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.

• Noor Ellahi through L. Rs, and others vs Muhammad Mehboob and others2016 MLD 840 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-10Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed Bhatti vs Addl. Sessions Judge etc2016 PLJ Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-05Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad and others vs The State and others2016 P Cr. L J 1928 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-18
  Qatl shibh-i-amdQatl-i-amdappreciation of evidencemedical evidenceinterested witnessesmitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant, Nisar Ahmad, was sentenced for the murder of Mst. Suraya Bibi via a tractor. The core legal question was whether the appellant's act of running over the deceased with a tractor constituted Qatl-i-amd (intentional murder) or a lesser form of homicide, given the absence of evidence of deliberate intent to kill. The court found that the prosecution's ocular account was exaggerated and inconsistent with medical evidence, which showed no external injuries consistent with being deliberately run over. Holding that the element of intent to cause death was missing, the Court set aside the conviction under section 302(b) and converted it to Qatl shibh-i-amd under section 316, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution's narrative of intentional killing is contradicted by medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances, and the act itself was not inherently likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the conviction must be altered from Qatl-i-amd to Qatl shibh-i-amd.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of external injuries consistent with a deliberate run-over negate the charge of Qatl-i-amd?
  • Can a court convert a conviction from Qatl-i-amd to Qatl shibh-i-amd if the element of intent to cause death is missing?
  • Is a complainant's failure to report an occurrence to the police immediately, despite being at the station, a ground to draw an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  • Should a sentence be reduced to the period already undergone if the conviction is altered on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Nib Bank Limited vs Manzoor Textile Mills2016 PLJ Lahore 156 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-03Read full judgment →
• Nib Bank Limited vs Manzoor Textile Mills Ltd2016 PLD Lahore 526 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-03Read full judgment →
• Niaz and 2 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 531 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-18
  criminal revisionshurjah-i-khafifahmedical evidenceconflict of evidencefree fightcross-versionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the judgments of the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, which concurrently convicted and sentenced the petitioners under Section 337A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the three petitioners inflicted head injuries on the complainant using wooden sticks. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of conviction were sustainable given material discrepancies in the medical evidence and the existence of a cancelled cross-FIR indicating a free fight. The Lahore High Court observed that the complainant's ocular account regarding the specific locale of the head injuries was inconsistent with the medico-legal certificate. Furthermore, the existence of a cross-version suggested a free fight where both sides engaged in a scuffle. The Court held that the courts below had misread and non-read the evidence on record. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the petitioners, thereby rendering the complainant's petition for enhancement of sentence infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a material contradiction between the ocular account and the medico-legal certificate regarding the locale of injuries?
  • What is the legal effect of a cancelled cross-FIR on the determination of a free fight between parties?
  • Whether concurrent findings of conviction by lower courts can be set aside in revision on the ground of misreading and non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz alias Niazi alias Jumma vs The State2016 LHC 3525 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-13
  criminal appealtest identification paradebenefit of doubtocular evidenceballistic reportsupplementary statementacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, arising from a shooting incident involving police constables. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the identification parade and the sufficiency of evidence where the accused was not named in the initial FIR and was implicated through a dubious supplementary statement. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It found the identification parade procedurally flawed and lacking evidentiary value, particularly because the identifying witnesses had previously arrested the appellant, rendering the parade a mere formality. Furthermore, the Court determined that medical and ballistic evidence, while corroborative, cannot substitute for substantive proof of identity when the primary ocular evidence is unreliable. The Court emphasized that when the prosecution's case is riddled with doubts regarding the identification and arrest of the accused, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade hold evidentiary value when the identifying witnesses have already participated in the arrest of the accused?
  • Can medical and forensic evidence sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to follow the prescribed procedure for a test identification parade?
  • Does the nomination of an accused in a supplementary statement without a disclosed source of information create reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Newzeland Electronics Trading Company LCC through Managing2016 C.L.R. 994, 2016 LHC 1664, 2016 PLJ Lahore 898, 2016 PLD Lahore 633 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-31Read full judgment →
• New Zealand Electronics Trading Company LCC vs Nadeem Siddiqui, etc2016 C.L.R. 994 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-31Read full judgment →
• New Zealand Electronics Trading Company LCC vs Nadeem Siddiqui2016 PLJ Lahore 898 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• New Zealand Electronics Trading Company LCC vs Malik Muhammad2016 LHC 1664 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-31Read full judgment →
• New Jubilee Insurance Company vs Ravi Steel Company2016 KLR Civil Cases 321 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-06Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Chairman, Customs Appellate Tribunal, etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 505 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-15Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad (deceased) through Legal Heirss vs Muhammad Rafique2016 MLD 1926 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-11Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad (deceased) through legal heirs vs Muhammad Rafique, etc.2016 LHC 1549 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-01Read full judgment →
• Nazim Hussain vs Additional Sessions Judge_Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Nankana Sahib and 7 others2016 PLJ Lahore 684 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-19Read full judgment →
• Nazim Ali vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2016 MLD 25 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-27
  criminal revisionfair trialright to fair trialdocumentary evidencesupply of documentsmodern deviceselectronic evidenceSection 265-C Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, which had dismissed the petitioner's application for the provision of a copy of a memory card (containing video evidence) under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner, facing trial for offences under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), argued that the memory card, seized by the Investigating Officer, constituted a document that must be provided to the accused to ensure a fair trial. The High Court held that the contents of the memory card fall within the definition of a document under Article 2(1)(b) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and are subject to disclosure under Section 265-C Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that providing such evidence is a legal prerequisite for the safe administration of criminal justice and is essential for the accused's right to a fair trial, a principle further reinforced by Article 10-A of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to provide the copy to the accused before framing the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does a memory card or video recording constitute a document that must be provided to the accused under Section 265-C Cr.P.C.?
  • Is the prosecution obligated to provide copies of electronic evidence seized during investigation to the accused prior to the framing of the charge?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution mandate the disclosure of electronic evidence to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Nazar Muhammad & 2 others (2) The State vs (1) The State (2) Nazar2016 LHC 2967 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-21
  capital punishmentcriminal appealbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencemurderocular accountimprobability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of three appellants for the murder of a sixteen-year-old boy. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, motivated by a prior murder committed by the deceased's father, chased the deceased into a house, dragged him to a nearby field, and shot him. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court, upon review, identified significant improbabilities in the prosecution's narrative, specifically regarding the alleged pursuit, the lack of evidence for the forced entry, and the absence of physical signs of dragging. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigating officer's admissions contradicted the complainant's presence at the scene. The court held that where the prosecution's narrative is fraught with improbabilities and doubts, it is unsafe to maintain a conviction, especially in capital cases. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that a single suspicious circumstance entitles an accused to the benefit of the doubt, and that mere accusation cannot sustain a charge without being confidence-inspiring on the touchstone of probability.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution's narrative of the occurrence is fraught with improbabilities?
  • Does the existence of a single suspicious circumstance in the prosecution's case entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is a conviction based on an ocular account sustainable if the investigating officer's testimony contradicts the complainant's presence at the scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Abbas vs Additional District Judge, etc.2016 LHC 1487 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-16Read full judgment →
• Nazakat Hussain Shah and 5 otherss vs Muhammad All and 3 otherss2016 MLD 1651 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-09Read full judgment →
• Nawazish Ali and 3 others vs The State and another2016 P Cr. L J 1463 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-12
  Anti-Terrorism ActCriminal revisionJurisdiction of Special CourtPolice picketTerrorism definitionTransfer of caseFirearm definition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Rawalpindi, which dismissed the petitioners' application to transfer their case to an ordinary court. The petitioners were charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, following an armed assault on a police picket that resulted in the death of a police officer and injury to a passerby. The core legal question was whether the incident constituted terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, particularly given the petitioners' argument that the weapon used was not automatic and the incident lacked the requisite element of public insecurity. The Court held that the attack on a police picket, which deterred public servants from their duties and caused death and injury, clearly fell within the scope of terrorism as defined under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court established that the determination of terrorism hinges on the nature of the act, the place of occurrence, and the resulting sense of fear and insecurity in society, rather than solely on the type of weapon employed. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an armed assault on a police picket resulting in death constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is the use of an automatic weapon a mandatory requirement for an act to be classified as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can an accused person seek the transfer of a case from an Anti-Terrorism Court to a court of ordinary jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Asghar Mirza Mubeen Akhtar vs The State Naveed Asghar & 32016 LHC 634 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-12
  circumstantial evidencecapital punishmentmurderrobberycriminal appealrecovery of incriminating articlesforensic evidencechain of circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences awarded to the appellants for the brutal murder of five family members and subsequent robbery. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution’s case, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to sustain convictions for capital offenses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstances, including the appellants' motive, the recovery of bloodstained weapons, the recovery of stolen valuables from the appellants, and incriminating cell phone data linked to the crime scene. The court affirmed that while the case lacked direct eyewitness testimony, the synchronized circumstantial evidence excluded every hypothesis of the appellants' innocence. A key principle laid down is that automated data, such as IMEI tracking, constitutes reliable evidence not amenable to human interference. Furthermore, the court reiterated that the law does not require a specific quantum of evidence, and a consistent, truthful body of circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the death sentences, and rejected the revision petition for enhanced compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if it forms an unbroken chain?
  • Does automated data, such as IMEI tracking, constitute reliable evidence in criminal proceedings?
  • Is the recovery of stolen property and bloodstained weapons sufficient to establish guilt in a murder case?
  • Does the law require a specific quantum of evidence to establish a fact in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Asghar and 2 others vs The State2016 LHC 634, 2016 PLD Lahore 467, K.L.R. 2016 Criminal Cases 233 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-12
  circumstantial evidencemurderdeath penaltycomputer-generated evidencerecovery of stolen propertycriminal appealwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences imposed on the appellants for the murder of five family members. The core legal question concerns whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on circumstantial evidence, specifically when direct eyewitness testimony is absent and the prosecution relies on forensic data and recoveries. The Court upheld the convictions and confirmed the death sentences, holding that the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment lays down the principle that circumstantial evidence, when naturally synchronized and forming an unbroken chain, is sufficient to sustain a conviction, even in the absence of direct evidence. It affirms that computer-generated data, such as IMEI-linked cell phone records, constitutes relevant and admissible evidence not amenable to human interference. Furthermore, the Court clarified that minor improvements in a witness's testimony do not necessarily invalidate their entire deposition if the core evidence remains consistent and is corroborated by independent facts, such as the recovery of stolen property and blood-stained weapons.

  Questions settled

  • Is computer-generated cell phone data admissible as relevant evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based solely on circumstantial evidence when the chain of circumstances is complete?
  • Does an improvement in a witness's statement during trial necessarily destroy the intrinsic value of their entire deposition?
  • Is there a minimum quantum of evidence required to establish a criminal charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Asghar and 2 others vs The State and others2016 PLD Lahore 467 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-12
  circumstantial evidencemurderdeath sentencerecoverycriminal appealrobberyforensic evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of three appellants for the murder of five family members in their residence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution, lacking direct eyewitnesses, successfully established guilt through circumstantial evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the chain of circumstances—including the testimony of a witness who observed the appellants entering the house, the recovery of stolen valuables and bloodstained weapons at the instance of the appellants, and forensic evidence linking the appellants to the crime scene via cell phone data—created an irresistible nexus between the accused and the crime. The court affirmed the death sentences, ruling that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction when it naturally synchronizes to exclude all hypotheses of innocence. The judgment lays down the principle that automated, computer-generated evidence is admissible and that a single piece of consistent, truthful evidence can sustain a charge, provided it forms a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the recovery of stolen property and bloodstained weapons at the instance of the accused constitute a complete chain of circumstantial evidence?
  • Is computer-generated cell phone data admissible as relevant evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a witness who improves upon their initial statement during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• 1- Nausher 2- The State vs 1- The State 2- Nausher & another2016 LHC 3593 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-05
  Qatl-i-Amdbenefit of doubtsupplementary statementFirst Information Reportmedical evidence contradictioncriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the Qatl-i-Amd of two persons, which resulted in death sentences and life imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given material contradictions in the complainant's statements, improvements regarding weapon calibers through a supplementary statement, delayed autopsies, and the implication of an entire family. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with serious doubts, particularly due to improvements made to align the ocular account with medical evidence and the unreliability of the eyewitnesses. The court established that a supplementary statement amounting to a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 cannot be used to extend or modify the First Information Report, and that substantial discrepancies and lack of independent corroboration warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, the appellants were acquitted, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be used to extend or modify the original First Information Report?
  • Whether material improvements in an eyewitness account to align with medical evidence render the testimony untrustworthy?
  • Is it safe to maintain murder convictions when the entire family of the accused is roped in and the prosecution evidence contains irreconcilable contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority through Project Director (A.C.W.) vs Fiaz2016 PLJ Lahore 686 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Bank of PAKISTANthrough Vice President/General Attorney---2016 CLD 784 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-02Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan---Decree Holder vs Messrs Simnwa2016 CLD 812 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-07Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Honda Point Pvt. Limited and others2016 CLD 1080 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-03Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Iftikhar Rasool Anjum and others2016 LHC 4144 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-16
  pensionary benefitsstatutory instrumentnationalized banksintra court appeallachesterms and conditions of serviceexecutive circularvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges a consolidated judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chamber, whereby various constitutional petitions filed by retired employees of the National Bank of Pakistan were allowed, directing the Bank to release pensionary benefits under Instruction Circular No. 228(C) dated 26.12.1977. The core legal questions involved whether the 1977 Circular constituted a statutory instrument with legal backing or a mere executive instrument, whether a subsequent 1999 Circular issued by the Bank's Board of Directors could repeal or override the 1977 Circular, and whether the petitions were barred by laches. The Lahore High Court held that the 1977 Circular, issued in pursuance of a notification under Section 20 of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, is a statutory instrument having the backing of law and sovereign commitment. The Court held that the Board of Directors of the Bank lacks the legislative competence to alter statutory terms and conditions of service to the disadvantage of employees through a non-statutory executive circular. The Court also held that the petitions did not suffer from laches as the matter was continuously agitated before the Bank. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Instruction Circular No. 228(C) dated 26.12.1977 is a statutory instrument having the backing of law or merely an executive instrument?
  • Whether the Board of Directors of the National Bank of Pakistan is competent through a non-statutory circular to repeal, override, or reduce pension benefits guaranteed under statutory rules?
  • Whether the principle of laches is attracted when retired employees continuously agitate their pension grievances with the Bank management?
  • Does the right to receive pension constitute a vested right that cannot be arbitrarily abridged or reduced except in accordance with law?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through President and 2 others vs Muhammad2016 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-28Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Akhtar vs Mian Abbas, SHO and 7 others2016 P Cr. L J 578 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-30
  private complaintnon-appearance of complainantdismissal of complaintsessions trialmagisterial trialfake police encountercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, whereby a private complaint involving offences under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code was dismissed under section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, resulting in the acquittal of the respondents due to the non-appearance of the complainant. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Court conducting a trial can invoke section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to dismiss a private complaint and acquit the accused upon the non-appearance of the complainant. The Lahore High Court held that section 247 applies strictly to trials before Magistrates and in cases of non-cognizable or compoundable offences, and thus cannot be invoked by a Court of Session handling cognizable offences. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for proceedings in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Court of Session can invoke Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to dismiss a private complaint upon the non-appearance of the complainant?
  • Does Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to trials conducted by Sessions Courts?
  • Can the provisions of Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be exercised in cases involving cognizable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasira Malik vs Muhammad Nawaz etc.2016 LHC 1403 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-19Read full judgment →
• Nasir Waheed vs Ministry of Interior through Secretary and others2016 MLD 274 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-26Read full judgment →
• Nasir Khan vs The State2016 YLR 2455 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-11
  narcotic substanceschemical examiner reportchain of custodyburden of proofcriminal appealpossession of narcoticsreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, C.N.S.A., Lahore, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of three kilograms of heroin. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully established the identity of the accused and whether the chain of custody and chemical analysis of the seized contraband were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's identity, as the source of identification was missing and contradictory. Furthermore, the Court found significant lapses in the chain of custody regarding the samples sent for chemical analysis. Specifically, while three samples were allegedly drawn, the Chemical Examiner's report only analyzed one, and the testimony of the constable responsible for depositing the samples created doubt regarding the integrity of the parcels. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, establishing the principle that unless the prosecution proves the sample analyzed is identical to the one drawn from the seized contraband, the chemical report cannot be relied upon to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the identity of the accused?
  • Is a chemical examiner's report reliable if the prosecution fails to prove that the sample analyzed was the same sample drawn from the seized contraband?
  • Does the failure to properly seal and document the chain of custody for narcotic samples vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 906 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-14
  pre-arrest baildelayed FIRsupplementary statementcar theftmala fidecivil dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Nasir Ali and Muhammad Iqbal in case FIR No. 541 dated 11.06.2016 under Sections 381-A and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Civil Line, Faisalabad, concerning the alleged theft of a car. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail given the unexplained delay in FIR registration, unnamed status in the initial report, subsequent implication via supplementary statement without disclosure of source, documentary evidence of ownership, and a pending civil suit regarding vehicle documents. The Lahore High Court held that the petition should be allowed and confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is registered after an inordinate delay, the accused are not nominated therein, their subsequent implication lacks a disclosed source, and a civil dispute regarding ownership is pending between the parties, mala fide in the prosecution can be inferred, warranting the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the FIR is lodged with an unexplainable delay and the accused are not nominated therein?
  • Does the lack of a disclosed source in a supplementary statement implicating the accused justify granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can mala fide of the complainant be inferred when a civil suit regarding the ownership of the disputed property is already pending between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Abbas vs Muhammad Afzal2021[M] C L R 681, 2016 LHC 4057 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-06Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs The State2016 MLD 1352 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-23
  attempt to commit rapebenefit of doubtdelayed FIRimprovements in testimonycredibility of witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempting to commit rape. The core legal questions involve evaluating the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the implications of an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the effect of dishonest improvements made during testimony. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to an unexplained seven-day delay in reporting the incident, unreliable testimonies tainted by material improvements, doubtful presence of eyewitnesses, and delayed recovery of evidence. The court established that deliberate and material improvements in witness testimonies to strengthen the prosecution case render them unreliable, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report renders the prosecution case doubtful?
  • What is the legal effect of material and dishonest improvements made by a witness during trial testimony?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the absence of medical examination of an allegedly assaulted eyewitness affect the reliability of her testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs State2016 MLD 1352, PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 939 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-23
  attempt to commit rapebenefit of doubtdelay in FIRimprovements in testimonycriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempting to commit rape. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically evaluating the implications of an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report, material improvements in the victim's testimony, doubtful presence of an eyewitness, and delayed production of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge conclusively due to multiple serious flaws and discrepancies in the evidence, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt. The court laid down the key principle that an inordinate delay in reporting the crime without plausible explanation, coupled with dishonest improvements by witnesses and lack of corroborative physical evidence, renders the prosecution's case doubtful, requiring the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate delay of seven days in lodging the FIR, without a satisfactory and proven explanation, renders the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Does the making of dishonest and material improvements by a victim in her statement during trial render her testimony unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • What is the evidentiary value of last worn clothes of a victim produced before the investigating officer days after the incident without plausible justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad and others vs Yousaf Murtaza Mirza and others2016 CLC 160 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-12Read full judgment →
• Naseem Abbas vs The State and another2016 LHC 2432 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-22
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytwo versionsrule of consistencyheinousness of offensecriminal 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 Naseem Abbas sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 581/15 registered under Sections 302, 397, 148, 149, 427, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest when investigation reveals his non-presence at the scene, establishing a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2). The court held that the divergence between the FIR allegations and investigation findings created a case of two versions, making the matter one of further inquiry. Furthermore, consistency with co-accused whose pre-arrest bail was confirmed, lack of previous convictions, and completion of the investigation justified granting bail. The court laid down the principle that mere heinousness of an offense does not warrant refusing bail when an accused otherwise establishes a case for it, and police investigation findings can be considered tentatively during bail adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when investigation reveals his absence from the crime scene?
  • Does a contradiction between the FIR and the outcome of the police investigation bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the heinousness of the offense when the accused otherwise qualifies for the concession?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused facing similar allegations have been granted pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Najaf Khan and others vs The State and others2016 P Cr. L J 380 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-09
  benefit of doubtsolitary witnesschance witnessunexplained delaymurder referencecriminal appealmedical evidenceabscondanceweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences of the appellant, Najaf Khan, who was convicted under sections 302(b), 302(b)/34, and 449 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced to death and imprisonment for life, alongside a connected murder reference and a criminal revision for enhancement of compensation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of a solitary chance witness, the reliability of uncorroborated ocular and medical evidence, the effect of unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and conducting post-mortem examinations, and the evidentiary value of alleged weapon recoveries and abscondance. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to tangible flaws, including the doubtful presence of the eyewitness, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, and the withholding of natural witnesses. The court laid down that unexplained delays in police reports and post-mortems cast serious doubt on prosecution veracity, that an uncorroborated chance witness of doubtful credibility cannot sustain a capital conviction, and that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution case suffers from multiple reasonable doubts. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and conducting post-mortem examinations casts a reasonable doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses and the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for capital murder be sustained solely on the testimony of an interested and chance witness without strong and independent corroboration?
  • Does the absence of ballistic matching for a recovered weapon render the recovery inconsequential to the prosecution case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an accused person's abscondance when independent connecting evidence is lacking?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right under criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Naimat Ullah Khan (2) Parvaiz Akhtar (3) Parvaiz Akhtar vs (1) The State2016 LHC 2294 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-17
  abductionrapesolitary testimonyfalsus in uno falsus in omnibussifting grain from chaffsentence enhancementacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Sections 365-B and 376(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a revision petition for sentence enhancement and a petition against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of the victim's solitary testimony for conviction, the applicability of the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, and the validity of the trial court's acquittal of co-accused. The Court held that the conviction was sound, as the victim's testimony was credible and corroborated by medical evidence, while the appellant's inconsistent defense regarding marriage failed. The Court affirmed the acquittal of the co-accused, noting that the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is inapplicable in Pakistan, requiring courts to sift the grain from the chaff. Furthermore, the Court exercised its power to correct an illegal sentence of 25 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(1) PPC, converting it to life imprisonment. The principle established is that a victim's solitary statement can sustain a conviction if reliable, and appellate courts may rectify sentencing discrepancies while maintaining the separation of individual culpability.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the solitary statement of the victim?
  • Is the doctrine of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' applicable in the Pakistani criminal justice system?
  • Does a delay in reporting an abduction case automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appellate court correct a sentence that is not provided for in the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Hussain vs Yar Muhammad and 10 others2016 MLD 873 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-26Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Raja vs Additional Sessions Judge and otherss2016 MLD 1810 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-03Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Bhatti alias Sanni vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 558 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-30
  benefit of doubtabductionrapetheftfabrication of evidenceadverse inferencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shakargarh, for offenses under sections 365-B, 376, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant was convicted of abducting, raping, and committing theft against the complainant's daughter. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given inconsistencies in the FIR, the absence of key witnesses, and the lack of corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with doubts, noting the unexplained delay in reporting, the complainant's lack of personal knowledge, the failure to produce material witnesses, and the Investigating Officer's admission of fabricating evidence regarding the victim's recovery. Furthermore, the medical evidence failed to support the allegations of rape. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and where the prosecution's case is doubtful, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce key witnesses mentioned in the FIR warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution fails to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the Investigating Officer admits to fabricating evidence regarding the recovery of the victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Asghar Nadeem and others vs Province of the Punjab and others2016 PLC (C.S.) 155 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-06
  probationer terminationdue processfair trialcivil servantreading downtermination simpliciterfundamental rightsjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 10(1)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which allows for the termination of a probationer's service without notice, arguing it violates the right to due process and fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether this provision, by denying notice and reasons for termination, infringes upon fundamental rights. The Court held that while the provision is not entirely unconstitutional, it must be 'read down' to align with constitutional mandates. The ratio establishes that where termination is punitive—based on allegations of misconduct, inefficiency, or corruption—prior notice and a fair hearing are mandatory under Article 10A. Conversely, where termination is 'simpliciter' (e.g., failure to pass departmental exams), notice is not required, but the order must explicitly state the reasons for termination. The judgment emphasizes that public authorities cannot bypass due process by opting for termination simpliciter when the underlying cause is actually punitive, as this violates the dignity and rights of the civil servant.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 10(1)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, violate Article 10A of the Constitution when used to terminate a probationer for punitive reasons without notice?
  • Is a public authority required to provide reasons for the termination of a probationer even in cases of termination simpliciter?
  • Can a court employ the doctrine of 'reading down' to save a statutory provision from being declared unconstitutional?
  • Does a probationer have a right to notice and hearing when termination is based on allegations of misconduct or inefficiency?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Abbas vs District Coordination Officer and 3 others2016 P Cr. L J 590 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-25
  locus standiaggrieved personconstitutional jurisdictioncancellation reportdisputed questions of factwrit petitionalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a Magistrate's order accepting a police cancellation report in a criminal case involving allegations of domicile fraud. The petitioner, who was neither the complainant nor a witness in the FIR, sought to set aside the Magistrate's order, claiming the investigation was flawed and that the accused had obtained employment through deceit. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi to challenge the order as an 'aggrieved person' under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of a vested legal or fundamental right. Furthermore, the Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding the authenticity of documents cannot be resolved through constitutional jurisdiction, which requires the recording of evidence. The Court affirmed that the petitioner had alternative, efficacious remedies available, such as filing a private complaint, approaching the police hierarchy under the Police Order, 2002, or initiating civil proceedings to challenge the validity of the documents.

  Questions settled

  • Does a person who is neither a complainant nor a witness in an FIR have the locus standi to challenge a Magistrate's order accepting a police cancellation report?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the authenticity of documents while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable when the petitioner has alternative, efficacious remedies available such as filing a private complaint or a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabid Baig vs Chairman, PPSC Lahore, etcK.L.R. 2016 Labour and Service 103, 2016 LHC 1670, 2016 PLJ Lahore 903, 2016 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-24
  service rulesage relaxationPunjab Public Service Commissionfundamental rightsjudicial review of policydiscriminationcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the age limit condition prescribed for the post of Deputy Director Technical (BPS-18) in the Anti-Corruption Establishment Department, seeking a direction for age relaxation and an amendment to the service rules to lower the minimum age requirement. The petitioner contended that the age limit was discriminatory and infringed upon his fundamental rights. The Court held that the fixation of age limits for government posts is a policy matter within the domain of the competent authority, and courts should not interfere unless there is a gross violation of fundamental rights. The Court determined that the age condition applied uniformly to all candidates and thus did not constitute discrimination. Furthermore, the Court ruled that age relaxation is a prerogative of the competent authority and cannot be claimed as a vested right. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, observing that the petitioner could compete when he met the prescribed age criteria, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court direct the government to amend service rules to lower the minimum age requirement for a government post?
  • Does the fixation of a minimum age limit for a public service post constitute a violation of fundamental rights?
  • Is age relaxation for a government post a vested right that a candidate can claim?
  • Does an age limit condition applied uniformly to all candidates in a public advertisement constitute discrimination?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabid Baig vs Chairman, PPSC Lahore etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 903 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-24
  constitutional petitionage relaxationservice rulesfundamental rightsdiscriminationpublic service commissionpolicy matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed seeking directions to the respondents to grant age relaxation in the lower age limit for the post of Deputy Director Technical in the Anti-Corruption Establishment Department, and to amend the relevant service rules. The core legal questions involved whether the prescription of a minimum age limit in service rules violates fundamental rights or constitutes discrimination, and whether the court can interfere in policy matters regarding service rules and age qualifications. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the fixation of age limits is a policy matter falling within the domain of the executive and rule-making authorities, and that age criteria applicable uniformly across the board to all prospective candidates do not violate fundamental rights or amount to discrimination. Furthermore, the court held that age relaxation is a prerogative of the competent authority and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The key principle laid down is that courts should not ordinarily interfere with government policy or service rules unless a gross violation of fundamental rights is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prescription of a minimum age limit in service rules for a public post constitutes discrimination against an underage candidate?
  • Can age relaxation be claimed as a matter of vested right by a candidate?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere with the policy matters and service rules framed by the executive or competent authority?
  • Does the fixation of different age limits for different posts in the same grade violate fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabid Baig vs Chairman, PPSC Lahore etc2016 LHC 1670 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-24
  constitutional petitionage relaxationservice rulespublic service commissiondiscriminationfundamental rightspolicy matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed seeking directions against the respondents to grant age relaxation in the lower age limit for the post of Deputy Director Technical (BPS-18) in the Anti-Corruption Establishment Department, and to amend the relevant service rules. The core legal questions involved whether the prescribed minimum age limit of 35 years was discriminatory against the petitioner and whether the court could interfere in policy matters and rule-making regarding age qualifications. The Lahore High Court held that the age limit applied uniformly to all prospective candidates and did not constitute discrimination, that age relaxation is a prerogative of the competent authority rather than a vested right, and that courts should not ordinarily interfere in government policy or service rules unless fundamental rights are violated. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prescription of a minimum age limit for a public post applies uniformly and constitutes discrimination?
  • Can age relaxation be claimed as a matter of vested right by a candidate?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere in service rules and policy matters regarding age requirements for government posts?
  • Does the fixation of minimum age limits for specialized government posts infringe upon fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabeel vs State and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 737 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-27
  post-arrest baildelay in F.I.R.unlawful assemblyfurther probefirst offender
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 975 of 2015 registered under Sections 337-A(iii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Cantt. Multan, on allegations of being part of an unlawful assembly and inflicting injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the bail application, holding that the unexplained delay of fourteen days in lodging the F.I.R. and six days in the medical examination, the tentative assessment of applicability of Tazir under Section 337-N(2), the completion of recovery with the petitioner no longer required for investigation, and his status as a first offender constituted sufficient grounds for further probe. The key principle laid down is that delayed reporting, coupled with the debatable applicability of penal enhancements and completed recoveries, brings a case within the scope of further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. and medical examination constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is no longer required for investigation and has no previous criminal record?
  • Does the tentative assessment of the applicability of Tazir punishments under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 justify the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• NAB through D.G. NAB Lahore vs Judge Accountability Court, etc.2016 LHC 3608 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-16Read full judgment →
• M/s.J.K. Brothers Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner Inland2016 PLJ Lahore 35 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. United Foam Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., etc. vs M/s. Joy Foam (Pvt.) Ltd., etc.2016 P C T L R 807 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-09Read full judgment →
• M/s. Time Trading Co. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 648 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-16Read full judgment →
• M/s. Time Trading Co. vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 648, 2016 PTD 2227, 2016 PLJ Lahore 914 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-16Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sarwar Brothers vs Habib Bank Limited, etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 103 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sarwar & Company (Pvt.) Limited vs The Appellate Tribunal Inland2016 P.C.T.L.R. 921 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Samar & Company (Pvt.) Limited vs The Appellate Tribunal Inland2016 LHC 2782, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 921, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1028 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Pharmawise Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Lahore through Chief Executive2016 PLJ Lahore 442 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Multan Electric Power Co. Limited (MEPCO) vs The Commissioner,2016 LHC 2114 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-05Read full judgment →
• M/s. Multan Electric Power Co. Limited (Mepc0) vs Commissioner,PLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Lah.) 80 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Macca Sugar Mills (Pvt) Limited vs The District Labour Officer,2016 NLR Labour 96 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-24
  labour lawjurisdictiontermination of servicereinstatementadministrative authorityindustrial relationscompetent forum
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the proceedings initiated by the District Labour Officer and another respondent against the Petitioner, a private limited company, following an application by a former employee seeking reinstatement after termination. The core legal question was whether the District Labour Officer possessed the statutory jurisdiction to initiate an inquiry or proceedings regarding an individual employee's grievance against their employer concerning termination of service. The Court observed that the respondents failed to cite any legal provision authorizing them to conduct such an inquiry or adjudicate upon the termination of an employee. The Court held that the respondents lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or initiate proceedings for reinstatement. Consequently, the Court declared the inquiry proceedings illegal and contrary to law, restraining the respondents from further action. The judgment establishes the principle that administrative or labour officers cannot exercise adjudicatory powers or initiate inquiries into employment termination disputes in the absence of explicit statutory authority, and that such grievances must be pursued before the competent forum established by law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a District Labour Officer have the jurisdiction to initiate an inquiry into an employee's termination from service?
  • Can administrative authorities exercise powers of inquiry without explicit statutory authorization?
  • Is an inquiry initiated by a labour officer regarding an individual's termination of service legally valid in the absence of statutory power?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. M.Z. International vs The Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue2016 P.C.T.L.R. 199 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. M.Z. International vs Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue Audit-5PTCL 2016 CL. 513 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. M. Z. International vs Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue2016 PLJ Lahore 29 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Lucky Irani Circus through its Manager vs District Co-Ordination2016 PLJ Lahore 111 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-18Read full judgment →
• M/s. Kashmir Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Federation through Secretary Revenue,2016 PLJ Lahore 627 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. J.K. Brothers Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner InlandPTCL 2016 CL. 507 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Itteefaq Foundries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2016 C.L.R. 338 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
• M/s. Iqbal and Sons vs Federation of Pakistan and others2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1005 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-21Read full judgment →
• M/s. HanIf Metal Store, etc. vs The Bank of Punjab, etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1023 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-28Read full judgment →
• M/s. Flying Cement Company Ltd. vs The Appellate Tribunal Inland2016 LHC 3501, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1045 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Dawlance United Refrigeration Industries Private Limited vs2016 PLJ Lahore 217 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Daewoo Pakistan Express Bus Services Limited vs Federation ofPTCL 2016 CL. 490 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. D.S. Textile Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2016 C.L.R. 1229 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-20Read full judgment →
• M/s. Bisma Textile Mills Limited, Lahore vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 295 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-20Read full judgment →
• M/s. Bisma Textile Mills Limited, Lahore through Chief Executive vs2016 PLJ Lahore 503 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Ayub Textile Industries through Proprietor vs CommissionerPLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Lah.) 67 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-29Read full judgment →
• M/s. Asla Poultry Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federal Board of Revenue, etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 455 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. Asia Poultry Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federal Board of Revenue and othersPTCL 2016 CL. 521 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Arshad Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. through its GeneralManager Finance vs2016 P.C.T.L.R. 312 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Alfalah Medicos and another vs Government of Punjab and others2016 LHC 2136, K.L.R. 2016 Civil Cases 288 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-06Read full judgment →
• M/s. Al-Hadid Mechanical Engineers and 4 others vs M/s. Habib Bank2016 LHC 597, 2016 PLJ Lahore 778 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s United Foam Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. etc vs M/s Joy Foam (Pvt.) Ltd etc2016 LHC 1784 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-09Read full judgment →
• M/s Time Trading Co. vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2016 LHC 1600 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• M/s Sarwar & Company (Pvt.) Limited. vs The Appellate Tribunal Revenue2016 LHC 2782 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-27Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan Ordnance Factories through its, Manager Legal Wah Cantt.2016 LHC 3099 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-07Read full judgment →
• M/s Pak Gen Power Ltd. vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, etc.2016 LHC 3352 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-31Read full judgment →
• M/s Kashmir Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Federation through Secretary Revenue, etc.2016 LHC 86 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-13Read full judgment →
• M/s Iqbal & Sons vs Federation of Pakistan & others2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1005, 2016 LHC 2973 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-27Read full judgment →
• M/s Hanif Metal Store etc. vs The Bank of Punjab etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 1023, 2016 LHC 2950 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-28Read full judgment →
• M/s Flying Cement Company Ltd. vs The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue2016 LHC 3501 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-07Read full judgment →
• M/s D.S. Textile Limited. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2016 LHC 1011 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-11Read full judgment →
• M/s Colony Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Province of Punjab and others2016 LHC 2204 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Asfaq Trading Company vs Collector of Customs, Lahore2016 LHC 959 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-25Read full judgment →
• M/s Alfalah Medicos and another vs Government of Punjab and others2016 LHC 2136 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-05Read full judgment →
• M/s Al-Hadid Mechanical Engineers & 4 others vs M/s Habib Bank Limited2016 LHC 597 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-24Read full judgment →
• M/s Active Apparels International (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Zahida Manzoor etc.2016 LHC 3653 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-20
  workman statusdisciplinary proceedingsback benefitscharge sheetindependent inquirylabour lawconstitutional jurisdictionwrongful dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Punjab Labour Court, which ordered the reinstatement of a Quality Control Supervisor dismissed by the petitioner. The core legal questions concern whether the employee qualifies as a "workman" under labour laws and whether the employer followed mandatory disciplinary procedures. The Court held that the employee was a "workman" because her duties were manual and she lacked authority to hire or fire, rendering the designation irrelevant. Furthermore, the Court held that the employer’s reliance on a "letter of explanation" failed to satisfy the statutory requirement for a formal charge sheet under Section 15(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Additionally, the failure to conduct an independent inquiry rendered the dismissal illegal. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower labour forums are not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction unless perverse. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the reinstatement and the award of back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the nomenclature of a post determine whether an employee falls within the definition of a workman?
  • Can a letter of explanation serve as a substitute for a formal charge sheet under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Is an employer required to conduct an independent inquiry before dismissing a workman?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by labour courts subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →