaka Ullah vs Member Board of Revenue, etc2018 PLJ Lahore 284 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-01Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad Shah alias Phool Shah and another vs Election2018 CLC 1032 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
• Zahid Rasheed vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 306 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-07
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequefinancial liabilitybail confirmationconditional bailSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Zahid Rasheed, in relation to FIR No. 296/16 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonour of a cheque issued for Rs. 2,00,000/-. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in light of partial payments made and an undertaking to settle the remaining outstanding liability. During the proceedings, it was established that the petitioner had already paid a portion of the amount, and both parties reached a consensus regarding the payment of the remaining balance within a specified timeframe. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and confirmed the interim bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds. The Court further held that the confirmation of bail was conditional upon the petitioner's compliance with the payment schedule, explicitly noting that failure to adhere to this undertaking would entitle the complainant to seek the cancellation of the bail granted.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed based on a compromise or settlement regarding the outstanding cheque amount?
  • Does a failure to fulfill a payment undertaking given to the court during bail proceedings provide grounds for the complainant to seek bail cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and another vs Additional District Judge Rawalpindi and 22018 MLD 1850 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-14Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and another vs Additional District Judge Rawalpindi (Camp at2018 MLD 1850, 2018 LHC 1342 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-14Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 423 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-09
  murdersupplementary statementbenefit of the doubtcapital punishmentocular accountcriminal appealidentification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 302(b), 460, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murders of three persons in a house invasion, resulting in death sentences and life imprisonments, alongside a murder reference and a revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal question was whether a belated supplementary statement naming previously unknown masked assailants and weak circumstantial evidence could sustain a capital conviction. The Lahore High Court held that supplementary statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be equated with an FIR or used to extend it, and that uncorroborated improvements, doubtful eyewitness accounts, and inadmissible police-custody disclosures cannot prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that a criminal charge must rest on evidentiary certainty, and suspicions—no matter how strong—cannot substitute for legal evidence, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be equated with or read in extension of the First Information Report?
  • Whether pointing out the place of occurrence while in police custody constitutes a valid disclosure under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a criminal charge be sustained on the basis of strong suspicion and massive improvements in the prosecution case without legal evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal alias Iqbal and 3 others vs The State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 423, 2018 YLR 1105 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-09
  supplementary statementbenefit of doubtmasked assailantscapital punishmentmurder referenceocular accountcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants for the triple murder of a man and his two sons inside their home by masked assailants. The initial crime report was lodged against five unknown masked culprits. Subsequently, through supplementary statements, the complainant named the appellants and introduced a motive relating to a land dispute. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of belated supplementary statements, the credibility of ocular testimony built upon post-incident identification, and the admissibility of pointing out the place of occurrence while in police custody. The Court held that supplementary statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 cannot be equated with an FIR or read in extension thereof, that pointing out a place of occurrence in custody is not a valid disclosure under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that suspicion cannot take the place of legal certainty. The court acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether supplementary statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 can be equated with the First Information Report or read in extension thereof?
  • Can the pointing out of a place of occurrence by an accused person while in police custody be admitted in evidence under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does suspicion or moral certainty suffice to sustain a criminal charge in the absence of legal evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar & another vs State & anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 586 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-19
  Qatl-e-Amdocular testimonymedical evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder referenceappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence of Qatl-e-Amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical evidence, and the complainant's shifting narrative between the initial FIR and a subsequent private complaint. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt. The court observed that the medical evidence, which showed no firearm injuries, directly contradicted the ocular testimony alleging multiple gunshots. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution witnesses had been disbelieved regarding identically placed co-accused who were acquitted. The court laid down the principle that where witnesses have significantly deviated from their initial stance to align with medical findings, their testimony cannot be safely relied upon without independent corroboration, especially in cases of deep-seated enmity. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of witnesses be relied upon against appellants when the same witnesses were disbelieved regarding identically placed co-accused who were acquitted?
  • Does a significant contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is it safe to rely on the testimony of a witness who has materially shifted their stance from the initial FIR to a private complaint to align with medical findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Z.A. Constructors vs Province of Punjab, J2018 KLR Civil Cases 194, 2018 C.L.R. 1168 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Z.A. Constructors vs Province of Punjab, etc2018 KLR Civil Cases 194 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Youdester Chohan vs Provincial Election Commission Punjab and 22018 CLC 1657 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
• Youdester Chohan vs Provincial Election Commission etc2018 CLC 1657, 2018 LHC 2692 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
• Yasir vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 415 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-21
  qatl-e-amddeath sentencemurder referencebenefit of doubtocular accountcriminal appealappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge at Faisalabad convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-e-Amd of three persons and sentencing him to death on three counts, alongside a conviction under Section 324 of the Code ibid. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account given by injured and natural witnesses, the impact of material improvements in the prosecution's narrative, the sustainability of conviction after the acquittal of similarly placed co-accused, and the evidentiary value of a negative forensic report in a capital case. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from major improvements, discrepancies regarding the source of light, and suspect identification, rendering the appellant's culpability doubtful. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction, accepted the appeal, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of an accused can be sustained when the prosecution witnesses make substantial improvements regarding the identity and number of culprits?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused placed in an identical position affect the case against the remaining appellant?
  • What is the evidentiary significance of a negative forensic report in a capital murder case resting on ocular testimony?
  • Whether discrepancies in the source of light and the duration of the incident render the identification of the assailant doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Wasim Abbas vs The State and another2018 YLR 1464 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-10Read full judgment →
• Wasim Abbas vs The State & another2018 LHC 1180 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-10Read full judgment →
• Waseem Yaqoob vs Government of the Punjab and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 454 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-02
  service lawappointmentacquittalcriminal recordconstitutional petitiondouble jeopardypresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order refusing his appointment as a security constable, despite his success in recruitment tests, solely due to his prior involvement in a criminal case. Although the petitioner had been honorably acquitted by a Magistrate, the department relied on an internal policy letter disqualifying candidates with any history of criminal involvement, regardless of the outcome. The core legal question was whether a government department could lawfully disqualify a candidate based on a criminal case resulting in acquittal. The Lahore High Court held that an acquittal completely exonerates an accused, and treating such a person as disqualified constitutes a disregard for the judicial system and the presumption of innocence. The Court emphasized that an acquittal restores the individual to their position prior to the registration of the case. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that disqualification based on an acquittal is unconstitutional and violates the principle of double jeopardy. The matter was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department disqualify a candidate from public employment solely on the basis of a criminal case in which the candidate has been acquitted?
  • Does the refusal of employment based on a past criminal case, despite an acquittal, violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
  • Is a policy letter disqualifying candidates for public service based on prior criminal involvement, even after acquittal, legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqas Aslam and 2 others vs Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO)2018 PLC (C.S.) 243 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-13
  over-qualified candidatespublic employmentfundamental rightsequal protection of lawdiscriminatory policyright to livelihoodconstitutional petitionmerit and transparency
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who were Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering, challenged the refusal of the Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) to appoint them as Line Superintendent Grade-I (BPS-15) on the ground that they were over-qualified, arguing that such a policy was discriminatory and violated fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether a public department can disqualify or refuse to appoint over-qualified candidates based on administrative instructions under the guise of preventing disgrace. The Lahore High Court held that possessing higher qualifications than the minimum criteria does not disqualify a candidate, and barring over-qualified persons through arbitrary departmental instructions constitutes hostile discrimination and violates the right to equality and equal protection of law. The Court ruled that administrative instructions or policies cannot override the Constitution or fundamental rights, and directed the respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioners within thirty days.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public department refuse to appoint a candidate to a post solely on the ground that they possess higher qualifications than the minimum prescribed criteria?
  • Whether departmental instructions or policies barring over-qualified persons from public employment constitute a reasonable classification under the Constitution?
  • Does the exclusion of over-qualified candidates violate the fundamental right to equality and equal protection of law enshrined in the Constitution?
  • Are administrative policies and subordinate legislation that conflict with fundamental rights liable to be struck down by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqas Amjad and others vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2019 [M] C.L.R. 509, 2019 KLR Civil Case 298, 2019 PLD Lahore 111, 2018 LHC · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-17Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ali and another vs The State and another2018 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-24
  Qatl-i-amdSection 302(c) PPCRevisional jurisdictionEnhancement of sentenceHostile witnessQisas and Ta'zirAcquittal reversal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against convictions under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for intentional murder, alongside a criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to capital punishment. The core legal question involves the interpretation of Section 302(a), (b), and (c) PPC, specifically whether a revisional court can enhance a sentence under Section 302(c) to capital punishment, which would effectively reverse an acquittal under Section 302(a) or (b). The Court held that Qisas and Ta'zir are distinct regimes; a conviction under Section 302(c) implies an acquittal under the other clauses. Consequently, the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, is barred by Section 439(4)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from converting an acquittal into a conviction or reversing the finding to impose a higher sentence. The Court affirmed that while the ocular testimony of a sole witness can sustain a conviction despite other witnesses turning hostile, the enhancement of a sentence cannot be granted if it necessitates reversing the trial court's finding regarding the applicable sentencing regime. The appeal and revision were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in revisional jurisdiction enhance a sentence under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to capital punishment?
  • Are the sentencing regimes of Qisas and Ta'zir mutually exclusive under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the testimony of a sole witness suffice for conviction if other prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile?
  • Does the bar under Section 439(4)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prevent the conversion of an acquittal into a conviction during revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Walid Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-14
  public interest litigationsmog emergencyright to lifeenvironmental pollutionprecautionary principlehealth hazardfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition in the nature of public interest was brought before the Lahore High Court concerning the inaction of government departments in addressing severe pollution and smog in Lahore, which posed serious health hazards and violated the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question centered on whether the state's failure to take tangible preventive measures against hazardous smog levels constitutes a breach of fundamental rights. The Court held that government departments lacked coordination and effective response mechanisms, and consequently, relying on Article 9 read with the precautionary principle, the Court formulated and imposed an interim Smog Health Emergency Action Plan detailing mandatory steps based on air quality PM2.5 concentration indicators. The key principle laid down is that the State is constitutionally bound to take immediate, proactive, and coordinated administrative measures to protect public health and the right to life during severe environmental and public health crises.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of government departments to combat severe smog and pollution violate the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can the High Court formulate an interim health emergency action plan to curb environmental pollution in the absence of a proactive government response?
  • Whether the precautionary principle can be invoked to protect citizens from severe health hazards caused by hazardous air quality indices?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali-Ur-Rehman vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and 4 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 1230 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-26
  Voluntary Retirement Separation Schemepensionary benefitscontractual arrangementlachesconstitutional petitionrevised pay scales
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order passed by the State Life Insurance Corporation rejecting the petitioners' representation for revised pensionary benefits and increments. The core legal question was whether employees who voluntarily retired under a non-statutory Voluntary Retirement Separation Scheme (VRSS) are entitled to subsequent revisions in pay scales and pension schemes applicable to other employees who remained in service or retired under statutory regulations. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the VRSS was a binding contract freely entered into by the petitioners, who had already accepted its benefits and taken premature retirement. The court ruled that employees who availed of a voluntary separation scheme cannot subsequently turn around and claim benefits applicable to a different category of employees governed by statutory regulations, and noted that the petitions were also barred by laches after a lapse of thirteen years. The key principle laid down is that voluntary acceptance of a separation scheme constitutes a concluded contract, estopping employees from claiming additional benefits subsequently granted to regular retiring employees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees who retired under a Voluntary Retirement Separation Scheme are entitled to revised pay scales and pension benefits subsequently announced for regular employees?
  • Does a Voluntary Retirement Separation Scheme require prior approval of the Federal Government under Section 49 of the Life Insurance Nationalization Order, 1972?
  • Whether a constitutional petition filed after a lapse of thirteen years challenging an administrative decision under a separation scheme is hit by the doctrine of laches?
  • Can an employee who voluntarily accepts benefits under an employer's retirement scheme subsequently claim additional benefits ordinarily applicable to other categories of employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali ur Rehman vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and 42018 PLC (C.S.) 1230, 2018 PLJ Lahore 1069, 2018 LHC 881 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-26
  Voluntary Retirement Separation Schemepensionary benefitscontractual arrangementlacheswrit petitionservice lawestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions filed by former employees of the State Life Insurance Corporation challenging the rejection of their representations for revised pensionary benefits and pay scales. The petitioners had previously opted for early retirement under a Voluntary Retirement Separation Scheme (VRSS) in 2000. The core legal questions were whether the VRSS required Federal Government approval under the Life Insurance Nationalization Order 1972, and whether the petitioners were entitled to revised benefits granted to employees who remained in service. The Court held that the VRSS constituted a binding contractual arrangement rather than a retirement under statutory regulations, and thus did not require government approval. Consequently, the petitioners were not entitled to the revised benefits applicable to active employees. The Court further ruled that having voluntarily accepted the scheme’s benefits, the petitioners were estopped from challenging its terms, and their claims were additionally barred by the doctrine of laches due to the thirteen-year delay in initiating litigation. The petitions were dismissed accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Voluntary Retirement Separation Scheme (VRSS) constitute a contract that does not require Federal Government approval under the Life Insurance Nationalization Order 1972?
  • Are employees who have voluntarily accepted and received benefits under a separation scheme entitled to claim revised pay scales applicable to employees who remained in service?
  • Does the doctrine of laches bar claims for pensionary benefits filed thirteen years after the acceptance of a voluntary retirement scheme?
  • Can employees who accepted a voluntary retirement scheme be treated at par with employees who did not exercise such an option?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad through L.Rs. and others vs Ghulam Nabi2018 MLD 1044 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-29Read full judgment →
• Wak Limited. vs Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and OthersPTCL 2018 CL. 234 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-17
  sales tax evasionshow cause noticetaxable supplyvaluation of supplyreturnable cylinderslimitation periodcorrigendum
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a reference application under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, directed against an order of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to the alleged evasion of sales tax on the manufacture and supply of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) cylinders without payment of tax between 1993 and 1998. The core legal questions involved the validity of the show cause notice and its corrigenda under Section 36, the admissibility of income tax records and corporate information memoranda as evidence, and whether the provision of returnable LPG cylinders to distributors constitutes a taxable supply under the Act. The Lahore High Court held that the show cause notice was substantially compliant and valid under Section 36(1) for deliberate evasion, that corporate documents and income tax records could be used corroboratively to establish tax liability, and that the deployment of cylinders for business operations constitutes a taxable supply, though the matter of valuation required reconsideration. The court laid down principles regarding the foundational requirements of show cause notices, the interpretation of taxable supplies involving returnable containers, and the scope of evidentiary corroboration in tax evasion matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a show cause notice omitting a specific sub-section of Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 is fatally vague or legally sustainable if substantial compliance is shown?
  • Can income tax records and corporate information memoranda be utilized as corroborative evidence in sales tax adjudication proceedings?
  • Does the provision of returnable LPG cylinders to distributors by a manufacturer constitute a taxable supply under Section 2(41) read with Section 2(33) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Whether an Adjudicating Officer has the authority to issue a corrigendum to a show cause notice during remand proceedings to specify the applicable statutory provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Wak Limited, Lahore vs Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax2018 PTD 253 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-24
  sales tax evasionshow-cause noticetaxable supplyvaluation of goodsLPG cylinderstaxable activityreference application
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, challenged an appellate tribunal's order regarding the alleged evasion of sales tax on the manufacture and supply of LPG cylinders. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the show-cause notice, whether the petitioner’s use of cylinders constituted a "taxable supply," and the appropriate method for valuing these goods. The Court held that a show-cause notice is a foundational document requiring specificity; however, minor omissions or failure to cite specific subsections do not render it void if the taxpayer is not prejudiced and substantial compliance is met. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that LPG cylinders used in the course of business constitute a "taxable supply" under the Act, rejecting the petitioner's argument that self-use exempted them from tax. Regarding valuation, the Court set aside the arbitrary assessment and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Officer to determine the value based on established market prices or relevant committee reports. The principle established is that tax liability arises from the nature of the activity, and procedural technicalities cannot defeat substantive tax obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Does a show-cause notice become void due to the omission of specific statutory subsections if the taxpayer is not prejudiced?
  • Do LPG cylinders used by a manufacturer in the course of business constitute a 'taxable supply' under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Can a show-cause notice be issued for tax evasion under Section 36(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, without explicitly using the word 'collusion'?
  • Is the valuation of goods for sales tax purposes based on open market price when specific invoices are unavailable?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Shahzad Butt vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division and another2018 PTD 1272 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
• Vortex International vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2018 PLJ Lahore 164 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• Usman Hassan & another vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 PLJ Lahore 175 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-10
  provident fundgratuity fundexemption certificatewithholding taxincome tax ordinancestatutory exemptionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the validity of circulars and clarifications issued by the Federal Board of Revenue requiring recognized provident funds, approved gratuity funds, and pension funds to obtain an exemption certificate under Section 159 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, despite holding a statutory exemption from withholding tax under Clause 47-B of Part IV of the Second Schedule. The core legal question was whether funds exempt from the operation of certain tax-withholding provisions under Clause 47-B are nonetheless mandated to apply for and obtain an exemption certificate under Section 159 of the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the statutory exemption granted under Clause 47-B, read with Section 53(1)(d) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, operates independently of Section 159, directly relieving withholding agents from the obligation to deduct tax without the necessity of an exemption certificate. The Court laid down the principle that the legislature's intent to exempt specific entities from the operation of withholding provisions cannot be overridden by administrative circulars imposing procedural requirements already satisfied by comprehensive regulatory oversight under the Sixth Schedule.

  Questions settled

  • Whether funds exempted from tax-withholding provisions under Clause 47-B of Part IV of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 are required to obtain an exemption certificate under Section 159?
  • Does an administrative circular issued by the Federal Board of Revenue override a statutory exemption enacted by the legislature?
  • Are withholding agents relieved of their duty to deduct tax on payments made to recognized provident and gratuity funds without the production of a separate exemption certificate?
  • What is the distinction between an exemption from tax and an exemption from the operation of provisions under Section 53 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Bin Mehmood vs The State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 58, 2018 P Cr. L J 408 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-03
  post-arrest bailcyber crimeintrusions into privacyelectronic crimesprohibitory clausediscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition whereby the petitioner, Usman Bin Mehmood, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The core legal question pertained to whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given the specific gravity and circumstances of the allegations. The Lahore High Court held that while bail in offences punishable with less than ten years imprisonment is ordinarily granted as a rule, courts may depart from this rule in appropriate cases depending on the facts and circumstances. The Court found that technical evidence prima facie linked the petitioner to generating and disseminating intimate stills and videos of the complainant's wife, constituting a flagrant intrusion into privacy causing perennial embarrassment. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the rule favoring bail for offences outside the prohibitory clause is discretionary and may be withheld in cases involving grave violations of privacy and breach of trust supported by technical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted for offences carrying a penalty of less than ten years imprisonment notwithstanding the gravity of the allegations?
  • Does the dissemination of intimate videos and images through electronic means constitute a ground to refuse post-arrest bail?
  • Can the court depart from the ordinary rule of granting bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Bin Mehmood vs State & anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 58 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-03
  post-arrest bailelectronic crimesright to privacydiscretionary jurisdictioncyber crimenon-bailable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Usman Bin Mehmood, who is charged under Sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner engaged in an intimate relationship with the complainant's wife, captured compromising photos and videos, and subsequently disseminated this material online to coerce the complainant into divorcing his wife. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail despite the serious nature of the allegations and the supporting technical evidence. The Court held that while bail is generally granted for offences punishable by less than ten years of imprisonment, this rule is not absolute and depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Finding the petitioner's actions to be a flagrant intrusion into privacy that caused significant public embarrassment, the Court exercised its discretion to deny bail. The key principle laid down is that the grant of bail is a discretionary exercise that may be denied in appropriate cases, even for non-bailable offences, where the gravity of the conduct warrants such a departure.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail for offences punishable by less than ten years of imprisonment an absolute right?
  • Can a court deny bail in non-bailable offences despite the statutory framework?
  • Does the existence of technical evidence linking an accused to the dissemination of indecent material justify the refusal of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Ali vs State, etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 289 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-14
  pre-arrest bailproclaimed offenderabscondencefugitive from lawmala fideright of audience
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Usman Ali, in relation to FIR No. 334 dated 19.10.2014, registered at Police Station Tarkhani, District Faisalabad, for offences under Sections 427, 353, 324, 337-A(iii), 337H(2), 188, 186, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who had been declared a proclaimed offender and had remained a fugitive from law since the registration of the FIR, was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's unexplained abscondence disentitled him to the relief of bail. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court affirmed the principle that a fugitive from law loses certain normal procedural and substantive rights, including the right of audience. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fide intent regarding his intended arrest and that the statutory prohibitions under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were applicable, thereby precluding the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained abscondence of an accused person disentitle them to the concession of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does a fugitive from law lose the right of audience in court proceedings?
  • Is an accused person who has been declared a proclaimed offender entitled to the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Usama Ahmad Mela vs Mohsin Nawaz Ranjha, etc2018 LHC 2705 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-06Read full judgment →
• Ur Inc (PK) and others vs Habib Bank Limited2018 [M] C.L.R. 669 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Riaz Hussain and others2018 CLD 1476 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-10Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 CLD 587, 2018 PLD Lahore 322 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-29
  Banking Mohtasibjudicial poweradministrative tribunalseparation of powersultra viresconstitutional challengedue processfair trialdisputed factsbinding decisionsinjunctionscontempt of courtbanking malpracticesconstitutional courts
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore High Court adjudicated a challenge to the jurisdiction and orders of the Banking Mohtasib, as well as the vires of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 (FOIRA). The core legal question was whether an administrative tribunal, like the Banking Mohtasib, could be vested with and exercise judicial power to determine rights and obligations of parties, particularly on disputed questions of fact, and award compensation, given the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The Court held that sections 10, 11, 12, and 15 of FOIRA, which conferred judicial powers such as granting temporary injunctions, punishing for contempt, and deciding matters without personal hearing, were ultra vires the Constitution. It was further declared that the Banking Mohtasib cannot give binding decisions on complaints involving disputed questions of fact by resorting to sections 82B and 82E of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, as judicial power vests exclusively in courts established under Article 175 of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that administrative tribunals cannot exercise judicial functions, especially without adherence to due process and fair trial principles, or the procedural safeguards of laws like the Civil Procedure Code and Qanun-e-Shahadat.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative tribunal, such as the Banking Mohtasib, be vested with and exercise judicial power to determine the rights and obligations of parties?
  • Are sections 10, 11, 12, and 15 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, constitutional?
  • Can the Banking Mohtasib issue binding decisions on complaints involving disputed questions of fact by exercising powers under sections 82B and 82E of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962?
  • Is Section 15 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, which denies personal hearing, ultra vires Article 10-A of the Constitution?
  • What are the essential attributes of a 'Court' under Article 175 of the Constitution, and can a non-judicial authority exercise judicial functions without being under the supervision and control of a High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Umer Mehmood and others vs Public at Large and others2018 PLD Lahore 127 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
• Umer Arshad vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 40 · Lahore High Court · 2016-08-11
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryillegal emigrationdocumentary evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Umer Arshad, who was charged under Section 22-B of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly extracting money from a complainant to facilitate the illegal migration of his son to Turkey. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the stage of the investigation. The Court observed that the petitioner had already undergone physical remand without the recovery of incriminating evidence, and the prosecution's case rested primarily on documentary evidence already in its possession. Holding that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court granted the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's evidence is documentary and already secured, and the accused has been subjected to custodial interrogation without yielding incriminating material, the accused is entitled to bail as further investigation or detention would serve no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution's case is based solely on documentary evidence already in its possession?
  • Does the absence of incriminating evidence after a period of physical remand constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the continued detention of an accused justified when the prosecution has already secured all necessary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Zeeshan vs The Additional District Judge and 2 others2018 MLD 1658 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-14Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat Khawaja vs President, National Bank of Pakistan and 92018 PLC (C.S.) 889 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-13
  constitutional petitionpromotionprinciple of estoppelconcealment of factsservice matterclean hands
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction to the respondent bank to reconsider the petitioner's promotion from an earlier date of December 1, 2002, based on a restored ACR and promotion policy. The core legal question was whether an employee who accepted a promotion from a later date and received all corresponding financial benefits without protest can subsequently maintain a constitutional petition to claim promotion from a backdate, and whether the petition was barred by the principle of estoppel and suppression of material facts. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner, having accepted the promotion and benefits unconditionally without raising any protest, was barred by the principle of estoppel from claiming a retrospective promotion. The key principle laid down is that an employee who voluntarily accepts promotion and monetary benefits from a specific date without objection cannot subsequently approbate and reprobate by seeking an earlier promotion date.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee who accepts a promotion from a specific date and receives all arrears without protest subsequently claim promotion from an earlier date?
  • Does the principle of estoppel bar a petitioner from seeking retrospective promotion after voluntarily enjoying the benefits of a later promotion order?
  • What is the effect of concealment of material facts and prior litigation on the maintainability of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Hameed etc vs Presiding Officer/Special Judge Anti Terrorism Court,2018 LHC 1778, 2019 MLD 328 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-27Read full judgment →
• Treet Corporation Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 PTD 1942 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-21Read full judgment →
• Treet Corporation Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2018 CL. 596 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-21Read full judgment →
• Trade International vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2018 C.L.R. 1136 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State vs Mst. Kausar Bibi2018 LHC 298 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-27
  NarcoticsSentencing policyEnhancement of sentenceMitigating circumstancesControl of Narcotic Substances ActConfessional statementCriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the State under Section 48(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, seeking enhancement of the respondent's sentence, arguing that the trial court erred by awarding a lenient sentence despite finding the prosecution's case proved. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the discretion to deviate from established sentencing policies in narcotics cases and what constitutes valid "special features" justifying such departure. The Court held that while sentencing guidelines exist, trial courts retain the discretion to depart from them provided they record specific reasons for doing so. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that the respondent’s status as a mother with minor children, her lack of prior convictions, her genuine repentance, and the potential ambiguity regarding the precise weight of the recovered contraband constituted valid "special features." The judgment establishes that the devastating impact of parental incarceration on children and the offender's personal circumstances are legitimate grounds for a court to exercise leniency in sentencing, particularly when the prosecution fails to object to the confession or provide evidence of prior criminal history.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court deviate from established sentencing policies in cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • What factors constitute 'special features' justifying a departure from standard sentencing policies in narcotics cases?
  • Is the impact of parental incarceration on minor children a valid mitigating factor for sentencing?
  • Does the failure to weigh contraband separately from its packaging create ambiguity that justifies a lenient sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Karam Dad Bhatti2019 P Cr. L J 902, 2018 LHC 2671 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-02
  dishonour of chequesecondary evidencejurisdiction of banking courtsfinancial institutionscriminal appealacquittalspecial law vs general law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving the dishonour of a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the non-production of the original cheque, and whether ordinary criminal courts possess jurisdiction to try offences involving the dishonour of cheques issued by customers to financial institutions. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. It held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the original cheque was not produced, and secondary evidence (a photocopy) was admitted without the court's permission, violating the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that, per Supreme Court precedent, offences committed by customers of financial institutions regarding cheque dishonour fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of Banking Courts established under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts. The key principle established is that special laws governing financial institutions override general criminal statutes in such matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a photocopy of a cheque be admitted as evidence without formal permission of the court under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 have an overriding effect on the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding cheque dishonour cases involving financial institutions?
  • Do ordinary criminal courts have jurisdiction to try a customer for the dishonour of a cheque issued to a financial institution?
  • When prosecution evidence is rejected in its entirety, must the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted without scrutiny?
  Read full judgment →
• The Punjab Employees Social Security Institution vs Zulfiqar Ali and 2 others2018 C.L.R. 1045 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-28
  social security contributionprovincial ombudsmanstatutory remedyjurisdictionmaladministrationconstitutional petitionexhaustion of remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Provincial Ombudsman and the Governor of Punjab, which directed the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (PESSI) to withdraw a demand notice for social security contributions. The core legal question was whether an aggrieved employer could bypass the statutory grievance redressal mechanism provided under the Social Security Ordinance 1965 by approaching the Provincial Ombudsman. The Court held that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because Section 57 of the Ordinance explicitly mandates that disputes regarding contributions must be decided by the Institution, with an appellate remedy available under Section 59. The Court affirmed the principle that when a statute prescribes a specific procedure and forum for resolving disputes, that mechanism must be strictly followed. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, ruling that the Ombudsman’s intervention was without jurisdiction and contrary to the legislative intent. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy if aggrieved by the demand notice, reinforcing that administrative bodies cannot assume jurisdiction where special laws provide exclusive forums.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer bypass the statutory grievance redressal mechanism under the Social Security Ordinance 1965 by approaching the Provincial Ombudsman?
  • Does the Provincial Ombudsman have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding social security contributions when a specific forum is provided under the governing statute?
  • Is an order passed by the Provincial Ombudsman without jurisdiction liable to be set aside by the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• The Punjab Cooperatives Board for Liquidation vs Dr. Nazir Saeed etc2019 MLD 201, 2018 LHC 2678 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
• The Lahore Polo Club vs Additional District Judge etc2018 CLD 1214, 2018 LHC 1395 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
• The Lahore Polo Club through Secretary vs Additional District Judge2018 CLD 1214 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
• The Federal Board of Revenue etc. vs M/s. Chenone Stores Ltd.PTCL 2018 CL. 141 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-17Read full judgment →
• The Federal Board of Revenue and others vs Messrs Chenone Stores2018 PTD 208 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-17Read full judgment →
• The Employees Old-Age Benefit Institution vs Punjab Labour Court No.5, Sargodha and another2019 PLC 38, 2018 LHC 2850 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-26
  Employees Old-Age Benefits InstitutionLabour Court jurisdictionindustrial disputeold-age pensionconstitutional petitionalternate remedywithout jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged orders passed by the Punjab Labour Court accepting a grievance petition and subsequent review filed by an employee regarding old-age pension benefits under the Employees Old-Age Benefit Act, 1976. The core legal questions involved whether a Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain a pension dispute under the 1976 Act and whether a grievance petition is maintainable when a specific statutory remedy of appeal is provided. The Lahore High Court held that the Labour Court acted completely without jurisdiction, as a dispute concerning old-age benefits against the Employees Old-Age Benefit Institution does not constitute an industrial dispute under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, and the employee had bypassed the statutory appeal remedy under Section 35 of the 1976 Act. The Court established the principle that a Labour Court lacks jurisdiction over matters not falling within its statutory domain, and where an inferior tribunal acts without jurisdiction, constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can be invoked directly without exhausting alternate remedies. The petition was consequently allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Labour Court can entertain a grievance petition filed by an employee in presence of the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 35 of the Employees Old-Age Benefit Act, 1976?
  • Whether the Punjab Labour Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition relating to old-age benefits under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable when the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction, despite the non-availment of an alternate remedy of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• The Agricultural & Research Department, Etc vs Muhammad Tariq2019 CLC 1972, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1128, 2019 PLJ Lahore 342, 2018 LHC 1258 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Tehsil Municipal Officer vs Amjad Hussain and 2 others2018 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-28
  regularizationdaily wagersconstruction industryworkmanjurisdiction of labour courtstanding orders ordinancetehsil municipal administrationback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Lahore High Court addresses multiple constitutional petitions concerning the regularization of daily-wage and work-charged employees of the Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) and their access to labor forums. The core legal questions involve whether TMA constitutes an industrial or commercial establishment under labor laws, whether employees governed by the Punjab Local Councils Servants (Service) Rules, 1997 can approach the Labour Court, and whether employees performing permanent nature duties acquire permanent status. The court held that TMA functions as a construction industry given its statutory municipal and water/sewerage responsibilities, making its workers amenable to labor laws despite having statutory service rules that lack provisions for daily wagers. The court reaffirmed that employees engaged in permanent duties for over nine months attain permanent status, and artificial breaks in service cannot deny them this right. Consequently, the departmental petitions were dismissed, and an employee's petition for back benefits was allowed. The key principle laid down is that local government entities engaged in municipal infrastructure and construction functions fall within the definition of construction industry, and daily-wage workers performing permanent duties are entitled to invoke labor laws and seek regularization.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Tehsil Municipal Administration fall within the definition of an industrial or commercial establishment under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can daily-wage and work-charged employees of a local government approach the Labour Court when statutory service rules are silent on their recruitment and regularization?
  • Whether artificial breaks in service can deprive a daily-wage employee of attaining the status of a permanent workman after completing the statutory period?
  • Are government functionaries exempt from explaining each day's delay when filing appeals before the Labour Appellate Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Tehsil Municipal Administration vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal-2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 105, 2018 PLC 224 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-22
  regularization of servicework charge basispermanent nature of dutiesLabour Court jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a challenge to the judgments of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Punjab Labour Court, which ordered the regularization of the service of respondent employees who were initially appointed on a work charge basis by the Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA). The core legal question concerns whether work-charge employees with continuous service performing duties of a permanent nature are entitled to regularization of their services through the Labour Court. The Lahore High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums regarding continuous service for more than nine months against permanent posts warranted no interference under constitutional jurisdiction, as the case law cited by the petitioner was distinguishable and the regularization was permissible under the Industrial Relations Ordinance/Act. The key principle laid down is that employees engaged on a work charge basis whose duties are permanent in nature and who have served continuously for a substantial period can seek and be granted regularization through the Labour Court, and such concurrent factual findings cannot be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction absent illegality or perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether work-charge employees performing duties of a permanent nature for a continuous period are entitled to regularization of service?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding continuous service recorded by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Are judgments concerning writ jurisdiction and damages for premature termination of contract applicable to cases where employees seek regularization of service before a Labour Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Tehsil Municipal Administration Etc vs Khalid Rafique Ahmad2019 [M] C.L.R. 65, 2019 PLJ Lahore 1, 2018 LHC 858 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-05Read full judgment →
• Tauseef Ahmad and another vs State, etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 15 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-27
  acid throwingbenefit of doubtcommon intentionsifting grain from chaffanti-terrorismcriminal appealmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated criminal appeals arose from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for acid throwing and related offences. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular and medical evidence, the application of common intention, and the principle of sifting grain from chaff when co-accused are acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove common intention and participation beyond reasonable doubt against the first appellant, granting him the benefit of doubt and ordering his acquittal, but maintained the conviction and sentence of the second appellant whose role was fully established by consistent eyewitness and medical evidence. The key principles laid down include that the benefit of a reasonable doubt accrues to an accused as a matter of right, and that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no universal application in Pakistani criminal jurisprudence, requiring courts to sift grain from chaff.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully established common intention between co-accused in the commission of an acid attack?
  • Does the acquittal of one co-accused necessitate the acquittal of another when their roles are distinguishable?
  • Whether ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applicable universally in criminal cases under Pakistani law?
  Read full judgment →
• Tassadaq Nawaz vs Masood Iqbal Usmani, etc2018 LHC 1173 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-29Read full judgment →
• Tariq Siddique vs Addl. Rent Controller, etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 218 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
• Tariq Siddique vs Additional Rent Controller and others2018 PLJ Lahore 218, 2018 YLR 313 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
• Tariq Pervaiz vs Muhammad Pervaiz2018 PLJ Lahore 1093 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-11Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood Malik vs Chief Executive Officer and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 664 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-19
  constitutional petitiontransfer and postingnon-statutory rulesmaster and servantvested rightmaintainabilitypublic utility company
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner assailed his transfer order from Wazirabad Division to Shakargarh Division. The core legal questions involved whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against transfer orders of an employee governed by non-statutory service rules of a corporate entity, and whether an employee has a vested right to claim a posting of choice. The Lahore High Court held that although the respondent company (GEPCO) performs functions in connection with the affairs of the State and is amenable to constitutional jurisdiction, the terms and conditions of service and transfer policies adopted by it are non-statutory in nature, meaning they cannot be enforced through a constitutional petition under the principle of master and servant. Furthermore, the court held that an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a place of their own choice, and transfer is an inherent incident of service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether GEPCO is a body corporate performing functions in connection with the affairs of the State and amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can the terms and conditions of service of an employee governed by non-statutory rules be enforced through a constitutional petition?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to claim posting at a particular place or station of their own choice?
  • Is transfer an inherent incident of service in the absence of statutory protection?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood and others vs State, etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 3 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-24
  free fightsudden combatright of private defenseexceeding right of self-defenseqatl-e-amdculpable homicidemutual injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting Tariq Mehmood under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-e-Amd of Amanat Ali and sentencing him to life imprisonment, alongside the conviction of Luqman under Section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting other co-accused. The core legal question revolves around whether the sudden eruption of a fight over a khokha dispute and mutual injuries sustained by both parties attract the provisions of premeditated murder or sudden combat with an exceeded right of private defense. The Lahore High Court held that the incident occurred suddenly without pre-planning, constituting a free fight where both sides sustained injuries, and that the appellant Tariq Mehmood exceeded his right of self-defense. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals with modifications, converting Tariq Mehmood's conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reducing his sentence to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining Luqman's conviction with a modified sentence. The key principle laid down is that where an incident erupts suddenly without pre-meditation, resulting in mutual injuries and a free fight, and the accused exceeds their right of self-defense, the offense falls under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than calculated murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense falls under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a fight erupts suddenly without pre-meditation and results in mutual injuries?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 302(c) when the accused exceeds the right of self-defense during a sudden free fight?
  • Does the absence of prior enmity and sudden occurrence negate the element of pre-planning in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Maqsood vs Government of Pakistan and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 997 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-01
  civil servantsuspensionconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunaldue processfair trialterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged his suspension from service via a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, following the initiation of inquiry proceedings and a National Accountability Bureau reference regarding alleged financial embezzlement. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against the suspension of a civil servant, given the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, ruling that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, including suspension, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court's jurisdiction is ousted by Article 212. While dismissing the petition, the Court emphasized that under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and Article 10-A of the Constitution, it is an inalienable right of an accused civil servant to be provided with all relevant materials and documents supporting a charge-sheet to ensure a fair trial and due process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate a challenge against the suspension of a civil servant?
  • Is the suspension of a civil servant considered a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Does an accused civil servant have a right to receive all materials and documents supporting a charge-sheet under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Jamil, etc vs Bank Alfala-h Limited2018 P.C.T.L.R. 281 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Tariq Aziz vs The State and another2018 YLR 747 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-19
  post-arrest baildelayed challanprohibitory clausecorruptionforged cause listright to liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 161, 165-A, 109, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, relating to allegations of preparing a forged cause-list and receiving illegal gratification. The core legal question concerned whether prolonged incarceration resulting from the sluggish and delayed submission of the challan under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitles an accused to post-arrest bail, particularly when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained and inordinate delay in submitting the police report, leading to indefinite detention without trial, constitutes an abuse of the process of law and justifies the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that no person can be left to rot in jail indefinitely due to administrative delays in the investigation or prosecution, and non-compliance with statutory timelines for submitting challans strongly favors granting bail when the offense is outside the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Does the delayed submission of a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether continued incarceration without the commencement of trial amounts to an unjustified detention warranting the grant of bail?
  • Does an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the release of an accused on bail when the investigation is unduly prolonged?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanzeela Butt vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha and others2018 MLD 320 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-06
  constitutional petitiondower recoveryNikah NamaIqrar Namaburden of proofthird party to contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, which dismissed the Petitioner's suit for recovery of dower. The core legal question concerns whether an agreement and entries in the Nikah Nama regarding a house could be enforced as dower during the husband's lifetime, and whether the Petitioner successfully proved her claim to the property and deferred dower. The Lahore High Court held that the agreement was executed between the Respondent and the Petitioner's brother rather than the Petitioner herself, that the document could only take effect after the husband's death and did not constitute a valid dower conveyance during his lifetime, that Column No.16 of the Nikah Nama was vague and did not specify the property in question, and that the Petitioner had admitted to receiving the full monetary dower amount after the divorce. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the principle that the burden of proof rests on the claimant to substantiate dower claims with clear and cogent evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person enforce an agreement as dower if they were not a party or signatory to that agreement?
  • Whether an agreement stipulating property transfer upon the death of a spouse can be enforced as dower during the lifetime of the husband?
  • Does the acceptance of the monetary dower amount preclude a wife from claiming additional property mentioned vaguely in the Nikah Nama?
  • What is the effect of withholding best evidence, such as failing to produce a living party to an agreement as a witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Ahmad Butt vs The Director, Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd.2018 CLD 1064 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-22Read full judgment →
• Tallat Mehmood vs The State, etc.2018 KLR Criminal Cases 189 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-05
  legal practitionerright of audiencepleaderHigh Court practiceadvocacy licensestatutory qualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 4(r) and Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking permission for a legal practitioner, who is not yet licensed to practice before the High Court, to appear as a pleader in a pending case. The core legal question was whether the definition of "pleader" under Section 4(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allows the Court to grant such permission to an advocate who lacks the requisite two-year practice experience mandated by the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act 1973. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the definition of "pleader" cannot override the mandatory statutory qualifications required to practice before the High Court. The Court emphasized that the requirements under Sections 21, 22, and 27 of the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act 1973 are mandatory, and an advocate must possess the specific license to appear before the High Court. Consequently, the Court ruled that it lacks the legal authority to grant a concession that would bypass these statutory licensing requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant permission to an advocate to appear before the High Court if they do not meet the statutory practice requirements?
  • Does the definition of 'pleader' under Section 4(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 override the licensing requirements of the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act 1973?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for an advocate to qualify for admission to practice before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Tallat Mehmood vs The State, etcPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 347, 2018 LHC 1 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-04
  pleaderadvocate of High CourtLegal Practitioners and Bar Councils Actlicensing procedureright of audienceCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application filed under Section 4(r) read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking permission for a counsel who is not an advocate of the High Court to appear as a pleader in the main case before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question is whether an advocate who does not possess the requisite practice period to be licensed as a High Court advocate under the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act 1973 can be permitted to appear before the High Court by invoking the definition of "pleader" under Section 4(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the application, holding that the definition of "pleader" under Section 4(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot override the mandatory licensing and practice requirements prescribed under Sections 21, 22, and 27 of the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act 1973. The key principle laid down is that an advocate who fails to meet the statutory qualification period for practicing in the High Court cannot circumvent the provisions of the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act 1973 through the general definition of a pleader under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can an advocate who is not licensed for the High Court appear before it by relying on the definition of pleader under Section 4(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Do the enrollment and practice requirements under the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act 1973 override the general definition of pleader in criminal proceedings?
  • Whether the High Court has the discretion to grant permission to an unqualified advocate to appear in a case contrary to the provisions of the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Tallat Mehmood vs The State and others2018 PLD Lahore 195 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-04Read full judgment →
• Tallat Mehmood vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 347 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-04
  legal practitionerright of audienceHigh Court practiceadvocacy licensepleader definitionstatutory qualificationCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 4(r) read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking permission for a legal practitioner, who is not licensed to practice before the High Court, to appear as a pleader in a pending case. The core legal question was whether the definition of "pleader" under Section 4(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, allows the Court to authorize an advocate lacking the requisite High Court license to represent a party. The Lahore High Court dismissed the application, holding that the definition of "pleader" in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, cannot override the mandatory qualification requirements stipulated in the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. The Court emphasized that an advocate must satisfy the statutory requirement of two years of practice in subordinate courts before being eligible to practice in the High Court. Consequently, the Court ruled that it lacks the legal authority to grant permission to an advocate who has not fulfilled these mandatory licensing procedures, thereby upholding the integrity of the established legal practice regime.

  Questions settled

  • Can the definition of 'pleader' under Section 4(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to bypass the licensing requirements for High Court practice?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to permit an advocate who lacks a High Court license to appear in proceedings?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for an advocate to qualify for admission to practice before the High Court under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Tajammal Hussain Anjum alias Phalo vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 598 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16
  post-arrest bailextra-judicial confessionjoint confessiondelay in FIRfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through which the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 442/2016 registered under Sections 302, 392, 201, 411, 364, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of a joint extra-judicial confession, the effect of delayed registration of the FIR and delayed supplementary statements, and whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2). The Lahore High Court held that a joint extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence and a weak type of evidence, and noted unexplained delays in reporting the crime and recording witness statements, coupled with a lack of recovery from the petitioner. The court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that mere involvement in a heinous offence does not justify withholding bail when the case falls within the scope of further inquiry and no incriminating material or recovery links the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is a joint extra-judicial confession admissible in evidence against an accused seeking bail?
  • Does mere involvement in a heinous offence disentitle an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2)?
  Read full judgment →
• Tajamal Abbas vs Inamullah2018 CLC 1833, 2018 PLJ Lahore 620, 2018 LHC 343 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-28Read full judgment →
• Tahira Bibi vs Muhammad Khan, etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 829 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-17Read full judgment →
• Tahira Bibi vs Muhammad Khan, etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 607, 2018 PLD Lahore 803, 2018 PLJ Lahore 829, PLJ 2018 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-17Read full judgment →
• Tahira Bibi vs Muhammad Khan and others2018 PLD Lahore 803 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehmood Ali Shah vs The State and another2018 YLR 1411 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-29
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausedelayed FIRfurther inquirybailable offencescriminal breach of trustforgery
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 359/17, registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of fraud and forgery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who acted as a broker, was entitled to bail after arrest given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the alleged offences. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the eight-month delay in registering the FIR remained unexplained, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offences under sections 420 and 471 are bailable, and section 468 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the petitioner was a first-time offender, the investigation was complete, and trial proceedings had not progressed. The Court established the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused is no longer required for investigation, the grant of bail is the rule, while refusal is the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute a ground for granting bail?
  • Are offences under sections 420 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable in nature?
  • Does section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception when the accused is no longer required for investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Kashif Ali vs The State2018 LHC 1786 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-27
  criminal appealmurdersubstitution of accusedeye-witness credibilitysupplementary statementforensic evidencebenefit of doubtenmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained based on delayed supplementary statements and the testimony of an eye-witness whose account contradicted the initial FIR and forensic evidence. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was fraught with doubt, noting that the eye-witness account was inconsistent with the initial complaint and the site plans, which omitted the appellant. Furthermore, forensic analysis failed to link the recovered weapon to the crime scene casings. The Court established that in cases involving deep-rooted enmity, there is a significant risk of "substitution"—the false implication of rivals—and that supplementary statements cannot be equated with the FIR. Consequently, the Court ruled that it would be unsafe to maintain a conviction based on such unreliable, improved, and contradictory evidence, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on a supplementary statement that contradicts the initial First Information Report?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence warrant the acquittal of the remaining accused?
  • Is a conviction safe when the forensic evidence fails to corroborate the prosecution's version of events?
  • In what circumstances does the phenomenon of substitution of accused occur in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Kaleem-Ur-Rehman etc. vs Secretary Cooperatives, Government2018 PLJ Lahore 758 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →