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.

• Malik Muhammad Shahid and another vs Election Tribunal, Gujranwala2018 CLC 415 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Saeed Ahmed vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 42 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-17
  criminal revisionconfessional statementreduction of sentencemitigating circumstancesfirst offender
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the Lahore High Court challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 6(a) of the Punjab Essential Articles (Control) Act, 1973, following his confessional statement before the trial magistrate and the subsequent dismissal of his appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel did not challenge the conviction on merits but instead prayed for a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, noting the petitioner's status as a first-time offender and sole breadwinner, to which the Additional Prosecutor General expressed no serious objection. The core legal question concerned the appropriate quantum of sentence for a first-time offender who confessed. The Court held that while the conviction must be maintained, the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone in the interest of justice, while upholding the fine. The key principle laid down is that courts may exercise discretion to reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone in light of mitigating circumstances such as a lack of previous criminal record.

  Questions settled

  • Can the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone when the conviction itself is not challenged on merits?
  • Whether the appellate or revisional court can modify a sentence based on the lack of previous criminal record of the convict?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ijaz vs Pakistan through Secretary Defense Islamabad2018 PLJ Lahore 782 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ijaz vs Pakistan through Secretary Defense Islamabad2018 CLC 1445, 2018 KLR Revenue Cases 1, 2018 KLR Revenue Cases 36, 2018 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ijaz vs Pakistan through Secretary Defense Islamabad2018 CLC 1445 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ijaz vs Pakistan through Secretary Defence, Islamabad, etc2018 KLR Revenue Cases 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Farzand Ali and another vs Asad Ali and others2018 PLD Lahore 46 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-29
  election petitionnomination papersdeclaration of assetsdisqualificationlocal government electiondirectory vs mandatory provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This election appeal challenged the dismissal of an election petition by the Election Tribunal, which had upheld the election of respondents as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of a Union Council. The appellants alleged that the respondents failed to correctly declare their assets in their nomination papers, thereby rendering their election invalid. The core legal question was whether the failure to declare assets in nomination papers constitutes a ground for disqualification under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013. The Court found that the respondents had provided evidence of a prior sale of the disputed property to family members, which was not rebutted. Furthermore, the Court held that the requirement to append a statement of assets and liabilities under the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 is directory rather than mandatory. It concluded that the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 does not provide for the disqualification of a candidate solely for the incorrect declaration of assets. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that such an omission does not invalidate nomination papers or disqualify a candidate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to correctly declare assets in nomination papers constitute a ground for disqualification under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013?
  • Is the requirement to append a statement of assets and liabilities under Rule 12(5) of the Punjab Local Government (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013 mandatory or directory?
  • Does the incorrect mentioning of assets and liabilities in nomination papers render a candidate's nomination invalid under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Board and Paper Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Tariq Saeed and others2018 MLD 1253 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Board and Paper Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Tariq Saeed, etc2018 MLD 1253, 2018 LHC 467 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Arif vs The State2018 MLD 1613, 2018 KLR Criminal Cases 216 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-15
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancemotiveocular accountinjured witnessimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, following a shooting incident that resulted in one death and injuries to another. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the corroborative value of an injured witness, and whether the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting reduction of the death sentence. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular account was consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, thus sustaining the conviction. However, the Court held that the prosecution's failure to satisfactorily establish the alleged motive acts as a mitigating circumstance. The Court laid down the principle that while failure to prove motive does not negate the conviction where ocular and medical evidence is reliable, it serves as a mitigating factor justifying the substitution of the death penalty with imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive set up in a murder case constitutes a mitigating circumstance for reducing the death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does the testimony of an injured witness provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction for murder and hurt?
  • Whether inconsistencies in establishing the precise background and origin of a chance encounter cast doubt on the core ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Rauf vs Saboor Ahmad and 3 others2018 LHC 206, 2018 KLR Criminal Cases 201 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-12Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Rauf vs Saboor Ahmad & 3 others2018 LHC 206 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-12Read full judgment →
• Major (R) Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali vs National Accountability Bureau2018 P Cr. LJ 1555 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-06
  joinder of chargesseparate trialconsolidated judgmentdistinct offencesAccountability CourtNational Accountability Ordinancecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an Accountability Court order dismissing the petitioner's request to postpone the decision of a corruption reference (ACR No. 65/2008) until the maturity of another reference (ACR No. 06/2010) and to decide both through a consolidated judgment. The core legal questions involved whether distinct corruption references arising from separate allegations and accused persons can be jointly tried or decided via a single consolidated judgment under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions governing joinder of charges and trials are permissive rather than mandatory, and where references involve distinct facts, different sets of accused, and separate evidence, they must proceed independently. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Code does not provide for a consolidated judgment for separate trials. The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether there can be a joint trial of separate accountability references by framing a joint charge?
  • Are the provisions regarding the joinder of charges under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 mandatory or permissive?
  • Can two different criminal trials be concluded through a single consolidated judgment?
  • Whether an accused can insist on the joinder of charges when the prosecution elects to split and try them separately?
  Read full judgment →
• Major (R) Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali vs NAB etc2018 PCRLJ 1555, 2018 LHC 1157 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-06
  accountability referencejoinder of chargesseparate trialconsolidated judgmentNational Accountability Ordinancedistinct offencescriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Accountability Court which declined the petitioner's request to postpone the decision of an accountability reference until the maturity of a connected reference and to decide both through a consolidated judgment. The core legal questions involved whether separate accountability references arising from distinct allegations can be jointly tried or decided through a consolidated judgment. The Lahore High Court held that separate trials must have separate charges and independent judgments unless the provisions for joinder of charges under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply and the court exercises its discretion to do so. The court found that the two references involved distinct offences, different sets of accused persons, and separate evidence, rendering them incapable of being clubbed or decided via a single judgment. The key principle laid down is that criminal cases cannot be consolidated like civil suits, and enabling provisions for joint trials under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are permissive rather than mandatory, requiring distinct judgments for distinct trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether separate accountability references involving distinct facts and different accused persons can be consolidated for a joint trial?
  • Are the provisions regarding the joinder of charges under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 mandatory or permissive?
  • Can a court pronounce a single consolidated judgment for two separate criminal trials?
  • What constitutes distinct offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Major (R) Moeen Nawaz vs Chaudhary Shafaat Hussain and 2 others2018 YLR 939 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-07Read full judgment →
• Mahmood-Ul-Hassan vs Munir Ahmad and 3 others2018 MLD 771 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-31
  Intra Court Appealcontempt of courtpleadingsrelief beyond pleadingsjurisdictionconsent order
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 challenged an order passed by a Single Judge in a contempt petition under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Single Judge had, by consent of the parties, set aside a administrative order passed by the Commissioner dated 07.06.2014 and remitted the matter for fresh decision. The High Court examined whether a court exercising contempt jurisdiction can grant relief outside the scope of the pleadings and set aside substantive administrative orders not challenged in the contempt petition. The Division Bench held that contempt proceedings are primarily between the court and the contemnor, limited under Article 204 of the Constitution to punishing the contemnor, and do not confer jurisdiction to set aside underlying substantive orders. Courts cannot travel beyond the pleadings or grant relief not specifically sought, even with consent of parties, as consent cannot confer jurisdiction contrary to statutory limits. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order as being without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant relief that is not requested in the pleadings of the parties?
  • Can a court in contempt proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution set aside a substantive administrative order not challenged in the petition?
  • Can consent of parties confer jurisdiction on a court to pass an order beyond its statutory or constitutional mandate?
  Read full judgment →
• M.H. Mujahid, Advocate vs Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and another2018 PLD Lahore 493 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-28Read full judgment →
• M. Fuwad A. Mughal vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 others2018 YLR 26 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-28Read full judgment →
• Luqman Sajid vs Returning Officer and 5 others2018 YLR 2319 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-10
  constitutional petitionelection disqualificationconcealment of assetsfactual controversywrit jurisdictionnomination paperselection appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three constitutional petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging orders passed by a Returning Officer and an Election Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner sought to disqualify a candidate (Respondent No. 6) on grounds of concealment of material facts, specifically regarding the assets of the candidate's wife and contradictions in nomination declarations. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could resolve disputed factual allegations regarding a candidate's disqualification. The Court held that the allegations raised by the petitioner constituted a factual controversy requiring a probe, which could not be undertaken in summary constitutional proceedings. The Court affirmed the lower authorities' decisions, noting that the Election Commission of Pakistan possesses the authority under the Elections Act, 2017 and Elections Rules, 2017 to investigate misdeclarations. The principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for determining disputed questions of fact regarding a candidate's qualifications or disqualifications, which require a detailed factual inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court resolve disputed factual allegations regarding a candidate's disqualification in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is the Election Commission of Pakistan empowered to investigate allegations of misdeclaration and concealment of assets by a candidate?
  • Does the summary jurisdiction of a Returning Officer or Election Appellate Tribunal extend to conducting a detailed factual probe into a candidate's declarations?
  Read full judgment →
• Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse S.A. vs Acro Textile Mills Ltd.2018 P.C.T.L.R. 561 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-08Read full judgment →
• Liaqat and 4 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 13 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-22
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailmurderabductionbiased investigationappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from petitions seeking suspension of sentences awarded under Sections 302, 364, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following convictions by the trial court. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal, particularly given their earlier exoneration during police investigation. The Lahore High Court held that once a trial court convicts accused persons after a proper appraisal of evidence—notwithstanding a biased police investigation—the concept of innocence is dislodged, and unless strong grounds are shown, sentences ought not to be suspended. The court laid down the principle that the findings of a flawed or biased police investigation cannot override the reasoned conviction recorded by a trial court based on evidence, and mere assertions of innocence during investigation do not warrant the suspension of sentence post-conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of a convicted person can be suspended under Section 426 Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that he was found innocent during the police investigation?
  • Does a biased police investigation vitiate a trial court conviction that is otherwise based on a proper appraisal of evidence?
  • What is the effect of a conviction by a trial court on the plea of innocence raised by an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali alias Liaqi vs The State and another2018 YLR 550 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-06
  capital punishmentocular evidencemedical evidence contradictionbenefit of doubtjudicial noticemurder referencecriminal appealmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a trial court judgment convicting the appellant for murder under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of the ocular account, the impact of conflicting medical evidence, the failure to prove motive, and the sustainability of the conviction following the acquittal of a co-accused on identical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with reasonable doubts. The Court found the ocular testimony unreliable due to significant contradictions, the absence of artificial light at the crime scene during night hours, and a stark conflict between the firearm injuries described and the medical evidence. Additionally, the unexplained seventeen-hour delay in the post-mortem examination cast further doubt on the prosecution's narrative. The Court emphasized that when motive is asserted, it must be proven, which the prosecution failed to do. Furthermore, the acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence necessitated independent corroboration, which was absent. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court take judicial notice of sunset times and divisions of time under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is the conviction of an accused sustainable when the ocular account is disbelieved and no independent corroboration exists?
  • Does an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Must the prosecution establish a motive if it is specifically set up in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• LESCO through Chief Executive, Lahore etc. vs M/s. Taj International2018 PLJ Lahore 87 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-17Read full judgment →
• Lawyers Foundation for Justice vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2018 LHC 1851 · Lahore High Court · 2018-08-27Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority vs Manzoor Hussain2018 MLD 1434, 2018 PLJ Lahore 1015, 2018 LHC 1113 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-12Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority vs Ch. Asghar Ali Bhuta and others2018 MLD 581 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-13Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority through Director General and another vs Manzoor Hussain2018 MLD 1434 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-12Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Sugar Mills. vs Federation of Pakistan etc2018 PTD 821, PTCL 2018 CL. 98 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-27Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Sugar Mills vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 PTD 821 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-27Read full judgment →
• Kishwar Abbas Shah alias Kas vs The State etcPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 856, 2018 LHC 849 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting versionsinvestigation reportmurderous assaultdelay in recording statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of a murderous assault. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of the incident presented by the complainant and the investigating agency. The court observed that while the complainant alleged the petitioner caused firearm injuries, two successive police investigations concluded the petitioner was present at the scene but empty-handed, playing no active role. Additionally, the court noted a 19-day delay in recording the statements of injured witnesses, rendering the prosecution's case prima facie questionable. Holding that the existence of two conflicting versions of the incident necessitates further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, the court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's own investigation presents conflicting versions regarding the accused's role or presence at the crime scene, the case against the accused becomes one of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident between the complainant and the investigating agency render a case one of further inquiry?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the investigating agency finds them present at the scene but empty-handed, contrary to the complainant's allegation of active participation?
  • Does a significant delay in recording the statements of injured witnesses affect the prima facie case for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 601 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabductionrapecriminal investigationbail bond
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two consolidated petitions for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, who were accused in an FIR registered for offences under Sections 496-A and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the circumstances surrounding the alleged abduction and the subsequent evidence presented. The Court observed that the police investigation had previously found several co-accused innocent and recommended the cancellation of the FIR. Furthermore, the alleged abductee had filed a harassment petition against her father, acknowledging a marriage with a co-accused, and did not level allegations of rape against the petitioners in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the case against the petitioners called for further inquiry and that the available material did not prima facie connect them to the alleged offences, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle established is that where investigation findings are contradictory and the prosecution's case lacks prima facie connection to the accused, the matter warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a harassment petition filed by an alleged abductee acknowledging marriage with a co-accused constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the police investigation has previously recommended the cancellation of the FIR against the accused?
  • Does the absence of specific allegations against petitioners in a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurram Farooq vs Bank Al-Falah Limited and another2018 CLD 1417, 2018 LHC 2423 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-03
  conversion of appeal into writ petitioninterlocutory orderpetition for leave to defendSection 10(11)forthwith judgment and decreeapplication of judicial mindremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This statutory appeal was filed under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 against an order of the Banking Court, Bahawalpur, which dismissed the appellant's petition for leave to appear and defend (PLA) in a recovery suit, but instead of passing a judgment and decree, fixed the matter for the plaintiff's evidence. The core legal questions were whether an appeal against an interlocutory order under Section 22(6) of the Ordinance could be converted into a Constitutional writ petition, and whether a Banking Court can adjourn a case for evidence upon rejecting a PLA instead of passing a judgment and decree forthwith. The High Court converted the appeal into a writ petition, holding that superior courts possess power to convert proceedings to prevent abuse of process. On the merits, the Court held that under Section 10(11) of the Ordinance, upon rejection of a PLA, the Banking Court must forthwith pass a judgment and decree with proper application of judicial mind, rather than fixing the suit for evidence. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court convert an unmaintainable statutory appeal against an interlocutory order into a Constitutional writ petition?
  • Whether a Banking Court can adjourn a recovery suit for evidence after rejecting a petition for leave to defend under Section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does Section 10(11) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 mandate the Banking Court to pass a judgment and decree forthwith upon the dismissal of an application for leave to defend?
  • Is a Banking Court required to examine the statement of accounts and apply its judicial mind before decreeing a claim under Section 10(11) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat vs Judge Family Court, Sargodha and another2018 MLD 1480 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
• Khayal Din vs The State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 220, 2018 YLR 920 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-26
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryineffective firingvicarious liabilitycommon intentioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 152/14 registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail after arrest, contending that he was not attributed any specific injury to the deceased, with the fatal act attributed to a co-accused. The court examined the record and noted that the petitioner was only alleged to have committed ineffective firing, and there was a discrepancy between the weapon allegedly used (Kalashnikov) and the weapon recovered (303-bore rifle). Furthermore, no crime empties were recovered from the scene. The court held that the petitioner's case fell under the category of further inquiry as per section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that the heinousness of an offense is not a standalone ground to refuse bail and noting the petitioner's status as a previous non-convict who had been incarcerated for a significant period without trial progress, the court granted bail. The key principle established is that where specific roles are not clearly attributed and evidentiary discrepancies exist, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the allegation of ineffective firing without recovery of crime empties constitute a case of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the heinousness of the offence if the case otherwise falls under the category of further inquiry?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the specific role attributed to him is ineffective firing and no injury to the deceased is alleged?
  Read full judgment →
• Khayal Din vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 220 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-26
  post-arrest bailineffective firingvicarious liabilitycommon intentionfurther inquiryheinousness of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was attributed the role of ineffective firing and whose weapon recovered did not match the crime empties, made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The Lahore High Court held that since no specific role or injury was attributed to the petitioner, the question of vicarious liability and common intention required further inquiry, rendering the case one for bail. The court laid down the principle that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused otherwise entitled to it, particularly where delayed trial and lack of corroborative recovery bring the case within the scope of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is attributed only ineffective firing without causing any injury to the deceased?
  • Does a discrepancy between the weapon allegedly carried and the weapon recovered, coupled with the absence of crime empties, make a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the heinousness of the offence when the accused is otherwise entitled to the concession?
  • Whether long incarceration without fruitful progress in the trial justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Ahmed vs Muhammad Ayyub, etc2021 KLR Criminal Cases 124, 2019 P Cr. L J 1010, 2019 PLJ Lahore 539, 2018 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-25
  special leave to appealacquittallimitation periodcondonation of delayspecial lawcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an acquittal order passed by a Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner filed the application beyond the sixty-day limitation period prescribed by Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, are applicable to applications for special leave to appeal against acquittal filed under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is not applicable to such applications. The ratio of the decision is that where a special or local law prescribes a specific period of limitation, it prevails over the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908. Consequently, the Court ruled it lacked the power to condone the delay, dismissing both the application for condonation and the underlying petition for special leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the delay in filing an application for special leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Does the limitation period prescribed by a special law prevail over the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Is Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applicable to proceedings under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Abdul Rehrnan (deceased) through Legal Heirs and others vs Muhammad Farooq Mirza and 5 others2019 CLC 596, 2018 LHC 1351 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
• Khan Bahadar vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary2018 PLC (C.S.) 57 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-03
  quo warrantocurrent charge appointmentcivil serviceadministrative lawpublic officesenioritylocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired driver, challenged the appointment of a BS-14 official to the post of Additional Estate Officer (BS-18) on a current charge basis. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner had standing to file a writ of quo warranto against this appointment and whether the appointment of a junior official to a senior post on a current charge basis was legally permissible. The Court held that the appointment was illegal and set it aside. It established that quo warranto proceedings are inquisitorial, allowing any citizen to challenge public appointments without proving personal injury. Furthermore, the Court held that current charge appointments are strictly temporary measures intended for short durations and must be granted to the most senior, eligible officers. The practice of appointing junior officials to higher posts while ignoring eligible seniors violates established administrative guidelines, specifically those contained in the ESTACODE, which possess the force of law under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Court declared the post vacant, ordering it to be filled in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petitioner require the status of an aggrieved person to file a writ of quo warranto?
  • Are instructions contained in the ESTACODE legally binding on the executive?
  • Can a junior official be appointed to a higher post on a current charge basis if senior eligible officers are available?
  • Does an appointment on acting charge basis confer a vested right for regular promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ur Rehman alias Heera vs The State and others2018 YLR 2243 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-20
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoverysearch warrantfurther inquirypolice custodypossession of contrabandprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail concerns a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the recovery of two kilograms of charas from the petitioner's house while he was already in police custody for another offense. The core legal questions were whether the failure of the police to obtain a search warrant, despite the accused being in custody, vitiated the recovery, and whether the lack of evidence connecting the accused to the premises warranted bail. The Court held that because the petitioner was already in custody, there was no risk of concealment or removal of narcotics, making the failure to obtain a search warrant under section 20 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, a significant omission. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to provide evidence linking the petitioner to the premises. The Court affirmed that while an in-depth scrutiny is not required at the bail stage, the case against the petitioner required further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the police to obtain a search warrant under section 20 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when the accused is already in custody, provide a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  • Are the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applicable to search proceedings conducted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a court consider the defense plea of an accused tentatively while deciding a bail application?
  • Does the lack of evidence connecting an accused to the premises from which narcotics were recovered constitute a case of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmed and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 298 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-15
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausedelay in FIRvicarious liabilitybailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Khalil Ahmad, Iqbal alias Papu, and Gulzar Ahmed seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 379/2017 registered under Sections 337-F(iii), F(i), A(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Thingi, District Vehari, involving allegations of assault and inflicting sota blows. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to them and the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that the injury attributed to Khalil Ahmed falls under a bailable section, the injuries attributed to the other petitioners do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and an unexplained six-day delay in reporting the matter weakens the prosecution's case at the bail stage. The key principles laid down include that offences outside the prohibitory clause heavily favor the grant of bail when sufficient incriminating material is lacking, and an unexplained delay in reporting a crime is fatal to the prosecution at the preliminary stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the offenses charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report fatal to the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
  • How is the question of vicarious liability determined when assessing a pre-arrest bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmed and 2 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 298, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 194 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-15
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausedelay in FIRvicarious liabilitybail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from an application by Khalil Ahmad, Iqbal alias Papu, and Gulzar Ahmed seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 379/2017 registered under Sections 337-F(iii), F(i), A(i), 148, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Thingi, District Vehari. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the petitioners to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to them, the applicability of the prohibitory clause, and an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The court held that the injury attributed to one petitioner was bailable, the injuries attributed to the other petitioners fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and an unexplained six-day delay in reporting the matter weakened the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed when offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause, there is an unexplained delay in reporting, and the prosecution lacks sufficient incriminating material at the pre-trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the offenses charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR considered fatal to the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
  • Can the question of vicarious liability under Sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be properly assessed at the trial stage after recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad vs Atta Muhammad and others2019 [M] C.L.R. 15, 2018 YLR 1672 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-18Read full judgment →
• Khalida Idrees etc vs Anas Farooq Chaudhary etc2018 LHC 1413 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-07Read full judgment →
• Khalid Rashid Sheikh and others vs Judicial Officer, Punjab2018 CLC 1955 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-20Read full judgment →
• Khalid Nadeem vs Government of Pakistan and others2018 MLD 149 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 32018 PLC 56 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-08
  domestic inquiryright of cross-examinationfair trialdue processmaster and servantdismissal from serviceaudi alteram partemconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside the Labour Court's decision and upheld the petitioner bank employee's dismissal from service for alleged embezzlement. The core legal question was whether the domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice, particularly regarding the right of cross-examination. The Lahore High Court held that the inquiry proceedings suffered from inherent legal defects because the petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses, and the inquiry report was not supplied prior to dismissal in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process under Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court laid down the principle that domestic inquiries must strictly adhere to the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and ensure the right of cross-examination, and that failure to provide a fair hearing and inquiry report vitiates the dismissal order. The petition was allowed, setting aside the appellate tribunal's judgment and the dismissal order, while permitting the respondent bank to hold a fresh inquiry if it so opts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether denial of the opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses in a domestic inquiry violates the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial?
  • Does the failure to supply a copy of the inquiry report to an employee before passing a dismissal order render the order legally unsustainable?
  • Can a High Court interfere in a labor tribunal's decision under constitutional jurisdiction when mandatory legal procedures and due process have been violated?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood alias Mooda & another vs The State2018 LHC 1804 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-03
  criminal appealrecovery witnessbeyond reasonable doubtillegal detentionanti-terrorismpolice record discrepancyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Rawalpindi, for offences related to the possession of explosives, unlicensed weapons, and pamphlets of a proscribed organization. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the significant discrepancies in the evidence. The Lahore High Court found that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. Specifically, the testimony of key recovery witnesses was contradicted by official police records (Roznamcha), which placed them in Lahore for official duties at the time of the alleged arrest. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellants' defense of prior illegal detention by police—corroborated by the filing of a habeas corpus petition—cast serious doubt on the veracity of the recovery. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is riddled with material contradictions and official records refute the presence of recovery witnesses, the conviction cannot be sustained, necessitating an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between official police records and the testimony of recovery witnesses regarding their presence at the scene render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the recovery of incriminating material beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is the evidence of a recovery witness credible if official records place them at a different location during the time of the alleged occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Meer etc vs Faqeerullah Minhaj etc2018 PLD Lahore 697, 2018 LHC 1092, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 1635 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-06Read full judgment →
• Khalid Meer and others vs Faqeerullah Minhaj and others2018 PLD Lahore 697 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-06Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hameed vs The State2019 PCRLJ 1188, 2018 LHC 2920 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-05
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencedeath sentencerape and murderres gestaecriminal appealDNA evidenceabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence handed down by the trial court against the appellant for the abduction, rape, and murder of a six-year-old girl. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution’s case, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence. The Court held that while the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of incriminating facts. Specifically, the Court affirmed that "last seen" evidence is admissible and reliable when corroborated by proximity of time and distance between the event and the victim's death. Furthermore, the recovery of the deceased's body from the appellant's possession and the discovery of incriminating items in his rented room, linked via the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, provided sufficient corroboration. The Court emphasized that courts must adopt a pragmatic approach in cases of sexual violence against minors, rejecting the notion that inconclusive DNA evidence necessitates acquittal when other evidence is overwhelming.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Is 'last seen' evidence sufficient to support a conviction without further corroboration?
  • Does the failure of DNA evidence to match the accused necessitate an acquittal in a rape case?
  • Can a recovery made under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 be valid without independent witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Habib vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and others2018 YLR 383 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-08
  plea bargainNational Accountability Ordinancedisqualificationretrospective dismissaldiscriminationpublic officewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of the petitioner from service following a plea bargain entered into under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal questions were whether the departmental dismissal order, effective from the date of the plea bargain, constituted an illegal retrospective order, and whether the petitioner was entitled to relief based on alleged discriminatory treatment compared to other employees. The Court held that the petition was maintainable as the petitioner’s service was governed by statutory rules. On merits, the Court held that the plea bargain under Section 25(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, by operation of Section 15, mandates that an accused ceases to hold public office "forthwith" upon the acceptance of the plea bargain. Consequently, the departmental dismissal order was merely an administrative implementation of this statutory consequence rather than an illegal retrospective penalty. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an illegal act by an authority cannot establish a precedent for discrimination, as two wrongs do not make a right. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plea bargain under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, result in the automatic cessation of public office?
  • Can a departmental dismissal order based on a plea bargain be challenged as an illegal retrospective order?
  • Does the principle of discrimination apply when an authority has previously passed an illegal or unwarranted order in favor of another person?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a company that was formerly a statutory corporation governed by statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Farooq and another vs The State and another2018 MLD 569 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-26
  murderbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealdeath sentenceacquittalmedical evidenceocular testimonyrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of two brothers following an altercation, sentencing them to death and imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court examined the evidence, noting discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, the casting of a wider net involving multiple family members with dubious roles, unconvincing recoveries of weapons, and an obscure motive relating to a minor dispute over a soft drink payment. The Court held that when participation of some accused is found suspicious and the ocular and medical accounts do not inspire full confidence, it is unsafe to maintain convictions based on a guess game, adhering to the principle that it is better to err in acquittal than in conviction. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether convictions for murder can be sustained when the prosecution's narrative involves casting a wider net and exaggerating the roles of multiple accused?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused with similar or inconsequential roles require independent corroboration for the remaining appellants?
  • Whether delayed and suspicious recoveries of weapons can provide the requisite corroboration in a capital case?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the true genesis of the occurrence and the motive remain shrouded in doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Farooq and another vs State and another2018 MLD 569, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 468 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-26
  murderbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder referencedeath sentenceappreciation of evidenceocular accountmedical corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing them to death and imprisonment for life following a private complaint for a double murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence and recoveries, is sufficient to maintain the conviction despite the acquittal of co-accused and discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative regarding motive and the manner of assault. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from significant doubts, including an inflated array of accused, an unconvincing trivial motive regarding a monetary dispute, suspicious recoveries of weapons, and a melee initiated under unclear circumstances. The court laid down the principle that once the participation of some accused is found suspicious and independent corroboration is lacking, it is unsafe to maintain convictions on the basis of a guess game, and it is better to err in acquittal than in conviction to ensure the safe administration of criminal justice. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused with similar roles requires independent corroboration before maintaining the conviction of remaining accused?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of an ocular account when the motive is obscure and weapons recovery is deemed suspicious?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused when the prosecution's narrative regarding the origin and manner of the melee is doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Aziz and others vs Province of Punjab and others2018 MLD 102 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State and another2018 YLR 445 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-06
  murdercriminal appealSection 342 statementocular evidenceacquittalgrave and sudden provocationappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant, Khadim Hussain, for the murder of two individuals, Talib Hussain and Amir Bakhsh, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based solely on his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after having discarded the prosecution's evidence as unreliable. The High Court found that the prosecution's ocular account was riddled with material contradictions regarding the presence of witnesses, the motive, and the recovery of weapons, rendering the testimony of the eye-witnesses doubtful. The Court held that the trial court erred in law by relying on the appellant's Section 342 statement to secure a conviction after rejecting the prosecution's case. The established legal principle is that if the prosecution fails to prove its case, an accused must be acquitted, even if they have admitted to the killing in their statement; an accused's statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, can only be used to support reliable prosecution evidence, not to substitute it.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be convicted solely on their statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution's evidence has been rejected?
  • Is the statement of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  • Under what circumstances can the inculpatory part of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Muhammad Tariq etc2021 CLC 805, 2018 LHC 2362 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-28Read full judgment →
• Kausar Zahoor vs District & Sessions Judge, etc.2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-20Read full judgment →
• Kashif Nawaz etc. vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 365 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-03
  anti-terrorismtest identification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal appealballistic reportextortioncircumstantial evidencesentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Sections 324, 427, and 386 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, alongside a connected writ petition seeking sentence enhancement. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of a joint test identification parade, the reliability of delayed forensic and ballistic reports, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in a dark-night occurrence against unknown persons. The Lahore High Court held that joint identification parades of multiple accused persons are legally unreliable, that unexplained delays in dispatching crime empties and weapons to forensic laboratories render recoveries inconsequential, and that material doubts in the prosecution's case warrant acquittal. The court laid down the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on tainted circumstantial evidence, vague arrests, and suppressed facts, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a joint test identification parade conducted for multiple accused persons in one go?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime empties to the forensic laboratory render the recovery of weapons inconsequential?
  • Can a conviction be sustained in a dark-night occurrence where the accused were initially unknown and no source of light is established?
  • Whether the prosecution must establish a clear chain of custody for items sent to forensic agencies to rely on their reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Nawaz and others vs The State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 365, 2018 YLR 1084 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-03
  benefit of doubttest identification paradejoint identification paradechain of custodyforensic evidenceanti-terrorismcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, while a connected constitutional petition seeks enhancement of those sentences. The core legal questions concern the reliability of a joint test identification parade, the evidentiary value of forensic reports where the chain of custody is compromised, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in a dark-night occurrence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the joint test identification parade was legally flawed and inadmissible, the chain of custody for crime empties was suspicious, and the recovery of the weapon was inconsequential due to delayed submission to the forensic agency. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt, and dismissed the petition for sentence enhancement. The judgment reaffirms the principle that joint identification parades are disapproved and that a compromised chain of custody renders forensic evidence unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a joint test identification parade of multiple accused persons conducted in one go legally admissible?
  • Does a delay in submitting crime empties to a forensic agency, coupled with a lack of documentation regarding the depositing official, render the forensic report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish a clear chain of custody for recovered weapons and crime empties?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Khan, etc. vs State and othersPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 433 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-14
  capital punishmentbenefit of doubtmurderocular accountacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, along with a connected murder reference and an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question involves determining whether the ocular account, heavily relied upon by the prosecution but disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused, is sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction in the absence of a proved motive and corroborative evidence, and considering significant delays in reporting and post-mortem examinations. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inherent improbabilities, lack of motive, suspicious delays, and the principle that an ocular account disbelieved against acquitted co-accused requires strong independent corroboration before being used against a remaining accused. The court laid down the principle that uncorroborated ocular testimony, already rejected regarding multiple co-accused, cannot safely form the basis of a capital conviction when serious doubts shroud the time and manner of the occurrence, thereby extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ocular account disbelieved qua majority of acquitted co-accused can be relied upon to maintain a conviction against a remaining appellant without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delayed reporting of the crime and delayed post-mortem examinations create fatal doubts in a murder case?
  • Can a capital conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the motive and presents an improbable sequence of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Imran and another vs Altaf Hussain and another2018 PLD Lahore 60 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ullah Khan Chaudhry vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 555 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-05
  territorial jurisdictionwrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionforum non conveniensservice matterjudicial reviewfederal authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner, a civil servant, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the re-advertisement of a BS-20 Trade Officer position and seeking appointment to the post. The core legal question was whether the Lahore High Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, given that the respondents, the impugned actions, and the entire recruitment process—including the advertisement, testing, and interviews—were situated within the Islamabad Capital Territory. The Court held that it lacked the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. It emphasized that while a High Court has judicial power to review federal actions, it must strictly adhere to its territorial boundaries. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is not absolute and requires a territorial nexus; where the dominant object of the petition and the cause of action arise entirely outside the Court's territorial limits, the petition is not maintainable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, underscoring the principle of judicial comity and the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have the territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ against federal authorities when the entire cause of action and the respondents are located outside its territorial limits?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable before a High Court if the dominant object of the petition relates to matters occurring entirely within the Islamabad Capital Territory?
  • Does the principle of forum non conveniens apply to the exercise of writ jurisdiction by a High Court in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Khan and another vs The State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 413, 2018 MLD 479 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-08
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausearms and ammunitiontentative assessmentdiscretionary reliefillegal transportation of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail after being apprehended with a substantial cache of arms and ammunition, including multiple pistols, rifles, and thousands of rounds of ammunition, during a police operation. The petitioners argued that the consignment was being transported under a valid license issued to a third party, and contended that because the minimum sentence for the alleged offences was five years, their case fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court rejected these arguments, noting that the licensee had not come forward to claim the consignment and that the facts of the cited precedents were distinguishable. The Court held that even where an offence is punishable by less than ten years, the Court retains discretion to decline bail based on the nature of the accusation and supporting material. Given the massive volume and lethality of the recovered arms, the Court dismissed the bail petition, finding no grounds for relief at the stage of tentative assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a minimum sentence of less than ten years for an offence automatically entitle an accused to bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can a court decline discretionary bail even if an offence is punishable by less than ten years imprisonment?
  • Is the plea of a valid license for transporting a large cache of weapons a sufficient ground for bail at the stage of tentative assessment when the licensee has not come forward?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Khan and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 413 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-08
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausearms and ammunitiondiscretionary relieftentative assessmentcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition for post-arrest bail arises from the recovery of a substantial cache of arms and ammunition, including multiple pistols, rifles, and thousands of bullets, from the petitioners' vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the argument that the weapons were being transported under a valid license issued to a third party, and whether the potential minimum sentence of five years for the alleged offences removed the case from the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail, noting that the licensee never came forward to claim the consignment and that the vast volume and lethality of the recovered cache necessitated a denial of relief. The Court affirmed that even if an offence is punishable by less than ten years, the Court retains discretion to decline bail based on the nature of the accusation and supporting material. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the existence of a minimum sentence ceiling does not automatically exempt an offence from the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a minimum sentence of five years automatically exclude an offence from the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a court legally compelled to grant bail in offences punishable by less than ten years imprisonment?
  • Can a court decline bail based on the nature of the accusation and the volume of recovered contraband despite arguments regarding a valid license?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran alias Sher, Afghan and others vs State etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 69 · Lahore High Court
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionfirearm recoveryforensic ballisticscapital punishmentmurder referenceunchallenged testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of Abid Pervaiz and Riasat Ali. The Lahore High Court examined a chain of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, an extra-judicial confession, recovery of the crime weapon matching crime empties via a forensic report, and recovery of the deceased persons' personal belongings at the appellant's instance. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, unchallanged cross-examination testimony, and the admissibility of disclosures leading to recoveries. The court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing squarely at the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. The ratio decidendi affirms that unchallenged statements in cross-examination are deemed admitted, and convincing circumstantial evidence coupled with matching forensic reports and recoveries is sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the death sentence, and answered the murder reference in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of a witness's testimony going unchallenged during cross-examination?
  • Whether a capital conviction can be safely sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the absence of compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a recovery effected pursuant to a voluntary disclosure under the law?
  • What constitutes a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence touching from the dead body to the assailant?
  Read full judgment →
• Kalsoom Akhtar and 2 others vs Sardar Muhammad through L.Rs, and others2018 YLR 1652 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-09Read full judgment →
• Kabir Ahmad vs The Additional District Judge, Lahore and another2018 CLC 161 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-25Read full judgment →
• Junaid Arshad vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 739 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-05
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailcybercrimemala fideequality before lawelectronic evidenceFIA investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by a senior police officer accused of creating a fake social media profile to disseminate sexually explicit images of his estranged wife. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, given his status and assertions of innocence, was entitled to the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fide or abuse of process in the investigation. The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an exceptional remedy, not a substitute for post-arrest bail, and is reserved for cases where the prosecution is motivated by malice. The court further established the principle that the law does not distinguish between citizens based on social status, official position, or power. Forensic evidence, including IP logs and subscriber information obtained from Facebook, provided sufficient grounds to deny the relief, as the court affirmed that the law treats all individuals equally regardless of their professional rank or worldly status.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail a right that can be claimed in every criminal case as a substitute for post-arrest bail?
  • Does the status or official position of an accused person entitle them to special consideration or preferential treatment in bail proceedings?
  • What is the primary legal requirement for the grant of pre-arrest bail in Pakistan?
  • Can forensic evidence, such as IP logs and subscriber information, be sufficient to deny a petition for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs Ameer Sultan and others2018 YLR 334 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb Touseef etc vs Habib Bank Limited2018 [M] C.L.R. 1452, 2018 P.C.T.L.R. 552 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-20Read full judgment →
• Jehanzaib Habib and 7 others vs Government of the Punjab and others2018 CLC 1422 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Judge Family Court and others2018 MLD 1296 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-04Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad and others2018 P Cr. L J 426 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-07
  quashing of proceedingsabuse of process of courtacquittal at premature stagecriminal breach of trustcheatingcivil dispute given criminal color
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 called into question orders passed by the lower judicial forums dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and subsequent revisional proceedings. The core legal question was whether an application for acquittal under Section 249-A can be entertained before recording prosecution evidence, and whether criminal proceedings instituted from a civil land dispute constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The Lahore High Court held that an application under Section 249-A can be filed at any stage of the trial even before recording evidence, and that utilizing criminal proceedings as a tool for leverage in a civil dispute when no ingredients of the alleged offenses are made out warrants quashment. The court established the principle that where there is no probability of conviction and criminal process is abused, the High Court under Section 561-A may set aside interlocutory orders and acquit the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be filed and entertained before the recording of prosecution evidence?
  • Whether criminal proceedings can be allowed to continue when a dispute is essentially civil in nature and initiated to gain leverage in civil litigation?
  • What are the mandatory ingredients required to attract the offense of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal & 8 others vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 119, 2019 P Cr. L J 484, 2018 LHC 2794 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-26
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtocular evidencemurder trialdeath sentenceforensic reportreliability of witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences imposed by the trial court in a murder case involving the deaths of five individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and forensic evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed and unreliable. The Court identified significant discrepancies, including the suspect time of occurrence, the unexplained delay in conducting autopsies, and the unconvincing nature of the ocular testimony provided by the complainant and other witnesses. Furthermore, the Court noted that the motive alleged was unsubstantiated, and the identification of the accused in dark, crisis conditions was improbable. Consequently, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's ocular account is inherently suspect and riddled with contradictions, forensic evidence alone cannot bridge the gap to sustain a conviction. The Court emphasized that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution's narrative is not free from reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can forensic evidence alone sustain a conviction when the ocular account is found to be unreliable?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting autopsies cast doubt on the prosecution's timeline of a murder occurrence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's narrative regarding the time and circumstances of the crime is inconsistent with the medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Hassan vs Mst. Farkhnda Yasmin and others2018 CLC 273 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-23Read full judgment →
• Javed Hameed and 7 others vs Aman Ullah and 12 others2018 YLR 131 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
• Javed Butt vs District Regional Transport Authority (Drta) through Chairman and 2 others2018 PLD Lahore 122 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-23Read full judgment →
• Janna T Bibi vs State etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 190 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-11
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelay in FIRattempted murdercriminal conspiracyappraisal of evidencebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 437/2017 registered under Sections 324, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, Okara, facing allegations of pressing the necks of children and setting household articles on fire. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, observing an unexplained thirty-three-hour delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions regarding eyewitness accounts under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, discrepancies in medical examination timings and history, absence of burnt items collected from the scene, and pending animosity between the parties. The court laid down the principle that where multiple circumstances collectively render the prosecution's case doubtful and cast shadow on the allegations, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging the FIR can make a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of post-arrest bail?
  • Does contradiction between eyewitness statements and the FIR regarding presence at the scene justify granting bail?
  • Whether discrepancies in medical history and delay in medical examination support a petition for post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalil Ahmad Khan vs State and 8 others2018 PLJ Lahore 421 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-01Read full judgment →
• Jahanzaib Khan vs Special Judge CNS Court, Lahore and another2018 P Cr. L J 354 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-18
  local inspectionfair trialdue processnarcotics traffickingcriminal procedureconstitutional rightevidence appreciation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged an order by the Special Court, CNS, Lahore, which dismissed an application under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant, charged with drug trafficking, sought a local inspection of the vehicle allegedly used for the crime to prove the absence of secret cavities where narcotics were purportedly concealed. The core legal question was whether the trial court was obligated to conduct this inspection and whether its refusal infringed upon the appellant's fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court’s refusal was arbitrary and caused a miscarriage of justice. It ruled that Section 539-B permits the inspection of "any other place," which includes a vehicle parked outside the courtroom. The court emphasized that the right to a fair trial requires courts to facilitate the discovery of truth, particularly when the defense challenges the physical possibility of the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial judge to conduct the inspection personally.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase 'any other place' in Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include a vehicle parked outside the courtroom?
  • Can a trial court delegate its duty to conduct a local inspection under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the defense counsel?
  • Does the refusal of a trial court to inspect physical evidence that is central to the defense's case constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Jadeed Education Services through authorized person and 5 others vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, School Education Department and others2018 YLR 1371 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-13Read full judgment →
• Izhar alias Khani and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 153 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-14
  post-arrest bailrobberyunnamed accusedtest identification paradejuvenile offenderfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising out of FIR No. 701 registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Muzaffarabad District Multan. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail where the FIR was lodged against unknown persons, identification parade yielded no specific role, and the petitioners are minors with no previous criminal record. The Lahore High Court held that the case of the petitioners calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting their status as minors, lack of criminal record, inconsequential identification parade, and prolonged incarceration without trial progress. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioners were admitted to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when an FIR is registered against unknown persons and identification parade fails to assign a specific role to the accused?
  • Does the detention of minor petitioners without substantial progress in the trial warrant further inquiry into their guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail Khan and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 31 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-19
  narcotic substancesrepresentative samplingchemical examiner reportpossession of narcoticsconviction reductionrecovery procedurecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by four appellants challenging their convictions and sentences under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of large quantities of charas and opium. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the recovery of the entire contraband substance when samples were not drawn from each individual slab or packet recovered. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove possession of the entire quantity because the complainant did not weigh each slab or packet separately, nor did they draw representative samples from each. Relying on the principle established in Ameer Zeb versus The State (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 380), the Court ruled that where narcotics are recovered in separate physical forms, a sample must be taken from every individual unit for chemical analysis. Failure to do so limits the conviction to only the quantity actually tested and proven positive. Consequently, the Court converted the appellants' convictions from Section 9-C to Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and reduced their sentences accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary to take a separate sample from every individual packet or slab of a recovered narcotic substance to secure a conviction for the entire quantity?
  • What is the legal consequence if the prosecution fails to draw representative samples from each individual unit of recovered contraband?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be converted to Section 9-B if the prosecution fails to prove the weight of the entire recovered substance?
  Read full judgment →
• Ishrat Batool and another vs Govt. of Punjab and others2018 KLR Civil Cases 259 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ishrat Batool and another vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2018 PLJ Lahore 898 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Irfan and another vs The State and another2018 YLR 185 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-11
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytest identification paraderobbery-cum-murderprocedural irregularityidentification reportcontradictory statements
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case involving robbery and murder. The petitioners were not named in the FIR but were arrested on suspicion and subsequently identified in a test identification parade. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry given inconsistencies between the FIR, statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the test identification proceedings, alongside procedural irregularities in the identification report. The Court held that the discrepancies in the identification process—specifically regarding the numbering and positioning of the accused—and the conflicting accounts provided by eye-witnesses during the identification parade compared to their initial statements created sufficient doubt to warrant further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the petitioners' guilt required further investigation at trial. The key principle established is that significant procedural irregularities in a test identification parade and material contradictions in witness statements can constitute grounds for bail under the category of further inquiry, as the prosecution's case requires deeper scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy in the numbering and positioning of accused persons during a test identification parade constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can material contradictions between initial statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and subsequent statements during a test identification parade entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case relies on identification evidence that is procedurally flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Masih vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 320 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-18
  post-arrest bailprohibition orderjoint possessionprohibitory clausecriminal procedurerecovery of liquor
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Iqbal Masih, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 283 dated 7.9.2017, registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order IV of 1979 at Police Station Saddar Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the nature of the alleged offence. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the alleged recovery of liquor was from joint possession, the prosecution had failed to collect evidence regarding ownership of the place of occurrence, and the Chemical Examiner's report was still pending. Furthermore, the Court observed that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the conclusion of the trial is not in sight, continued incarceration of a first-time offender is not justified.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the absence of a Chemical Examiner's report a relevant factor in determining the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Should bail be granted when the alleged recovery is from joint possession and the trial is not likely to conclude soon?
  Read full judgment →
• Inam-Ul-Haq vs Allied Bank Limited and 4 others2018 PLC 215 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-01
  constitutional petitionmaster and servantgross misconductunauthorized absencebank employeedismissal from servicedomestic inquiryconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner challenged the orders of the lower forums dismissing his grievance petition and subsequent appeal against his termination from service. The petitioner, employed as a security guard/gunman by a commercial bank, was dismissed following a domestic inquiry for gross misconduct after leaving his duty post unauthorizedly, resulting in a burglary and theft of bank equipment. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the legality of the domestic inquiry and whether unauthorized absence amounting to gross misconduct warrants dismissal from service in a sensitive banking institution. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's absence from a locker-holding branch without leave constituted gross misconduct and breach of trust, and that concurrent findings of fact by lower tribunals based on proper inquiry proceedings cannot be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction. The court reaffirmed that banking institutions involve public trust, and absence from duty causing major loss constitutes misconduct justifying dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether absence from duty without leave in a sensitive banking institution constitutes gross misconduct justifying dismissal?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact rendered by lower labor forums be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction without showing legal or procedural flaw?
  • Whether procedural requirements of a domestic inquiry are satisfied when an employee participates, signs proceedings, and fails to raise timely objections?
  • Does leaving a locker-holding branch unguarded during night duty amount to a breach of public trust warranting strict disciplinary action?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Hussain and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 564 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04
  sodomyunnatural offencebenefit of doubtmedical evidenceprivate complaintcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants, Imtiaz Hussain and Muhammad Azhar, under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the offence of unnatural intercourse, following a private complaint. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged discrepancies in ocular evidence, the lack of corroborative medical evidence, and the failure of the investigation to conduct essential tests. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court noted that the medical evidence did not confirm penetration, the Chemical Examiner's report was negative for semen, and the investigating officer failed to conduct potency tests on the accused or DNA analysis. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Is a potency test of the accused essential to prove the charge of sodomy?
  • Does the failure of medical evidence to confirm penetration create a reasonable doubt in a prosecution for unnatural offences?
  • Can an accused be acquitted if the prosecution fails to conduct DNA or semen grouping analysis in a case of alleged sodomy?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Afzal etc vs Ghulam Fatima etc2018 PLJ Lahore 1063, 2018 LHC 909 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-19Read full judgment →
• Imran Maqbool, President, MCB Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2018 [M] C.L.R. 1783, 2019 PLD Lahore 17, 2019 PLJ Lahore 71, 2018 LHC 1960 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-06Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmed and others vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 698 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-29
  murder referencedeath sentence confirmationchance witnessinterested witnessdying declarationbenefit of doubtacquittalfirearm recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal arising from a murder trial, alongside a murder reference for the confirmation of death sentences. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance and partisan eyewitnesses, the legal reliability of a dying declaration recorded by police without a magistrate or doctor, the proof of motive, and the application of corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses were chance and partisan witnesses whose testimony lacked independent corroboration, that the dying declaration suffered from procedural and physical infirmities rendering it dubious, and that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive or recover incriminating firearms through reliable, uncompromised means. Consequently, the court laid down that the uncorroborated testimony of chance and interested witnesses, coupled with a defective dying declaration, creates a reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of the convicts. The court accepted the appeal against conviction, answered the murder reference in the negative by declining to confirm the death sentences, and dismissed the connected appeal against the acquittal of co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of chance and partisan eyewitnesses can form the basis of a murder conviction?
  • What are the mandatory legal requirements and evidentiary value of a dying declaration recorded solely by police officers without the presence of a magistrate or medical officer?
  • Can the benefit of an acquittal in a murder appeal be extended to a non-appealing convict whose death sentence is before the High Court on a reference for confirmation under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the failure to prove the alleged motive weaken the prosecution's case when the ocular account is otherwise doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad Mirza vs Civil Judge and others2018 CLC 468 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-30Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Hussain vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc2018 [M] C.L.R. 386 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-28Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali Khan vs Chairman, Punjab Provincial Transport Authority, etc2018 KLR Civil Cases 202 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-31Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs King Edward Medical University, etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 820 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-16Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs King Edward Medical University and others2017 LHC 3076, 2017 PLD Lahore 825 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-16
  quo warrantoVice-ChancellorPro-Vice-Chancellorstop-gap arrangementstatutory interpretationuniversity appointmentChancellor powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition seeks a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of an acting Vice-Chancellor on a stop-gap arrangement at the King Edward Medical University. The core legal question revolves around whether the Chancellor is empowered to make a temporary appointment to the office of the Vice-Chancellor when the Pro-Vice-Chancellor is available, in light of Section 13(9) of the King Edward Medical University, Lahore (Amendment) Act, 2012. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 13(9) of the Act, if the office of the Vice-Chancellor is vacant, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor automatically assumes the functions of the Vice-Chancellor by operation of law, and the Chancellor's power to make temporary arrangements arises only if the office of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor is also vacant. The court laid down the principle that general powers of appointment under Section 9(7) cannot override specific provisions governing stop-gap arrangements for the office of the Vice-Chancellor, and distinguished between the terms 'functions' and 'duties' in the context of temporary university leadership.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Pro-Vice-Chancellor automatically assume the functions of the Vice-Chancellor when the office of the Vice-Chancellor falls vacant under Section 13(9) of the King Edward Medical University, Lahore (Amendment) Act, 2012?
  • Can the Chancellor make a temporary arrangement for the performance of the duties of the Vice-Chancellor when the Pro-Vice-Chancellor is available?
  • Do the general powers of appointment enjoyed by the Chancellor under Section 9(7) override the specific provisions for stop-gap arrangements under Section 13(9) of the King Edward Medical University, Lahore (Amendment) Act, 2012?
  • What is the distinction between the terms 'functions' and 'duties' as used in Section 13(9) of the King Edward Medical University, Lahore (Amendment) Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Abdullah/Abdullah & Sons through Managing Director vs Abdul2018 PLC 20 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-27
  Payment of Wages Actmandatory depositmaintainability of appealLabour Court18th Constitutional Amendmentfair trialconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Punjab Labour Court dismissing the petitioners' appeals against the allowance of wage claims by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The primary legal question was whether the requirement under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, requiring the deposit of the payable amount and submission of a certificate thereof along with the memorandum of appeal, is mandatory, and whether the 18th Constitutional Amendment rendered this provision or the Act inapplicable. The Lahore High Court held that the proviso is mandatory in nature, and an appeal filed without complying with this pre-condition is not maintainable. The Court further ruled that existing laws like the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 continued to remain in force under Article 270AA of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 following the 18th Amendment, and that the right to a fair trial under Article 10A is subject to fulfilling pre-conditions prescribed by law. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provision of a deposit certificate under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is a mandatory condition precedent for maintaining an appeal before the Labour Court?
  • Did the omission of the Concurrent Legislative List through the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 invalidate existing labour laws such as the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Does the right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 override statutory pre-conditions and procedural requirements for filing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Husnain Cotex Ltd. etc vs Waseem Sana etc2018 LHC 1434, 2022 PCTLR 126 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-28Read full judgment →
• Hassan through his legal heirs vs Ameer through his legal heirs etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 527 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-03Read full judgment →