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.

• Rehmat Ullah vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 535 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-12
  pre-arrest bailbailable offencecriminal liabilitybail cancellationjuvenile offendervicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Rehmat Ullah, in connection with FIR No. 330, registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-A(iii), 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Taunsa. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was initially granted bail as a juvenile but subsequently had that bail cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge, was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific allegations against him. The court observed that the primary injury to the complainant was attributed to a co-accused, Abdul Karim, who had already been granted bail. The only role assigned to the petitioner was damaging a car, an act falling under Section 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is bailable in nature. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief. The petition was allowed, and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed, establishing the principle that bail should be granted when the specific role attributed to an accused involves a bailable offense, regardless of the overall FIR charges.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offense under Section 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered bailable?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted to an accused whose specific role in an FIR is limited to a bailable offense, even if other co-accused face non-bailable charges?
  • Does the absence of an injury attribution to an accused justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State and another2018 MLD 508 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-25
  criminal appealabductionrapebenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencerecovery proceedingsprocedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for abduction and rape under sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the ocular account of the victim and witnesses is inconsistent, medical evidence fails to corroborate the allegations, and procedural requirements for recovery evidence were ignored. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing significant gaps in the evidence, including the victim's implausible narrative, the lack of corroboration from independent witnesses, the failure to comply with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding recoveries, and the absence of supporting medical findings. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case to the hilt, and where the evidence is insufficient or contradictory, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace, adhering to the golden rule of criminal jurisprudence that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for one innocent person to suffer.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during recovery proceedings, in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction for rape sustainable when medical evidence fails to corroborate the victim's account and no physical evidence is produced?
  • Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR, despite the complainant's prior contact with police, cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  • When should the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali alias Rehma and others vs The State and others2018 YLR 1181 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-17
  benefit of doubtinterested witnessesocular and medical conflictcriminal appealappeal against acquittalmurder referenceimpersonationrecovery of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference addresses convictions and sentences under sections 302(b), 149, 148, 324, 440, and 419 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a triple murder and firearm injuries sustained during an alleged ambush. The core legal questions involve the credibility of interested eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence and alleged weapon recoveries, the legality of convictions under section 419 for personation, and the standards for evaluating appeals against conviction and acquittal. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular testimony was unreliable, riddled with improbabilities, and lacked independent corroboration, especially given that co-accused facing similar allegations were acquitted. The Court established that where eyewitness accounts are contradicted by medical evidence and motivated by deep-seated enmity, and where recovery evidence fails due to a lack of exclusive possession, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the death sentences and convictions were set aside, the murder reference was answered in the negative, the appeals against conviction were allowed, and the appeals against acquittal were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of closely related and inimical eyewitnesses can form the sole basis for a capital conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does medical evidence serve as primary proof of a crime or is it strictly corroborative in nature?
  • Whether an accused person is entitled to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution case is fraught with serious contradictions and improvements?
  • What are the stringent legal standards required by superior courts to interfere with a judgment of acquittal passed by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Can a conviction under section 419 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of proof that the personation caused actual harm or damage to someone's body, mind, reputation, or property?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Hussain vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 590 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-14
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsinvestigation powersCIA personnelcognizable offencefurther inquirypolice jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 3000 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether CIA personnel, who conducted the raid and investigation, possessed the legal authority to investigate a cognizable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that CIA personnel lack the authority to investigate cognizable offences under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as such power is reserved for the officer in-charge of the police station having jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that CIA personnel are subordinates meant to assist the police and cannot initiate investigations on their own motion without specific entrustment. Finding that the investigation was conducted illegally by unauthorized personnel and noting the delay in the chemical analysis report, the Court determined that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the rigours of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, were not attracted when a case for further inquiry is established.

  Questions settled

  • Do CIA personnel have the legal authority to investigate a cognizable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can CIA personnel initiate an investigation into a cognizable offence on their own motion?
  • Does an illegal investigation by unauthorized personnel constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Are the restrictions on bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 applicable when a case for further inquiry is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed vs State, etcPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 756 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryspeedy trialdelayed F.I.R.criminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 324, 337-F(iii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Okanwala Bangla, Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the alleged offense and the status of the investigation. The Court observed an unexplained seven-day delay in lodging the F.I.R., noted that the injury sustained was to a non-vital part of the body, and questioned the intent to kill. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the lack of progress in the trial, emphasizing the accused's constitutional right to a speedy trial. Concluding that the case required further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, the Court held that the matter fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to grant post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that significant delays in F.I.R. registration and the absence of trial progress are valid grounds for bail under further inquiry provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute grounds for post-arrest bail?
  • Is the lack of progress in a trial a relevant consideration for granting bail?
  • Does a non-vital injury raise a question of intent sufficient to warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Akbar Khan vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 1495 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-31
  forgerycorrupt practicesnomination papersbenefit of doubtsecondary evidencecriminal appealelection offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellant for offences under sections 468, 471, 474, and 476 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 82 of the Representation of the People Act 1976, regarding the alleged submission of a fake B.A. degree with nomination papers for the 2002 General Elections. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to establish forgery and the admissibility of unverified secondary evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the alleged fake degree was merely a photocopy, inadmissible as secondary evidence, and the verification report lacked an official seal. Furthermore, the complainant was a political rival, and the co-accused had been acquitted on the same evidence. The court emphasized that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a grace, and that conviction cannot rest on suspicion. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on secondary evidence that was not proved in accordance with law?
  • Is a report regarding the verification of a degree admissible in evidence if it lacks the official seal of the issuing authority?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of evidence provide grounds for the acquittal of the remaining accused?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a matter of right for an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad vs Nazar Hussain Malik Etc.2018 CLC 1811, 2020 [M] C L R 143, 2018 LHC 631 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-21Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad (Deceased) through L.Rs, vs Nazar Hussain Malik and another2018 CLC 1811 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-21Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Sarwar vs Returning Officer, PP-77, Sargodha & another2018 PLJ Lahore 1142, 2018 LHC 1619 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-12Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Sarwar vs Returning Officer and another2019 [M] C.L.R. 143, 2019 [M] CLR 143, 2018 LHC 1265, 2018 LHC 1337 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Sarwar vs Returning Officer & another2018 LHC 1265 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-27Read full judgment →
• Rao Ishtiaq Khurshid vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-21
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of the doubttest identification paradesupplementary statementfirst information reportocular accountcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge at Rawalpindi convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing the qatl-i-amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account, the belated nomination of the appellant through a supplementary statement, and the evidentiary value of a test identification parade where prior acquaintance and identity are doubtful. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies regarding the time of the incident, unexplained omission of the appellant's name from the initial crime report and inquest proceedings, dubious presence of related witnesses, and a negative forensic report. The court laid down the principle that a supplementary statement cannot cure initial anonymity in the crime report, and where witness testimonies regarding prior acquaintance or identification are contradictory and uncorroborated, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction and the rejection of the death reference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a supplementary statement be equated with or read in extension of a First Information Report?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a test identification parade when eye-witnesses give contradictory accounts regarding prior acquaintance with the accused?
  • Does a negative forensic report regarding the weapon of offence and crime empty undermine the reliability of the prosecution case?
  • How does the unexplained delay in naming the accused in the initial crime report affect the credibility of subsequent ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Rani Bibi vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-24
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencecriminal appealmurder convictioninadmissible evidencepolice custody confessionacquittalmotive
  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 prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically last seen evidence, alleged motive, and a disclosure leading to the recovery of the deceased's body. The core legal question was whether these circumstances, in the absence of direct evidence, were sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and that the last seen evidence lacked necessary corroboration. Furthermore, the court ruled that the alleged disclosure by the appellant while in police custody was inadmissible under Articles 39 and 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, as it did not lead to the discovery of a new fact. The court emphasized that last seen evidence is the weakest form of evidence and that evidence disbelieved against one co-accused cannot be used to convict another. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is last seen evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Under what conditions is a disclosure statement made by an accused in police custody admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can evidence that is disbelieved against one co-accused be used to convict another co-accused?
  • What is the consequence of the prosecution's failure to prove a motive that it has explicitly alleged?
  Read full judgment →
• Rani Bibi vs The State, etc.2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 226, K.L.R. 2018 Criminal Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-24
  circumstantial evidencelast-seen evidencemurdermotivecustodial confessioninadmissible evidencerule of consistencyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court whereby the appellant, Rani Bibi, was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a murder case. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, specifically last-seen evidence, the admissibility of custodial disclosures under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the consequences of failing to prove an alleged motive, and the rule of consistency in convicting co-accused on the same set of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that last-seen evidence is of a weak nature requiring independent corroboration, that custodial disclosures not leading to a fresh discovery are inadmissible, and that an accused cannot be convicted when a co-accused facing identical allegations has been acquitted on the same evidence. The Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the honorable acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient on its own to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What are the legal requirements for admissibility of a custodial statement under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the same set of evidence upon which a co-accused has already been acquitted?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Rani Bibi vs State, etcK.L.R. 2018 Criminal Cases 1, 2018 PCRLJ 310, 2018 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 226, PLJ · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-24
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceadmissibility of evidenceSection 342 Cr.P.C.motivecriminal appealacquittaldisclosure statement
  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 her husband. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically last-seen evidence, alleged motive, and the recovery of the body. The core legal questions were whether the circumstantial evidence provided sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction, whether the trial court erred in admitting inadmissible evidence, and whether the appellant was entitled to acquittal given the acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence. The Court held that the last-seen evidence was weak and lacked independent corroboration. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive, and the disclosure statements relied upon were inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court emphasized that evidence not put to the accused during examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used for conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances necessary to connect the appellant to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient on its own to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Can a statement made by an accused in police custody be used as evidence if it does not lead to the discovery of a new fact?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render that evidence unusable for conviction?
  • If the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence, what is the legal consequence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Shahbaz Ahmad vs Sessions Judge and another2018 MLD 460 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-13Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Khalil vs Regional Audit Chief, NBP Audit Office2018 PLC (C.S.) 442 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-23
  pensionary benefitsNational Bank of Pakistancost of living allowanceBanks (Nationalization) Actintra-court appealpersonnel policystatutory force
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a single bench decision that dismissed a writ petition seeking the inclusion of a 7% cost of living allowance in the appellant's pensionary benefits. The appellant, a retired National Bank of Pakistan employee, relied on a 2011 Federal Government notification to claim this allowance. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government's notification regarding pensionary benefits applied to employees of the National Bank of Pakistan, given the bank's own 1995 circular explicitly excluding such allowances from pension calculations. The Court held that amendments to the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, specifically Section 11, vested the Board of Directors with exclusive authority over personnel policies, remuneration, and benefits, effectively removing the bank from Federal Government control in these matters. Consequently, the bank's 1995 circular superseded earlier government instructions, and the 2011 notification was inapplicable to the bank's employees. The Court affirmed that the Board's decisions under Section 11 hold statutory force, and the appeal was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government have the authority to dictate pensionary benefits for employees of the National Bank of Pakistan following the amendments to the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974?
  • Does a decision taken by the Board of Directors of the National Bank of Pakistan under Section 11 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, possess statutory force?
  • Can a circular issued by the National Bank of Pakistan supersede federal government notifications regarding employee remuneration and benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Javed Iqbal vs The State and another2018 YLR 207 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-08
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting statementsdelay in FIRrapeabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 432/2016 under sections 376 and 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Sarai Sidhu, District Khanewal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the delayed FIR, conflicting statements of the victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and differing conclusions of the police investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the variance between the victim's statements, the lack of explanatory delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of violence marks in the medical report, and the petitioner's exoneration by the investigating officer collectively brought the case within the scope of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that conflicting versions emerging during investigation, coupled with material discrepancies in the victim's statements, make out a proper case for granting post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether variance between statements recorded under section 161 and section 164 Cr.P.C. makes a case one of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.?
  • Can delay in registration of FIR not explained by the complainant create doubt in the prosecution story at the bail stage?
  • Whether the opinion of the police during investigation can be considered while deciding a bail application?
  • Does the absence of marks of violence on the victim's body support a plea for post-arrest bail in a rape case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Khurram Shehzad and another vs The State and another2018 MLD 830 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-02
  pre-arrest bailmala fidebenefit of doubtabductiontentative assessmentFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 411/17, registered for an offence under Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed an unexplained thirteen-day delay in the registration of the FIR, during which the petitioners were not named as culprits. Furthermore, the alleged abductee had previously filed an application under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alleging abduction by her own relatives and claiming a free-will marriage with a co-accused. The Court noted that the petitioners were not named in the initial FIR, despite being local residents, and that the prosecution's case against them appeared to be a result of mala fide intention and ulterior motive. Holding that the prosecution story was doubtful regarding the petitioners, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused even at the bail stage, particularly when false implication is prima facie apparent.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the FIR, despite a significant delay in registration, constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when there is a prima facie indication of mala fide intention and false implication by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Khurram Shehzad and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 258 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-02
  pre-arrest bailabductionbenefit of doubtmala fideFIR delaytentative assessmentSection 164 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 411/17 registered under Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of abduction. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the contradictions in the prosecution's case and the circumstances surrounding the alleged abduction. The Court observed an unexplained thirteen-day delay in the FIR's registration, during which the petitioners were not named. Furthermore, the alleged abductee had previously filed an application under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, claiming she married of her own free will, and later filed a private complaint. The Court held that the prosecution's story against the petitioners appeared doubtful, noting the absence of their names in the initial FIR and the potential influence of parents on the abductee's subsequent statements. Emphasizing that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused at the bail stage, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, concluding that the petitioners' implication was likely motivated by mala fide intent and ulterior motives.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the accused is not named in the initial FIR?
  • Is a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to scrutiny regarding potential parental influence during a bail hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Farmaish Ali and another vs State & anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 36 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-06
  pre-arrest bailbailable offencebail confirmationcriminal proceduredeletion of offencesPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 427 dated 03.08.2016 registered under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Chehlyak, Multan. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the non-bailable offences originally cited have been deleted during investigation, leaving only a bailable offence. The Lahore High Court held that since offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code were deleted during investigation and the remaining offence under Section 420 is bailable, no judicial discretion remains to be exercised regarding bail under the second schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners was confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where only bailable offences subsist against an accused after investigation, the court does not exercise discretionary jurisdiction over bail as it is a matter of right under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the non-bailable offences initially registered are deleted during investigation, leaving only a bailable offence?
  • Does a court retain discretion to refuse bail when the subsisting offence against the accused is bailable under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Naseer and another vs Ghulam Shah and another2018 CLC 1769, 2018 LHC 1357 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-17Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Amir Khan and another vs Raja Sher Afzal Jasmin2018 YLR 487 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-24Read full judgment →
• Tassadaq Nawaz vs Masood Iqbal Usmani and others2018 PLD Lahore 830 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-12
  interim custodyconstitutional petitionmaintainabilityguardianshipFamily Courts Actappellate remedyres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by a Judge Family Court regarding the interim custody of a minor. The core legal question was whether an order passed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, by a Family Court is appealable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, thereby precluding the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order is indeed appealable before the District Court under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The Court laid down the principle that once guardianship matters are brought under the jurisdiction of Family Courts, the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 prevails over the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Consequently, interim orders under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, qualify as 'decisions' under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, rendering them appealable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory appellate remedies, and interim custody orders are tentative, allowing for modification upon material changes in circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, by a Family Court appealable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to interim orders passed by a Family Court when a statutory remedy of appeal is available?
  • Are interim custody orders passed by a Guardian Court subject to the principle of res judicata?
  • Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 prevail over the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, in matters of guardianship?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bukhsh vs Mst. Shehzadi and others2018 CLC 1789 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-22
  constitutional petitionfamily court decreeexecution of decreeobjection petitionappealable decisioninterlocutory ordermaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed against the orders of the appellate court and executing court dismissing the petitioner's appeal and objection petition regarding the execution of a family court decree. The core legal question was whether an order dismissing an objection petition in execution proceedings under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 constitutes a 'decision given' and is thus appealable under Section 14 of the Act, or whether it is merely a non-appealable interim order. The Lahore High Court held that an order which finally determines an issue or a party's objection possesses the characteristic of finality and amounts to 'a decision given' under Section 14 of the Act, making an appeal maintainable, provided it is not a purely interlocutory order where the matter is merely deferred. The key principle laid down is that the test for the maintainability of an appeal under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 depends on whether the order has finally decided an issue between the parties rather than simply being passed during the pendency of proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order dismissing an objection petition against the execution of a family court decree is appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does every order passed during the pendency of family proceedings qualify as a non-appealable interlocutory order?
  • What is the legal test to determine whether an order passed by a Family Court amounts to 'a decision given' for the purposes of filing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh alias Shada vs The State2018 MLD 359 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-03Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Hussain vs Asifa Altaf etc2019 PLD Lahore 194, 2019 PLJ Lahore 189, 2018 LHC 3132 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-12Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Hussain and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 244, 2018 KLR Criminal Cases 55 · Lahore High Court
  murder referencemitigating circumstancesdeath sentence conversioncommon intentionvicarious liabilitysifting grain from chaffappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals arising from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, whereby appellants Rafaqat Hussain, Shafqat Hussain, and Muhammad Imran were convicted and sentenced for murder and hurt offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, whether common intention was established for vicarious liability, and whether mitigating circumstances warranted the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular account, supported by medical evidence and recoveries, proved the specific roles of the appellants, but that common intention and vicarious liability were not established in the absence of a pre-arranged plan or prior concert. The Court maintained the conviction of Rafaqat Hussain under Section 302(b) but converted his death sentence to imprisonment for life in view of mitigating circumstances, including the non-repetition of the firearm blow and an unproven motive. The convictions of Shafqat and Imran under Section 324 were set aside, while their convictions under Section 337-F(iv) were upheld. The key legal principles laid down include that a single mitigating circumstance is sufficient to warrant the lesser penalty of life imprisonment instead of death, that common intention presupposes prior concert and a pre-arranged plan, and that the falsus in uno falsus in omnibus rule is not applicable in Pakistan's criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-repetition of a fatal blow by an assailant constitutes a mitigating circumstance for converting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence ipso facto require the acquittal of remaining convicted co-accused under the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus?
  • Can a person be held vicariously liable under Section 34 or Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of prior concert or a pre-arranged plan?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance in capital sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Hussain and others vs State and othersPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 244 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-12
  murder referencecommon intentionmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationvicarious liabilityfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences handed down by the trial court regarding offences under Sections 302, 324, 337F(iv), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern the applicability of vicarious liability in the absence of a pre-arranged plan, the validity of the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, and whether the non-repetition of a fatal injury constitutes a mitigating circumstance for capital punishment. The Court held that while the prosecution proved the specific roles of the appellants, the vicarious liability of co-accused under Sections 34 or 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not established as there was no evidence of a prior meeting of minds. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for certain appellants but maintained the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the principal offender. However, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, establishing the principle that the non-repetition of a fatal injury demonstrates an implied lack of intent to take unfair advantage, serving as a valid mitigating circumstance to avoid the capital penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applies to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Does mere presence at the scene of an occurrence establish common intention under Section 34 or 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the non-repetition of a firearm injury by an assailant serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is an accused vicariously liable for the acts of co-accused in the absence of a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 184 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-05
  criminal appealexplosive substancesnarcotics possessionmotiveburden of proofbenefit of doubtconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, as handed down by a Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, motivated by a personal vendetta regarding a runaway marriage, planted explosive materials and narcotics in a rickshaw driven by a prosecution witness. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the alleged motive and the act of planting the contraband. Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the motive or to prove that the appellant instigated the co-accused to plant the incriminating articles. The Court held that the conviction was based on surmises and conjectures, noting a complete lack of evidence regarding the appellant's involvement. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, emphasizing that a conviction cannot be sustained in the absence of cogent evidence connecting the accused to the alleged criminal act.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to provide any evidence to substantiate the alleged motive?
  • Is a conviction valid if it is based solely on surmises and conjectures rather than concrete evidence?
  • Does the failure to prove the act of instigation in a conspiracy-based charge warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Mubri Khan and 4 others2018 P Cr. L J 558 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-19
  revision petitionacquittalcompensationfalse accusationseparate remediesappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the judgments of the Magistrate Section-30 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Talagang, whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 380, 448, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the petitioner-complainant was ordered to pay compensation under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellate court had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the compensation order solely on the ground that an appeal challenging the acquittal was pending before the High Court. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an order of compensation under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is barred or rendered incompetent due to the pendency of an appeal against acquittal. The Lahore High Court held that an order of acquittal and an order of compensation are distinct, separate orders arising from the same proceedings, appealable through separate appeals before different forums independently, and the pendency of one does not affect the competency of the other. The petition is disposed of by setting aside the appellate court's judgment with directions to decide the appeal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against an order of compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is competent when an appeal against acquittal is pending before the High Court?
  • Are an order of acquittal and an order for payment of compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 separate orders requiring independent appeals before different forums?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal against a compensation order solely on the ground that proceedings challenging the main acquittal are pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 795 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-20
  post-arrest baildelay in FIRfurther inquiryprevious non-convictspeedy trialtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 226/17 registered under sections 337-A(iii), 337-L(2), 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rajoa, District Chiniot. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the nature of the attribution, the applicability of prohibitory clauses, and the statutory provisions concerning previous non-convicts. The court held that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting an unexplained eight-day delay in the FIR, the tentative nature of the injury attributed, the applicability of section 337-N(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a previous non-convict, and the hardship of prolonged incarceration without trial progress. Consequently, the petition was allowed and bail was granted to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitutes a ground for further inquiry in a post-arrest bail petition?
  • Does section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 protect a previous non-convict from a sentence of imprisonment under certain hurt offences?
  • Can an accused be kept in jail for an indefinite period when the investigation is complete and trial has not concluded?
  • Whether the maximum punishment prescribed for an offence or the likely punishment under the facts and circumstances should be considered while deciding bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 CLC 1562 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-03Read full judgment →
• Qamar Aziz etc vs Government of the Punjab, etc2019 PLC (C.S) 932, 2018 LHC 2408 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-04
  recruitment policyeducational equivalenceHigher Education Commissionpolicy matterservice eligibilityjudicial reviewconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Secretary, School Education Department, which refused to accept the petitioners' "Shahadat-ul-Almia" sanad as equivalent to a Master's degree for recruitment to the posts of ESE, SESE, and SSE (Arts). The core legal question was whether the government is bound by an equivalence certificate issued by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) when determining eligibility criteria for public employment. The Court held that the determination of educational qualifications and eligibility criteria for government posts is a policy matter within the exclusive domain of the employer. Consequently, the Court ruled that HEC equivalence certificates, issued under the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002, are intended for academic evaluation and are not binding on the government for recruitment purposes. The Court affirmed that courts should not interfere in policy decisions regarding service eligibility unless they are proven to be arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of fundamental rights. Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the government's authority to prescribe specific qualifications for its service.

  Questions settled

  • Is the government bound by an equivalence certificate issued by the Higher Education Commission when prescribing eligibility criteria for public employment?
  • Does the prescription of educational qualifications for government posts constitute a policy matter immune from judicial interference?
  • Can a candidate claim a vested right to be considered for a government post based on an HEC equivalence certificate?
  • Does the Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 empower the HEC to mandate recruitment qualifications for government departments?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Iqbal and19 others vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Home Department2018 PLD Lahore 34 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-21
  Model Town incidentjudicial commission inquiry reportpublic documentright to informationconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsjudicial proceedingsrule of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the legal heirs of persons killed and injured in the Model Town Lahore incident of June 2014, seeking directions to the Government of Punjab to provide and make public the inquiry report prepared by a Judicial Tribunal (One-Man Tribunal comprising a judge of the Lahore High Court) constituted under the West Pakistan Tribunals of Inquiry Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions were whether the inquiry report constitutes a public document and whether the aggrieved citizens have a right to access and have it made public under Article 19A of the Constitution and the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013. The Lahore High Court held that proceedings before the Tribunal are judicial proceedings under the Ordinance and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, rendering the resulting report a public document under Article 85 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court ruled that in matters of immense public importance touching upon fundamental rights and the rule of law, the report must be made public. The petition was allowed, directing the authorities to publicize and provide copies of the inquiry report to the aggrieved petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings conducted by a Tribunal constituted under the West Pakistan Tribunals of Inquiry Ordinance, 1969 qualify as judicial proceedings?
  • Is an inquiry report prepared by a Judicial Tribunal considered a public document under Article 85 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Do the legal heirs of victims of a public tragedy have an enforceable right under Article 19A of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013 to obtain and demand the publication of a judicial inquiry report?
  • Can a constitutional petition filed by aggrieved direct legal heirs be maintained independently despite the pendency of earlier petitions filed by persons without a direct nexus to the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Abbas and 8 others vs The Province of Punjab and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 310 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-22
  waiting listrecruitmentvested rightconstitutional petitionpublic employmentpolice recruitmentservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the failure of the Punjab Police to appoint petitioners from a waiting list for Police Constable positions, instead opting to re-advertise vacancies. The core legal question was whether candidates on a waiting list possess a vested, enforceable right to appointment and whether the government is legally compelled to exhaust a waiting list before initiating fresh recruitment. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a waiting list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. The ratio established that a waiting list is merely a contingency mechanism operative only when a selected candidate fails to join within a prescribed period; it is not a mandatory source of recruitment. The Court affirmed that absent a specific statutory rule requiring the maintenance or utilization of a waiting list, the employer retains the discretion to re-advertise vacant posts. The right of a wait-listed candidate is weak and unenforceable unless supported by a specific rule or executive order having the force of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate on a waiting list have a vested, enforceable right to be appointed to a government post?
  • Is an employer legally obligated to maintain a waiting list for recruitment in the absence of a specific rule?
  • Can a government department re-advertise vacant posts instead of utilizing an existing waiting list?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Healthcare Commission vs Mushtaq Ahmad Chaudhary etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 1462, 2018 PLD Lahore 762, 2018 LHC 1511, 2018 PLJ Lahore 984 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-06Read full judgment →
• Punjab Healthcare Commission vs Mushtaq Ahmad Chaudhary and others2018 PLD Lahore 762 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-06Read full judgment →
• Punjab Beverages Co. Pvt. Ltd vs FBR etc.PTCL 2018 CL. 199 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-22Read full judgment →
• Punjab Beverages Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federal Board of Revenue and othersPTCL 2018 CL. 199, 2018 PTD 1251 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-22
  Sales Tax Actshow-cause noticedelegation of powersjurisdiction of tax authoritiesstatutory interpretationtaxing statuteadministrative function
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a batch of writ petitions challenging the authority of Deputy Commissioners Inland Revenue to issue show-cause notices under Section 11 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question was whether the power to issue such notices, vested in the Commissioner Inland Revenue, could be delegated to subordinate officers like the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue. The petitioners contended that the Act does not permit such delegation and that the Board or Commissioner cannot confer powers not explicitly granted by law. The Court, following the precedent established in 'Messrs Hamza Nasir, Wire v. Federation of Pakistan and others' (2018 PTD 1071), held that the power to issue show-cause notices is a statutory function that cannot be delegated by the Commissioner to subordinate officers at their discretion. The Court affirmed that while the Board or Commissioner may assign administrative functions, they cannot delegate substantive statutory powers unless expressly authorized by law. Consequently, the impugned show-cause notices were set aside, with liberty granted to the authorities to issue fresh notices in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sales Tax Act 1990 authorize the Commissioner Inland Revenue to delegate the power to issue show-cause notices under Section 11 to a Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue?
  • Can the Federal Board of Revenue or a Commissioner confer statutory powers upon an officer that are not explicitly granted to that officer by the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Is the power to issue a show-cause notice under Section 11 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 a delegable administrative function?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through Member Judicial-V/Chief Settlement2018 KLR Revenue Cases 65, 2018 PLJ Lahore 1094, 2018 YLR 2073, 2018 LHC · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-26Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through Member Judicial-V/Chief Settlement2018 YLR 2073 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-26Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab, etc. vs Haseeb Ullah Khan2018 PLJ Lahore 844 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-08Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Qaisar Iqbal and others2018 PLD Lahore 198 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-05
  Right to InformationJudicial InquiryModel Town IncidentPublic ImportanceFundamental RightsFair TrialProportionality TestIntra Court Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These Intra Court Appeals arose from a Single Bench judgment directing the Government of Punjab to release a judicial inquiry report (the 'Model Town incident' report) authored by a one-man Tribunal. The Government challenged the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act, 2013, and argued that the report was not a public document. The Court held that while the Tribunal was a fact-finding body and its report was not a 'public document' under Article 85 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, nor were its proceedings strictly judicial, the right to access the report was a fundamental right under Article 19-A of the Constitution. The Court applied the 'proportionality and balancing test,' determining that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the government's concerns regarding 'public order' or 'administration of justice.' The Court dismissed the appeals, ordering the immediate release of the report to the respondents and its publication within 30 days, while clarifying that the report should not prejudice the ongoing criminal trial.

  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Zafar Iqbal vs Province of Punjab, etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-16Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Zafar Iqbal vs Province of Punjab, etc2018 LHC 60 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-16Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Zafar Iqbal vs Province of Punjab and others2018 LHC 60, 2018 PLJ 448, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 267 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-16
  Vice-Chancellor appointmentSearch Committeesubject expertagricultural expertpublic sector universityshortlistingconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves constitutional petitions challenging the appointment process of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. The core legal questions concerned whether the prior advertisement for the post was vitiated by being issued before the constitution of the Search Committee, and whether a renowned economist holding a doctorate in development economics qualified as a subject/field expert in agriculture to sit on the Specialized Search Committee. The Lahore High Court held that while the earlier advertisement could be relied upon subject to processing by the new Search Committee, the inclusion of the economist as an agricultural expert was invalid because he lacked the requisite highest academic degree and substantial direct experience in the specialized field of agriculture. The Court laid down the principle that a subject or field expert on a search committee must hold the highest academic degree in the specific subject alongside substantial, direct, and contemporary experience in that field, rather than generalist or related economic expertise. The petitions were consequently allowed, setting aside the shortlisting and directing the reconstitution of the Search Committee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an advertisement for the post of Vice-Chancellor issued prior to the constitution of a Search Committee is legally valid?
  • What qualifications and experience are required for a person to qualify as a subject/field expert on a Search Committee for a specialized university?
  • Does a degree and background in development economics qualify an individual as an agricultural subject expert for the University of Agriculture?
  • What is the effect of an improperly constituted Search Committee on the shortlisting of candidates for a public university post?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Zafar vs The Province of Punjab through Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore etc2019 [M] C.L.R. 670, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 63, 2018 LHC 1550 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-05
  Pro-Vice-Chancellorsuperannuationtenure postage of retirementintra court appealadditional dutiesacquiescence
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant against the terms of his nomination as Pro-Vice-Chancellor. The core legal question revolves around whether the nomination of a Professor as Pro-Vice-Chancellor under Section 15-A of the University of Agriculture Faisalabad Act, 1973 constitutes a tenure post of three years unaffected by the age of superannuation, or if it is merely an assignment of additional duties subject to retirement age under Section 41. The court held that the nomination as Pro-Vice-Chancellor is not a tenure appointment but an assignment of additional duties given to a Professor, and therefore, upon reaching the age of superannuation, the incumbent ceases to hold the office. The key principles laid down are that nomination to the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor does not create a tenure post independent of the regular service and retirement age of a Professor, and that a person cannot challenge a notification after accepting its benefits and suffering from laches.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the nomination of a Professor as Pro-Vice-Chancellor under Section 15-A of the University of Agriculture Faisalabad Act, 1973 constitutes a tenure post?
  • Does a Pro-Vice-Chancellor cease to hold office upon reaching the age of superannuation prescribed under Section 41 of the University of Agriculture Faisalabad Act, 1973?
  • Can a petitioner challenge the terms of a notification after accepting the office and enjoying its benefits without prior protest?
  Read full judgment →
• Principal Government College of Technical Training Institute vs Sabir Hussain and others2018 PLJ Lahore 532 · Lahore High Court
  intra-court appealTEVTA employeecivil servantstatutory bodyservice regulationsregularization of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal was filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 to challenge an order modifying a previous writ petition decision which had regularized the service of an employee of the Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA) as a civil servant. The core legal question was whether employees of TEVTA are civil servants and whether Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 applies to them. The Lahore High Court held that TEVTA is a statutory body corporate governed by its own Act, rules, and service regulations, and its employees are public servants rather than civil servants. Consequently, civil servant rules do not apply to them. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order modifying the regularization as a civil servant was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA) are civil servants?
  • Does Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 apply to employees of TEVTA?
  • Can employees of statutory corporations be considered civil servants under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Plastic Crystals, etc. vs Bolan Bank Limited2018 P.C.T.L.R. 418 · Lahore High Court · 2010-03-05Read full judgment →
• Phonix Security Service (Pvt.) Ltd vs Muhammad Abdullah and others2018 PLC 37 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-17
  payment of wagesovertimeannual leavededucted wageslabour lawwrit jurisdictionlocus standiFactories Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns cross-writ petitions challenging a judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding claims for unpaid wages, overtime, and annual leave. The core legal questions involved the competence of the petitioner company to file the writ, the entitlement of the worker to overtime, the correct application of statutory provisions regarding annual leave carry-forward, and the classification of wage claims as either delayed or deducted. The Court held that the petitioner’s writ petition was incompetent as it was filed by an unauthorized person. On merits, the Court affirmed the worker's entitlement to overtime based on admissions. Regarding annual leave, the Court held that Section 49-B(2) of the Factories Act, 1934, cannot be used to curtail a worker's contractual leave entitlements where those entitlements exceed statutory minimums, due to the protective provisions of Section 49-A(2). Furthermore, the Court clarified that the employer's failure to pay agreed wages constitutes deducted wages rather than delayed wages, justifying higher compensation under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The judgment of the Labour Court was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a company initiate legal proceedings through an individual not authorized by a board resolution or articles of association?
  • Does Section 49-B(2) of the Factories Act, 1934, permit an employer to curtail a worker's contractual annual leave entitlements that exceed the statutory minimum?
  • Does the failure to pay the full agreed salary constitute deducted wages or delayed wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Can a court interfere in a labour tribunal's findings regarding overtime when there is clear evidence of work performed beyond duty hours?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Haider Khan vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 77 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-16
  criminal appealjudgment contentsanti-corruptionevaluation of evidencespeaking orderremand of casecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the trial court's judgment complied with the mandatory requirements of section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the evaluation of evidence and the recording of reasons. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned judgment merely summarized testimonies without evaluating the evidence in light of the cross-examination, thus failing to meet the mandatory requirements of section 367, Cr.P.C. The court laid down the principle that a judicial verdict must be a speaking order containing points for determination, a decision thereon based on a thorough examination of evidence, and strong reasoning, and that non-compliance with section 367, Cr.P.C. is an incurable illegality rendering the judgment nugatory. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for rewriting.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judgment that merely summarizes prosecution witnesses without evaluating evidence satisfy the requirements of section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the essential elements required to be contained in a criminal judgment under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Parks and Horticulture Authority vs Muhammad Saleem2018 PLC (C.S.) 12 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-02
  Intra Court Appealconstitutional petitiondoctrine of substantial complianceincomplete application formemployees children quotaright of livelihood
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the order of a learned Single Judge who allowed a constitutional petition filed by Respondent No. 1 regarding his appointment to the post of Mali under the employees' children quota. The core legal question was whether the rejection of the respondent's job application for being incomplete due to missing photographs, despite a good faith submission within time, was justified. The court held that the doctrine of substantial compliance is attracted where there is no apparent mala fide and a right of livelihood is involved, meaning minor omissions do not invalidate an otherwise timely and substantial application. The court laid down that technical deficiencies in job applications should not defeat substantive rights, particularly when the essential purpose of the application is fulfilled and the applicant is otherwise eligible under a reserved quota.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for public employment can be rejected solely on the ground of minor omissions when the doctrine of substantial compliance applies?
  • Does an incomplete job application create a factual controversy barring the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether the children of retired employees are entitled to consideration under the reserved employees' children quota when their applications substantially fulfill the requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. vs M. Rafique and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 169 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-25
  sacked employeesreinstatementbogus appointmentlimitation periodconstitutional petitionservice lawstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by a Review Board reinstating the respondent into service. The core legal questions concern whether the respondent, whose appointment was alleged to be bogus, qualified for relief under the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010, and whether the application for reinstatement was filed within the mandatory statutory limitation period. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable. It observed that the respondent’s name was absent from the official recruitment list approved by the Establishment Division, indicating a bogus appointment. Crucially, the Court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate compliance with Section 3 of the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010, which mandates that applications for reinstatement must be filed within ninety days of the Act's enactment. As the respondent failed to prove the timely filing of the application, the Court set aside the reinstatement order. The judgment affirms that statutory limitation periods for seeking reinstatement are mandatory and that constitutional courts generally avoid determining disputed questions of fact regarding the validity of appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement to file an application for reinstatement within ninety days under the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010 mandatory?
  • Can a court in constitutional jurisdiction determine the veracity of a disputed appointment?
  • Does the failure to file a reinstatement application within the statutory period prescribed by the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010 disentitle a claimant to relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Pharmacists Association vs Province of Punjab and 3 others2018 PLJ Lahore 747, 2018 LHC 478, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 1756, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 1063 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-09
  locus standiaggrieved personconstitutional petitioncontract appointmentpharmacists recruitmentservice mattersmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the Pakistan Pharmacists Association, challenging the recruitment process initiated by the Punjab government for appointing Pharmacists (Field Force) on a contract basis under the Drugs Act, 1976 and the Punjab Drugs Rules, 2007. The petitioner association contended that the recruitment was unlawful, ultra vires, and violated fundamental rights. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition and the petitioner's lack of locus standi, asserting that the petitioner was not an aggrieved party and that the recruitment aimed to enforce a zero-tolerance policy against spurious drugs. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an association of professionals lacks locus standi under Article 199 to maintain a writ petition concerning individual employment, appointments, or service matters unless a direct personal or individual legal right of the association or its members has been infringed. The court established that the right foundation for a constitutional petition must be a personal and individual right, and third-party associations cannot challenge administrative recruitment processes where neither the association nor its members participated or suffered direct injury.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an association of professionals has the locus standi under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 to challenge a public sector recruitment or service matter on behalf of its members?
  • Can a professional body be considered an 'aggrieved person' when neither it nor its individual members have participated in or been directly affected by the challenged recruitment process?
  • Does the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to resolving disputed questions of fact regarding the internal management and legal status of a registered association?
  • Are service matters and individual public appointments actions in rem or actions in personam for the purpose of maintaining a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation vs Muhammad2018 PLC (C.S.) 427, 2018 PLJ Lahore 443, 2018 LHC 171 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-18
  intra-court appealcontractual employmenttermination of servicenatural justiceaudi alteram partemfair trialdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal was filed by the Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation (PASSCO) against the judgment of a learned Single Judge who had allowed the writ petitions of the respondents. The respondents, contractual employees of PASSCO, were terminated from service via an order stating they ceased to be employees with immediate effect, following an inquiry report that alleged irregularities in their recruitment process. The core legal question was whether the termination of contractual employees based on allegations of irregularity, without a show-cause notice, personal hearing, or formal inquiry as recommended in the inquiry report, was legally sustainable. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that even in contractual matters, where serious allegations are leveled, the employer cannot terminate services with a single stroke of pen without affording an opportunity of fair trial and personal hearing. The Court ruled that such unilateral termination violated the principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights of due process and fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public sector corporation terminate contractual employees on allegations of recruitment irregularities without affording them a personal hearing or a show-cause notice?
  • Does the termination of contractual employees without following the formal inquiry procedure recommended in an inquiry report violate Article 4 and Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the principle of natural justice applies to the termination of contractual employees of a public entity when serious allegations of irregularity are made against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Pak Telecom Mobile Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 PLJ Lahore 235 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Pak Elektron Ltd. and another vs Federal Board of Revenue and others2018 PTD 778 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-13Read full judgment →
• Pak Elektron Limited & another vs Federal Board of Revenue & others.2018 PTD 778, PTCL 2018 CL 59 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-13Read full judgment →
• P.T.V. Employees' Ittehad Union, Punjab through Secretary vs Federation2018 PLC 136, 2018 PLD Lahore 160 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-03
  Industrial Relations Act 2012trans-provincial establishmentseighteenth amendmentlegislative competencecollective bargaining agentfederal legislative list
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment by the Lahore High Court addressed a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA 2012), following the devolution of the subject of labour to the provinces under the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether the Parliament (Majlis-e-Shoora) possessed the legislative competence to enact IRA 2012 for the Islamabad Capital Territory and trans-provincial establishments and industries, or whether the subject fell exclusively within provincial domain. The Court held that IRA 2012 is intra vires the Constitution and constitutes a valid piece of legislation. The ratio is that while general labour legislation falls within provincial autonomy post-the Eighteenth Amendment, the Parliament retains legislative competence under various entries of the Federal Legislative List (including inter-provincial trade, corporations with objects not confined to one province, implementation of international treaties, and matters relating to the Federation) to legislate for trans-provincial establishments and the Islamabad Capital Territory, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights under Article 17 of the Constitution and preventing administrative chaos.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 following the abolition of the Concurrent Legislative List by the Eighteenth Amendment?
  • Does the Parliament have the legislative competence to enact labour laws applicable to trans-provincial establishments and the Islamabad Capital Territory?
  • Whether federal legislation governing trans-provincial trade unions and industrial relations conflicts with the provincial autonomy granted to the provinces?
  • Are the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 protected under the entries of the Federal Legislative List relating to inter-provincial trade and commerce and international treaty obligations?
  Read full judgment →
• P.T.V. Employees Ittehad Union, Punjab through Secretary vs Federation2018 PLC 136 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-03
  vires of statutelegislative competencetrans-provincial establishmentsEighteenth Amendmentindustrial relationscollective bargaining agentpith and substancefederal legislative list
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an Intra-Court Appeal and several Writ Petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA 2012). The core legal question was whether the Parliament possessed the legislative competence to enact the IRA 2012 following the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished the Concurrent Legislative List and devolved labour subjects to the provinces. The Court held that the IRA 2012 is intra vires the Constitution. Applying the doctrine of "pith and substance" and the principle of liberal construction of legislative entries, the Court determined that the Federation retains legislative authority over trans-provincial establishments and the Islamabad Capital Territory. This authority is derived from various entries in the Federal Legislative List, including those concerning inter-provincial trade and commerce, international treaty implementation, and matters relating to the Federation. The Court emphasized that federal and provincial labour laws can coexist harmoniously. Furthermore, it reasoned that striking down the IRA 2012 would undermine the fundamental right to freedom of association and create administrative chaos for entities operating across multiple provinces, thereby necessitating a uniform federal regulatory framework.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Parliament have the legislative competence to enact labour laws for trans-provincial establishments after the Eighteenth Amendment?
  • Is the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can federal and provincial labour laws coexist harmoniously in the post-Eighteenth Amendment legal framework?
  • Does the doctrine of pith and substance apply when determining the constitutionality of federal legislation involving trans-provincial entities?
  Read full judgment →
• Omair Ali vs The State2018 KLR Criminal Cases 175 · Lahore High Court
  murderbenefit of the doubttest identification parademedical contradictionsanti-terrorismcriminal appealeyewitness reliability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and other related provisions for the murder of a police constable during a sudden nighttime motorcycle ambush. The core legal questions involve the reliability of a belated test identification parade, discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, and the benefit of the doubt in poorly investigated cases. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the assailants beyond reasonable doubt given the momentary nature of the surprise attack, lack of a reliable light source, delayed identification parade where suspects were exposed, and contradictions between the crime report and medical evidence regarding the number and trajectories of the fire shots. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and death sentences, acquitted the appellants on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the sentence enhancement revision. The key principle laid down is that criminal convictions cannot rest on moral certainty or weak investigative foundations, and a sudden, brief nocturnal assault coupled with delayed identification and medical contradictions entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a belated test identification parade holds significant evidentiary value when suspects have been exposed to witnesses?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when material contradictions exist between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number and nature of fire-arm injuries?
  • Does a sudden and brief nocturnal encounter without sufficient light weaken the reliability of subsequent assailant identification?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution case suffers from investigative flaws and leaves room for reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Omair Ali and others vs The State and others2018 KLR Criminal Cases 175, 2018 LHC 179, 2018 P Cr. L J 1224 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-17
  benefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidence contradictiontest identification paradecriminal appealdeath sentence confirmationforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant discrepancies in ocular, medical, and forensic evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The Court noted that the ocular account was contradicted by medical evidence regarding the number and nature of wounds, and the identification parade was conducted after an inordinate delay, rendering it unreliable. Furthermore, the Court found the police's failure to act during the alleged incident and the absence of a sufficient light source to identify the assailants created insurmountable doubts. Emphasizing that convictions cannot be sustained on moral satisfaction alone, the Court ruled that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, the death sentence was not confirmed, and the appellants were acquitted, establishing the principle that a conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, free from material contradictions and procedural irregularities.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in conducting a test identification parade render the identification evidence unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account is diametrically contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's case relies on evidence that is fraught with doubts and inconsistencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Abbas vs Nighat Parveen, etc.2018 CLC 1115, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 569 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-27Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Abbas vs Nighat Parveen and others2018 CLC 1115 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-27Read full judgment →
• Nouman Azmat vs S.A. Rehman & Sons through Proprietors and 6 others2018 CLC 2020 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09Read full judgment →
• Norang vs The State, etc2018 KLR Criminal Cases 223 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryforensic analysisDNA evidence72-hour ruleabductionmedico-legal examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case involving an alleged offence under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of events provided by the prosecutrix and the lack of corroborative evidence. The Court observed that the prosecutrix had repeatedly changed her stance regarding the alleged abduction and her safety, and that the husband's own written statement in a separate civil suit contradicted the abduction claim. Additionally, a co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry and admitted him to bail. Furthermore, the Court addressed the '72-hour rule' applied by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency for DNA analysis in sexual assault cases. It ruled that this policy is outdated and scientifically unsupported, as sperm cells can be detected well beyond 72 hours. The Court directed the Agency to revisit and upgrade its analysis protocols to ensure critical evidence is not discarded based on arbitrary technical limitations.

  Questions settled

  • Is a case of abduction subject to further inquiry when the prosecutrix provides multiple, contradictory versions of the occurrence?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused when a co-accused with similar allegations has already been enlarged on bail?
  • Is the 72-hour policy for DNA analysis in sexual assault cases by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency scientifically sound and legally sustainable?
  • Does the delay in conducting a medico-legal examination of a victim in sexual assault cases justify the exclusion of forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State2018 YLR 1332 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-03
  benefit of doubtmurderocular evidencemedical evidence contradictionchance witnessdelayed FIRcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife under Section 302-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the evidence presented. The Lahore High Court found the prosecution's case to be riddled with significant doubts. Specifically, the Court noted a substantial, unexplained delay in the post-mortem examination, indicating the FIR was not lodged promptly. Furthermore, the Court identified material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, as the witnesses described the weapon as a wooden club, while the medical report indicated injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The Court also deemed the eye-witnesses to be chance witnesses whose presence at the scene was implausible and uncorroborated. Holding that the prosecution failed to establish the motive and that the recovery of the weapon was suspicious, the Court laid down the principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination undermine the prosecution's claim that an FIR was lodged promptly?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a material contradiction between the ocular account of the weapon used and the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if only a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive for a crime necessitate the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 928 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-29
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestvicarious liabilitycommon intentionmala fidetentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 210/17 registered at Police Station Ahmadpur Sial, District Jhang, concerning offences under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injury attributed to him, the question of vicarious liability, and allegations of mala fide implication. The court held that since the specific injury attributed to the petitioner fell under Section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is a bailable offence, and given his status as an elderly, previously non-convicted person who had joined the investigation, mala fide implication by spreading the net wide could not be ruled out. The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment at the pre-arrest bail stage applies where a bailable offence is attributed and the question of common intention under Section 34 requires evidence at trial, making custodial interrogation unnecessary, especially when recoveries have lost relevancy.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the primary injury attributed to the accused falls under a bailable section of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether the question of sharing common intention and vicarious liability should be determined at the bail stage or by the trial court after recording evidence?
  • Does the possibility of mala fide implication by spreading the net wide justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail for an elderly and previously non-convict petitioner?
  • Is custodial interrogation necessary for the sole purpose of effecting a stale recovery after a significant lapse of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and another vs State etcPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 275 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-24
  murder referencecommon intentionmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationbenefit of doubtlalkarasudden affaircriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from a trial court judgment convicting two appellants, Noor Muhammad and Riaz, for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, the applicability of common intention under Section 34, and the appropriateness of the death sentence. The High Court upheld the conviction of Noor Muhammad for murder but set aside his conviction for attempted murder, noting he caused no injury to the injured party. Crucially, the Court commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive, the sudden nature of the occurrence, and the inconsequential recovery of the weapon. Regarding Riaz, the Court acquitted him, finding the allegation of 'lalkara' unreliable and noting the possibility of false implication. The Court laid down the principle that common intention requires a pre-arranged plan and prior concert, which was absent here as the incident was a sudden affair. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that when prosecution fails to prove a specific motive, it serves as a mitigating circumstance against capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a specific motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Can an accused be held vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a sudden, unplanned occurrence?
  • Does the relationship of witnesses with the deceased automatically disqualify them from being considered truthful witnesses?
  • Is a joint 'lalkara' sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor LPG Co. (Pvt.) Limited vs Oil & Gas Development Company Limited, etc2018 LHC 427 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-27Read full judgment →
• Noor LPG Co. (Pvt.) Limited vs Oil & Gas Development Company Limited2018 CLC 1369 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-27Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs The State & another2019 P Cr. L J 655, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 567, 2018 LHC 3114 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-18
  rash and negligent drivingQatl-i-Khataidentification paraderevision petitionappreciation of evidencetraffic accidentdefective investigationbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the judgments of the lower courts whereby the petitioner's conviction and sentence under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-i-Khata in a fatal road accident were upheld. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the petitioner's identity as the driver and proved the essential ingredients of rash and negligent driving beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the petitioner through credible evidence, noting that the eyewitnesses did not know him prior to the incident, no identification parade was held, and dock identification was valueless under the circumstances. Furthermore, the court held that mere high speed or verbal assertions do not suffice to prove rash or negligent driving without independent, objective evidence regarding the road conditions and traffic. The revision petition was accepted, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether dock identification by witnesses who only had a fleeting glimpse of an accused stranger without a prior identification parade is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • Does the mere high speed of a vehicle by itself establish rash and negligent driving under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to conclusively prove a charge of rash and negligent driving resulting in death?
  • Can an accused be convicted on the basis of suppositions and without independent evidence connecting him to the alleged crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs Judge Banking Court and others2018 CLD 1325 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-02Read full judgment →
• Niamat Ali vs The State2018 YLR 289 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-29
  murder referencebenefit of doubtchance witnessocular evidencedelayed FIRmedical evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant delays in FIR registration and post-mortem examination, the status of the eyewitnesses as 'chance witnesses' without plausible explanations for their presence, and discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. It found the ocular testimony unreliable, the motive unproven, and the recovery of the weapon inconsequential due to procedural delays. The Court emphasized that when the prosecution's case is riddled with doubt, the burden does not shift to the accused to explain the death, even if it occurred in the matrimonial home. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of doubt as a matter of right. The principle laid down is that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal, and the prosecution must stand on its own legs without relying on defense weaknesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR and post-mortem examination create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's story?
  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to explain an unnatural death in the matrimonial home if the prosecution fails to establish its initial case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan Limited, etc. vs Federal Board of Revenue through its2018 P.C.T.L.R. 452 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Neelam Bibi vs The State2018 YLR 700 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-08
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionprohibitory clausetentative assessmentrecovery proceedingsControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Neelam Bibi, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1600 grams of Charas from her possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the statutory bars against bail in such offenses. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, dismissing the petition. The Court reasoned that the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics established a prima facie case, and the petitioner's arguments regarding the falsity of the recovery required deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the prohibition on bail under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, applied, and that gender alone does not grant immunity or leniency in narcotics offenses. The Court emphasized that the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the Act and the ouster of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, supported the denial of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of public witnesses vitiate search and recovery proceedings under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a female accused claim immunity or leniency in bail matters solely on the basis of gender in narcotics cases?
  • Does the bar on bail under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, apply to offenses punishable with life imprisonment?
  • Is the question of whether a recovery is fake or planted a matter for deeper appreciation at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Iqbal vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1284 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-24
  murderdeath sentence mitigationimprisonment for lifegrave and sudden provocationocular accountcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of death awarded to the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case rested on an eyewitness account corroborated by medical evidence, weapon recovery, and an alleged motive stemming from the deceased marrying the appellant's erstwhile sister-in-law. The appellant's counsel did not contest the conviction but prayed for the sentence to be mitigated to imprisonment for life, pointing out extenuating circumstances regarding the deceased's provocative conduct towards the appellant's wife. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony confidence-inspiring and corroborated. However, examining the mitigating circumstances regarding the deceased's conduct and provocative encounters with the appellant's wife, the Court held that death is not the mandatory default penalty where alternative sentencing exists. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal regarding conviction, altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether death penalty is the mandatory normal penalty under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or if alternative sentence of life imprisonment can be awarded based on facts and circumstances?
  • Can an accused waive statutory immunity regarding statements made to police officers to derive benefit from information otherwise inadmissible?
  • Whether the High Court can alter a death sentence to imprisonment for life when mitigating circumstances such as provocative conduct of the deceased are established?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Muhammad Asif and 3 others2018 P Cr. L J 823 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-28
  cancellation reportcriminal revisionconstitutional petitionjudicial magistrateprecedentper incuriammaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, which accepted a criminal revision petition against a Judicial Magistrate's order that had agreed with a police cancellation report in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether an order by a Judicial Magistrate accepting a police cancellation report is amenable to a criminal revision petition before the Sessions Court or if it must be challenged via a constitutional petition. The Court held that the revision petition was not maintainable, setting aside the Additional Sessions Judge's order and restoring the Magistrate's original order. The Court relied on the principle established in the Supreme Court judgment of 'Bahadur and another v. The State and another' (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 62), which dictates that an order by a Judicial Magistrate agreeing with a police cancellation report is an executive act, not a judicial one, and is therefore only challengeable through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that lower courts are bound by Supreme Court precedents and cannot declare them per incuriam or distinguish them.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal revision petition maintainable against an order of a Judicial Magistrate agreeing with a police cancellation report?
  • Can a High Court single bench distinguish or declare a Supreme Court judgment per incuriam?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy to challenge a Judicial Magistrate's order accepting a police cancellation report?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and 2 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 694 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-19
  pre-arrest bailabductionrapedelay in FIRDarul-Amanfurther inquiryPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for pre-arrest bail arising from FIR No. 257/2017 registered under Sections 496-A and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Chobara, District Layyah, concerning allegations of abduction and rape. The core legal questions involve whether the unexplained delay in reporting, contradictions regarding the victim's whereabouts in Darul-Aman, and lack of medical or judicial corroboration justify confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case due to an unexplained seven-day delay in lodging the FIR, the victim's admitted presence in Darul-Aman during the alleged time of occurrence as ordered by a Magistrate, and the absence of rape allegations in the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and medical reports. The court laid down the principle that where circumstances of a case point toward further inquiry and mala fide implication, the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail ought to be confirmed, leading to the confirmation of bail for the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of seven days in lodging an FIR warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when official records contradict the timeline of the alleged abduction?
  • Whether the absence of supporting evidence in a medico-legal certificate and a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 makes out a case for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazia Bibi etc vs Additional District Judge, Ferozewala etc2018 PLD Lahore 916, 2019 PLJ Lahore 92, 2018 LHC 1938 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-11Read full judgment →
• Nazia Bibi and others vs Additional District Judge, Ferozewala and others2018 PLD Lahore 916 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-11Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and another vs Mst. Ayesha Bibi (Widow) deceased2018 PLJ Lahore 905 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-21Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 479 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-20
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailcriminal appealquantum of sentencebail pending appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioners, Nazar Hussain and Qaswar, seeking the suspension of their sentences of three years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala, in a cross-version case registered under Sections 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 506, 447, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the suspension of their sentences pending the final adjudication of their appeal. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that the appeal was filed in 2017 and, given the relatively short duration of the sentences imposed, there was a significant likelihood that the petitioners would complete their entire term of imprisonment before the appeal could be decided on its merits. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, suspended the quantum of sentences, and directed the release of the petitioners on bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). The Court emphasized the principle that suspension of sentence is appropriate when the appeal is unlikely to be heard before the sentence is served.

  Questions settled

  • Is the suspension of a sentence justified when the duration of the sentence is short and the appeal is unlikely to be decided before the sentence is served?
  • Can a court grant bail to convicts pending the adjudication of their criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Naza and others vs Abdul Hayee (deceased) through L.Rs & others2018 LHC 1569 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-28Read full judgment →
• Nayab Sohail vs Punjab Public Service Commission through its2018 PLJ Lahore 228 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-28Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Sharif Social Security Hospital vs Additional District Judge, Lahore2019 [M] C.L.R. 520, 2019 KLR Civil Case 317, 2019 MLD 511, 2018 LHC 2999 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-22
  rejection of plaintlicense agreementapprobate and reprobatespecific performanceinjunction barrecovery of possessionouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the concurrent orders of the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Lahore, which had dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the respondents' plaint. The dispute arose from an affiliation agreement between the petitioner hospital and the respondent university, which had expired by efflux of time in 2016 without renewal. The respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming they were tenants. The High Court observed that the agreement was a license, not a lease, and that the respondents could not approbate and reprobate by asserting tenancy while relying on the license agreement. The Court held that upon the expiry of a revocable license, no enforceable right remains to sustain a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and the licensee's remedy lies only in damages, not injunction. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of civil courts to grant injunctive relief was barred under Section 10 of the Punjab Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1966. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the lower courts' orders were set aside, and the plaint was rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Can a licensee maintain a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to prevent eviction after the expiry of a revocable license?
  • Does the principle of approbate and reprobate apply when a party asserts a tenancy while simultaneously relying on an expired license agreement?
  • Are civil courts barred from granting temporary or interim injunctions against the government or its authorities under Section 10 of the Punjab Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1966?
  • Can an admission made by mistake or misapprehension in pleadings be permitted to be withdrawn or controverted?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab and another vs Pehlwan Khan (deceased) through L.Rs and others2018 LHC 3088, 2019 CLC 811, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 135, 2019 PLJ Lahore 471, · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-09Read full judgment →
• Naveed Rukhsar and another vs Muhammad Salim Lakhani2018 MLD 401 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-04Read full judgment →
• Naveed Needu vs State & anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 537 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-13
  criminal appealmurder convictionocular accountbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRappreciation of evidenceforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a murder conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the ocular testimony unreliable due to the dark night occurrence, the absence of a credible source of light, and the witnesses' presence in bolted rooms. Furthermore, the two-day delay in lodging the FIR suggested fabrication, and the motive was not established. The Court emphasized that once the intrinsic value of an ocular account is disbelieved, the remaining corroboratory evidence, such as weapon recovery, collapses. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the Murder Reference in the negative. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in the absence of a credible ocular account, corroboratory evidence cannot sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish a credible ocular account cause the collapse of corroboratory evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the FIR is lodged with an inordinate, unexplained delay?
  • Is the identification of an accused possible in a dark night occurrence without a reliable source of light?
  • What is the legal effect of withholding a material witness from the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed lqbal, etc. vs Registrar Cooperative Housing Society, Punjab, etc.2018 C.L.R. 1158 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
• Naveed Akhtar vs The State2018 MLD 1642, 2018 LHC 1497 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-09
  narcotics recoverycontrol of narcotic substancescomplainant as investigating officersafe custody of sampleforensic science agency reportreduction of sentenceinapplicability of section 103 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged recovery of 1020 grams of heroin. The core legal questions involve the validity of an investigation conducted by the complainant police officer, the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to narcotic cases, and the effect of a discrepancy between the weight of the sample alleged to have been sent and the weight recorded by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The Lahore High Court held that a police officer may act as both complainant and investigating officer in the absence of statutory prohibition or demonstrated bias, that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is inapplicable to narcotic cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that a discrepancy in sample weight requires a proportional reduction in the total recovered quantity. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under Section 9(c) and instead convicted the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, laying down the principle that prosecution must prove every element beyond doubt and discrepancies in measured quantities must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police officer who acts as a complainant in a narcotics case can also legally perform the investigation of the same case?
  • Does the non-association of private witnesses from the vicinity vitiate recovery proceedings under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • How should a court deal with a significant discrepancy between the weight of the narcotic sample recorded by the police and the weight reported by the forensic laboratory?
  • What are the essential constituents the prosecution must prove to establish guilt in cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Ahmed vs Mst. Mehwish Riaz etc2019 CLC 511, 2019 PLJ Lahore 115, 2018 LHC 3148 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-28Read full judgment →
• Nauman Ullah vs The State etc2019 YLR 1131, 2018 LHC 2894 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-12
  benefit of the doubtinterested witnessesmedical contradictiondelayed FIRrule of consistencycapital punishmentcriminal appealmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of criminal appeals challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the credibility of injured eyewitnesses, the implications of lodging a belated First Information Report after legal consultation and prior post-mortem examination, the rule of consistency following the acquittal of co-accused, and the evidentiary value of delayed forensic recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that where an eyewitness account is contradicted by medical evidence, suffers from significant delays in recording statements, and imputes impossible precision in ascribing individual firearm shots amidst a large mob, it cannot form the basis of a capital conviction. Furthermore, the court held that the principle of consistency applies when co-accused with identical roles have been acquitted. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants by giving them the benefit of the doubt, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the criminal revision for enhancement of sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eyewitness account contradicted by medical evidence and post-mortem timings can sustain a capital conviction?
  • Does the principle of consistency require the acquittal of remaining appellants when co-accused with identical roles have already been acquitted?
  • What is the evidentiary effect of a delayed statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an injured witness?
  • Can recoveries of crime empties and firearms be relied upon when dispatched to the forensic agency after considerable delay following the accused's arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah alias Nasru vs The State2018 YLR 709 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-18
  double murderocular evidencecapital punishmentcriminal appealbenefit of doubtforensic evidenceQatl-e-Amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the double murder of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the provided ocular evidence and alleged motive. The Lahore High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution’s case was fraught with significant doubts. The court determined that the presence of the complainant at the crime scene was implausible given social norms and the fact that he was not targeted despite the alleged motive. Furthermore, the ocular account was inconsistent with the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries, and the absence of forensic evidence, such as spent casings at the crime scene, rendered the recovery of the weapon unreliable. The court established the principle that oral testimony, regardless of how impressively articulated, cannot sustain a capital conviction if it is incompatible with the natural order of events, lacks corroborative support, and fails to inspire judicial confidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when it is inconsistent with medical evidence?
  • Does the absence of spent casings at a crime scene undermine the prosecution's reliance on the recovery of a firearm?
  • Is a conviction for a capital offense safe when the presence of the primary eyewitness at the crime scene is rendered implausible by surrounding circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Iftikhar vs Naseer Ahmad2018 MLD 186 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
• Nasir and 3 others vs The State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 222, 2018 P Cr. L J 487 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestmala fidevicarious liabilitycommon intentiontentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of offences under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail based on the distinct roles attributed to them and the presence or absence of mala fide. The Lahore High Court held that petitioners to whom specific injuries and active roles are attributed under non-bailable sections, and who failed to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant or police, do not deserve pre-arrest bail. Conversely, petitioners assigned a general or joint role without specific attribution of non-bailable injuries, who have joined the investigation and are previous non-convicts, have made out a case for pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail requires establishing mala fide for accused persons directly connected through specific role attribution and medical evidence, whereas generalized allegations coupled with a completed investigation can justify confirming pre-arrest bail for co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Are accused persons assigned specific roles for non-bailable injuries entitled to pre-arrest bail without establishing police or complainant mala fide?
  • Does the attribution of a joint or general role without specific non-bailable injuries justify confirming pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the questions of sharing common intention and vicarious liability be determined at the bail stage?
  • Does the completion of investigation regarding certain co-accused support the confirmation of their pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 222 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04
  pre-arrest bailmala fidevicarious liabilitycommon intentiontentative assessmenthurt offencescriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought pre-arrest bail for four petitioners accused in an FIR involving various hurt and rioting offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, considering the allegations of specific versus joint roles and the presence of mala fide. The Court dismissed the petition for two petitioners (Nasir and Imran) because they were specifically attributed with causing injuries falling under non-bailable sections and failed to demonstrate mala fide on the part of the complainant or police. Conversely, the Court confirmed bail for the remaining two petitioners (Rizwan and Zahid) because no specific role was assigned to them, they were previous non-convicts, and the investigation against them was complete. The judgment reaffirms that pre-arrest bail requires a showing of mala fide regarding the intended arrest, and that questions regarding common intention or vicarious liability are to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence, not at the tentative bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is the concession of pre-arrest bail available to an accused who fails to demonstrate mala fide on the part of the complainant or the local police?
  • Can the questions of common intention and vicarious liability be determined at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Should pre-arrest bail be granted to an accused when no specific role is assigned in the FIR and the investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseem Akhtar and another vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and others2018 PLD Lahore 903 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
• Nargis Naureen vs Judgf Family Court, Multan and others2018 PLD Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-20
  Family CourtInterim reliefMaintainabilityConstitutional petitionAppealable orderDowerInterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a Family Court order dismissing her application for a temporary injunction to restrain the transfer of property claimed as dower. The core legal question was whether this dismissal order, passed under Section 21-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, qualified as an unappealable "interlocutory order" or an appealable "decision given" under Section 14 of the Act. The Court held that the dismissal of an application for interim relief, which finally determines a party's right to the preservation of property during the suit's pendency, constitutes a "decision given" rather than an interlocutory order. Consequently, the Court ruled that the order is appealable. The principle established is that the term "interlocutory" in family proceedings does not encompass orders that finally determine a specific issue or right. If an order possesses the characteristic of finality regarding a contested issue, it is appealable under Section 14, rendering constitutional petitions inadmissible where such an alternative remedy exists.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order dismissing an application for interim relief under Section 21-A of the Family Courts Act, 1964, considered an appealable decision or an unappealable interlocutory order?
  • Does the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 apply to proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an order of a Family Court if an alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • What is the test to determine whether an order passed by a Family Court is interlocutory or a decision given for the purposes of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964?
  Read full judgment →