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.

• Shahid Idrees vs Govt. of the Punjab, etc.2017 LHC 4399 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-16Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain Shahid vs The State2017 YLR 2493 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-13
  National Accountability Ordinancepublic-at-largecriminal breach of trustcheatingburden of proofinvestigation standardsacquittalhandwriting expert
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 9(a)(ix) and 9(a)(x) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for allegedly defrauding investors. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s actions constituted corruption and corrupt practices under the Ordinance, specifically whether the aggrieved investors constituted the "public-at-large" required for NAB jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is a special law intended for large-scale corruption, not individual civil disputes. It established that a small number of complainants does not satisfy the statutory requirement of defrauding the "public-at-large." Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust, such as specific terms of entrustment, and that the investigation was deficient for failing to verify the appellant's defense regarding the actual business owner. Additionally, the Court affirmed that when an accused denies signatures on documents, the prosecution is legally obligated to obtain a handwriting expert's report to establish authenticity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'public-at-large' in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, encompass a small group of individual investors?
  • Is the National Accountability Bureau authorized to take cognizance of individual cheating cases that do not involve the public at large?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offence of criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the prosecution legally obligated to obtain a handwriting expert's report when an accused specifically denies their signatures on incriminating documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain Shahid vs State2017 YLR 2493, 2017 LHC 1797 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-13
  accountability referencepublic-at-largecriminal breach of trustcheatingburden of proofinvestigation standardsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Sections 9(a)(ix) and 9(a)(x) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for alleged investment fraud. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the jurisdictional requirement of defrauding the 'public-at-large' and whether the evidence sufficiently proved the elements of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the 'public-at-large' element, noting that a small number of victims (eleven) does not satisfy this statutory requirement. Furthermore, the court found the investigation flawed due to the failure to probe the appellant's defense regarding the actual business ownership and the absence of handwriting expert analysis for disputed cheques. The court emphasized that the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is a special law not intended for individual civil disputes or standard breach of contract cases. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the court observing that the matter was more appropriate for civil recovery proceedings or standard criminal law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the defrauding of a small number of individuals constitute defrauding the 'public-at-large' under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is the National Accountability Bureau authorized to take cognizance of individual cheating cases that do not involve the public-at-large?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offence of criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the failure of an investigating officer to probe a specific defense raised by an accused cause prejudice warranting acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid and another vs The State2017 YLR 1972 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-02
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessocular evidencemedical evidenceFIR delaycriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellants for the murder of the complainant's uncle. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the evidence. The Court held that the convictions were unsustainable, setting them aside and acquitting the appellants, while dismissing the complainant's appeals for sentencing enhancement and against the acquittal of a co-accused. The Court established that an FIR recorded after a preliminary inquiry is inherently unreliable. Furthermore, it affirmed that ocular evidence must align with medical evidence; here, the presence of blackening on wounds contradicted the witnesses' claims regarding firing distance. The Court also categorized the eye-witnesses as 'chance witnesses' whose presence was unexplained and untrustworthy. Finally, the Court reiterated that when the prosecution alleges a motive but fails to prove it, the case suffers, and the 'golden rule' mandates that any reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt must be resolved in their favor to prevent the conviction of an innocent person.

  Questions settled

  • Does an FIR recorded after a preliminary inquiry lose its evidentiary value?
  • Can the testimony of a 'chance witness' be accepted without corroboration?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove an alleged motive?
  • Must ocular evidence be rejected if it contradicts medical evidence regarding the distance of the shot?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid alias Shahidi vs The StateK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 53 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-10
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationocular evidencebenefit of doubtquantum of sentenceforensic evidence reliabilitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the ocular account, the alleged motive, and the recovery of the weapon, and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the evidentiary gaps. The Court held that while the ocular account remained trustworthy and confidence-inspiring, the prosecution failed to prove the motive and the recovery of the weapon was rendered unreliable because the crime empties and the weapon were dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory simultaneously. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, citing the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance regarding the quantum of sentence. The judgment reaffirms that while ocular evidence can sustain a conviction, the failure of corroborative evidence like motive and recovery necessitates a re-evaluation of the appropriate punishment to ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the simultaneous dispatch of crime empties and the recovered weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the recovery evidence unreliable?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular evidence if the prosecution fails to prove the motive and weapon recovery?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance when determining the quantum of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali vs The State & another2017 LHC 1754 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-13
  circumstantial evidencemurderbenefit of the doubtsupplementary statementrecovery from jewelerQanun-i-Shahadat Ordermedical jurisprudencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for committing the murder of an elderly woman and concealing evidence, which resulted in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including an uncorroborated eyewitness account of seeing the appellant with a suspicious package, inconsistent medical evidence regarding the time of death and putrefaction of a submerged body, and the admissibility and veracity of subsequent recoveries of gold ornaments based on a belated supplementary statement. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence leaving no hypothesis of the appellant's innocence, and that the alleged recoveries of ornaments from a jeweler did not satisfy the strict legal requirements of Article 40 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984. The court laid down the principle that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must conclusively connect the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt, and intermediate gaps or doubtful recoveries entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on weak circumstantial evidence and an uncorroborated eyewitness account?
  • Whether a belated supplementary statement can be treated as an extension of the First Information Report to cure initial omissions?
  • Does the recovery of incriminating articles from a third-party jeweler, rather than directly from the accused, satisfy the requirements of Article 40 of the Qanun-i-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical testimony concerning the time of death when it contradicts established principles of medical jurisprudence regarding submerged bodies?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz alias Thatha vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 713 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-22
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaytrial adjournmentconduct of accusedcriminal proceduredacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Shahbaz alias Thatha, facing charges under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay, asserting that his trial remained unconcluded despite his incarceration since May 2014. The Court examined the trial court's record and a report from the trial judge, which revealed that numerous prosecution witnesses had appeared on multiple dates, but the proceedings were repeatedly adjourned at the request of the defence. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay when the delay in trial was attributable to the conduct of the accused rather than the prosecution. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, reasoning that the cumulative effect of adjournments sought by the defence disentitled him to relief. The Court affirmed the principle that statutory delay cannot be determined by simple mathematical calculation; rather, the court must assess the overall conduct of the accused and the cumulative impact of adjournments.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of statutory delay when the delay is attributable to the defence?
  • Is the determination of statutory delay for bail purposes a matter of simple mathematical calculation of time spent in custody?
  • What is the effect of an accused seeking adjournments when prosecution witnesses are present in court on the right to claim statutory delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Baig vs The State And Another2017 MLD 2072 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-02
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytwo versionsvicarious liabilitycommon intentioncancellation reportheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 17/16 registered under sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-F(v), 337-F(vi), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the heinous nature of the alleged offences, given the existence of conflicting versions of the incident and the lack of incriminating recoveries. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the injury attributed to the petitioner was not the cause of death, the investigating officer had initially declared the petitioner innocent, and the delay in FIR registration suggested deliberation. The key principle laid down is that the mere heinousness of an offence is not a sufficient ground to refuse bail when the case warrants further inquiry, particularly when the investigation is complete, the accused is a previous non-convict, and trial conclusion is not imminent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere heinousness of an offence constitute sufficient grounds to refuse bail to an accused?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the investigating officer has prepared a cancellation report despite the trial court's disagreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs State And 2 Others2017 PLJ Lahore 288 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-26Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs Minister for Law, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1127 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-01Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs Minister for Law etc2017 PLC (C.S.) 1123, 2017 LHC 672 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-01
  appointment of legal advisorautonomous bodymerit-based selectionadministrative discretionjudicial reviewPunjab Privatization Boardselection committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of a Senior Legal Advisor by the Government of Punjab, arguing that the selection process ignored the merit-based recommendations of the Punjab Privatization Board. The core legal question was whether the Government, through its Selection Committee, could arbitrarily bypass the merit list prepared by the autonomous body (the Board) when appointing a legal advisor. The Court held that while the Government has a role in the selection process, the Selection Committee cannot ignore the Board's recommendations without providing well-founded, objective reasons. The Court set aside the appointment of the respondent, finding that the Committee failed to justify why it departed from the merit list. The key principle laid down is that where a selection process involves recommendations from an autonomous body, the appointing authority must follow an objective criteria; if it chooses to deviate from the merit list, it must record specific, valid reasons for doing so, rather than acting in a vacuum or ignoring the primary recommendation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government selection committee ignore the merit-based recommendations of an autonomous body for the appointment of a legal advisor without providing reasons?
  • Does the Punjab Privatization Board Act 2010 grant the Board the authority to determine terms and conditions for the appointment of legal advisors?
  • Is the government required to follow objective criteria when selecting a legal advisor from a list of candidates recommended by an autonomous body?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs Minister for Law and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 1123 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-01
  Constitutional petitionLegal Advisor appointmentAutonomous bodyMerit-based recommendationSelection committeeAdministrative discretionProcedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of a Legal Advisor by the Government of Punjab, which bypassed the merit-based recommendations of the Punjab Privatization Board. The core legal question was whether the Selection Committee, operating under the 2011 Policy, could disregard the Board's merit list without providing justification. The Court set aside the appointment, holding that while the statutory requirement to 'consider' recommendations does not mandate automatic appointment, it imposes a binding duty on the Selection Committee to act reasonably. The Court established that if a committee departs from the merit list prepared by an autonomous body, it must record well-founded reasons based on objective criteria. Furthermore, the selection process requires active participation and consultation with the autonomous body's representative. Because the record lacked evidence of such consultation and failed to provide reasons for ignoring the merit-based recommendations, the appointment was deemed procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement to 'consider' recommendations of an autonomous body imply a binding duty to provide reasons when departing from a merit list?
  • Can a government selection committee ignore the merit-based recommendations of an autonomous body without recording objective reasons?
  • Is the appointment of a legal advisor by a government committee valid if the representative of the autonomous body was not actively consulted or did not consent to the deviation from the merit list?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabir-Ul-Hassan vs Mst. Tanveer Zaidi and 3 others2017 PLJ Lahore 720 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State and another2017 MLD 1861 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-27
  bail cancellationpost-arrest baildishonoured chequenon-prohibitory clausemisuse of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs.9,00,000/-. The core legal question was whether the discretion to grant bail was correctly exercised and whether sufficient exceptional grounds existed for the cancellation of bail. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that offences under Section 489-F fall within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the grant of bail is the rule and refusal an exception, and that mere subsequent accusations of tampering with evidence, yet to be proved at trial, do not furnish strong or exceptional grounds to recall bail once granted by a competent court unless the bail-granting order is shown to be patently illegal, erroneous, or productive of a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without strong and exceptional grounds?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal an exception for offences falling within the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a subsequent unproven accusation of tampering with prosecution evidence constitute a sufficient ground for the cancellation of bail?
  • What are the primary considerations for a superior court when examining the correctness of an order granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Adnan Naseem vs The State and another2017 MLD 962 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Mohammad Areeb Abdul Khafid Shah Bukhari vs Government of the Punjab, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1252 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Mohammad Areeb Abdul Khafid Shah Bukhari vs Government of the Punjab etc2017 LHC 2581 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz vs Additional District Judge and 5 others2017 YLR 1684 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-19
  Family Court decreemaintenance allowancepecuniary jurisdictiondowry articleswrit petitionconcurrent findingsFamily Courts Act 1964
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an appeal by the Additional District Judge, which had affirmed a Family Court decree awarding maintenance and dowry articles. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of Section 14(2)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, specifically whether the pecuniary limit for filing an appeal against a maintenance decree applies to the aggregate amount awarded to all plaintiffs or to the amount awarded per individual. The Court held that the statutory limit of Rs 5,000 per month applies to the maintenance awarded to each individual, not the cumulative total. Consequently, as the maintenance awarded to each minor was below this threshold, the appeal was not maintainable. Additionally, the Court noted that the decree for dowry articles was below the appealable threshold of Rs 100,000 stipulated in Section 14(2)(b). Finding no jurisdictional defect or misreading of evidence in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, affirming that the legislative intent is to protect the individual's right to sustenance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pecuniary limit for an appeal under Section 14(2)(c) of the Family Courts Act 1964 apply to the aggregate maintenance amount or the amount per individual?
  • Is an appeal maintainable against a decree for dowry articles valued at less than Rs 100,000 under the Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a family matter absent a jurisdictional defect or gross misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Masih vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 280 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-08
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencebenefit of doubtdelayed post-mortemunnatural conductdeath sentencecorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the proof of motive, and the impact of a delayed post-mortem examination on the prosecution's case. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the ocular testimony unreliable due to the witnesses' unnatural conduct in failing to intervene during the attack. Furthermore, the alleged motive remained unproven, and the significant delay in the post-mortem examination cast doubt on the promptness and authenticity of the FIR. The court reiterated that when direct evidence is disbelieved, corroborative evidence, such as the recovery of a weapon, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to intervene during an attack render their ocular testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on corroborative evidence alone if the direct ocular evidence is disbelieved?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination cast doubt on the authenticity of the FIR?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the alleged motive in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Safri and others vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 246, PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 143 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-17
  benefit of doubtocular evidenceidentification paradeadverse inferencecriminal appealmurder convictionforensic delaywithholding of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellants for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency and credibility of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding the identification of the accused and the reliability of ocular testimony in a night-time occurrence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It identified significant discrepancies in witness statements, noting that the identification of the accused was unreliable due to the absence of an identification parade for an unknown suspect. Furthermore, the Court observed that the prosecution withheld a material witness, drawing an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The delay in sending weapon recoveries to the forensic laboratory also rendered the evidence inconsequential. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt. The principle laid down emphasizes that conviction cannot be sustained on weak, inconsistent evidence or where material witnesses are withheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to conduct an identification parade for an accused not previously known to witnesses render their identification unreliable?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to produce a material witness?
  • Does a significant delay in sending weapon recoveries to a forensic laboratory render the recovery evidence inconsequential?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when prosecution witnesses make dishonest improvements and material discrepancies exist in their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Safri and others vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 143 · Lahore High Court
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtidentification parademurder referencedeath sentenceocular evidenceforensic delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial court for murder, attempted murder, and other related offenses arising from a night-time police encounter. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the necessity of an identification parade for an unknown accused, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the recovery of weapons. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies, particularly regarding the identification of the accused, who were previously unknown to the witnesses, and the lack of an identification parade. Furthermore, the court noted that the forensic analysis of recovered weapons was significantly delayed, rendering the evidence unreliable. The court emphasized the principle that when the prosecution fails to produce material witnesses or provides contradictory evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the court acquitted all appellants, set aside their convictions, and answered the murder reference in the negative, dismissing the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to hold an identification parade for an accused who was previously unknown to the witnesses?
  • Does the failure to produce a material witness warrant a negative inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction be based on forensic evidence where the recovery of weapons was sent for analysis after a significant delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz (deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Shah Nawaz etc2017 PLJ Lahore 817 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-22Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Rasool vs Member Consolidation, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 1408 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-24Read full judgment →
• Sardar Qasim Hassan Khan vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2017 P.C.T.L.R. 299 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Qasim Hassan Khan vs Federation of Pakistan etc2017 PLJ Lahore 705 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Qasim Hassan Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 PTD 2064 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Mastan Singh Arora vs Presiding Judge etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 128 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-05Read full judgment →
• Saqib Zeb alias Saqi and others vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 79 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-18
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidenceindependent corroborationself-defenseweapon substitutionmurder convictionSection 342 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution's case, which relied on ocular testimony and forensic evidence, remained sustainable after the trial court acquitted the co-accused and rejected the alleged motive. The Lahore High Court held that the conviction was unsafe and set aside the judgment, acquitting the appellant. The court reasoned that once prosecution evidence is disbelieved regarding identically placed co-accused, it cannot be used to sustain a charge against the remaining accused absent independent corroboration. Furthermore, the court established that a conviction cannot be maintained merely on the basis of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution has failed to prove its case. The court emphasized that inconsistencies, such as weapon substitution and the failure to explain injuries sustained by the appellant, necessitated extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused, regardless of the plea raised in defense.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained against an accused when the prosecution evidence has been disbelieved regarding identically placed co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of their statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution fails to prove its case?
  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused in a criminal case affect the veracity of the prosecution's narrative?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib Raza vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 777 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-17Read full judgment →
• Saqib Pal vs Mst. Beenish Khushnud and others2017 YLR 252 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-13Read full judgment →
• Saqib Ali---Petitioner vs The State and another---Respondents2017 MLD 1405 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-18
  pre-arrest bailabductionnikahnamafree-will marriagedelay in FIRbenefit of doubtbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 260 of 2016 registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kotmomin, District Sargodha. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail in view of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a verified nikahnama establishing marriage between the petitioner and the alleged abductee, and statements indicating the marriage was contracted of her free will. The court held that the delayed registration of the FIR, coupled with the verified nikahnama and the attending circumstances of the case, created reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner, making out a case of mala fide implication. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner. The key legal principle laid down is that the benefit of a tentative assessment and reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case can be extended in favor of an accused seeking pre-arrest bail where a verified marriage contract and unexplained delay exist.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR can constitute a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a verified nikahnama showing marriage with the alleged abductee create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an accused has already joined the investigation and no useful purpose would be served by incarceration?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah, etc vs Appellate Authority, Local Government Election, District Rajanpur etc2017 PLJ Lahore 772 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-19Read full judgment →
• Sana Gulnaz vs Secretary, Health Govt. of Punjab and others2017 MLD 815 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Samson alias Mithoo and others vs Nasim Qazi2017 LHC 1638 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-19Read full judgment →
• Samina Zaheer vs PTCL etc2021 PLC (C.S.) 961, 2017 LHC 4427 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-16
  voluntary separation schemepensionary benefitsqualifying servicetraining periodtransferred employeesmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former Telephone Operator of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) challenging an order dated 19.06.2008, which rescinded her retirement under the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) and withdrew her pensionary benefits. The respondent-department contended that the retirement order was issued due to an arithmetic error, as the petitioner's training period was excluded from her qualifying service, rendering her ineligible. The respondents also argued that the petition was not maintainable as the VSS lacked statutory backing. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, being a transferred employee, was protected under statutory terms and conditions, making the writ petition maintainable. On the merits, the Court ruled that training periods must be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to pay all outstanding and future pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable by a transferred employee of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited regarding terms and conditions of service?
  • Whether the period spent by an employee in training must be counted towards the length of qualifying service for pensionary benefits?
  • Can an employer deny pensionary benefits under a voluntary separation scheme by unilaterally rescinding a retirement order on the pretext of a clerical or arithmetic mistake?
  Read full judgment →
• Samina Iram vs The State and othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 21, 2017 MLD 494 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-29
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationmurderabscondencestatutory exceptionswoman offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the female petitioner, who was attributed a lalkara, declared a proclaimed offender, and whose husband was abroad, is entitled to pre-arrest bail keeping in view her gender, the role attributed, and the fact that the principal accused had already been convicted. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest bail as she caused no injury, was a woman with an infant falling under the statutory exceptions, and her abscondence was reasonably explained. The key principle laid down is that feminity, lack of active injury attribution, and a reasonable explanation for abscondence, alongside the conviction of the main accused, can constitute exceptional grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail even if the offence falls within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to a female accused attributed a lalkara when the principal accused has already been convicted?
  • Does reasonable explanation of abscondence disentitle an accused from claiming bail?
  • Can feminity and the status of being a nursing mother be considered as exceptional grounds under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Samina Iram vs State, etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 21 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-29
  pre-arrest bailproclaimed offenderweaning motherprohibitory clausecriminal conspiracyjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was nominated in an FIR for murder and criminal conspiracy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman with a weaning infant, was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail despite being declared a proclaimed offender and facing charges falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the principal accused had already been convicted, the petitioner had caused no injury to the deceased, and she had been found innocent in the initial investigation. Furthermore, the Court accepted her explanation for her previous absence and her offer to surrender her passport. The key principle laid down is that the status of a proclaimed offender does not automatically bar the grant of bail if the absence is reasonably explained, and that the circumstances of a weaning mother, combined with the lack of recovery required from her, constitute sufficient grounds to exercise judicial discretion in favor of granting pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of a proclaimed offender automatically bar the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a woman with a weaning infant be granted bail in a case falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is pre-arrest bail permissible when the petitioner has provided a reasonable explanation for their previous absence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and 8 others2017 CLC 1554 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-07Read full judgment →
• Samba Bank Ltd., Lahore through Authorized Signatory vs Abu SaeedPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 157 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-27
  acquittalcriminal revisionbank offencesnon-production of evidencedelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Special Judge (Offences in Banks), Lahore, whereby an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was accepted and Respondent No. 1 was acquitted of charges relating to fraud, forgery, and cheating in connection with a bank finance facility. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C., where the prosecution failed to produce any evidence over a period exceeding fifteen years and no direct role or financial benefit was established against the accused. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's acquittal order was entirely lawful and justified, noting the inordinate delay and total absence of prosecution evidence or incriminating material connecting the respondent to the offense. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to adduce any evidence over a protracted period and there is no probability of conviction, an order of acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is fully warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be entertained and accepted when the prosecution fails to produce any evidence for a prolonged period?
  • Is a subsequent application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 barred after the dismissal of a prior application when changed circumstances, such as continued lack of prosecution evidence, arise?
  • Can an accused be held criminally liable for a financial facility where no role in the disbursement, forgery, or receipt of funds is established on the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Samar Abbas vs The State and others2017 YLR 48 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-10
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionjoint confessiontest identification paradebenefit of doubtmurder trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses appeals, a revision petition, and a murder reference arising from a trial court judgment whereby the appellants were convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to unexplained delays in nominating the accused, unreliable extra-judicial confessions which were joint in nature, and belated identification parades. The court laid down the principle that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form a continuous chain touching the accused without a missing link, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeals were accepted, the convictions and death sentences were set aside, the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • What is the required standard for a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case?
  • Can a joint extra-judicial confession made by multiple co-accused be used as legal evidence against them?
  • What is the evidentiary value of test identification parades conducted long after the nomination of the accused in a criminal case?
  • Does an accused person have a fundamental right to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Shahzad, etc. vs Chief Executive, Multan, etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 239 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-05Read full judgment →
• Salman Ahmad Khan vs Judge Family Court, Multan and others2017 PLD Lahore 698 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• Salamat vs The State and another2017 LHC 867 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtcause of deathdelay in FIRprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 245/16 registered under Sections 302, 342, 379, 337A(i), 337F(i), 337L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Housing Colony, District Sheikhupura. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest given the medical opinion regarding the cause of death, delay in the FIR, and lack of specific attribution. The court held that the case falls under further inquiry pursuant to Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a medical report attributing death to heart disease rather than the sustained injuries, general allegations without a specific role assigned, and prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial. The court established the key principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to an accused even at the bail stage where the medical cause of death is disputed and prosecution claims prima facie create doubt, and that heinousness of an offence alone does not bar bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical opinion attributing death to natural causes rather than alleged injuries create a case for 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 when the accused is otherwise entitled to the concession of bail?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR creates doubt in the prosecution case warranting bail at a pre-trial stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat vs State and another2017 LHC 867, PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 624 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtmedical evidencecause of deathprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 302, 342, 379, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the medical evidence regarding the cause of death and the circumstances of the FIR. The Court observed that the FIR was registered with an unexplained one-day delay and that the medical report from the Forensic Science Agency indicated the complainant's death resulted from heart disease rather than the alleged injuries. Furthermore, the petitioner was assigned only a general role, and the investigation was complete. The Court held that the case fell under the category of further inquiry, entitling the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of doubt, even at the bail stage, must be extended to the accused when the prosecution's case is prima facie weakened by medical evidence, and that the heinousness of an offense alone is insufficient to deny bail when the accused is otherwise entitled to it.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical report attributing death to natural causes rather than injuries create a case of further inquiry for bail purposes?
  • Can bail be granted when the FIR is registered with an unexplained delay and the accused is assigned only a general role?
  • Is the heinousness of an offense a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali---Appellant vs The State---Respondent2017 P Cr. L J 1634 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-23
  narcotics controldelayed FIRchain of custodyhostile witnesscriminal appealacquittalheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of narcotics, unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, hostility of key witnesses, and gaps in the safe custody and transmission of samples to the chemical examiner. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained delay of over twenty-three hours in lodging the FIR, coupled with material inconsistencies, hostile witnesses, and failure to prove safe custody of the seized contraband, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate acquittal and release of the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where severe punishments are prescribed by statute, strict compliance with statutory safeguards is required, and unexplained delays in reporting and fatal gaps in the chain of custody vitiate the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained and long delay in lodging the First Information Report in a narcotics case create doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution evidence?
  • Whether fatal gaps and lack of proof regarding the safe custody of seized contraband vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • What is the effect of unexplained delays by the investigating officer in recording statements of material witnesses during investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Serhani vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 474 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-12
  juvenile justicedetermination of ageossification testbenefit of doubtschool leaving certificatecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application for declaring him a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The core legal question concerns the proper determination of the accused's age for juvenility when conflicting evidence exists between a School Leaving Certificate, a NADRA identity card, and a medical/ossification report. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court failed to properly evaluate and reconcile the medical and documentary evidence, and neglected the established principle that beneficial legislation must be interpreted liberally in favor of the accused where two views regarding age are possible. Setting aside the impugned order, the Court laid down the principle that ossification and radiological reports serve as primary technical tests for age determination, and that any margin of doubt regarding age must be resolved in favor of the accused to extend the rehabilitative benefits of juvenile laws.

  Questions settled

  • How should a court determine the age of an accused claiming juvenility when conflicting evidence exists between documentary records and medical reports?
  • Does the benefit of a margin of doubt in age determination tilt in favor of the accused in juvenile matters?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an ossification test and radiologist report in determining the age of a juvenile accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain, etc vs Deputy Commissioner, etcK.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 231 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs The State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 320, 2017 MLD 1172 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-13
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecross-version casecriminal recordbail adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Sajjad Hussain, who is accused in FIR No. 60 of 2015 for offences under sections 337-A(2), 337-A(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 334, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to him and the statutory limitations on bail. The Court held that the specific injury attributed to the petitioner, falling under section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, carries a maximum sentence not exceeding five years and thus does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the existence of cross-versions of the incident, the petitioner's lack of a criminal record, and the fact that the trial's conclusion was not imminent. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused is not a hardened criminal, continued incarceration is not justified.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable with a maximum sentence of five years fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is the absence of a previous criminal record a relevant factor in determining the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Should bail be granted when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future and the accused is not required for further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 320 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-13
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseblunt weapon injurycross-version casecriminal recordincarceration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 60 dated 04.02.2015, registered at Police Station Khangarh, District Muzaffargarh, for offences under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 334, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was alleged to have caused injuries to the complainant's party using a blunt weapon. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the offence attributed to the petitioner under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the case involved cross-versions of the incident, the petitioner had no prior criminal record, and the trial's conclusion was not imminent. The Court established that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused is not a hardened criminal, mere absconsion is insufficient to deny bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is absconsion alone sufficient to deny post-arrest bail when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  • Should bail be granted when the accused has no previous criminal record and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain etc. vs Deputy Commissioner etc.K.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 231, 2017 LHC 1845 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sajid Latif vs Abdul Latif and 3 others2017 C.L.R. 152 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-03Read full judgment →
• Sajid alias Shahzad and others vs State and othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 503 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-06
  abductionkidnappingbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealcriminal revisionenhancement of sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib, convicting the appellants under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting them of charges under Sections 376 and 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants abducted a fourteen-year-old girl and committed zina with her. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution successfully established the elements of abduction and kidnapping under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the complainant's revision petition for enhancement of sentence could be converted into an appeal against acquittal. The Lahore High Court held that the movement of the victim a short distance to an adjacent house solely for the commission of the principal act did not constitute an independent offence of abduction under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following established precedent. The court further declined to convert the revision petition into an appeal against acquittal. Consequently, the criminal appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and the revision petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does moving a victim a short distance to a nearby place solely for the commission of an intended crime constitute an independent offence of abduction under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether a criminal revision filed specifically for the enhancement of a sentence can be converted into a criminal appeal against acquittal under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the uncorroborated sole statement of a victim sufficient to prove kidnapping and abduction when the physical circumstances render the prosecution's narrative improbable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajhlo vs WAPDA, Islamabad through its Secretary, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 493 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-14Read full judgment →
• Saif-ur-Rehman and others vs District Judge and others2017 LHC 416 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12Read full judgment →
• Saif Ur Rehman vs Faisalabad Electric Supply Company (FESCO) and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 556 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-09
  Intra Court Appealmedical fitness certificatebreak in servicecontract employmentHepatitis BA&CS Rules 1974termination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a petition regarding the appellant's employment with the Faisalabad Electric Supply Company. The appellant, initially appointed on a contract basis, was terminated following a court order and subsequently re-qualified for the post. He was required to undergo a new medical examination, which declared him unfit due to Hepatitis B. The core legal question was whether the appellant was exempt from producing a fresh medical fitness certificate under the A&CS Rules, 1974, based on his previous service, and whether the medical report was tainted by mala fide. The Court held that the exemption under the Rules applies only when there is no break in service. As the appellant’s service was terminated on 06.06.2011 and his new appointment letter was issued on 07.07.2011, a clear break in service existed, rendering the exemption inapplicable. Consequently, the Court affirmed the medical report’s findings and dismissed the appeal, establishing that a gap between termination and re-appointment constitutes a break in service, thereby necessitating a fresh medical fitness certificate for new government employment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a gap between the termination of a contract employee and their subsequent re-appointment constitute a break in service?
  • Is a government servant exempt from producing a fresh medical fitness certificate upon re-appointment if there is a break in service?
  • Can an employee challenge a medical fitness report on the grounds of mala fide when the medical condition is clinically verified?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Faisal Ali Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 CLD 463 · Lahore High Court · 2016-08-15
  Credit Information BureauState Bank of Pakistanbanking defaultcredit risk managementstatutory regulatory powerbanking companieswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Credit Information Bureau (CIB) database maintained by the State Bank of Pakistan, arguing that such reporting, while a recovery suit was pending, effectively declared him a defaulter without judicial adjudication. The core legal question was whether the State Bank of Pakistan possesses the statutory authority to maintain a CIB database and whether reporting a customer’s credit status therein constitutes an unauthorized judicial determination of default. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the State Bank of Pakistan acts within its statutory mandate under Section 25-A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, in collecting and sharing credit information. The Court clarified that CIB reports serve as regulatory tools for credit risk management and do not possess evidentiary value or constitute a judicial declaration of default. The principle laid down is that the regulatory reporting of credit information is distinct from the judicial adjudication of liability; thus, banks are not acting as judges in their own cause when complying with mandatory reporting requirements established for the stability of the financial system.

  Questions settled

  • Does the State Bank of Pakistan have the statutory authority to maintain a Credit Information Bureau database?
  • Does the inclusion of a customer's name in the Credit Information Bureau database constitute a judicial declaration of default?
  • Is the reporting of credit information by a financial institution to the State Bank of Pakistan equivalent to acting as a judge in one's own cause?
  • Can a borrower challenge the inclusion of their name in the Credit Information Bureau database on the ground that a recovery suit is pending before a banking court?
  Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power, Islamabad and 3 others2017 CLC 1644 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-16
  Constitutional jurisdictionContractual employmentRegularization of serviceCorporate autonomyWrit petitionService mattersPublic sector companies
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a writ petition challenging the decision of the Board of Directors of the Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO) to advertise the post of HR Director, effectively removing the petitioner from his position. The petitioner, originally a WAPDA employee placed at LESCO, claimed regular employment status and challenged the recruitment process. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as a contractual employee of a corporate entity without statutory service rules, could maintain a constitutional petition to challenge service-related decisions. The Court held that LESCO, as an independent corporate entity established under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, possesses the exclusive authority to manage its employees and determine service conditions. The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish his status as a regular employee of LESCO, as no appointment letter was produced. Consequently, the Court ruled that in the absence of statutory service rules, a contractual employee cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction to seek regularization or challenge management policy decisions. The petition was dismissed, affirming that courts should not interfere in the internal administrative and policy decisions of such corporate bodies.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for a contractual employee in the absence of statutory service rules?
  • Does the Board of Directors of a corporate entity like LESCO have the exclusive power to determine the terms and conditions of its employees?
  • Can a court interfere in the policy decisions of a corporate entity regarding the recruitment of its staff?
  • Does a recommendation from a parent organization like PEPCO create a binding obligation on a subsidiary company like LESCO to regularize an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeeda Gull vs The StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 513 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-27
  narcoticssafe custodychain of custodyacquittalcriminal appealpolice witnesscontrabandrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 20 kilograms of Charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the integrity of the recovered evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of the recovered narcotic substance from the time of seizure until its deposit in the Malkhana and subsequent transmission to the Chemical Examiner. The Court observed significant gaps in the chain of custody and material contradictions in the testimonies of the police witnesses regarding the investigation and recovery process. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the safe custody of recovered contraband through cogent evidence; failure to account for the substance's custody throughout the investigation creates fatal doubt, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the safe custody of recovered narcotics from the time of seizure to the chemical examiner's office warrant acquittal?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained when there are material contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses regarding the investigation?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the chain of custody for narcotic substances to secure a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadia Jamal vs National University of Modern Languages and others2017 MLD 1799 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-29Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ashraf vs Rauf Ahmad2017 LHC 514 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-26Read full judgment →
• Sabir Baig vs The State and another2017 MLD 327 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-07
  pre-arrest bailbail before arrestdelayed FIRcivil litigationmala fide implicationprevious non-convict
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 162/16 registered at Police Station Saddar Phoolnagar, District Kasur, for offences under Sections 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337L(2), 148, 149, and 337N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of prior civil litigation between the parties, and the nature of the alleged weapon recovery. The Court held that the unexplained delay of over a year, coupled with an existing property dispute and the fact that the petitioner was a previous non-convict not falling within the exceptions of Section 337N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, made his false implication with mala fide intention a plausible consideration. The petition was consequently allowed, and the ad interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR point towards a tentative case of false implication for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when there is an underlying property dispute between the parties?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon of offence considered sufficient ground to deny pre-arrest bail when the occurrence is significantly delayed?
  • How does the status of an accused as a previous non-convict affect the applicability of Section 337N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in hurt cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabiha Sardar vs Abid Jameel, etc.2017 LHC 1574 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-14
  criminal revisionFamily Court orderinferior criminal courtforged receiptsabuse of processjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition calls in question the legality of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby a criminal revision against the dismissal of an application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a Family Court was remanded for a fresh decision. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a criminal revision against an order of a Family Court before a Sessions Court under sections 435 and 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the proper forum to assail decisions of Family Courts. The Lahore High Court held that a Family Court is not an 'inferior criminal court' under section 6 and 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, but is instead governed by the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964. Consequently, a criminal revision is not maintainable against its orders, and any such challenge must be brought under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964. The ratio is that orders of Family Courts cannot be revised under criminal revisional jurisdiction, rendering the Sessions Court's order coram non judice. The key principles laid down include that provisions like section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used as an instrument of private vengeance or routine harassment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Family Court can be categorized as an inferior criminal court under section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an order passed by a Judge Family Court be challenged through a criminal revision under sections 435 and 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the proper forum and procedure to assail a decision or order passed by a Family Court?
  • Can proceedings under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be initiated mechanically on the mere desire of a litigant without supporting material?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabiha Sardar vs Abid Jameel and others2017 MLD 1815 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-14Read full judgment →
• S. Zafar Ali Shah vs Additional Registrar of Companies and another2017 PLC (C.S.) 737 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-06
  Intra Court AppealOfficial LiquidatorCompany BenchMaintainabilityInterlocutory Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 challenges an order passed by the Company Bench which relieved the Appellant of his duties as Official Liquidator and directed his regular attendance based on allegations made by an auction purchaser. The core legal question was whether an intra court appeal against interlocutory observations and directions of the Company Bench is maintainable when the main application containing the allegations is still pending adjudication. The court held that the appeal is premature and not maintainable since the Appellant had already filed a reply denying the allegations before the Company Bench and ought to agitate the matter there where he would be afforded a full opportunity of hearing. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot bypass pending proceedings before a competent forum by filing an intra court appeal against interim observations and pending applications.

  Questions settled

  • Is an intra court appeal maintainable against interim directions of a Company Bench when the underlying application is still pending adjudication?
  • Can an Official Liquidator challenge observations regarding allegations before the matter is decided by the Company Bench?
  Read full judgment →
• Rose Wood Collection (Furniture) through Proprietor vs District2017 PLJ Lahore 665 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-17Read full judgment →
• Riffat Akear vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 688 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-25Read full judgment →
• Riaz Akhtar and anothers vs The State and another2017 MLD 222 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-01
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycommon intentionvicarious liabilityheinousness of offencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 384 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to bail after arrest where no specific firearm injuries are attributed to them and their common intention and vicarious liability require further inquiry. The court held that since no injuries were attributed to the petitioners and the question of vicarious liability falls within the realm of further inquiry during trial, the case falls squarely within the ambit of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was accordingly allowed, and bail was granted to the petitioners subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that the mere heinousness of an offense cannot serve as a ground to refuse bail to an accused person who otherwise establishes a case for further inquiry on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when no specific injuries are attributed to the accused in a murder case?
  • Does the mere heinousness of an offense constitute sufficient ground to refuse bail to an otherwise deserving accused?
  • When does a criminal case qualify as one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Muhammad Anwar.2017 LHC 2085 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Muhammad Anwar2017 [M] C.L.R. 1208 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
• (1) Riasat Ali alias Kali (2) The State etc. vs (1) The State (2) Riasat Ali alias2017 LHC 1827 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-14
  murderdeath sentencedowry disputeocular accountmedical evidenceballistic reportmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference challenge the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Riasat Ali alias Kali, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife over a dowry dispute. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony of related and chance witnesses, the corroboration of medical and forensic evidence including a positive ballistic report, and whether mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular accounts supported by medical evidence and a positive forensic report matching the crime empty to the recovered weapon, and that the brutal nature of the crime precluded any leniency. The court dismissed the appeal and answered the murder reference in the positive, confirming the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony from related and chance witnesses can be relied upon without corroboration in a murder trial?
  • Does a positive forensic report matching a crime empty to a recovered weapon sufficiently corroborate eyewitness accounts?
  • Whether a solitary firearm shot to a vital body part constitutes a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does the taking of divergent and contradictory stances by an accused person at different stages of a trial indicate a guilty conscience?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State and another2017 LHC 2875 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-25
  criminal appealabductionrapebenefit of doubtmedical evidenceocular testimonyrecovery proceedingsCode of Criminal Procedure 1898
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt regarding the alleged abduction and rape. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case, noting significant contradictions in the victim's testimony, the absence of corroborative medical evidence, and the failure to recover incriminating items. Furthermore, the court highlighted the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding recoveries. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the benefit of doubt is a right, not a grace; and courts must adhere to strict standards of evidence, ensuring that the heinousness of an offence does not bypass the requirement for proof.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses with recovery proceedings under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate the recovery?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when the medical evidence fails to corroborate the victim's testimony in a rape case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of the heinous nature of the alleged offence without proof beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Razia Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 91, 2017 P Cr. L J 1377 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-24
  murder referencedeath sentenceeyewitness credibilitystatement under section 342 Cr.P.C.exculpatory statementbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, convicting the appellant Razia Bibi under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing her to death for the murder of Khalid Mahmood. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the evidentiary value of an injured person's dying declaration versus the appellant's statement recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the principle governing the acceptance or rejection of an accused's statement in its entirety when prosecution evidence fails. The Lahore High Court held that the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses was doubtful and unreliable, and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court laid down that if the prosecution fails to prove its case against an accused person, the accused is to be acquitted, and an accused's statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected in its entirety when there is no other reliable incriminating prosecution evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statement of an accused person recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is to be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  • Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of an exculpatory statement when the prosecution fails to produce incriminating evidence?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal if the prosecution's ocular account is found to be doubtful and unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Razia Bibi and others vs United Bank Limited and others2017 CLD 827 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-28Read full judgment →
• Razi vs Oil & Gas Development Company Ltd. & othersK.L.R. 2017 Labour & Service Cases 80 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-23
  date of birth correctionsuperannuationestoppel by conductservice recordNational Industrial Relations Commissionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by the petitioner, a Security Guard, challenging the order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which had reversed a member's decision to correct his year of birth from 1956 to 1966. The petitioner contended that the initial entry of 1956 was a clerical error and relied on subsequent identity documents. The respondent employer argued that under its internal circulars, the date of birth declared at the time of entry into service is final and cannot be altered, especially at the verge of retirement. The Lahore High Court observed that the petitioner sought the correction after more than twenty years of service and just prior to his superannuation. Relying on established Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that belated attempts to alter service records operate as estoppel and lack bona fides. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the date of birth declared at induction is final.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee seek the correction of their date of birth in service records at the verge of retirement after serving for over twenty years?
  • Does the date of birth declared by an employee at the time of induction into service carry finality under employer circulars?
  • Whether subsequent identity documents issued after entry into service can override the original national identity card submitted at the time of employment for age correction?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Yasin vs Dubai Islamic Bank and others2017 CLD 250 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-01Read full judgment →
• Rashid Hussain vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 69 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-07
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecriminal liabilitybail concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Rashid Hussain, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs. 35,00,000. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the duration of his incarceration. The Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody since July 2016 and that the offence charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the petitioner was not required for further investigation and had no history of similar offences. Relying on the principle established in Zafar Iqbal vs. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488), the Court held that bail should be favourably considered in cases falling outside the prohibitory clause unless exceptional circumstances exist. Finding no such exceptional circumstances, the Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of dishonouring a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should bail be granted in cases involving offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali vs The State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 712 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-15
  criminal revisionwitness statementssupply of copiesfair trialinvestigation recordsexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, which had dismissed the petitioner's application for the supply of copies of statements of two prosecution witnesses, Abid Hussain and Muhammad Behram Khan, recorded by the Investigation Officer in case diaries. The core legal question was whether the accused is entitled to receive copies of witness statements recorded during the investigation. The Lahore High Court, noting the established legal position that all witness statements recorded during an investigation are governed by Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, allowed the petition. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to provide the requested copies to the accused. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the necessity of a fair and efficient trial, directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously within a period of three months, potentially on a day-to-day basis, to ensure the swift administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Are statements of witnesses recorded by an Investigation Officer in case diaries subject to the provisions of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused person entitled to receive copies of witness statements recorded during the investigation phase?
  Read full judgment →
• Raqiya Begum vs National Bank of Pakistan and others2017 CLD 926 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-08Read full judgment →
• Rao Ishtiaq Khursheed vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 730 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-13Read full judgment →
• (1) Rao Ishtiaq Khursheed (2) The State & another vs (1)The State (2) Rao2017 LHC 1320 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-02
  Qatl-e-Amdtest identification paradeocular evidencebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealmurder referencedelayed FIR
  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 murder of the deceased. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's case, specifically regarding the delayed nomination of the accused in the FIR, the credibility of ocular witnesses who were allegedly unacquainted with the accused, and the validity of a test identification parade conducted after the accused had already been implicated. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The delayed introduction of the appellant's name through supplementary statements, the inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies regarding their prior acquaintance with the accused, and the negative forensic report regarding the weapon recovery undermined the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt. The principle established is that a conviction cannot be sustained on ocular testimony that is inconsistent with the initial investigative record and where the identification process is procedurally flawed and unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the accused is named only in a supplementary statement and not in the initial FIR?
  • Is a test identification parade valid when witnesses claim prior acquaintance with the accused?
  • Does a negative forensic report regarding the recovery of a weapon undermine the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Rani Bibi vs The State, etc2017 LHC 3519 · Lahore High Court · 2017-10-24Read full judgment →
• Rana Shahbaz Ahmad vs Sessions Judge, etc.2017 LHC 2757 · Lahore High Court · 2017-07-13Read full judgment →
• Rana Liaqat Ali Khan and others vs Government of Pakistan and others2017 CLC 962 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-14Read full judgment →
• Rana Khurram Shehzad and another vs The State and another2017 LHC 3548 · Lahore High Court · 2017-11-02
  pre-arrest bailbenefit of doubtmala fideabductionfree-will marriagetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 411/17 registered at Police Station Chhanga Manga, District Kasur, concerning an alleged offence under Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed an unexplained thirteen-day delay in the FIR's registration and noted that the petitioners were not named in the initial FIR, which instead implicated other individuals residing in a different district. Furthermore, the alleged abductee had previously filed an application under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, claiming a free-will marriage, and the petitioners had joined the investigation. The Court held that the prosecution's story against the petitioners appeared doubtful, suggesting potential mala fide implication. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused even at the bail stage, particularly when the prosecution's narrative is prima facie inconsistent or suspect.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the petitioners were not named in the initial FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Ram Chand vs Judge Family Court, etc2017 PLJ Lahore 732 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ram Chand vs Judge Family Court etc2017 PLJ Lahore 732, 2017 LHC 1130 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-06Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Amir and another vs Raja Muhammad Sher Afzal, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 331 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• Raja Haroon Rashid vs Defence Housing Authority through Secretary2017 CLC 342 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-06Read full judgment →
• Rahim Dad vs The State and others2017 MLD 1573 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-02
  criminal revisionquantum of sentencehurtArshTazirsentencing guidelineshabitual offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and three-year sentence under Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injury. The core legal question was whether the imposition of substantive imprisonment as Tazir was justified in the absence of the petitioner being a previous convict, habitual offender, or hardened criminal. The Court held that while the conviction was soundly based on consistent ocular and medical evidence, the sentence of imprisonment was excessive. The Court maintained the conviction and the payment of Arsh but set aside the sentence of rigorous imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that for offences involving hurt under Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the normal punishment is the payment of Arsh or Daman. Substantive imprisonment as Tazir is reserved for offenders who are previous convicts, habitual, hardened, or desperate criminals, or where the offence is committed in the name of honour, as per the established interpretation of Section 337-N(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Is substantive imprisonment as Tazir mandatory for offences of hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances can a court impose imprisonment as Tazir for offences of hurt?
  • Does the absence of a criminal record preclude the imposition of imprisonment as Tazir for hurt offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh alias Shada vs The State etc2017 LHC 158 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-03Read full judgment →
• Raheem Ullah vs The State2017 YLR 2085 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-02
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencesodomy and murdercapital punishmentmurder referencedeath sentence confirmationmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge Rawalpindi, whereby the appellant Raheem Ullah was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the kidnapping, sodomy, and murder of a four-year-old child, Suleman Khan. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, Waj Takkar evidence, the recovery of the dead body from a locked Baithak in the exclusive tenancy and possession of the appellant, and corroborative medical evidence establishing sexual assault and death by asphyxia due to throttling. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial and last-seen evidence in capital cases and whether such evidence can form the sole basis for a death sentence. The Lahore High Court held that when a continuous and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence conclusively connects the accused to the crime and the victim was last seen in their exclusive company, capital punishment can legally and properly be sustained in the absence of a plausible exculpatory explanation from the accused. The appeal was dismissed, the death sentence upheld, and the murder reference answered in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted and sentenced to death solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient to establish guilt when corroborated by other interlocking circumstances?
  • What is the evidentiary value of un-cross-examined facts regarding the tenancy and exclusive possession of a crime scene?
  • Does the failure of an accused to offer an explanation under section 342 Cr.P.C. strengthen the prosecution's circumstantial case?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Rafaqat Hussain (2) Shafqat Hussain etc (3) Muhammad Ilyas (4) The2017 LHC 3551 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-12
  qatl-e-amdvicarious liabilitycommon intentionmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationocular evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibus
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against a trial court judgment convicting the appellants for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, whether the doctrine of vicarious liability under sections 34 or 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applied to the co-accused, and whether the death penalty was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court held that while the ocular account and medical evidence sufficiently proved the individual culpability of the appellants for the specific injuries caused, the prosecution failed to establish a 'common intention' or 'pre-arranged plan' to invoke vicarious liability for the murder charge against the co-accused who did not cause the fatal injury. Furthermore, the Court found mitigating circumstances, specifically the non-repetition of fire shots and the failure to prove the alleged motive, warranting the commutation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that common intention requires a pre-arranged plan and prior meeting of minds, and cannot be inferred merely from the presence of accused persons at the scene of a sudden, unplanned incident.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of some co-accused based on the same evidence necessitate the acquittal of all other co-accused?
  • Can vicarious liability under sections 34 or 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be established in a sudden, unplanned incident without evidence of a pre-arranged plan?
  • Does the non-repetition of a firearm injury by an assailant constitute a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing in a murder case?
  • Is the doctrine of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' applicable in the Pakistani criminal justice system?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali vs Messrs United Bank Limited2017 CLD 1076 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-01Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Director General, NAB etc.2017 LHC 1583 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-11Read full judgment →
• Rana Ghulam Khaliq vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 703 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-09
  post-arrest bailwhite collar crimeembezzlementforgeryprohibitory clausefugitive from lawcriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through which the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 159/2015 registered under Sections 420, 408, 468, 467, 381-A, 380, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Old Kootwali, District Multan. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when he is specifically nominated in the FIR for committing a white-collar crime involving massive embezzlement, forgery, and theft, and has remained a fugitive from law. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was prima facie connected with the commission of a heinous white-collar crime falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and that his prolonged abscondence further manifested guilty intent. The key principle laid down is that tentative assessment at the bail stage disentitles an accused person from relief where serious allegations of financial embezzlement and forgery are supported by record and statements, compounded by subsequent abscondence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused charged with a white-collar crime falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.?
  • Does remaining a fugitive from law for a significant period disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Can deeper appreciation of evidence be undertaken while deciding a bail petition after arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Qureshi Muhammad Aslam vs Additional Director ACE, Sargodha and others2017 MLD 827 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali vs The State and another2017 YLR 1846 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-05
  criminal appealextra-judicial confessionlast seen evidencebenefit of doubtmurderexhumationacquittalchemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Qasim Ali, for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on 'last seen' evidence and an alleged extra-judicial confession, following the exhumation of the deceased’s body which revealed the presence of benzodiazepine tranquilizers. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt given the significant delay in reporting the crime, the lack of motive, and the weak evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confession. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable chain of evidence. The court emphasized that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence requiring independent corroboration, which was absent here. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the tranquilizer did not rule out accidental death. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the presence of a tranquilizer in a post-mortem report automatically establish the commission of murder?
  • What is the legal consequence of a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Qammer Abbas and another vs State & anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 246 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-31Read full judgment →
• Qalab Hussain vs Faysal Bank and others2017 CLD 215 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-06Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Rehman alias Imran vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 454 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-14
  post-arrest bailattempted rapetwo versionsfurther inquiryconcealment of injuriesmedico-legal certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Qaiser Rehman alias Imran in FIR No. 336/16 registered under Sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal, involving allegations of an attempted rape of an 86-year-old woman. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in the face of conflicting cross-versions of the incident, including a prior application under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and a medico-legal certificate showing injuries sustained by the petitioner. The Lahore High Court held that where rival versions exist and the complainant party has allegedly concealed injuries sustained by the accused during the same occurrence, the matter calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that the correctness of competing versions cannot be determined at the bail stage and warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when a case involves two competing versions of the same occurrence?
  • Does the concealment of injuries sustained by the accused in the crime report make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the correctness of rival versions of an incident be determined at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →