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.

• D.G. Khan Cement Company Limited vs Federal Board of Revenue, etc.2018 P.C.T.L.R. 32 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-22
  super taxdouble taxationmoney billtax vs feeconstitutional petitionlegislative competencerehabilitation of temporarily displaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of Section 4B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, introduced by the Finance Act, 2015, which imposed a 'super tax' for the rehabilitation of temporarily displaced persons. The petitioners contended that the levy was not a tax but a fee due to its specific purpose, rendering its imposition via a money bill unconstitutional, and alternatively argued that it constituted double taxation. The Court held that the super tax is a valid tax, not a fee, as it lacks the essential element of quid pro quo and is a compulsory exaction for public revenue. The Court affirmed that the legislature has the authority to impose taxes for specific purposes, and the mere mention of a purpose in the statute does not transform a tax into a fee. Furthermore, the Court ruled that double taxation is not constitutionally prohibited in Pakistan, and the legislature may impose multiple taxes on the same income if clearly enacted. The petition was dismissed, upholding the constitutionality of the super tax.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mention of a specific purpose in a statute transform a tax into a fee?
  • Is double taxation constitutionally prohibited in Pakistan?
  • Can a levy be declared unconstitutional solely because it is labeled as a 'super tax'?
  • Does the legislature have the power to impose multiple taxes on the same income?
  Read full judgment →
• D.G. Khan Cement Company Limited vs Federal Board of Revenue and others2018 PTD 287 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-29
  super taxdouble taxationmoney billtax versus feerehabilitation of temporarily displaced personslegislative competenceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the validity of Section 4B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which was inserted via Section 9(2) of the Finance Act, 2015 to impose a super tax for the rehabilitation of temporarily displaced persons. The core legal questions revolved around whether the specification of a purpose in a taxing provision transforms the tax into a fee (rendering its enactment via a money bill incompetent) and whether the levy constitutes unconstitutional double taxation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the super tax is a valid tax within the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 77 and Entry 47 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution. The Court laid down that mentioning a specific purpose in a taxing statute does not invalidate its character as a tax provided it lacks the elements of a fee such as quid pro quo, that double taxation is permissible where expressly enacted by the legislature in the absence of a constitutional bar, and that the legislature enjoys wide latitude in classifying subjects of taxation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mention of a specific purpose in a taxing statute render the levy a fee rather than a tax?
  • Whether the imposition of super tax through the Finance Act as a money bill is unconstitutional?
  • Is double taxation barred under the constitutional framework of Pakistan in the absence of an express prohibition?
  • Does Section 4B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 suffer from the vice of double taxation?
  Read full judgment →
• D.G Khan Cement Co. Ltd vs Federal Board Revenue etc2018 P.C.T.L.R. 32, 2018 PTD 287, PTCL 2018 CL. 521 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-29
  super taxrehabilitation of temporarily displaced personsdouble taxationmoney billtax on incomeconstitutional petitionlegislative competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the legality and constitutionality of Section 4B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, introduced via Section 9(2) of the Finance Act, 2015, which imposed a super tax for the rehabilitation of temporarily displaced persons. The core legal questions revolved around whether the mention of a specific purpose in the statute takes the levy outside the ambit of a "tax" making its passage through a money bill unconstitutional, and whether the imposition amounted to unconstitutional double taxation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the levy is a valid tax within the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 47 of the Fourth Schedule and Article 77 of the Constitution. The court ruled that mentioning a specific purpose (such as rehabilitation of displaced persons) does not invalidate a tax or convert it into a fee where the revenue forms part of the Federal Consolidated Fund under government control, and that double taxation is permissible unless expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the imposition of super tax under Section 4B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through the Finance Act, 2015 is ultra vires the Constitution?
  • Does the mention of a specific purpose in a taxing statute convert a tax into a fee or render it incompetent to be passed as a money bill?
  • Whether double taxation is prohibited under the constitutional framework of Pakistan in the absence of an express constitutional bar?
  • Does Parliament have the legislative competence under Entry 47 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution to levy more than one tax on income?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland vs M/s. Ali Hassan Metal Revenue. Works2018 PTD 108, PTCL 2018 CL. 16 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue. vs M/s. Haier Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd2018 P.C.T.L.R. 626, 2018 PLJ Lahore 1147, PTCL 2018 CL. 588, 2018 PTD 1582, · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue. vs M/s. Golden Pearl Cosmetics.PTCL 2018 CL. 72 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue. vs Muhammad Khalid SethiPTCL 2018 CL. 95 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Regional Tax Office, Faisalabad2018 PTD 775 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Faisalabad vs Messrs Al-Zamin Textile2018 PTD 986 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-15
  sales tax refundblacklisted suppliersretrospective operationburden of prooftax fraudinput tax adjustmentreference application
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 challenged an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which had allowed a sales tax refund claim to the respondent taxpayer. The core legal question concerned whether zero-rated supplies and tax refunds can be denied based on invoices issued by units that were subsequently blacklisted, and whether a blacklisting order operates retrospectively. The Lahore High Court held that a blacklisting order does not operate retrospectively to invalidate transactions or invoices issued prior to the blacklisting, unless the taxation department establishes through a self-speaking order that the invoices were fake, flying, or that the tax was not deposited in the government exchequer. The initial burden of proof lies heavily on the revenue department to demonstrate a nexus between the blacklisting and the disputed invoices or to establish tax fraud. The reference application was decided in the negative against the applicant department, following established precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a blacklisting order passed against a supplier can operate retrospectively to invalidate invoices issued prior to such blacklisting?
  • Does the initial burden lie upon the taxation department to establish that invoices issued by a supplier are fake or flying before denying a refund or tax credit?
  • Can the provisions of Section 21(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 be invoked to reject tax credit or refund for invoices issued prior to blacklisting without proving that the tax was not deposited in the National Exchequer?
  • Under what circumstances does the burden of proof shift to a registered person claiming a sales tax refund or tax adjustment in cases of alleged tax fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Suhagan vs Ashiq Muhammad and others2018 LHC 667 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-v vs M/s T.N.W. Engineering Works2020 PCTLR 147, PTCL 2019 CL. 330, 2019 PTD 46, 2018 LHC 2472 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Haier Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.2018 P.C.T.L.R. 626 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Haier Pakistan (Pvt.) LtdPTCL 2018 CL. 588 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Sika Paint Industries2018 PTD 749 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-18
  definite informationamendment of assessmentincome tax assessmentsuppression of salesseized recordsreference applicationappellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves reference applications filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue against an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which had vacated the amendment of income tax assessments of the respondent company. The core legal question was whether the material retrieved during a lawful sales tax raid, including seized business records, vouchers, and bank statements indicating suppressed sales, constituted 'definite information' under Section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to justify the amendment of assessments. The Lahore High Court held that the seized records containing explicit financial data constituted indisputable and definite information, not requiring speculative or roving inquiries. The court ruled that the Appellate Tribunal was unjustified in setting aside the amended assessments, thereby deciding the question in the negative against the respondent. The key principle established is that documentary evidence directly acquired from a taxpayer's premises indicating escaped income or under-assessed total income qualifies as 'definite information' under Section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, warranting assessment amendment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material retrieved from a lawful raid on a taxpayer's premises constitutes definite information under Section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can an assessment be amended under Section 122(4) and (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, on the basis of seized sales tax records showing suppressed sales?
  • What constitutes definite information for the reopening or amendment of an income tax assessment?
  • Does information obtained from seized documents require further inquiry so as to disqualify it from being treated as definite information?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Haier Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.2018 PTD 1582 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Ali Hassan Metal Works2018 PTD 108 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-01Read full judgment →
• Collector of Sales Tax, Faisalabad. vs M_s. United Industries Limited, FaisalabadPTCL 2018 CL. 91 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-03Read full judgment →
• Coca-Cola Beverages Pakistan Ltd. vs The Customs, Excise & Sales Tax2018 P.C.T.L.R. 129 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Coca-Cola Beverages Pakistan Ltd vs The Customs, Excise and Sales2018 PCTLR 129, PTCL 2018 CL. 348 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• City School Private Limited vs Government of the Punjab, etc.2018 [M] C.L.R. 727 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• City School Private Limited vs Government of the Punjab etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 646 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-05Read full judgment →
• City School Private Limited vs Government of the Punjab etc2018 PLD Lahore 509, 2018 PLJ Lahore 646, 2018 LHC 495 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-05Read full judgment →
• City School Private Limited vs Government of the Punjab and others2018 PLD Lahore 509 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-05Read full judgment →
• Chodri Asif Khokhar, etc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2018 PLJ Lahore 462, 2018 LHC 46 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-23
  public appointmentstatutory bodyWAPDAtransparencymerit-based recruitmentconstitutional governancejudicial reviewdiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the appointment process for the Chairman and Members of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), arguing that the Federal Government made these appointments in an arbitrary, non-transparent manner without public advertisement. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government’s discretionary power to appoint heads of statutory bodies is unfettered or subject to the constitutional requirements of transparency, merit, and equality of opportunity. The Court held that appointments to public sector corporations must be based on a palpably fair, structured, and transparent process to ensure institutional effectiveness and accountability. While the Court did not invalidate existing appointments, it mandated that all future appointments must follow a rigorous, merit-based recruitment procedure, including open advertisement and competency frameworks. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that policies regarding WAPDA must be formulated in association with the Council of Common Interest, as per the Constitution. The judgment establishes that discretionary power in public appointments must be exercised reasonably and in the public interest, rejecting arbitrary selection in favor of inclusive, competitive, and transparent recruitment practices.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government have unfettered discretion in appointing the Chairman and Members of the Water and Power Development Authority?
  • Are appointments to public sector statutory bodies subject to the constitutional requirement of equality of opportunity and transparent selection processes?
  • Must policies regarding the recruitment of WAPDA's leadership be formulated in association with the Council of Common Interest?
  • Is a court empowered to judicially review the integrity of the selection process for public offices?
  Read full judgment →
• Chodri Asif Khokhar etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-23
  WAPDAstatutory appointmentquo warrantopublic sector recruitmenttransparency in appointmentsCouncil of Common Interestjudicial review of administrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the appointment process for the Chairman and Members of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), alleging that appointments were made arbitrarily, without advertisement, and lacked transparency. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government's discretionary power to appoint these officials must be exercised through a structured, open, and merit-based process to satisfy constitutional requirements of equality and fairness. The Court held that while WAPDA is a statutory body with managerial autonomy, its appointments to key posts must adhere to principles of transparency, openness, and merit to ensure institutional effectiveness and public trust. The Court affirmed that even where explicit rules are absent, discretionary powers must be exercised reasonably and in the public interest. The judgment established that future appointments must follow a structured, transparent process, including job analysis, public advertisement, and merit-based selection, and that policies regarding such recruitment must be developed in association with the Council of Common Interest, as WAPDA falls under the Federal Legislative List.

  Questions settled

  • Are appointments to key posts in a statutory body like WAPDA subject to the requirement of public advertisement and merit-based selection?
  • Does the Federal Government's discretionary power to appoint the Chairman and Members of WAPDA allow for arbitrary or non-transparent selection processes?
  • Is the Council of Common Interest required to be involved in formulating policies for the recruitment of WAPDA's Chairman and Members?
  • Can a court judicially review the integrity of the selection process for public offices without substituting its own opinion for that of the Executive?
  Read full judgment →
• Chodri Asif Khokhar amid others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 282 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-23
  WAPDApublic sector appointmentsstatutory bodiestransparencymerit-based recruitmentjudicial reviewCouncil of Common Interestsadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), alleging arbitrary, non-transparent, and ad hoc appointments made by the Federal Government without public advertisement. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government possesses unfettered discretion in appointing heads of statutory bodies or if such appointments must adhere to principles of transparency, merit, and fairness. The Court held that WAPDA, as a distinct statutory body, must operate with managerial freedom and transparency. It emphasized that appointments to public offices must be based on a palpably fair, structured, and merit-based process to ensure institutional effectiveness. While the Court did not invalidate past appointments, it mandated that future appointments must follow a structured, transparent recruitment process, including open advertisement and competency frameworks. Furthermore, the Court directed that policies regarding these appointments must be developed in association with the Council of Common Interests to uphold the Federal Principle. The Federal Government and WAPDA consented to these principles, undertaking to implement a transparent recruitment mechanism within six months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government have unfettered discretion to appoint the Chairman and Members of WAPDA without a transparent, merit-based process?
  • Are appointments to public sector corporations subject to the constitutional requirements of equality of opportunity and transparency?
  • Is the Council of Common Interests required to be involved in formulating policies regarding the recruitment of WAPDA's Chairman and Members?
  • Must a statutory body, despite having autonomy, adhere to a structured and transparent selection process for its key leadership positions?
  Read full judgment →
• Chiragh Din vs A.D.J., etc2018 PLJ Lahore 8 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-29Read full judgment →
• Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab through Secretary Finance, Lahore vs Dr. Sajjad Hussain and others2018 PLC (CS.) 532 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-12
  medical reimbursementtreatment abroadliver transplantdiscriminationgovernment servantconstitutional equalityintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged the judgment of a learned Single Judge who directed the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a retired government servant for his daughter's liver transplant abroad. The core legal question was whether a government servant is entitled to full reimbursement of medical expenses for treatment abroad under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1959, and whether denying such claim while granting it to another high-ranking official constitutes unconstitutional discrimination. The Lahore High Court held that once a special medical board certifies that the required treatment is unavailable in Pakistan and the statutory procedure is followed, the government cannot arbitrarily discriminate between employees by granting full reimbursement to high-ranking officials while denying it to others. The court laid down the principle that the executive cannot apply subjective, discriminatory criteria based on rank when deciding medical reimbursement claims, and that all similarly situated civil servants are entitled to equal treatment under the law and applicable rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired government servant is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for his daughter's treatment abroad?
  • Does the selective reimbursement of medical expenses for treatment abroad to certain high-ranking officials while denying the same to others constitute unlawful discrimination?
  • Can the government deny medical reimbursement for treatment abroad when a special medical board has certified that such treatment is unavailable in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Executive, GEPCO and 3 others vs Asghar Ali Rana2018 YLR 1391 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-12
  electricity connectionfundamental rightshousing schemeunapproved colonyGEPCO policyconstitutional petitionTMA approval
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal was filed by GEPCO against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby a constitutional petition filed by the respondent for the provision of an electricity connection was allowed. The core legal question before the court was whether an individual consumer residing on private land within an unapproved and rejected housing scheme can be denied an electricity connection under the departmental policy applicable to housing societies. The court held that since the housing scheme had never been approved and its layout plan was ultimately rejected by the Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA), the area did not legally constitute a 'housing society', rendering the department's restrictive policy inapplicable. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order, laying down the key principle that enjoying the facility of electricity is a fundamental right of every citizen under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, particularly in modern times, and an individual cannot be deprived of it merely due to the unapproved status of a proposed housing scheme where they lawfully own property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an individual consumer can be denied an electricity connection on the basis of a departmental policy applicable to housing societies when the housing scheme itself has not been approved or registered by the competent authority?
  • Does the right to enjoy the facility of electricity constitute a fundamental right of a citizen under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can the rejection of a housing scheme's layout plan by the Tehsil Municipal Administration exempt an individual resident from the restrictions imposed on electrified housing societies by power distribution companies?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Executive MEPCO, Multan vs Muhammad Saleem Khan, etc2018 PLJ Lahore 1138 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-05Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Muhammad Younas vs Muhammad Khursheed,etc2019 CLC 797, 2018 LHC 2949 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-02Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Muhammad Saleem vs Additional District Judge, etc2019 CLD 205, 2019 PLJ Lahore 251, 2018 LHC 3103 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shabbir Ahmad vs Riaz Bangash Head HR2018 LHC 1802 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-03
  contempt of courtcompliance with court orderspeaking orderwrit jurisdictionadministrative decisionjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a contempt application filed under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, alleging non-compliance with a court order passed in a writ petition. The court had previously directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's application within 15 days via a reasoned speaking order after a hearing. Upon review, the court found that the respondent had indeed heard the petitioner in person, constituting sufficient compliance with the court's prior direction. Furthermore, the court observed that the contempt application failed to establish a violation under Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The petitioner attempted to challenge the validity of the respondent's subsequent decision, but the court held that contempt proceedings are not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the legitimacy or merits of an administrative decision. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court affirmed that it cannot sit in judgment over such findings as a court of appeal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies against the authority's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contempt application be used to challenge the validity or merits of an administrative order passed in compliance with a court's direction?
  • Does hearing a petitioner in person constitute sufficient compliance with a court order directing an authority to decide an application?
  • Is the High Court empowered to sit in judgment over the findings of an administrative authority in contempt proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Rehmat Ali Memorial Trust vs Punjab Employees Social Security2018 [M] C.L.R. 659, 2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 210 · Lahore High Court
  social security contributionspecial vs general notificationdue processright of hearingaccrued rightsmaintainability of writ petitionalternative efficacious remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenges a Single Judge's order dismissing a constitutional petition on the grounds of the availability of an alternative, efficacious remedy. The Appellant, a charitable trust, had been granted an exemption from social security contributions via a specific notification issued in 2000. Subsequently, the Provincial Employees Social Security Institution (PESSI) issued a general notification in 2013, demanding contributions from the Appellant without prior notice or hearing. The core legal question was whether a general notification could override a previously issued special notification granting specific rights, and whether the Appellant was entitled to due process before the withdrawal of such rights. The Court held that the Single Judge erred in dismissing the petition, as no efficacious remedy existed for the Appellant to challenge the vires or applicability of the notifications before the institution itself. The Court ruled that rights accrued under a special notification cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by a subsequent general notification without affording the affected party an opportunity of hearing and due process. The appeal was accepted, and the impugned order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a general notification issued by a statutory body override a previously issued special notification granting specific exemptions to an entity?
  • Is an entity entitled to a notice and opportunity of hearing before a statutory body withdraws a previously granted exemption?
  • Does a statutory body have the jurisdiction to determine the vires of its own notifications in a departmental proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Naseer Ahmad vs Chairman, PCBL, etc.2018 [M] C.L.R. 664 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Hafeez vs Federation of Pakistan etc2019 PLD Lahore 174, 2018 LHC 2935 · Lahore High Court · 2018-10-08Read full judgment →
• CH. Gohar Qayyum another vs State and another2019 CLC 340, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 291 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-11
  pre-arrest bailforgerycheatingabetmentprohibitory clausemala fidedelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Ch. Muhammad Qayyum in respect of case F.I.R. No. 137/2017 registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Sammundri, Faisalabad, on allegations of abetting co-accused who tendered a forged document in a civil suit. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner has made out a case for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, particularly regarding mala fide, absence of prohibitory clause applicability, and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The Lahore High Court held that the application should be accepted and pre-arrest bail confirmed. The Court based its decision on the unexplained delay of over 15 months in lodging the FIR, the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged abetment or conspiracy, the potential over-implication of family members, and the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation. The key principle laid down is that mala fide at the pre-arrest bail stage may be deduced and inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case where direct positive evidence is difficult to establish.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when there is an unexplained delay of more than fifteen months in lodging the FIR?
  • Does the offence under Section 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How is mala fide established at the pre-arrest bail stage when direct solid evidence is lacking?
  • Is bail liable to be confirmed when an accused has joined the investigation and there is no allegation of misuse of concession of interim bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, D.G. Khan through Chairman vs National Highway Authority, Islamabad through Chairman and 4 others2018 YLR 754 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-07Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education vs Ayesha and 3 others2018 PLJ Lahore 140 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-14
  right to educationage restrictionClass IX admissionultra viresBoard of Intermediate and Secondary Educationfundamental rightsintra court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated intra-court appeal addressed whether the Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education in Punjab could impose a minimum age requirement of twelve years for students seeking admission and registration in Class IX. The core legal question revolved around whether such administrative age restrictions violate the fundamental right to education enshrined in the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that neither the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education Act, 1976 nor the Constitution authorizes the Boards or the Punjab Boards Committee of Chairmen to impose arbitrary age limits that restrict a student's access to education. The Court ruled that once students have successfully completed the eighth grade, denying them admission to Class IX on the basis of an under-age rule is ultra vires the Constitution and the governing statute. The key principle laid down is that administrative rules or policies that place age barriers on educational advancement without statutory backing violate the fundamental rights to education and life guaranteed under Articles 9 and 25-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education has the statutory authority to fix a minimum age limit for admission to Class IX?
  • Does the imposition of an age restriction for school admission violate the fundamental right to education under Article 25-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the Punjab Boards Committee of Chairmen is empowered under the Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education Act, 1976 to frame rules restricting the age of students for enrolment?
  • Can students who have successfully passed the eighth-grade examination be denied registration in Class IX on the ground of being under the age of twelve years?
  Read full judgment →
• Binyameen Khalil vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 42 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-29Read full judgment →
• Bilal Shafique vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 591 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-06
  post-arrest bailhate materialprohibitory clausefurther inquiryanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Bilal Shafique seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 26 registered at Police Station CTD, Multan, under Sections 9 and 11-W of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for allegedly distributing hate material against a specific sect via his Facebook account. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and lack of connection with a proscribed organization. The court held that since the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and no incriminating material linking the petitioner to a proscribed organization was found during the completed investigation, the case warrants further inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the principle that involvement in a sensitive incident does not bar discretionary relief of bail without cogent incriminating material, and that grant of bail is the rule where offenses fall outside the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does involvement in a high-profile or sensitive incident by itself constitute a bar against the grant of discretionary relief of bail?
  • When can a criminal case be considered one of further inquiry within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 616 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-14
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayfurther inquirymurderfundamental rightsdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioner Bashir Ahmad sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 270 dated 30.05.2015 registered under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Alpa, District Multan. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner's complicity warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) and whether he was entitled to bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial. The court held that the uncertainty surrounding the cause of death, the nature of recoveries, and the circumstances of the case brought the matter within the scope of further inquiry. Furthermore, the court held that the continued incarceration of the accused for over two and a half years without the conclusion of the trial, through no fault of the accused, entitled him to bail on the statutory ground of delay. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the complicity of an accused in a murder case requires further probe and inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the medical and forensic evidence regarding the cause of death remains uncertain?
  • Does an unexplained delay of more than two and a half years in the conclusion of a trial entitle an accused person to post-arrest bail on statutory grounds?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused person even at an advance stage of the trial if he is otherwise entitled to the relief on merits and on statutory grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad, etc. vs State etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 389 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-18
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular accountdark night occurrencesuppression of injuriescorroborative evidenceidentification of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentences awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the circumstances of a dark-night occurrence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court found that the ocular account was unreliable, as the witnesses failed to establish a credible source of light for identification in a dark field. Furthermore, the prosecution suppressed injuries sustained by one of the appellants, and there were material contradictions regarding the reporting of the incident. The Court reiterated that once the intrinsic value of an ocular account is discarded, corroborative evidence like weapon recovery cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the Murder Reference in the negative, emphasizing that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution's narrative is fundamentally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of corroborative evidence if the primary ocular account is found to be unreliable?
  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused during an occurrence cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused if the occurrence took place in a dark night without a reliable source of light?
  • What is the legal effect of material contradictions in the ocular account regarding the reporting of a crime to the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 616, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 863, 2018 LHC 760 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-14
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayfurther inquiryfundamental right to libertymurder trialcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Bashir Ahmad, facing charges under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a murder case. The core legal questions addressed were whether the petitioner’s complicity warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether the prolonged delay in the conclusion of the trial entitled the petitioner to bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail on both merits and statutory grounds. Regarding merits, the Court noted the uncertainty in the cause of death and the lack of evidentiary value in the recovered weapon. Regarding the delay, the Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over two and a half years without the trial concluding, which constitutes a sufficient ground for relief. The Court affirmed that liberty is a fundamental right and that bail may be granted even at an advanced stage of trial if the accused is otherwise entitled, as technicalities cannot justify continued incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the uncertainty of the cause of death in a post-mortem report justify further inquiry into the guilt of an accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be granted post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay if the trial is at an advanced stage?
  • Is a delay of over two and a half years in the conclusion of a trial a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs State and 2 othersPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 796 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-10
  re-summoning of witnesscross-examinationcriminal trialmedical officerquashment of ordercomplainant petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from FIR No. 329/2014 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Jalalpur Pirwala. The petitioner, who is the complainant, challenged an order passed by the trial court dismissing his application for the re-summoning of a medical witness (PW-3 Dr. Muhammad Arshad Sahu) for further cross-examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in refusing to re-summon the witness nearly two years after the FIR was registered when the complainant's counsel was present during the original examination and failed to cross-examine on the proposed points. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court committed no illegality or irregularity in dismissing the application, as the questions were already on record, no desire to cross-examine was expressed at the time, and no departmental action was pursued against the medical officer for alleged inefficiency. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is justified in refusing an application to re-summon a medical witness for cross-examination filed two years after the registration of the FIR?
  • Can a complainant seek the re-summoning of a prosecution witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when their counsel failed to cross-examine the witness despite the relevant questions being already on record?
  • Does the failure of a medical officer to correctly send samples for laboratory analysis warrant the re-summoning of the witness during trial without prior departmental proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs The State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 389, 2018 MLD 1072 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-18
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular testimonynighttime occurrencesuppression of injuriesmurder convictioncorroborative evidencepost-mortem delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the circumstances of a nighttime occurrence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court determined that the ocular account was unreliable due to the absence of a credible light source during the dark night, material contradictions regarding the reporting of the incident, and the suppression of injuries sustained by one of the appellants. Furthermore, the court emphasized that once the intrinsic value of the ocular testimony is discarded, corroborative evidence, such as weapon recoveries, cannot independently sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and declined to confirm the death sentence, establishing that the benefit of the doubt must be extended when the prosecution's case is replete with material contradictions and suppressed facts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained based on corroborative evidence if the ocular account is found unreliable?
  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused during the occurrence affect the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Is ocular testimony credible in a nighttime occurrence where no source of light is established?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination create doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution's story?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Amjad Hussain, etc vs Addl. District Judge, etc2019 CLC 252, 2020 [M] C L R 123, 2018 LHC 1540 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-16Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs Muhammad Amin Vains2018 PLC (C.S.) 806 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-08
  contempt of courtpolice recruitmentcolour blindnessmedical examinationpolice rulesspecial medical board
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a contempt petition filed by the Petitioner seeking penal action against the Respondent for non-compliance with a previous court order. The core legal question revolves around whether the Petitioner suffers from colour blindness, rendering him medically unfit for recruitment in the Police Department under the applicable rules. The Lahore High Court observed that previous medical reports failed to conclusively determine the Petitioner's condition despite expert testimony. The Court held that to resolve the controversy definitively and avoid further litigation, a Special Board comprising senior ophthalmologists and a police representative should be constituted to examine the Petitioner and submit a clear report. The key principle laid down is that strict medical standards, including the absence of colour blindness, are essential for police recruitment due to the critical nature of law enforcement duties, and disputed medical facts in such cases warrant thorough examination by a specialized expert board.

  Questions settled

  • Whether colour blindness constitutes a valid ground for rejecting a candidate for police recruitment?
  • Can a court constitute a Special Medical Board to resolve conflicting medical reports regarding a candidate's physical fitness?
  • Is medical examination by a Civil Surgeon mandatory for enrolment under the Police Rules, 1934?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs Additional District Judge, Multan and 4 others2018 MLD 785 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-21Read full judgment →
• Barrister Asfandyar Khan Tareen, etc. vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc.2018 LHC 16, 2018 PLD Lahore 300, 2018 PLJ Lahore 508 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-16Read full judgment →
• Barrister Asfandyar Khan Tareen, etc. vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 508 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-16Read full judgment →
• Barrister Asfandyar Khan and others vs Government of Punjab and others2018 PLD Lahore 300 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-16Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs The State2018 YLR 1823 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-08
  murderdeath sentence commutationlife imprisonmentocular evidenceunproven motiveabscondanceballistic reportadverse inference
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal and connected murder reference before the Lahore High Court arose from the conviction and death sentence of appellant Barkat Ali under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing murder. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether the eye-witness account of the deceased's brothers was credible and corroborated by medical evidence, and whether the failure of the prosecution to establish the alleged motive and the lack of ballistic confirmation warranted mitigation of the death penalty to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the appellant's conviction, holding that the eye-witnesses were natural, prompt FIR registration excluded false implication, and abscondance for eighteen years reflected guilty consciousness. However, because the motive remained unproven, the appellant fired only a single non-repeated shot, and the weapon's ballistic report was withheld, the court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life with benefit under Section 382-B Cr.P.C. The court laid down that failure to prove a specific motive and the presence of mitigating circumstances justify awarding the lesser punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish an alleged motive justify commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can long-term abscondance by an accused be drawn as an adverse inference reflecting a guilty consciousness?
  • What is the effect of withholding a ballistic expert report under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahzad Khan vs MCB Bank Limited, etc.2018 P.C.T.L.R. 558 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-20Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ullah through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Haneef through Legal Heirs2018 PLD Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-27Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad vs Syed Irshad Hussain Shah & 18 othersPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 524, 2018 YLR 355, 2018 LHC 923 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-03
  Anti-Terrorism CourtRevisional JurisdictionCode of Criminal ProcedureSpecial StatutePrivate ComplaintMaintainabilityConstitutional Jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of a criminal revision petition filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, challenging an order of an Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing a private complaint. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court held that the revision petition was incompetent. It reasoned that the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is a special statute designed for the expeditious disposal of heinous offences, and its provisions override the general procedural law where inconsistent. The Court determined that an Anti-Terrorism Court does not qualify as an "inferior Criminal Court" subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The principle laid down is that the right to appeal or revision is a creature of statute; since the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 does not explicitly provide for revisional scrutiny of such orders, such jurisdiction cannot be inferred. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition as incompetent, though it allowed conversion into a constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a revision petition under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 maintainable against an order of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Does the High Court have revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court be inferred in the absence of an express provision in a special statute?
  • Is an Anti-Terrorism Court considered an inferior criminal court for the purposes of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Iqbal vs Additional District Judge, Sahiwal and 3 others2018 YLR 1234 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain vs The State, etc.2018 KLR Criminal Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-04
  narcotic substanceschain of custodysafe transmissionchemical examiner reportburden of proofreasonable doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 8160 grams of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband samples to the Chemical Examiner, given significant gaps in the chain of custody and the unexplained involvement of an Excise and Taxation Officer in the forwarding process. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples, noting that the samples were held by a constable for an unexplained period and that the Chemical Examiner's report identified an unauthorized official as the forwarding authority. Consequently, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proof under Section 29 of the Act. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody for narcotic samples; failure to prove safe custody and transmission creates reasonable doubt, rendering a conviction unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unexplained delay in transmitting narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner create a fatal defect in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to establish the safe custody of recovered contraband?
  • Does the involvement of an unauthorized official in the forwarding of narcotic samples vitiate the Chemical Examiner's report?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to discharge its initial burden of proof under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Bakhtiar Khilji vs Province of Punjab and others2018 MLD 875 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-23Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Javid alias Aisha Altaf vs Askari Bank Limited2018 CLD 1253 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-12Read full judgment →
• Awais vs The State2018 LHC 2828 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-13
  qatl-e-amdocular evidencechance witnessesmedical evidence contradictiondeath sentence confirmationacquittaldouble presumption of innocencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions and death sentences for qatl-e-amd, alongside a murder reference and a petition for special leave to appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, motive, and recovery, despite significant contradictions. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt, setting aside the convictions and acquitting the appellants. The Court reasoned that the alleged eyewitnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was unproven and whose testimony contradicted medical evidence regarding injury locations and the time of death. Furthermore, the motive was negated as the deceased was not a witness in the cited prior case, and the recovery of weapons did not match the crime scene evidence. The principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is unreliable, contradictory to medical evidence, and motive is absent, a conviction cannot be sustained. Additionally, the acquittal of co-accused was upheld, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence following an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when ocular testimony is contradicted by medical evidence regarding the location of injuries?
  • Does the failure to specify a period in a proclamation of abscondance invalidate the reliance on abscondance as a corroboratory piece of evidence?
  • Is an acquittal order liable to be disturbed if it lacks perversity or arbitrariness?
  • Can motive be established when the deceased was not a witness in the prior criminal case alleged as the motive for the murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Awais Saeed, etc. vs Government of Punjab, etc.2018 PLC (C.S.) 1135, 2018 PLJ Lahore 79 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-18
  departmental promotionpromotional quotaPunjab Public Service Commission Regulationsvires of rulesvested rightconstitutional petitionPolice Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges Regulations No. 33 and 34 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016, which restrict candidates to a maximum of three chances in competitive examinations for promotional quota posts such as Sub-Inspectors in the Police Department. The core legal questions involve whether these regulations have statutory backing, whether they conflict with the Police Order, 2002, whether the restriction violates fundamental rights, and whether promotion constitutes a vested right. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned regulations are validly enacted under Section 10 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978, operate in addition and not in derogation to the Police Order, 2002, do not violate constitutional fundamental rights, and that promotion cannot be claimed as a vested right. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principles laid down include the application of the principle of harmonization in statutory interpretation, the presumption of constitutionality of legislative enactments, and the rule that government employees have no vested right to promotion or to be governed by a particular set of rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Regulations 33 and 34 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016 possess valid statutory backing?
  • Does the restriction limiting candidates to three chances in departmental promotion examinations violate fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether promotion through a promotional quota can be claimed as a vested right by a civil servant?
  • Are Regulations 33 and 34 in conflict with Section 7 of the Police Order, 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• Awais Saeed and others vs Government of Punjab and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 1135 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-18
  promotional quotadepartmental promotionnumber of chancesPunjab Public Service Commission Regulationsvires of rulesvested rightconstitutional petitionPolice Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged regulations 33 and 34 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016, which restrict candidates to a maximum of three chances for written examinations, as ultra vires the Constitution and the Police Order, 2002. The petitioners, serving as Assistant Sub-Inspectors, argued that the restriction curtailed their vested right to departmental promotion through the 25% promotional quota and conflicted with section 7(3c)(a) of the Police Order, 2002. The core legal question was whether regulations limiting examination attempts are unconstitutional or in conflict with the parent statute governing police promotions. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned regulations are valid, in addition to and not in derogation of the Police Order, 2002, and have proper statutory backing under the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978. The court established that promotion is not a vested right, that policy decisions restricting examination attempts aim to provide fair opportunities to other employees and prevent endless litigation, and that laws enjoy a presumption of constitutionality unless clearly repugnant to fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether regulations restricting the number of chances for departmental promotion examinations are ultra vires the Police Order, 2002?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to claim promotion through a promotional quota?
  • Whether the Punjab Public Service Commission has the statutory authority to frame regulations limiting examination attempts under the Punjab Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978?
  • Can subordinate regulations prescribing a limit on examination attempts be struck down in the absence of a violation of fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs State Life Insurance Corporation through Chairman and another2018 CLD 226 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-06Read full judgment →
• Atta-Ul-Haq vs The National Bank of Pakistan ' through President and another2018 PLC (C.S.) 433 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-31
  writ petitionmaintainabilityres judicataservice regularizationalternative remedyLabour CourtNational Bank of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking directions for the National Bank of Pakistan to grant them the benefit of a Supreme Court judgment regarding regularization of service, parity with other employees, and challenging the termination of their temporary employment as godown staff. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under the Constitution of Pakistan was maintainable for service regularization and discrimination when previous identical litigation had been dismissed up to the Supreme Court and the petitioners were not in service. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that they were non-maintainable on the principle of res judicata and due to the availability of an alternative remedy before the Labour Court, as previously permitted by the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that successive writ petitions on matters already adjudicated up to the apex court are barred by res judicata, and claims regarding service termination and discrimination must be pursued before the appropriate forum such as the Labour Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable for service regularization when previous petitions on the same matter have been dismissed up to the Supreme Court?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to bar successive constitutional petitions involving the same parties and cause of action?
  • Can an employee out of service seek relief through a constitutional petition rather than approaching the Labour Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad through L.Rs, and others vs Muhammad Khan and others2018 MLD 1524 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs and others vs Muhammad2018 MLD 1524, 2019 PLJ Lahore 476, 2018 LHC 3095 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Asma Rauf vs Punjab Public Service Commission through its Secretary, etc.2018 KLR Civil Cases 184, 2018 CLR 1174 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-28Read full judgment →
• Asim Yaseen vs The State and another2018 MLD 259 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-06
  spurious drugsdrug courtillegal recoveryco-accused statementbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealdrug sale license
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Drug Court convicting and sentencing the appellants under the Drugs Act, 1976, for selling spurious drugs without a license. The core legal questions involved whether mere intention to sell constitutes an offense under the Act, whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused without independent corroboration, and whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the primary appellant was actually engaged in selling drugs rather than merely suspected of an intention to do so, and that subsequent appellants were illegally implicated solely on the basis of uncorroborated co-accused statements and flawed recovery procedures. Consequently, the court laid down the principles that mere intention to sell does not satisfy the penal provisions of the Drugs Act, 1976, and that a conviction cannot rest on tainted recovery evidence and uncorroborated confessions of co-accused persons, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt and acquitting them.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere intention to sell drugs constitute an actionable offense under Section 23 of the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused without independent corroborative evidence?
  • Whether recovery memos and defective procedural compliance by drug inspectors vitiate the prosecution's case in drug trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Shehzad vs Addl. District Judge, Muzaffargarh, etc.2018 C.L.R. 1144 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-02Read full judgment →
• Asif Shehzad vs Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh and others2018 CLR 1144, 2018 YLR 1682 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-02Read full judgment →
• Asif Kamal vs Govt. of Pakistan, etc.2018 [M] C.L.R. 371 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-18Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and others2018 CLC 1350 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali and 6 others vs The State and another2018 PCRLJ 1084, 2018 LHC 311 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-25
  rapecriminal appealbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceadverse inferencewitness credibilitydishonest improvementconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of seven appellants for rape under Section 376(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite significant delays in FIR registration, material contradictions in witness statements, and the absence of corroborative medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that the victim's testimony was inconsistent regarding the number of assailants, and eyewitness accounts were unreliable due to material improvements. Furthermore, the medical evidence, specifically the absence of semen in vaginal swabs and the lack of physical violence marks, failed to support the allegations. The court emphasized that the failure to produce key evidence, such as the victim's clothing, warranted an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, reiterating the principle that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused, as it is better to release a criminal than punish an innocent person.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce key evidence, such as the victim's clothing in a rape case, warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained when the medical evidence, specifically the chemical examiner's report, fails to detect semen in vaginal swabs?
  • Does a material improvement in a witness's statement during trial render their testimony unreliable for the purpose of a criminal conviction?
  • Is the delay in registering an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case when the delay is not satisfactorily explained?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Leghari vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 481 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-25Read full judgment →
• Asghar Leghari vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 CLD 424 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-25Read full judgment →
• Asghar Bin Shahid Jafri vs Defence Housing Authority and another2018 C.L.R. 1009 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State and others2018 YLR 890 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-15
  murderbenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRmedical and ocular conflictappreciation of evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision challenge the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved relate to the appreciation of ocular testimony, the effect of inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report and conducting the post-mortem examination, conflicts between medical and oral evidence, and the benefit of the doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring contradictions, delayed reporting creating room for deliberation, unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses, and inconsistencies between the medical findings and the weapon allegedly used. The ratio decidendi is that where multiple infirmities, tainted evidence, and medical-ocular discrepancies shroud a criminal case in doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the enhancement revision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a material conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account?
  • Does an exculpatory statement made under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to a confession?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Tanvir Ahmad and others2018 MLD 1231 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-09Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Tanvir Ahmad & others2018 MLD 1231, 2018 PLJ Lahore 1026, 2018 LHC 872 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-09Read full judgment →
• Asfand Yar Suleman vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2018 C.L.R. 1140 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-16Read full judgment →
• Arshad vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 151 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-22
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlcharas recoveryfurther inquirywrapper weight ambiguitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to the alleged recovery of 1050 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the recovery of contraband slightly exceeding the threshold for a lesser category, when weighed potentially including its packaging, warranted further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court held that the ambiguity surrounding whether the narcotic was weighed with or without its wrapper created a favorable inference for the accused, making the exact weight a matter of further inquiry. Additionally, considering that the petitioner was a previous non-convict, incarcerated, and that the trial had not progressed despite the submission of the challan, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that ambiguity in the weighing of narcotics with wrappers creates a reasonable doubt regarding the applicability of higher penal clauses, entitling the accused to further inquiry and bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ambiguity regarding whether a narcotic substance was weighed with or without its wrapper constitutes a ground for further inquiry entitling the accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the recovery of 1050 grams of charas under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 warrant bail when the exact weight is debatable?
  • Is a previous non-convict entitled to post-arrest bail when the challan has been submitted but there is no progress in the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Bashir Shaheen Est vs Departmental Promotion Committee2018 PLC (C.S.) 96 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-17
  writ jurisdictionservice mattereligibility vs fitnesspromotionservice tribunalconstitutional barmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an EST (BS-15), filed a writ petition challenging the Departmental Promotion Committee's decision to deny him promotion to SST (BS-16), alleging the decision was illegal, discriminatory, and violated his fundamental rights. The respondents contended that the petitioner was ineligible for promotion due to the irregular award of his EST grade and argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate a dispute regarding promotion eligibility, or if such matters were barred by Article 212. The Court held that while 'fitness' for promotion involves subjective evaluation, 'eligibility' relates to the terms and conditions of service. Because the petitioner's claim challenged his eligibility for promotion, the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court ruled that the writ petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution and dismissed it as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate a dispute concerning promotion eligibility?
  • Is there a legal distinction between 'fitness' and 'eligibility' regarding promotion in civil service matters?
  • Are disputes regarding promotion eligibility barred from the High Court's jurisdiction by Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqib Javed vs The State and another2018 YLR 395 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-13
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycommon intentioncriminal proceduremurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Aqib Javed, in a case involving charges under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have been present at the scene but not responsible for the fatal injury, was entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry. The Court observed that the fatal injury was attributed to a co-accused, and the petitioner was not linked to any specific injury on the deceased. Furthermore, the Court noted discrepancies regarding the recovery of weapons and the lack of medical evidence supporting the allegations of assault against the complainant and another witness. Finding that the petitioner’s continued incarceration would not serve the prosecution's case and that his involvement required further investigation, the Court held that the petitioner’s case fell within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that where the prosecution's case against an accused requires further probe, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a specific injury attributed to an accused in a murder case warrant the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted when the number of injuries sustained by the victim does not correspond with the number of accused persons present?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the recovery of the weapon allegedly used by him is disputed or deemed irrelevant by the investigating officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Aown Abbas Bhatti vs Forman Christian College and 2 others2018 PLD Lahore 435, 2019 PLJ Lahore 165, 2018 LHC 386 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-23Read full judgment →
• Anwar Masood Khan vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 469 · Lahore High Court · 2017-06-14
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequestale chequenegotiable instrumentsfurther inquirybail and not jail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for post-arrest bail filed on behalf of Anwar Masood Khan in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing dishonoured cheques. The core legal question revolved around whether criminal proceedings under Section 489-F are maintainable based on stale cheques presented beyond six months of their due date, and whether bail should be denied due to the huge financial amount involved. The Lahore High Court held that cheques presented after six months become stale, and no legal proceedings under Section 489-F can be initiated on such stale cheques, thereby attracting further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that the quantum of the amount involved does not bar the grant of bail if the case falls within further inquiry, and the general rule for offences carrying a punishment of up to three years is bail and not jail, barring exceptional circumstances like abscondence, tampering, or repetition of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be initiated on the basis of a stale cheque presented beyond the period of six months?
  • Does the involvement of a huge financial amount in a criminal charge bar the accused from being granted post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the presentation of a stale cheque attracts the provisions of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ansar Abbas vs Judge Family Court and others2018 CLC 1761 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-04Read full judgment →
• Ammad Aslam Cheema vs Tariq Ali Sheikh and 2 others2018 CLC 342 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-07Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali Khan vs Ministry of Energy (Power Division,) Islamabad etc2019 P.C.T.L.R. 148, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 300, 2018 LHC 1266 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-28
  MD/CEO terminationpolitical victimizationCompanies Ordinance 1984superannuationultra viresratification of illegal actconstitutional petitionlegitimate expectancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an Office Order issued by the Ministry of Energy, which compulsorily retired the petitioner from his position as Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer (MD/CEO) of National Engineering Services Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited (NESPAK) on grounds of superannuation. The core legal questions concerned whether the Ministry possessed the authority to terminate the MD/CEO of a limited liability company and whether the subsequent ratification of this order by the company’s Board of Directors cured the procedural illegality. The Lahore High Court held that the Ministry of Energy lacked the jurisdiction to issue the termination order, as the power to appoint or remove the MD/CEO exclusively vests in the Board of Directors under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The Court further ruled that an act performed by an unauthorized authority cannot be validly ratified by the competent body. Emphasizing that government interference in the internal management of an autonomous company is unlawful, the Court set aside the impugned order, finding it tainted by political victimization and procedural non-compliance with the statutory requirements for removal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Ministry of Energy have the legal authority to terminate the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of a limited liability company like NESPAK?
  • Can an order passed by an unauthorized authority be validly ratified by the competent authority to cure the procedural defect?
  • Does the government have the power to interfere in the internal management and appointment of the Chief Executive of a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance?
  • Is a petition challenging the termination of a Chief Executive of a company maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Hayat vs Punjab Public Service Commission, etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 639 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Amir Hayat vs Punjab Public Service Commission and others2018 PLJ Lahore 639, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 971 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-15
  merit list validitypublic service commissionappointment of substituteconstitutional petitionright to appointmentservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector (BS-14) following the failure of selected candidates to join their posts. The petitioner, who stood at merit position 32, sought a direction for his appointment against three vacant seats left by candidates who did not join. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as the next candidate in the merit list, was entitled to be appointed against these vacancies under the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016, or if the department could re-advertise the posts. The Court held that under Regulation 59, a substitute can be provided from a valid merit list if requested by the department, and Regulation 62 mandates the validity of such lists for twelve months. The Court determined that the department's decision to re-advertise the posts was an afterthought intended to frustrate the petitioner's rights. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner, affirming the principle that a candidate next in merit has a right to be considered for vacancies arising within the validity period of a merit list.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate be appointed as a substitute from a merit list if the originally selected candidate fails to join the post?
  • What is the validity period of a merit list for recommending substitutes under the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016?
  • Does a government department have the discretion to re-advertise vacant posts instead of appointing the next candidate on a valid merit list?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Ghulam alias Chorra vs The State and othersPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 384, 2018 YLR 1137 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-17
  narcotic substancecriminal appealbenefit of doubtchain of custodysafe custodyacquittal of co-accusedchemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possession of 350 grams of charas. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given that the co-accused was acquitted on the same evidence, the spy informer was not produced, and there were significant gaps in the chain of custody regarding the narcotic sample. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The ratio decidendi is that when co-accused persons with identical roles are acquitted on the same evidence, the same evidence cannot be relied upon to convict the remaining accused without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the unexplained involvement of an Excise and Taxation Officer in the transmission of samples, coupled with the failure to establish safe custody and transmission of the contraband, creates a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must always be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence used to convict an accused be relied upon if the co-accused with an identical role has already been acquitted on the same evidence?
  • Does the failure to produce a spy informer, who allegedly identified the accused, create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to establish the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the forwarding officer of the narcotic sample is an unauthorized official not connected to the investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Ghulam alias Chorra vs State, etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 384 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-17
  narcoticscriminal appealbenefit of doubtsafe custody of samplespy informeracquittal of co-accusedcharas
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9-B of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for possessing 350 grams of charas. The core legal questions involve the credibility of an unproduced spy informer, the implication of an absconding accused who was not apprehended at the spot, the effect of the co-accused's acquittal on the remaining accused based on the same evidence, and the legal consequence of broken safe custody and unauthorized intervention by an Excise and Taxation Officer in transmitting samples to the Chemical Examiner. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt given the non-production of the spy informer, the acquittal of the co-accused on identical evidence, and the lack of proof regarding safe custody and safe transmission of the narcotics sample. The court laid down the principle that the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of disbelieved witnesses destroys the prosecution case against remaining accused without independent corroboration, and that a failure to prove safe custody of contraband warrants acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unproduced spy informer's testimony is fatal to establishing the identity of an absconding accused?
  • Can the conviction of an accused be sustained when a co-accused with an identical role on the same evidence has already been acquitted?
  • Does the involvement of an unauthorized official like an Excise and Taxation Officer in forwarding narcotics samples vitiate the proof of safe custody?
  • Is a fleeing accused reasonably expected to throw away a small quantity of narcotics that does not impede escape?
  Read full judgment →
• Amin Arnim etc. vs Advocate General, Punjab etc.2018 PLJ Lahore 568 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-03Read full judgment →
• Ameena Haq vs Rab Nawaz Khan etc2018 LHC 1118, 2018 PLJ Lahore 1088 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-24Read full judgment →
• Altaf-Ur-Rehman vs State, etc.PLJ 2018 Cr.C. 532, PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 485 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-15
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequeundated chequenegotiable instrumentstale chequedelay in FIRfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner allegedly issued two cheques to the Food Department to settle a dispute over misappropriated wheat, which were subsequently dishonoured. The petitioner contended that the cheques were undated, issued in 2011 as part of an expected settlement, and that a criminal case on the same subject matter was already pending trial. The Lahore High Court observed that the cheques lacked dates, indicating they were not meant for immediate encashment, and noted that under Section 84(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, cheques must be presented within a reasonable time. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to explain a delay of over five years in registering the FIR, which pointed towards mala fide intentions. Consequently, the Court held that the matter required further inquiry and confirmed the petitioner's ad-interim pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an undated cheque issued for an expected settlement can attract criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if presented years later?
  • What is the legal effect of a substantial, unexplained delay in registering an FIR under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the pendency of a prior criminal trial on the same underlying transaction make a subsequent case of cheque dishonour one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf-Ur-Rehman vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 532 · Lahore High Court · 2018-02-15
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequestale chequenegotiable instrumentmala fidefurther inquirycriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for pre-arrest bail in a case involving an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the alleged issuance of dishonoured cheques for the price of misappropriated wheat entrusted by the Food Department. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail given that the cheques bore no dates, were issued six years prior to the registration of the FIR in connection with a pending dispute, and exhibited unexplained delay and possible mala fides on the part of the complainant. The court held that the absence of dates on the cheques, the pending parallel criminal proceedings over the same subject matter, the concept of stale cheques under Section 84(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, and an unexplained delay of five and a half years collectively establish mala fides and grounds for further inquiry. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down principles regarding the essential requirements of negotiable instruments and the evaluation of mala fides in pre-arrest bail petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-arrest bail can be granted when the cheques in question bear no date of presentation and were allegedly issued years prior to the registration of the FIR?
  • What constitutes a stale cheque and how does the absence of a date affect legal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does an unexplained, prolonged delay of several years in lodging an FIR reflect mala fides on the part of the complainant for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Almoiz Industries Limited and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PCRLJ 502, 2018 PTD 1633 · Lahore High Court
  sales taxspecial procedureconstitutional petitionultra viresdiscriminatory taxationdelegated legislationsteel meltersself-generated electricity
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the vires of certain provisions of Chapter XI of the Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007 and Sales Tax General Order No. 1 of 2013, which excluded steel-melting and re-rolling units operated by sugar mills or other persons using self-generated electricity from the beneficial special tax regime and lower fixed rates applicable to units consuming electricity supplied by public sector distribution companies. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government or the Board could validly create sub-categories of taxpayers based on the source of energy utilized for production rather than on the nature of the taxable supplies. The Lahore High Court held that the delegated powers under Section 3(6) and Section 71 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 only authorize the prescription of special procedures and rates in respect of supplies or classes of supplies, not on the basis of persons or their source of energy. The court laid down the principle that fiscal classifications must be based on intelligible differentia having a reasonable and just relation to the object of the taxing statute, and the executive cannot discriminate between manufacturers producing identical taxable goods merely due to differing energy sources or administrative difficulties in measuring power consumption.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government or the Board levy sales tax or prescribe special procedures by classifying taxpayers based on their source of energy rather than the nature of their taxable supplies?
  • Whether the exclusion of steel-melting units using self-generated electricity from the special tax regime violates the principle of reasonable classification under fiscal and constitutional law?
  • Does Section 71 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 empower the executive to create distinctions among manufacturers making identical taxable goods?
  • Is a notification issued under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 ultra vires if it fails to comply with procedural requirements mandated for executive decision-making?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Judge Banking Court No, VII, Lahore, etc.2018 [M] C.L.R. 1449 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-12Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Judge Banking Court No, VII, Lahore etc.2018 P.C.T.L.R. 549 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-12Read full judgment →