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.

• Syed Kaleem ur Rehman etc vs Secretary Cooperatives, Government of Punjab, etc2018 CLC 809, 2018 PLJ Lahore 758, 2018 LHC 292 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Kaleem Ur Rehman and others vs Secretary Cooperatives, Government of Punjab and others2018 CLC 809 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Javed Hussain vs State etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 335 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-07
  narcoticscharassafe custodychain of custodyChemical Examiner reportjoint sample reportacquittalControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment dated 23.09.2015 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, convicting the appellant under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that 12.35 kg of charas was recovered from the appellant at a police picket. The High Court evaluated the chain of custody and chemical analysis reports. It noted that the sample parcels were dispatched through an Excise and Taxation Officer unconnected with the recovery or police station, thereby breaking the chain of safe custody under Section 19 of the Act. Further, the Chemical Examiner provided a joint report for all samples and failed to fill out relevant test protocols, rendering the report non-conclusive under Section 36 of the Act and established Supreme Court precedent. Additionally, independent statements of investigating officers (CW-1 and CW-2) contradicted the prosecution's version, revealing the appellant was apprehended from another person's residence. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dispatch of sample parcels through an alien authority break the chain of safe custody under Section 19 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can a Chemical Examiner's report be treated as conclusive evidence under Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 if test protocols and results are crossed off or omitted?
  • Is a joint chemical report covering multiple samples without individual test results sufficient to prove recovery of narcotic substance from each packet?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hussain Haider vs Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore & others2019 [M] C.L.R. 545, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1, 2020 PLD Lahore 858, 2018 LHC 1382 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-29
  writ of quo warrantoRules of Businessconstitutional governanceadministrative lawpublic resourcesparallel government bodiesjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the constitution of the Planning & Development (P&D) Board, contending it was an unauthorized body usurping the functions of the P&D Department under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011. The core legal question was whether the P&D Board possessed a valid legal mandate to perform government business or if it constituted an unconstitutional parallel entity. The Court held that the P&D Board lacked legal standing, as it was not designated under the Rules of Business, 2011, and its creation via a 1967 order was intended to be temporary. The Court emphasized that executive authority must strictly adhere to the Rules of Business, 2011, and that creating parallel bodies leads to bad governance, lack of accountability, and waste of public resources. Consequently, the Court declared the P&D Board’s formation inconsistent with the Constitution and the Rules of Business, 2011. It ordered the Board’s dissolution after three months, directing that its business be transferred to the P&D Department unless appropriate legislative measures are taken to regularize it.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive body perform government functions if it is not designated under the Rules of Business?
  • Does the creation of a temporary board in a historical order grant it permanent legal status under the Constitution?
  • Is the formation of a parallel board that duplicates the functions of an established government department constitutionally valid?
  • Can a court order the dissolution of a government body found to be operating without legal authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Haq Nawaz Shah and another vs The State and another2018 LHC 367 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-01
  pre-arrest bailminor mineralsmining concessionbailable offenceland ownershipspecial lawcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from an F.I.R. registered under Sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Rule 218 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules 2002, concerning the unauthorized excavation of minor minerals from land owned by the petitioners. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the dispute and the bailable nature of the special law offence. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad-interim bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the dispute was essentially a civil matter regarding mineral rights, and the offence under the special law was bailable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that refusing pre-arrest bail when an accused is otherwise entitled to post-arrest bail would merely lead to unnecessary humiliation and disgrace. The key principle laid down is that in offences punishable with imprisonment of less than ten years, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and pre-arrest bail should not be denied mechanically to avoid public disgrace.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception in non-bailable offences punishable with imprisonment of less than ten years?
  • Is a person entitled to pre-arrest bail if they would otherwise be entitled to post-arrest bail to avoid humiliation and disgrace?
  • Does the owner of land have a preferential right to lease minor minerals under the relevant mining laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hamid Hassan vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and others2018 MLD 1315 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Fida Hussain Shah vs The Election Appellate Tribunal & others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1281, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1293, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1449, PLD 2018 Lahore · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Fida Hussain Shah vs Election Appellate Tribunal and others2018 PLD Lahore 788 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-17
  nomination paperselection appealdeclaration of assetscriminal cases concealmentArticle 62(1)(f)summary jurisdictioncourt of plenary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated civil petition and connected matter challenge the concurrent orders of the Returning Officer and the Election Appellate Tribunal accepting the nomination papers of respondent No.4 for a provincial assembly constituency in the General Elections, 2018. The petitioners raised objections alleging non-disclosure of criminal cases and 4th Schedule offender status, misstatement of assets and income, non-disclosure of bank account details, and previous disqualification. The core legal questions revolved around whether non-disclosure of acquitted criminal cases and minor discrepancies in asset declarations constitute substantial defects warranting disqualification, and whether an election tribunal in summary jurisdiction can issue a declaration under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution without a prior declaration from a court of plenary jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that non-disclosure of criminal cases where the candidate has been acquitted or declared innocent, or minor omissions regarding personal expenditures and frozen bank accounts, are not substantial defects. The Court laid down that an explanation for omissions may be offered and considered, that disputed factual questions regarding assets cannot be probed in summary or constitutional jurisdiction, and that neither a Returning Officer nor an Election Tribunal possesses the power in summary jurisdiction to issue a disqualification declaration under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution in the absence of a prior declaration from a court of plenary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-disclosure of criminal cases in nomination papers where a candidate has been acquitted constitutes a fatal defect?
  • Can a Returning Officer or an Election Tribunal issue a declaration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution in summary jurisdiction without a prior declaration from a court of plenary jurisdiction?
  • Whether disputed questions regarding the true value of assets and income can be probed under constitutional or summary election jurisdiction?
  • Does an inadvertent omission or misstatement in nomination papers allow for a candidate to offer an explanation to avoid penal consequences?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Asghar Abbas Naqvi, etc. vs Syed Qaswar Abbas, etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 563 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Riaz Kirmani and another vs Election Tribunal, Punjab Bar2018 PLJ Lahore 291 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Supreme Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd vs Government of Punjab, etc2018 [M] C.L.R. 521 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-07Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad vs The State2018 MLD 1680 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-13
  fratricidemurderdeath penalty mitigationunproven motiveocular testimonycriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for the murder of his real brother under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, whether the plea of suicide was tenable, and whether the failure to prove the alleged motive warranted mitigation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular testimony of the real sister and mother, supported by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon matching the crime casing, firmly established the appellant's guilt, while rejecting the suicide theory. However, because the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive and given mitigating circumstances, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction but altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that the unproven nature of an asserted motive or obscured background circumstances in a murder case serves as a mitigating factor sufficient to substitute the death penalty with life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive can serve as a mitigating circumstance to alter a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  • Can a plea of suicide be accepted when the physical and medical evidence, including the trajectory and locale of the firearm entry wound with blackening and charring, renders it impossible?
  • Does the close familial relationship between eyewitnesses and the accused inherently render their ocular account unreliable in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman Sultan vs The State and another2018 MLD 661 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-16
  post-arrest bailmedical evidence contradictionocular accounttwo versionsfurther inquirystatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of offences including murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the reconciliation of contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence at the tentative assessment stage, and the legal effect of conflicting versions emerging from the initial complaint versus the police investigation. The Lahore High Court held that where medical evidence contradicts the specific role attributed to the accused in the FIR, and where divergent versions exist between the complainant and the investigating agency, the case falls squarely within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that contradictory medical evidence, conflicting investigative findings, and prolonged incarceration without material trial progress entitle an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail as a matter of right, notwithstanding the general heinousness of the charged offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the specific injury attributed to an accused justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the emergence of conflicting versions between the FIR and the police investigation render a case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be denied solely on the ground of the heinousness of the offence when the accused has established a case for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Suhail Jute Mills vs Govt. of Punjab etc2018 LHC 1183, 2021 YLR 1462, 2022 [M] CLR 1098 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-24Read full judgment →
• Subay Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and Ministry of Law and 2 others2018 PLJ Lahore 224 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-09
  domestic workersminimum wagepublic interest litigationconstitutional petitionlabor rightsdevolution of power
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a public interest petition filed before the Lahore High Court seeking the fixation of a minimum wage for domestic workers. The core legal question revolved around whether domestic workers are entitled to a minimum wage and protections under existing labor laws and constitutional principles, particularly considering allegations of discrimination. The court noted that while international conventions carry persuasive value, and existing statutory frameworks like the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961 and the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 address various labor rights, the specific fixation of minimum wages for domestic workers is primarily a matter requiring legislative policy action, especially given the devolution of labor to the provinces. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition while expressing the expectation that the Government of Punjab would consider enacting legislation on the subject, emphasizing that Article 3 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 underpins the principle of equal work for equal pay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether domestic workers are entitled to a minimum wage under the existing legal framework?
  • Does the issue of fixing minimum wages for domestic workers fall within the domain of legislative policy?
  • Does Article 3 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 support the principle that equal work must carry equal pay?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation through Zonal Head vs Abida Firdous2018 CLD 1264 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-16Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Zonal2018 CLD 754 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-01Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Zonal2018 CLD 1250 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-05Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and another vs Muzafar Ali2018 CLD 1300 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-14Read full judgment →
• Sonia Raza vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2018 CLC 1966 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-08Read full judgment →
• Soneri Bank Limited through Principle Officers_ General Attorneys vs Messrs Bismillah Agro Industries (Pvt.) Limited through Directors and 2 others2018 CLD 1503 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-07Read full judgment →
• Sohail Asghar vs The State and another2018 YLR 214 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-04Read full judgment →
• Sitara Aslam vs Family Judge and others2018 CLC 382 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-21Read full judgment →
• Siraj Ahmed vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 875 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-15
  appeal against acquittalcheatingforgeryburden of proofappreciation of evidencesmuggled vehiclecriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent by a Magistrate in a case involving allegations of cheating and forgery under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the respondent sold a smuggled and tampered vehicle to his wife, which was later seized by Customs authorities. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the elements of cheating and forgery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that the prosecution failed to produce the actual purchaser (the complainant's wife) as a witness, failed to prove the respondent had tampered with the vehicle, and that the investigating officer's testimony actually supported the respondent's innocence. The court affirmed that the trial court correctly appraised the evidence, finding no material to warrant interference. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to produce essential witnesses and fails to establish the foundational elements of the charged offences, an acquittal is unassailable and will not be disturbed in appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce the primary victim as a witness in a criminal trial for cheating and forgery warrant an acquittal?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment where the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the charged offences?
  • Is an investigating officer's testimony that supports the accused's innocence sufficient to undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Silkbank Limited through Authorized Officers vs Messrs Imperial Agro2018 CLD 678 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-25Read full judgment →
• Sumaia Bibi vs Addl. District Judge, Mailsi District Vehari and 2 others2018 PLJ Lahore 981, 2018 YLR 2562 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-19Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Zaka vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and Ministry of Finance and 2 others2018 PTD 336 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-19
  fiscal policyreasonable classificationtax basejudicial reviewconstitutional challengeequal protectionIncome Tax (Amendment) Act 2016
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the constitutionality of the Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 2016, specifically provisions relating to traders. The petitioner alleged that the Act violated Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution by creating discriminatory classifications and granting preferential treatment to a specific class of traders regarding tax audits. The core legal question was whether the legislative classification of traders who had not filed tax returns for the preceding ten years constituted unconstitutional discrimination. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the legislation was a valid exercise of fiscal policy aimed at broadening the tax base and increasing revenue. It established that the legislature enjoys wide latitude in economic and fiscal matters to select persons or subjects for taxation. The Court affirmed that reasonable classification is permissible, provided it is based on intelligible criteria with a nexus to the law's purpose. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the presumption of constitutionality regarding legislative enactments, placing the burden of proof on the challenger to demonstrate clear discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the legislature enjoy wide latitude in selecting persons and subjects for taxation under fiscal policy?
  • Can a fiscal statute be struck down solely on the basis of alleged discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Is there a presumption of constitutionality in favor of legislative enactments concerning economic activities?
  • Does the classification of traders who have not filed tax returns for a specific period constitute a reasonable classification?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs The State and another2018 YLR 477 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-09
  criminal appealacquittalocular evidencedelayed FIRhouse trespassoutraging modestyburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, which convicted the appellant under sections 354 and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the charges of house trespass and outraging the modesty of a woman beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged contradictions in the ocular account and the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, noting significant discrepancies in the witnesses' testimonies, the implausibility of the alleged mode of entry, and the unexplained seven-day delay in reporting the incident. Furthermore, the Court found the allegation of abscondence unsubstantiated. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must stand on its own evidence and cannot rely on the failure of the accused to prove a defense plea. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that a conviction cannot be sustained on evidence lacking credibility and natural touch.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to prove a defense plea strengthen the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's ocular account is contradictory and lacks credibility?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR affect the reliability of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Ismaeel vs Lahore Development Authority and others2018 C.L.R. 1171, 2018 KLR Civil Cases 197 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-14Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Amin vs Election Appellate Tribunal and 2 others2018 MLD 1698 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-09Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Ahmed vs Province of Punjab and others2018 [M] C.L.R. 862, 2018 LHC 688 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Farooq Ahmad and 2 others vs Askari Bank Limited through Manager_Attorneys2018 CLD 886 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-06Read full judgment →
• Shehzada Munawar Javed Khudai and another vs Election Tribunal2018 PLD Lahore 858 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-08
  election appealunder-age candidatenomination papersscrutiny of nomination paperselection petitionqualification of candidatejoint candidacyretrospective correction
  Summary & questions settled

  This election appeal under Section 46 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 challenged the order of the Election Tribunal setting aside the election of the appellants as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of a Union Council on the ground that appellant No. 2 was under-age on the nomination day. The core legal questions were whether an objection regarding a candidate's lack of qualification can be raised through a post-election election petition when it was not raised during the scrutiny of nomination papers, and whether subsequent correction of a candidate's date of birth in official documents can cure an inherent disqualification retrospectively. The Lahore High Court held that an objection regarding candidate qualification can be validly raised through an election petition under Sections 38 and 42 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 notwithstanding the absence of such objection during scrutiny under Rule 14 of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2013, and that subsequent modification of birth records cannot cure an initial lack of qualification on the nomination day. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an objection regarding the disqualification or lack of qualification of a candidate can be raised through an election petition after the election results when no such objection was raised during the scrutiny of nomination papers?
  • Does a subsequent correction of a candidate's date of birth in official records cure an initial lack of age qualification retrospectively on the last date fixed for filing nomination papers?
  • Whether the rejection of nomination papers for one candidate in a joint candidacy for Chairman and Vice-Chairman results in the rejection of the nomination of all joint candidates?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Akhtar vs Muhammad Saleem Shad Qureshi and another2018 CLD 28 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-12Read full judgment →
• Shehwaar and 2 others vs Muhammad Riaz and others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1195, 2018 YLR 1938 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-08Read full judgment →
• Shehrooz vs State and another2018 PLJ 619, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 342 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-19
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offendernarcotics possessionbail discretioncriminal recordjuvenile justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shehrooz, who was charged under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following his arrest with 2025 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, claiming to be a juvenile, was entitled to the concession of bail given his age and circumstances. The Lahore High Court, upon reviewing the record and the petitioner's NADRA B-Form, determined that the petitioner was approximately 12 years old at the time of the alleged offense. The Court held that the petitioner's status as a juvenile, combined with his lack of prior criminal antecedents and the fact that he had already been incarcerated for two months, warranted the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that the juvenile status of an accused is a significant factor in bail adjudication, and where continued incarceration serves no useful purpose for the prosecution, the court may exercise its discretion to grant post-arrest bail, even in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the juvenile status of an accused constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
  • Can a court consider the age of an accused as recorded in NADRA documents when determining bail eligibility?
  • Is the absence of prior criminal antecedents a relevant factor for the court in deciding a bail petition for a juvenile?
  Read full judgment →
• Shauqat Qamar vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 CLC 771 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-08Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain and others vs State and othersPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 322 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-16
  cross-version caseright of self-defensesuppression of injuriesappreciation of evidencecriminal appealacquittalproportionality of force
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in a cross-version scenario where both parties sustained injuries. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable because they suppressed the injuries sustained by the accused party, which were medically proven. The Court observed that the complainant party had initiated the confrontation, and the appellant’s actions constituted a proportionate exercise of the right of self-defense. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, holding that where two versions of an incident exist, the version favoring the defense must prevail. The key principle laid down is that the suppression of injuries on the accused by prosecution witnesses renders their testimony untrustworthy, and the right of self-defense justifies the use of proportionate force when an accused faces a genuine apprehension of harm without a safe exit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party by prosecution witnesses render their testimony unreliable?
  • In a cross-version criminal case, which version should prevail when both parties offer conflicting accounts of the occurrence?
  • What are the legal requirements for a valid plea of self-defense in a criminal trial?
  • Can an accused be convicted when the prosecution witnesses have failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused party?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Muhammad Razzaq2018 CLC 1624, 2018 LHC 1214 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-21
  specific performanceagreement to sellattestation of documentsQanun-e-Shahadatfinancial obligationsenforceability of contractmarginal witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The appellant sought enforcement of an agreement involving land, which the trial and appellate courts dismissed due to the document's failure to meet legal requirements. The core legal questions were whether the agreement was validly attested by two witnesses as required by law and whether the document contained sufficient material terms to be enforceable. The Lahore High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the agreement was fatally deficient. The Court affirmed that under Article 17(2)(a) and Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, an agreement involving financial obligations must be attested by two witnesses, and failure to produce them renders the document inadmissible. Furthermore, the Court held that the agreement lacked essential terms—such as specific land description, time for performance, and mode of payment—rendering it unenforceable under Section 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Court emphasized that a suit based on such a deficient document is 'stillborn' and should be rejected at its inception.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to sell immovable property require attestation by two witnesses under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can a document be considered validly attested if the witnesses signed as the scribe or in other capacities rather than as attesting witnesses?
  • Is an agreement to sell enforceable if it lacks essential terms such as the description of the property, time for performance, and mode of payment?
  • What is the consequence of failing to produce two marginal witnesses for a document requiring attestation under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Shareefan Bibi vs State, etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 499 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-10
  pre-arrest bailcriminal lawFIR delaybodily injuryPakistan Penal Codefemale accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Shareefan Bibi in a criminal case registered under Sections 337-A(i), 336, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of causing the loss of a tooth. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the alleged injury. The Court observed an unexplained nine-day delay in lodging the FIR and noted that, based on established precedent, the loss of a tooth does not constitute the loss of an organ under Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the petitioner had joined the investigation, nothing was recovered from her, and as a female accused, incarceration would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case is weakened by significant delay and the specific nature of the injury does not satisfy the statutory definition of an organ, bail should be granted, particularly when the accused has cooperated with the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the loss of a tooth constitute the loss of an organ under Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an unexplained nine-day delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Should a female accused be granted pre-arrest bail when she has joined the investigation and nothing has been recovered from her?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamim Bibi vs The State2018 YLR 415 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-12
  Damanenhancement of sentencecriminal revisionTazirquantum of compensationhurt offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the complainant, Shamim Bibi, seeking enhancement of the sentences awarded to the respondents, who were convicted by the trial court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondents had been sentenced to pay Daman for injuries caused, but the complainant argued the amount was insufficient. The core legal question was whether the trial court's determination of Daman was inadequate and whether the sentence of imprisonment as Tazir should have been imposed. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that the determination of Daman is a matter of judicial discretion under Section 337-Y, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which requires consideration of treatment expenses, disability, and anguish. Since the victims failed to provide evidence regarding these factors and the injuries were simple, the trial court's assessment was deemed correct. Furthermore, the Court clarified that imprisonment as Tazir under Section 337-N(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is not applicable in this context, as the convicts were not habitual offenders and Tazir is generally reserved for cases involving Arsh.

  Questions settled

  • What factors must a court consider when determining the amount of Daman under Section 337-Y of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a sentence of imprisonment as Tazir be imposed in cases where Arsh has not been awarded?
  • Is the determination of Daman amount subject to the discretion of the trial court based on the evidence of injury and loss?
  Read full judgment →
• Shameer Hussain @ Laal vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 44 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-21
  post-arrest bailControl of Narcotic Substances Actdubious FIRdelayed production of narcoticsfurther inquirycriminal antecedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Shameer Hussain alias Lal seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 411 dated 23.10.2014 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the dubious nature of the prosecution's story, where the complainant retained the alleged narcotic for twelve days before producing it at the police station and had prior criminal involvement in narcotic cases. The Lahore High Court held that the circumstances rendered the petitioner's case a fit one for the grant of bail under Section 51 of the act, noting the possibility of false involvement for ulterior motives, the petitioner's lack of previous criminal antecedents, and that he was no longer required for further investigation. The key principle laid down is that an unexplained and delayed production of narcotics by a complainant with a criminal record, coupled with suspicious circumstances, creates sufficient further inquiry grounds to warrant post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delayed production of recovered narcotics by the complainant at the police station makes the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the previous criminal involvement of a complainant in narcotic cases warrant caution regarding the false implication of an accused?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when no further investigation is required and they have no previous criminal antecedents?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakoor Ahmad vs District Judge Okara & others2019 CLC 665, 2019 PLJ Lahore 180, 2018 LHC 2970 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-12Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs The StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. 651, 2018 MLD 279 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-12
  murdercapital punishmentbenefit of doubtocular accountacquittal of co-accusedreappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant awarded by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for committing the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased, alongside a connected murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question revolved around whether the ocular account, despite the acquittal of co-accused and inherent improbabilities in the prosecution's narrative, was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's narrative was fraught with patent doubts, unnatural coincidences regarding the eye-witnesses' presence, and that evidence disbelieved against co-accused could not safely furnish the basis for the appellant's conviction without independent corroboration. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that when the foundational narrative is highly improbable and co-accused attributed heavier roles are acquitted, it is unsafe to maintain a conviction based on the same discredited ocular testimony, thereby extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, acquitting him, and answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained upon an ocular account that has been disbelieved or discarded regarding the majority of the co-accused?
  • Does the presence of eye-witnesses who arrive at the crime scene by sheer coincidence under unnatural circumstances constitute reliable evidence?
  • Whether inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution's genesis of the crime entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 651 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-12
  Qatl-e-Amdbenefit of doubtocular testimonycriminal appealdeath sentencemurder referenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of the deceased, resulting in a death sentence. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of ocular testimony and the impact of the acquittal of co-accused on the remaining appellant. The court held that the prosecution's narrative was inherently improbable, particularly regarding the witnesses' presence at the crime scene, which appeared to be a mere coincidence. Furthermore, the court established that where the prosecution's evidence is disbelieved regarding the majority of co-accused who were attributed heavier roles and subsequently acquitted, such evidence cannot sustain the conviction of the remaining appellant in the absence of strong, independent corroboration. Finding the prosecution’s case fraught with patent doubts and lacking necessary corroborative support, the court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and declined to confirm the death sentence, emphasizing that it is unsafe to maintain a conviction based on discredited testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained against an accused when the ocular evidence against the majority of co-accused has been disbelieved and resulted in their acquittal?
  • Does the presence of witnesses at a crime scene, which is deemed unnatural and coincidental, render the prosecution's case unreliable?
  • Is a conviction safe when the prosecution's narrative of the crime is inherently improbable and lacks independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzeb alias Jooni vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 287 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-23
  murderdeath sentenceocular accountinterested witnessesmotiveres gestaemedical evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Shahzeb alias Jooni, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a four-year-old minor, Abdul Wadood, and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony of related witnesses, the establishment of motive regarding a marriage proposal refusal, the admissibility of the appellant's initial plea, and the corroborative value of medical and recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt through natural and consistent eyewitness accounts, a proven motive, corroborative medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon and the victim's body from the appellant's premises. The court laid down the principle that the mere relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased does not discard their testimony if it is trustworthy and corroborated by independent circumstances, and that an accused's spontaneous first plea upon arrest is a relevant fact forming part of the transaction under the law of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses can be discarded solely on the ground that they are closely related to the deceased?
  • Does a delay in conducting the post-mortem examination automatically discredit the prosecution's case?
  • Whether an accused person's initial statement or plea made immediately after arrest is a relevant fact under the law of evidence?
  • Is the recovery of a crime weapon from the appellant's pointing out sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzadi Umerzadi Tiwana vs Province of Punjab and others2018 CLC 641 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-15Read full judgment →
• Shahid Idrees vs Government of the Punjab, etc2018 [M] C.L.R. 433 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-16Read full judgment →
• Shahid Idrees vs Government of the Punjab and others2018 PLD Lahore 284 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-22
  Overseas PakistanisPunjab Overseas Pakistanis Commissionjudicial powerseparation of powersadministrative overreachthird-party rightsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The case involves consolidated petitions challenging the actions of the Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commission and various Government Agencies in resolving private disputes between Overseas Pakistanis and private citizens. The core legal question is whether the Commission and Government Agencies possess the jurisdiction to adjudicate private disputes or determine third-party rights under the Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commission Act, 2014. The Court held that the Commission acts solely as a facilitation center for Overseas Pakistanis to address grievances related to Government Agencies. It ruled that neither the Commission nor Government Agencies have the authority to exercise judicial power or determine private rights between parties, as such functions are exclusively reserved for the judiciary under Article 175 of the Constitution. The judgment establishes that executive bodies cannot assume judicial functions to settle interparty disputes. Government Agencies may only act within their statutory mandates and cannot interfere in private litigation or summon individuals to resolve private disputes unless authorized by specific criminal or civil laws. Consequently, proceedings initiated by the Commission to determine third-party rights were declared unconstitutional and set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commission Act, 2014 authorize the Commission to adjudicate private disputes between Overseas Pakistanis and private citizens?
  • Can Government Agencies exercise judicial power to determine third-party rights upon the recommendation of the Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commission?
  • Is the summoning of private individuals by Government Agencies to resolve private disputes with Overseas Pakistanis constitutional?
  • What is the scope of the Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commission's authority regarding the redressal of grievances?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali vs The State and another2018 MLD 136 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-13
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtQatl-i-Amdrecovery evidencecriminal appealsupplementary statementchain of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for Qatl-i-Amd and destruction of evidence under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances that excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The Court found the witness testimony regarding the appellant's presence unconvincing and inconsistent with medical evidence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the recovery of gold ornaments was legally flawed; because the items were recovered from a jeweler rather than directly from the accused, the requirements of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, were not met. The Court established that for evidence to be admissible under this provision, there must be a direct nexus between the accused's disclosure and the discovery of the fact, without the intervention of an intermediary. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events leaves room for a hypothesis of innocence?
  • Does the recovery of incriminating articles from a third party, rather than directly from the accused, satisfy the requirements of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can a supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be equated with the First Information Report?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs State & anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 579 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-08
  criminal revisionquantum of sentencereduction of sentenceArshmurderous assaultconcurrent convictionperiod already undergone
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 324 and 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the appropriateness of the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner, given the duration of his incarceration and the absence of prior criminal antecedents. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical reports, to be consistent and reliable. However, regarding the sentence, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the imprisonment to the period already undergone, noting that the petitioner had faced the agony of a prolonged trial and had already served a significant portion of his sentence. The Court also permitted the payment of the imposed Arsh in installments to facilitate the petitioner's release. The key principle laid down is that while maintaining a conviction based on solid evidence, an appellate court may modify the quantum of sentence to the period already undergone when the ends of justice and the purpose of prosecution have been sufficiently served.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone if the prosecution's purpose has been served?
  • Is it permissible for a court to allow the payment of Arsh in installments?
  • Does the absence of prior criminal antecedents justify a reduction in the quantum of sentence for a conviction under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs NAB etc2019 P Cr. L J 1, 2018 LHC 1659 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-27
  preventive measurescorruption and corrupt practiceshousing societiesjurisdiction of NABpower to seek assistanceaccountability lawsLDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging a notice issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) and housing scheme developers under Section 33-C of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, regarding the monitoring of illegal housing societies. The core legal question is whether NAB possesses the jurisdiction to direct the collection of information and constitute prevention committees concerning private housing schemes through local authorities in the absence of a pending formal inquiry. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Section 33-C must be interpreted dynamically to allow NAB to take preventive measures against corruption and seek assistance or information under Section 27. The court established that NAB's mandate under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 extends beyond mere investigation of public offices to proactive prevention, public education, and systemic monitoring to curb corruption and corrupt practices in both public and private sectors.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Accountability Bureau has the jurisdiction under Section 33-C of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to constitute committees and take preventive measures regarding unapproved housing schemes?
  • Can the National Accountability Bureau seek information and assistance from public authorities and private entities under Section 27 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 without a formal inquiry pending?
  • Do the provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 extend to preventive measures and systemic monitoring in both the public and private sectors?
  • Does the Lahore Development Authority act as an enabling statute to complement local governments in regulating development projects as settled by precedent?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Ali vs Mst. Shazia Bibi and others2018 MLD 798 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-13Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Iftikhar vs The State and others2018 MLD 531 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-30
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryfemale accuseddacoitysupplementary statementextra-judicial confessioncommencement of trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by a female accused in a case registered under sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant initially reported a robbery by unknown armed persons, including a veiled female, but later named the petitioner in a supplementary statement based on an extra-judicial confession of a co-accused. The investigating officer subsequently found the co-accused innocent, leaving the prosecution's case against the petitioner without independent corroboration. The Court observed that the petitioner's identity remained questionable and no recovery was made from her during police custody. Addressing the prosecution's argument that the commencement of the trial precluded bail, the Court held that the mere start of trial does not bar bail if the case warrants further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's entitlement to relief as a female under the first and fifth provisos to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given her prolonged incarceration. The bail application was consequently accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere commencement of a trial preclude the grant of bail to an accused if the case otherwise warrants further inquiry?
  • Can a female accused be granted bail under the first and fifth provisos to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial remains unconcluded after a year of incarceration?
  • Is a supplementary statement naming an accused, based solely on an extra-judicial confession of a co-accused who was later declared innocent, sufficient to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Bibi and others vs Amanat Ali and others2018 YLR 645 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 437 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-15
  narcotics controlsafe custody of sampleschain of custodybenefit of the doubtcriminal appealpossession of charas and opiumcontradictions in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine for allegedly possessing narcotics recovered from a car. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and unbroken chain of the recovered samples and proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of the sample parcels, pointed out glaring contradictions regarding the transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner and the unexplained involvement of the Excise and Taxation Office, and noted the failure to impound the vehicle allegedly used in the crime. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that failure to prove safe custody and link the recovered substance with the chemical examiner's report through cogent evidence entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt, leading to the acceptance of the appeal and the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the safe custody of sample parcels from the time of seizure until their receipt by the chemical examiner vitiate the conviction?
  • Whether material contradictions in the testimonies of police officials regarding the transmission of sample parcels create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the failure to take into possession the vehicle allegedly used in narcotics trafficking considered a major flaw in the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when the link between the seized contraband and the chemical examiner's report is missing?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs Additional Sessions Judge_Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Jahanian District Khanewal and 4 others2018 PLJ Lahore 210 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shafaqat Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others2018 PLC 296 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-27
  writ petitionlimitationpleadings and evidencegrievance petitionlabour court jurisdictiondepartmental appealremoval from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the judgments of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's grievance petition and appeal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner, formerly an Assistant Lineman, was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E&D) Rules, 1978. His departmental appeal and subsequent grievance petition were dismissed as time-barred. The core legal question was whether evidence could be led on a fact not pleaded in the grievance petition, specifically regarding the date of receipt of the removal order, and whether general principles of civil procedure regarding pleadings apply to labour cases. The Lahore High Court held that no evidence can be led contrary to pleadings and that general principles of civil procedure apply to proceedings before labour courts where not repugnant. The Court concluded that the departmental appeal and grievance petition were rightly found to be time-barred, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party can lead evidence on a fact not asserted in the pleadings?
  • Do the general principles of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings before a Labour Court?
  • What is the legal effect of a departmental appeal being barred by time upon subsequent legal remedies?
  • Whether the Punjab Labour Court functions as a civil court for the purposes of adjudication under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbiran Bibi vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 788 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidencebenefit of doubtgender-based bailviscera reportcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 227/2016, involving charges under sections 376, 302, 338-C, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a 65-year-old woman, sought bail after being accused of administering a poisonous substance to cause the death of the complainant's sister. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the medical evidence and her gender. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the Punjab Forensic Science Agency report found no poisonous substance in the deceased's viscera, thereby creating serious doubt in the prosecution's case. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, being a woman, fell within the protective proviso of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court established that the case constituted one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of the slightest doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused at the bail stage, and the heinousness of an offense alone is insufficient to deny bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of poison in a viscera report create sufficient doubt to warrant bail in a murder case?
  • Is a woman entitled to special consideration for bail under the proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the heinousness of the alleged offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Kasur etc2018 LHC 1556 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-25Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Kasur and 4 others2018 LHC 1556, 2018 MLD 1733 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-25Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The State and another2018 YLR 459 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-12Read full judgment →
• Sh. Tauseef Hussain vs Additional District Judge and others2018 YLR 759 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-20Read full judgment →
• Sh. Shahbaz Akhtar vs Factory Manager etc2018 C.L.R. 1152, 2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 192, KLR 2019 Labour & · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-13
  wrongful dismissalreinstatementcompensation in lieu of reinstatementindustrial relationsback benefitslabour court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had modified a Labour Court's order by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement to a wrongly dismissed factory employee. The core legal question concerned whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal or Labour Court was justified in awarding compensation instead of reinstating the employee, given the circumstances of the dismissal. The Lahore High Court held that since the employee's dismissal was found to be unlawful and there was no evidence of misconduct, misbehaviour, or threat to the management's working environment, compensation in lieu of reinstatement was unwarranted. The Court laid down the principle that mere prolonged litigation or strained employer-employee relations do not justify denying reinstatement unless the record reflects outrageous allegations or hostility that would make reinstatement undesirable or lead to a genuine law and order situation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether reinstatement should be denied and replaced with compensation solely on the ground of prolonged litigation between the employee and the employer?
  • Can compensation in lieu of reinstatement be awarded under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 without evidence of hostility, arrogance, or a threat to the factory's working environment?
  • Does the possibility of strained employer-employee relations constitute a sufficient legal basis to refuse reinstatement to a wrongfully dismissed worker?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Local Government vs Sikandar Hameed and 10 others2018 MLD 205 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-13Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Food Department, Government of Punjab through Director Food, Lahore, etc. vs Butt Flour Mills, etc2018 P.C.T.L.R. 532 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zaheer Abbas and another vs The State2018 MLD 887 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04
  criminal appealocular evidencenight occurrencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalmurder referencepostmortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants for the murder of four individuals and injuries to two others. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony, alleging a motive stemming from a marriage dispute. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of eyewitness accounts in a night-time occurrence and the consistency of medical evidence with the alleged weapon usage. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fraught with improbabilities and doubts. The court noted significant delays in the postmortem examinations, suggesting the FIR was recorded after deliberation. Furthermore, the medical evidence, which showed pellet wounds, contradicted the prosecution's claim of 222-caliber weapon usage. The court established that injuries to a witness do not automatically guarantee the truthfulness of their testimony if the narrative is otherwise implausible. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, emphasizing that suspicion cannot substitute for evidentiary certainty in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a prosecution witness automatically render their testimony reliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries contradicts the prosecution's theory of the weapon used?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting postmortem examinations raise a presumption that the FIR was recorded after deliberation?
  • Is it safe to convict based on ocular testimony in a night-time occurrence where the source of light is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Mohammad Areeb Abdul Khafid Shah Bukhari vs Government2018 PLJ Lahore 69, 2018 PLD Lahore 390 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09
  Rent RegistrarPunjab Rented Premises Act 2009tenancy agreementlandlord-tenant relationshipjurisdiction of Rent Tribunalproof of ownershipadministrative entrustment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by a Rent Tribunal, acting as an ex-officio Rent Registrar, which refused to register a rent agreement pending production of property ownership documents. The core legal questions concerned the jurisdiction of Rent Tribunals to act as Rent Registrars, the authority of a Rent Registrar to demand title documents, and the power of a Senior Civil Judge to entrust rent cases to other judges. The Court held that following the government’s 2012 notification appointing specific Rent Registrars, Rent Tribunals no longer possess the jurisdiction to perform registration functions. However, the Court affirmed that a Rent Registrar is empowered to require prima facie proof of ownership or authorization from a landlord to verify the tenancy relationship, as the Act defines a landlord to include authorized persons. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Administrative Special Judges (Rent) possess the statutory authority to entrust cases to other Special Judges (Rent). The principle established is that while registration is a ministerial act, the Registrar must conduct a preliminary probe into the status of parties, and judicial functions must remain distinct from administrative registration duties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Rent Tribunal established under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 have the jurisdiction to function as a Rent Registrar?
  • Is a Rent Registrar empowered to require proof of title or ownership from a landlord before registering a rent agreement?
  • Does an Administrative Special Judge (Rent) have the authority to entrust rent cases to other Special Judges (Rent) for adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Saud Majeed vs Returning Officer etc2019 CLC 520, 2018 LHC 2507, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 101 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-07Read full judgment →
• Sattar Shah vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 615 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-21
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical examinationabductionSection 497 CrPCDar-ul-Aman
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail petition was filed by Sattar Shah in case FIR No. 305, dated 23.08.2017, registered under Sections 496-A, 376, 380, 381-A, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Sahoka, District Vehari. The allegations involved the abduction of the complainant's wife, administering intoxicants, and theft. The Lahore High Court observed that co-accused persons had already been granted pre-arrest bail. The alleged victim lady had voluntarily appeared before a Judicial Magistrate seeking admission to and release from Dar-ul-Aman without making any allegations against the petitioner or other accused during those appearances. Furthermore, the alleged victim of intoxication was not medically examined, and the investigation by the District Investigation Branch (DIB) found no role attributable to the petitioner. The High Court held that these circumstances rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail, the Court established that uncorroborated allegations lacking medical evidence and contradictory statements by the victim justify bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to medically examine a victim of alleged intoxication creates grounds of further inquiry for bail?
  • Whether silence of an alleged abductee regarding accused persons during proceedings before a magistrate makes the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) CrPC?
  • Does an investigative finding exonerating the accused entitle him to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz and 2 others vs The State and another2018 YLR 1282 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-06
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilityfurther inquiryprohibitory clausestatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail for three petitioners in a case involving murder and other offences. The core legal questions relate to whether the petitioners are entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry, particularly considering the attribution of specific injuries and the applicability of vicarious liability. The Lahore High Court held that two petitioners, to whom no fatal injuries were attributed and whose vicarious liability required trial evaluation, were entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the statutory delay in trial and lack of necessity for further incarceration. However, the court dismissed the bail petition of the third petitioner, who was specifically named in the First Information Report with a fatal injury corroborated by medical evidence and whose alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause. The key principle laid down is that tentative assessment governs bail stages where vicarious liability requires evidence and prolonged incarceration without trial progress warrants relief under the rule of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused to whom no fatal injury is attributed and whose vicarious liability is to be determined at trial is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without fruitful progress in the conclusion of a trial justify the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an accused named in the First Information Report with a specific incriminating role falling within the prohibitory clause is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Qasim Hassan vs Federation of Pakistan Khan and Others.PTCL 2018 CL. 9 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Liaquat Ali Dogar and another vs Sardar Ahmad Din Dogar and others2018 CLC 1087 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Arsalan Haider Leghari vs Mr. Sajid Mehmood, Civil Judge etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1445, 2018 LHC 1238 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-21Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah vs Govt. of Punjab etc2018 CLC 1987, 2018 KLR Revenue Cases 124, 2018 LHC 1763 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-01Read full judgment →
• Samson alias Mithoo and 9 others vs Nasim Qazi2018 YLR 657 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-19Read full judgment →
• Samina Munir vs ASJ/Justice of Peace, etc2019 KLR Criminal Cases 83, 2019 PLJ Lahore 206, 2018 LHC 2289 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-28Read full judgment →
• Sameea Hafeez vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Cooperatives, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, etc2018 KLR Civil Cases 380 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Salman Akhtar alias Salmani vs The State and another2018 MLD 720 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtsupplementary statementcontradictory statementsforensic evidencemurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner accused of murder under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that he was not named in the initial FIR and was only implicated via a supplementary statement. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. It observed significant contradictions between the complainant’s version in the FIR and the subsequent statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Investigating Officer had declared other nominated accused innocent and that the delayed dispatch of crime empties for forensic analysis cast doubt on the recovery. Relying on established principles, the Court affirmed that the benefit of doubt can be extended at the bail stage and that relying on witness testimony that varies from the initial FIR is dangerous. Consequently, the Court found the case one of further inquiry and granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Is it legally safe to rely on witness statements that contradict the initial First Information Report?
  • Does the delayed dispatch of crime empties for forensic analysis constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Enterprises vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2018 [M] C.L.R. 1744 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-18Read full judgment →
• Salamat vs The State and another2018 MLD 127 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidencecause of deathbenefit of doubtprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail concerns an accused charged under sections 302, 342, 379, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the medical evidence regarding the cause of death and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the medical report attributed the complainant's death to heart disease rather than the injuries sustained during the occurrence. Furthermore, the Court observed an unexplained one-day delay in the FIR registration, the lack of a specific role attributed to the petitioner, and the fact that the petitioner had been incarcerated for six months without the conclusion of the trial. The Court established that where the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful by medical evidence and the accused is a previous non-convict, the case falls under the category of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical opinion attributing death to natural causes rather than injuries create a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted where the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the heinousness of an offence a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the prosecution case is otherwise doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain and others vs Deputy Commissioner and others2018 MLD 75 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain and 4 others vs Muhammad Yousaf and another2019 CLC 309, 2018 LHC 1251 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-26Read full judgment →
• Sajjad and others vs State etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 301 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-02
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting versionsinvestigation reportcriminal procedurebail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three post-arrest bail petitions filed by Sajjad, Mumtaz, and Munir alias Ameen, arising from FIR No. 264/2016 registered at Police Station Alpa, District Multan, for offences under Sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given conflicting versions between the FIR and the police investigation. The court observed that the prosecution's initial narrative was contradicted by the investigating agency's findings, which exonerated some co-accused and attributed the fatal injury to a different accused than originally alleged. The court held that where the prosecution's case suffers from significant contradictions and the investigating agency has reached conclusions contrary to the FIR, the case against the accused warrants further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioners, invoking the principle that when the major part of a prosecution story is found to be unreliable or inconsistent during investigation, the accused's guilt becomes a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between the prosecution's version in the FIR and the findings of the investigating agency constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the major part of the prosecution story has been found to be false during the investigation?
  • Can bail be granted when the investigation has concluded and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others2018 YLR 2668 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-25
  FIR quashingForeign Exchange Regulation Actillegal search and seizuremandatory procedureFIA raidstatutory compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court seeking the quashing of FIR No. 273/2016, registered under Section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, at FIA Police Station, Gujranwala. The petitioner alleged that the FIR was fabricated and that the raid conducted on his business premises by FIA officials was illegal due to the absence of a search warrant as required by law. The core legal question was whether the search and seizure conducted by the FIA without complying with the mandatory warrant requirements of Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, rendered the subsequent criminal proceedings void. The Court held that the FIA authorities acted in clear violation of the statutory mandate, as they failed to obtain a warrant based on a written, sworn complaint before conducting the raid. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, affirming the principle that when the law prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be executed strictly in that manner, otherwise, the proceedings are a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Is a search warrant required under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, before the FIA can conduct a search of premises?
  • What are the mandatory legal requirements for obtaining a search warrant under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947?
  • Does the failure to comply with mandatory statutory procedures for a search render the subsequent criminal proceedings a nullity?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajida Bibi and others vs Additional District Judge & others2018 PLJ Lahore 606 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-09Read full judgment →
• Sajida Anwar vs Additional District Judge and others2018 YLR 1713 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-28Read full judgment →
• Sajid Parvaiz vs The State and 4 others2018 MLD 380 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-09
  quashing of orderabdominal traumacause of deathjurisdiction of magistratetransmission of caseCourt of SessionQatl-i-Amdpost-mortem report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the orders of the Sessions Judge and Judicial Magistrate, which had held that an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not constituted against the private respondents regarding the death of the petitioner's father. The core legal question was whether a prima facie case of homicide or Qatl was made out based on the medical evidence showing death resulting from surgical intervention necessitated by abdominal trauma inflicted by the accused. The Lahore High Court held that where the medical and ocular evidence prima facie establishes a causal link between the trauma caused by the accused and the subsequent death, the Magistrate should not usurp the role of the trial court but should transmit the case file under Section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the Court of Session for trial. The High Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the transmission of the case to the Sessions Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate can refuse to transmit a case to the Court of Session when prima facie evidence discloses a higher offence beyond the Magistrate's trial jurisdiction?
  • Does death resulting from a disease process aggravated by surgery necessitated by physical trauma constitute homicide under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • When does Section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 come into play regarding the transfer of a case to a court of higher jurisdiction during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain vs The State and another2018 YLR 196 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-05
  post-arrest bailabductionillicit intercourseNikahnamafurther inquirylove marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 2379/2016 dated 06.10.2016 registered under sections 496-A and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Factory Area, Lahore. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the alleged victim has contracted a valid Nikah with the accused subsequent to the alleged incident. The Lahore High Court held that since the alleged victim contracted a Nikah with the petitioner, verified by the investigating officer, and has not challenged the marriage before any forum, the matter falls within the domain of the family courts, making the petitioner's case one of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that where a love marriage is prima facie established through a verified Nikahnama and affidavit without challenge from the alleged victim, further incarceration of the accused serves no useful purpose, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the alleged victim has contracted a Nikah with the accused?
  • Is a family court the proper forum to resolve marital validity questions arising in criminal proceedings involving an alleged love marriage?
  • Does the absence of any recovery and completion of investigation entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Saima Sajid vs Returning Officer, PP-259, Rahim Yar Khan2018 LHC 1246 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-26Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Muhammad Hussain Raza vs Provincial Election Commission, etc2018 [M] C.L.R. 1470 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-08Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Muhammad Hussain Raza vs Provincial Election Commission2018 LHC 1085, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 1470, 2018 PLJ Lahore 1008 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-08Read full judgment →
• Sahara for Life Trust vs University of Health Sciences, Lahore, etc.2018 KLR Civil Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Saeid and another- vs The State and another2018 MLD 601 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-13
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelay in FIRvicarious liabilitycommon intentionconcealment of injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioners, Saeid and Jaffer, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under FIR No. 304/2017 for offences including murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the evidentiary material available. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a three-day delay, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant concealed injuries sustained by the petitioners' side, and that co-accused had already been granted pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the petitioners' case warranted further inquiry into their guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly regarding their vicarious liability or common intention for the alleged murder. Emphasizing that investigation was complete and continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where there is a significant delay in FIR registration, concealment of injuries on the accused side, and co-accused have been granted relief, a case for further inquiry is established.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the concealment of injuries sustained by the accused's side in an FIR justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the completion of the police investigation and the lack of necessity for further custody support the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs A.S.J. etc2018 LHC 1815 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-03Read full judgment →
• S.E. MEPCO and others vs Judge District Consumer Court and another2019 PLD Lahore 165, 2018 LHC 2959 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-18Read full judgment →
• Riaz-ud-Din vs Province of Punjab, etc.2018 KLR Civil Cases 19 · Lahore High Court · 2012-06-19Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs State & anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 988, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 712 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-23
  rapebenefit of doubtdelayed FIRhearsay evidencecriminal appealacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Riaz Hussain, who was found guilty by the trial court under Section 376(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the offense of rape, resulting in a twenty-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies in the victim's testimony regarding the date of occurrence, and the lack of corroborating medical or ocular evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was based on shaky, contradictory, and implausible evidence. The court emphasized that hearsay evidence is inadmissible and that the medical report failed to support the prosecution's version. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any failure to do so, particularly when the evidence is intrinsically weak or contradictory, necessitates the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR in a rape case undermine the prosecution's credibility?
  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained solely on the basis of a victim's testimony when that testimony is contradictory and lacks corroboration?
  • Is hearsay evidence admissible to prove the commission of a criminal offense?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove the charge against an accused beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs The State2018 MLD 389 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-04
  interim bailexecution of warrantProvincially Administered Tribal AreaPATAmalicecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhelum, declining interim bail to the petitioner who had been arrested in Jhelum pursuant to a warrant issued by a court in District Malakand (a Provincially Administered Tribal Area). The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge erred in refusing to exercise jurisdiction under the second proviso to Section 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant interim bail to a person arrested for execution of a warrant from a tribal area. The Lahore High Court held that the Sessions Judge was fully competent to grant interim bail under Section 86, and his refusal was unjustified given the circumstances, including allegations of mala fides and previous litigation between the parties. The court set aside the impugned order and admitted the petitioner to interim bail, directing him to approach the competent forum in Malakand within fifteen days.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sessions Judge has jurisdiction under Section 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant interim bail to a person arrested within his division pursuant to a warrant issued by a court in a Provincially Administered Tribal Area?
  • Can a Sessions Judge refuse to exercise discretion to grant interim bail under Section 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when sufficient grounds such as alleged mala fides are demonstrated?
  • What is the proper procedure for the removal in custody of a person arrested in a settled district pursuant to a warrant from a Tribal Area under Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Muhammad Anwar2018 YLR 82 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →