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.

• Muhammad Akram Javaid and 2 others vs Bashir Ahmad Shauk and another2016 CLC 1751 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-07
  cooperative housing societycivil court jurisdictionmandatory noticerevision petitioninternal affairs of societybye-laws amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the appellate court's judgment which had decreed the respondents' suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning a resolution amending the bye-laws of a cooperative housing society. The core legal question revolved around whether a civil court possesses jurisdiction to entertain disputes regarding the internal affairs of a cooperative society in light of statutory bars, and the mandatory requirement of serving notice prior to instituting such a suit. The Lahore High Court held that Section 70-A of the Co-operative Housing Societies Act, 1925 expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts over such matters, and Section 70 mandates the service of a written notice to the Registrar before filing a suit against a society, non-compliance of which renders the suit incompetent. The court established that when a statute requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be executed strictly in that manner, setting aside the appellate court's judgment and restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding the internal business and affairs of a cooperative housing society in view of Section 70-A of the Co-operative Housing Societies Act 1925?
  • Is the service of a pre-institution notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Housing Societies Act 1925 mandatory before filing a suit against a cooperative society or its officers?
  • What is the effect of non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement under Section 70 of the Co-operative Housing Societies Act 1925 upon the maintainability of a civil suit?
  • Can a revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 interfere with an appellate judgment that ignores mandatory statutory provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and another vs The State2016 YLR 1573 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-06
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessdelayed FIRprivate complaintappellate acquittalmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence for one and life imprisonment for the other, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the death penalty. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant unexplained delays in reporting and postmortem, the reliability of chance eye-witnesses, unproven motives, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to numerous serious doubts, inconsistent testimonies, lack of independent corroboration following co-accused acquittals, and potential mala fides aimed at depriving a widow of inheritance. The court laid down the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, leading to the acceptance of the appeals, setting aside of convictions, acquittal of the appellants, and answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the postmortem examination casts serious doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on evidence that has already been disbelieved to the extent of co-accused without strong independent corroboration?
  • Does failure of the prosecution to establish a plausible motive weaken the case against the accused in a circumstantial and ocular conflict?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when multiple material contradictions and inconsistencies exist in prosecution testimonies?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Muhammad Yaq00b and 3 others2016 CLC 1402 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Leghari and 2 others vs The Federation of Pakistan2016 PTD 2371 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs Distt. Returning Officer, etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 431 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs District Returning Officer and others2016 PLJ Lahore 431, 2016 MLD 1177 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc.2016 LHC 1679, 2016 C.L.R. 964 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-27
  industrial disputedismissal from servicede novo inquirycompetent authorityvoid orderlimitation and lachesgrievance petitionback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the judgments of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the removal of a bank cashier from service. The core legal questions involved whether a dismissal order passed by an incompetent authority without proper delegation is void, whether a fresh charge-sheet can be introduced under the garb of a de novo inquiry beyond the period prescribed by law, and whether the grievance petition was barred by limitation or laches. The Lahore High Court held that the dismissal order passed by the Controller of the Bank was coram non judice as the competent authority under the staff service rules was the General Manager, that introducing a fresh charge-sheet during de novo proceedings violated mandatory timelines, and that no limitation runs against a void order. The Court set aside the Appellate Tribunal's judgment and restored the Labour Court's decision reinstating the petitioner without back benefits, laying down that disciplinary actions by unauthorized officers are nullities and de novo proceedings cannot be misused to introduce entirely new allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of dismissal passed by an officer other than the competent authority defined under the service rules is a nullity in the eye of law?
  • Can an employer introduce an entirely fresh set of allegations by serving a second charge-sheet under the garb of de novo proceedings?
  • Does the law of limitation run against an order that is void and coram non judice?
  • Is secondary evidence of an inquiry report admissible when the original inquiry officer is not produced and no formal permission is sought from the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etcK.L.R. 2016 Labour and Service · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-27
  constitutional petitionmaster and servantdismissal from servicevoid orderlimitationde novo inquirycompetent authorityback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, assailed the judgments of the Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the removal of the petitioner from service as a bank cashier. The core legal questions involved whether the dismissal order passed by an incompetent authority was void, whether a fresh charge-sheet could be introduced during de novo proceedings, and the computation of limitation for filing a grievance petition. The Lahore High Court held that the dismissal order passed by the Controller, instead of the General Manager as mandated by the bank's service rules, was coram non judice and void, thereby attracting no limitation bar. Furthermore, the introduction of a fresh set of allegations in a second charge-sheet during de novo proceedings violated mandatory legal provisions. The court partially accepted the petition, setting aside the Appellate Tribunal's judgment, restoring the Labour Court's decision of reinstatement without back benefits, and laying down that void administrative orders do not attract limitation and that de novo proceedings cannot exceed the scope of original charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of dismissal passed by an authority other than the one designated as competent under service rules is coram non judice and void?
  • Does the law of limitation run against an administrative order that is void ab initio?
  • Can an employer introduce an entirely fresh set of allegations via a second charge-sheet under the garb of de novo proceedings?
  • Whether secondary evidence of an inquiry report is admissible without seeking formal permission from the court when the inquiry officer is not produced?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsan Naseer Butt vs The State and others2016 P Cr. L J 801 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-29
  juvenile justicedetermination of ageossification testmatriculation certificaterevision petitionjuvenile offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's application to be declared a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around the determination of the petitioner's age at the time of the alleged occurrence, balancing the evidentiary value of a Matriculation Certificate, a late-entry birth certificate, and an ossification test/medical board report. The Lahore High Court held that the Matriculation Certificate, having been issued earlier and remaining unchallenged, carries high authenticity regarding date of birth compared to an estimated medical ossification test or a belatedly procured birth certificate. The court concluded that the trial court rightly preferred the academic record and dismissed the revision petition, affirming that the petitioner failed to establish he was under eighteen years of age at the time of the incident.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the date of birth mentioned in academic record is authentic for determining juvenility?
  • Whether a birth certificate with a late entry can be considered a reliable source to declare an accused minor?
  • Whether the opinion of a medical board based on an ossification test is the most reliable method to determine age?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Warraich and others vs Muhammad Ramzan and others2016 PLD Lahore 85 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State2016 PLD Lahore 23 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-14
  contempt of courtintentional insultsummary procedurepolice officialprocess servercriminal trialconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, challenged his conviction and sentence under section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly showing intentional insult and interrupting judicial proceedings, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot. The core legal question was whether the trial court followed the mandatory summary procedure provided under section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether the circumstances justified the conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted in undue haste, exhibited predetermination, and completely bypassed the statutory procedure outlined in section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without any lawful justification or proof of deliberate default by the appellant. The court laid down the principle that penal powers under section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 exercised by a court must strictly adhere to the safeguards and procedure prescribed by law, and cannot be invoked arbitrarily out of general dissatisfaction with departmental functioning.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained if the mandatory procedure provided under section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is ignored by the trial court?
  • Does failure of a police official to serve a court process within a short timeframe automatically constitute intentional insult or interruption of judicial proceedings under section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs State, etc.PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 244 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-06
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseattempt to commit Zinahabitual offendercriminal recordheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Afzal, who is accused in F.I.R. No. 123/2015 regarding offences under Sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the allegations and his criminal history. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition. The Court held that the petitioner was specifically named in the F.I.R. for dragging the victim and attempting to commit Zina, with supporting statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's involvement in a prior similar offence, indicating a habitual pattern of criminal conduct. The Court emphasized that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it entails a punishment of not less than ten years. Consequently, the Court found sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner to the offence, rendering him ineligible for bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable by ten years or more fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a history of similar criminal offences be considered when deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when there is sufficient incriminating material on record connecting them to the alleged offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Mst. Idrees Bibi and others2016 CLC 1337 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid vs State and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 147 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-02
  post-arrest bailrobberyidentification paradesupplementary statementfurther inquirydisclosure statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Abid seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 609 dated 19.12.2014 registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Litton, Lahore, concerning an offense of robbery. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of an identification parade despite the complainant's earlier assertion, the vague nature of the subsequent nomination via a supplementary statement, and the reliance on a disclosure statement made in a separate case. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of an identification parade, the unexplained supplementary statement without a stated source of information, and the insufficiency of a disclosure statement made in another case bring the matter within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the principle that a disclosure statement made in a separate criminal case is insufficient by itself to disentitle an accused person to bail, and the failure to hold an identification parade where initially claimed creates reasonable grounds for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to hold an identification parade despite the complainant's claim makes a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a disclosure statement made during the investigation of another case sufficient to disentitle an accused person from receiving post-arrest bail?
  • Whether an unexplained supplementary statement lacking the source of information warrants the grant of bail to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid Iqbal vs District Election Commissioner and 3 others2016 PLD Lahore 163 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid and others vs The State and others2016 P Cr. L J 257 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-05
  murder referencecircumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionjoint confessionlast seen evidencebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a murder reference and criminal appeals challenging the conviction and death sentence/imprisonment for life awarded by the trial court under section 302/34, P.P.C. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, namely an alleged joint extra-judicial confession, last-seen evidence, recoveries of a blood-stained kassi and a mobile phone, and medical evidence, as the FIR was initially lodged against unknown culprits. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution formed an unbroken chain of events sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a shadow of doubt. The Lahore High Court held that an extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence requiring independent corroboration and that a joint extra-judicial confession is inadmissible in law. Furthermore, the Court found the last-seen evidence and recoveries unreliable, and reiterated that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain directly connecting the accused to the crime. The Court laid down that where the prosecution fails to establish an unimpeachable chain of circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, leading to the acquittal of the appellants and the non-confirmation of the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a joint extra-judicial confession made by multiple accused persons is admissible in evidence without independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on weak circumstantial evidence when links in the chain of circumstances are missing?
  • Does the failure of an accused to produce defence evidence under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the case beyond a shadow of doubt?
  • Is medical evidence alone sufficient to connect an accused person with the commission of a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid Akram Cheema vs Aneela Cheema and otherss2016 CLC 1604 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Special Judge Atc and 6 others-2016 YLR 2702 · Lahore High Court · 2014-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Province of Punjab and otherss2016 PLJ Lahore 1097 · Lahore High Court · 2000-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Province of Punjab and others2016 PLJ Lahore 1097 · Lahore High Court · 2000-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Muhammad Ismail, etc2016 C.L.R. 1008, 2016 LHC 1651, 2016 PLJ Lahore 891 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Muhammad Ismail etc.2016 LHC 1651 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Muhammad Isiviail etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 891 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Munir vs Returning Officer,U.C. Nos.1 to 8 and others2016 YLR 1648 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Hanif vs The State2016 MLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-01
  criminal appealmurderself-defencejuvenileacquittalprosecution evidencestatement of accusedunnatural lustreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, a juvenile, under Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code, for murder. The core legal questions revolved around whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and if the appellant's plea of self-defence, including the repetition of fire shots, was valid. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, noting the unreliability of the sole eye-witness's testimony and the absence of the second alleged eye-witness. The Court accepted the appellant's plea of self-defence, finding that the repetition of fire shots by a juvenile under grave fear to prevent an unnatural assault did not necessarily constitute exceeding the right of self-defence. A key principle reiterated was that if the prosecution's evidence is disbelieved, the accused's statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, must be accepted or rejected as a whole.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court partially disbelieve an accused's statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, after disbelieving the prosecution's version?
  • Does the repetition of fire shots in self-defence by a juvenile under grave fear necessarily constitute exceeding the right of self-defence?
  • Can conviction be sustained based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness when another alleged eye-witness is not examined by the prosecution?
  • Is a motive introduced by a prosecution witness, not mentioned in the FIR, reliable without corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Ali vs The State and others2016 MLD 883 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-23
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysupplementary statementimprovements in FIRmurderstrangulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a bail application filed by Mudassar Ali, who was accused of strangulating his wife to death. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for post-arrest bail in view of material contradictions, improvements, and somersaults in the statements and subsequent petitions of the complainant regarding eyewitnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the complainant's inconsistent stances—initially reporting suicide based on a third-party call, later introducing eyewitnesses via a supplementary statement, and subsequently filing and withdrawing a petition before the Justice of Peace claiming different eyewitnesses—created serious doubts and rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that material improvements and shifting versions by a complainant regarding eyewitness accounts can tilt a pre-trial bail matter in favor of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions and shifting stances by a complainant regarding eyewitnesses make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a supplementary statement introduced significantly after the FIR, containing an improved version of events, form the basis to deny post-arrest bail?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when a complainant files and subsequently withdraws a petition before an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace presenting a completely different set of eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubashir Hussain vs The State and another2016 LHC 2413 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-15
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelay in FIRconflicting statementssui jurislove marriagecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of rape, extortion, and enticement for illicit intercourse. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in FIR registration and conflicting statements by the alleged victim. The Court observed that the FIR was registered with a delay of over one month, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the alleged victim had previously stated in a private complaint that she married the petitioner of her own free will, only later resiling from this position after returning to her parents. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that the petitioner was a first-time offender and the investigation was complete, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that unexplained delays in FIR registration and contradictory statements by the complainant party can constitute grounds for further inquiry in bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can a case be considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the alleged victim has provided contradictory statements regarding the nature of their relationship with the accused?
  • Is the completion of an investigation and the fact that an accused is a first-time offender a relevant factor in granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst.Rukhsana Bibi, etc. vs Government of Pakistan, etc.2016 LHC 2281 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Bibi and anothers vs Riaz Ahmad and otherss2016 MLD 1761 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zareena Ashraf vs D.C.O. and others2016 PLC (C.S.) 67 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-25
  service lawnatural justicevested rightsappointment withdrawalconstitutional petitiondue processshow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the withdrawal of an appointment letter for the post of Senior Elementary School Educator (Arabic Teacher) in BPS-14. The petitioner, having been selected on merit and having served for approximately three months, had her appointment withdrawn by the respondents without notice or inquiry, allegedly due to a departmental error in merit calculation. The core legal question was whether the respondents could unilaterally withdraw an appointment letter after a vested right had accrued to the petitioner, without adhering to the principles of natural justice or the contractual terms regarding notice. The Court held that the withdrawal was illegal, as it violated the principles of natural justice and the specific terms of the appointment letter requiring notice or salary in lieu thereof. The Court emphasized that a vested right cannot be taken away without due process, particularly when the error in merit calculation was attributable to the department, not the petitioner. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and pay her salary for the period served.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointment order be withdrawn without a show cause notice or inquiry when a vested right has accrued to the appointee?
  • Is an employee entitled to salary for the period served if their appointment is subsequently withdrawn by the department?
  • Does a department have the authority to terminate an appointment due to its own administrative error in merit calculation without following due process?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahoor Mai vs Allah Bakhsh and another2016 PLJ Lahore 265 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmeen Riaz through Special Attorney vs Riaz AHMADand 7 others2016 YLR 321 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waziran Mat and another vs Allah Wasaya and others2016 LHC 1753, 2016 PLJ Lahore 969 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waziran Mai and another vs Allah Wasaya and others2016 LHC 1753 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sumera Bano vs Additional District & Sessions Judge/Appellate2016 PLJ Lahore 509 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughran Bibi vs Muhammad Naveed and another2016 C.L.R. 146 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar (deceased) through Legal Heirs and others vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary Education and others2016 LHC 49, 2016 PLJ Lahore 623, 2016 MLD 1845 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shameem Akhtar vs Govt. of Punjab, etc.2016 LHC 49 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shameem Akhtar vs Government of Punjab, etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 623 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran (deceased) through L.Rs. vs District Judge, Mianwali and 2 others2016 MLD 801 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sana Jamil vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary and 52016 P Cr. L J 424 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-11
  preventive detentionpublic orderhabeas corpusdouble jeopardyfundamental rightsillegal constructionconstitutional petitionliberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the wife of a detenu challenging a detention order dated 24-07-2015 issued by the District Coordination Officer (DCO), Lahore, under Section 3(1) of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The detention was based on the detenu's involvement in six criminal cases related to illegal building constructions, which the authorities claimed posed a threat to public safety and order. The petitioner argued that the detention was punitive, based on sub-judice matters, and constituted double jeopardy. The court held that the mere pendency of criminal cases, especially where the detenu had been granted bail by competent courts, cannot justify preventive detention. The court emphasized that the right to liberty is an inalienable constitutional right and that detention without independent material or evidence of a threat to public peace is unlawful. Consequently, the court set aside the detention order as illegal and void, laying down the principle that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution or to bypass judicial orders of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the availability of an alternate remedy of representation to the Provincial Government ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in detention cases?
  • Can a detention order under Section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance be justified solely on the basis of pending criminal FIRs?
  • Does the detention of a person on the same grounds for which they are already facing trial in criminal courts amount to double jeopardy?
  • Is the subjective satisfaction of a detaining authority valid if it is based entirely on police recommendations without independent material?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sana Asim Hafeez vs Administrator/Chairman, Arbitration and2016 MLD 1061 · Lahore High Court · 2014-01-21
  divorce certificateoverseas pakistanisjurisdictionmuslim family laws ordinanceconstitutional petitionalternative remedymala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the legality of a Divorce Certificate issued by a Union Council in Lahore, declaring a divorce effective between overseas Pakistanis holding dual nationality and residing in the United Kingdom. The core legal questions concerned whether a local Union Council in Pakistan possesses jurisdiction to entertain divorce proceedings when both spouses reside abroad, and whether failure to serve notice through the Pakistan Mission in the U.K. pursuant to applicable statutory provisions vitiates the proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that since both spouses were permanent residents of the U.K., the husband was required to approach the Pakistani Mission in the U.K. under SRO No. 1086(K)/61 rather than initiating proceedings before a Union Council in Pakistan. The Court ruled that local authorities lacked jurisdiction, rendering the proceedings coram non judice and mala fide, thereby bypassing the bar of alternative statutory remedies. The petition was allowed with costs and the impugned Divorce Certificate was declared null and void.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Union Council in Pakistan have jurisdiction to initiate divorce proceedings and issue a divorce certificate when both spouses are permanent residents and nationals residing abroad?
  • Whether the failure to serve notice of divorce through the Pakistani Mission abroad violates the mandatory provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • Does the availability of an alternative remedy of revision bar the invocation of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction when proceedings by a statutory functionary are tainted with mala fides and lack jurisdiction?
  • Are divorce proceedings initiated in Pakistan maintainable when the foreign court of the country of permanent residence has already assumed jurisdiction over the family dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi vs Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh and 42016 PLJ Lahore 806 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Begum vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2016 PLJ Lahore 82 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Shafi vs General Anti-Corruption Establishment & 3 others2016 LHC 886 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Shafi vs Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment and 3others2016 LHC 886, K.L.R. 2016 Civil Cases 193 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safeena Shaheen vs Muhammad Akhtar2019 KLR Revenue Case 36, 2021 YLR 1776, 2016 LHC 4072 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. S. Yasmin vs Pakistan Railways, etc2016 LHC 2160 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-22
  disciplinary proceedingsabatement of proceedingsservice benefitsposthumous penaltydeceased employeeconstitutional petitionmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court to challenge an order depriving the petitioner of the service benefits of her deceased husband, who had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The core legal question was whether departmental disciplinary proceedings abate upon the death of an employee prior to the culmination of such proceedings, or whether a penalty can be imposed posthumously. Holding that disciplinary proceedings are personal to the contract of service and automatically abate upon the death or superannuation of the employee, the court ruled that no penalty can be validly imposed on a deceased person. The Lahore High Court set aside the impugned departmental order as coram non judice and without jurisdiction, directing the respondent authorities to release all service benefits to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant abate upon their death, rendering any subsequent imposition of a penalty legally void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated against a civil servant stand abated upon their death prior to the finalization of the proceedings?
  • Can a departmental penalty of dismissal be imposed on an employee posthumously?
  • Are the legal heirs of a deceased employee entitled to service benefits if the employee died before a valid penalty was finalized and communicated?
  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for the payment of pensionary and service benefits to the legal heirs of a deceased employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Bibi and otherss vs Government of Pakistan and otherss2016 LHC 2281, 2016 PLD Lahore 857 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-18
  citizenshipgender discriminationfundamental rightsforeign spouseequal protection of lawconstitutional petitionPakistan Citizenship Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a Pakistani woman and her Indian national husband, seeking directions to prevent discrimination, grant citizenship to the husband, and restrain his extradition. The core legal question concerned whether denying Pakistani citizenship to an alien male married to a Pakistani woman, while granting the converse right to an alien female married to a Pakistani man under Section 10(2) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that the alien husband could not directly invoke constitutional jurisdiction due to his status, but allowed the petition with respect to the Pakistani wife. The Court ruled that denying citizenship to a foreign national husband of a Pakistani woman is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates Article 25 of the Constitution and international human rights commitments. The key principle laid down is that gender-based discrimination in citizenship laws regarding foreign spouses is unconstitutional and lacks rational classification.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 10(2) of the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by discriminating against Pakistani women married to alien males?
  • Can an alien male, prior to acquiring citizenship, invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge visa and deportation measures?
  • What are the parameters for a valid classification under the equal protection clause of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Roshan Ara Begum and 8 others vs Muhammad Banaras and another2016 YLR 1300 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-12
  revision petitionco-sharersuit for declaration and possessionconcurrent findingsownershipsale deed
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners instituted a civil suit for declaration and possession asserting ownership of a disputed shop constructed by their predecessor-in-interest, alleging that respondent No. 1, a tenant, unlawfully purchased the property through a secret sale deed executed by respondent No. 2. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the lower appellate court affirmed the decision, leading to the filing of the instant revision petition before the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners established their exclusive ownership and whether a suit for declaration and possession is maintainable by a co-sharer against another co-sharer. The High Court held that the petitioners failed to prove their exclusive ownership and gift, whereas respondent No. 1 established ownership through a registered sale deed, becoming a co-sharer in the joint property. The Court laid down that a co-sharer cannot maintain a suit for declaration and possession against another co-sharer, as the appropriate remedy is a suit for partition, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction without proof of material misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer maintain a suit for declaration and possession against another co-sharer in respect of joint property?
  • What is the status and possession of a purchaser who buys a share out of joint property?
  • Under what circumstances will the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does the purchase of a share in joint property terminate the previous tenancy status of the purchaser?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Riffat Sultana and others vs Nadir Hayat and others2016 YLR 110 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-12
  oral salerevenue mutationburden of proofpleadings and proofrevisional jurisdictionmisreading of evidencegeneral power of attorneydeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts, which decreed the plaintiff's suit for a declaration regarding ownership of agricultural land based on an oral sale and a subsequent revenue mutation. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff successfully proved the underlying oral sale transaction, the valid attestation of the mutation, and the authority of the general attorney, despite material contradictions in pleadings and evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the plaintiff miserably failed to establish the foundational oral sale, the payment of consideration, or the valid attestation of the mutation, noting that a mutation per se is not a document of title and that the plaintiff's evidence severely departed from his pleadings. The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts as perverse and suffering from misreading and non-reading of evidence, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The key principles laid down are that a party cannot prove a case beyond its pleadings, a mutation does not convey title independent of the underlying transaction, and the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if there is misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party be permitted to prove a case or facts beyond the scope of its pleadings?
  • Does a revenue mutation per se serve as a document of title or merely indicate a previous oral transaction?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the mere admission of a signature or thumb impression on an instrument amount to proof of its execution without proving its contents under Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Riffat Sattar vs Government of Punjab, etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 13 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Riffat Munir vs Naveed Zafar and another2016 P Cr. L J 464 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-25
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailmisuse of bailconsigned to recordSection 561-A CrPCcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two petitions filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the recall and cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent-accused in a case involving offences under Sections 379 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant argued that the offences were attracted, material connected the respondents, and the respondents had misused the bail by committing a subsequent offence recorded in a cross-version. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the considerations for the grant of bail and those for its cancellation are entirely distinct. The court noted that the alleged cross-version was investigated and found false by the police, which was concurred with by the Judicial Magistrate, thus failing to establish misuse of bail. Furthermore, because the complainant repeatedly failed to appear before the trial court, the trial had been consigned to the record under Section 249-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court reaffirmed that bail granted by a competent court on valid reasons cannot be cancelled absent strong and exceptional grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Are the considerations for granting bail distinct from the grounds required to cancel bail once granted?
  • Can bail be cancelled on allegations of misuse where a subsequent cross-version FIR was found false by the police and endorsed by a magistrate?
  • Should a petition for cancellation of bail be entertained when the underlying trial has been consigned to record due to the complainant's non-appearance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehana Anjum vs Additional Sessions Judge and 6 others2016 PLD Lahore 570 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-06
  electronically generated evidenceprimary evidenceautomated information systemdefence witnessadmissibility of documentsproof of contentsQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, whereby an objection raised by the petitioner-complainant during the examination of a defence witness (Statistical Assistant, NADRA) was overruled and the witness was directed to complete his statement. The petitioner had filed a private complaint for murder against private respondents, who produced electronic records from an E-Toll Plaza as part of their defence. The petitioner objected that the witness, not being the scribe or record-keeper of the document, could not depose to its contents. The Lahore High Court held that printouts or outputs from an automated information system constitute primary evidence under Article 73 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and do not require manual signatures. The court ruled that producing a document in evidence is distinct from proving its contents, and the defence witness was legally competent to depose about the electronically generated record, subject to cross-examination and final determination of admissibility by the trial court. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a printout or output of an automated information system qualifies as primary evidence under Article 73 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a defence witness who is not the scribe or direct author of an electronically generated document depose regarding its contents?
  • Does the mere production and tendering of a document in evidence dispense with the requirement of proving its contents?
  • Are electronically generated documents required to be manually signed to be admissible in evidence under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi vs The State and another2016 P Cr. L J 1519 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-11
  pre-arrest bailmurdersuckling babydelay in recording statementextra judicial confessionwelfare of minor
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by Mst. Razia Bibi seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to the murder of her niece. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the delayed recording of witness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the weak nature of the alleged extra-judicial confession, and the fact that she was nursing an eight-month-old suckling baby. The Lahore High Court held that the one-month delay in recording the statements of prosecution witnesses reduced their evidentiary value to nil, that extra-judicial confessions are a weak type of evidence, and that the welfare of an infant child is incompatible with jail life. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down that the welfare and protection of a suckling child's rights override maternal detention pending trial in appropriate circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of one month in recording the statement of a prosecution witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 reduce its evidentiary value?
  • Whether the presence of a suckling infant constitutes a valid ground for confirming pre-arrest bail of a female accused in a capital charge?
  • What is the evidentiary status of an extra-judicial confession at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashidan Bibi through Legal Heirs and others vs Aman Ullah Khan2016 PLD Lahore 602 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rani Fareeda vs Tahir Saleem2016 MLD 1771 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ramzano vs Khushi Muhammad and others-2016 YLR 2627 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia Gulzar and others vs Additional District Judge and others2016 MLD 693 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia Bibi vs Abdul Qadir and others2016 CLC 1460 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-14
  custody of minorwelfare of the minorHizanatsecond marriage of mothermaintenance allowancevisitation rightsGuardian JudgeGuardians and Wards Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the concurrent orders of the Guardian Judge and the Appellate Court, which had allowed the father's (respondent No. 1) application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of the minor son. The courts below had disturbed the mother's custody primarily because she had remarried and the minor had crossed seven years of age, thereby terminating her right of Hizanat under personal law. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders and dismissing the custody application. The Court held that the welfare of the minor is the paramount and supreme consideration in determining custody, overriding strict rules of personal law. Second marriage or crossing the age of seven does not automatically disentitle a mother from retaining custody. It was established that the father sought custody merely to evade paying maintenance, whereas the mother had cared for the minor since birth and had subsequently divorced her second husband. The father was granted conditional visitation rights subject to clearing all maintenance dues.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mother's second marriage automatically disentitle her from retaining the custody of her minor child?
  • Whether the preferential custody rights of a father under Muhammadan Law are subservient to the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor?
  • Can a father's application for custody be dismissed if it is filed primarily to evade execution of a maintenance decree?
  • Can a court make a father's visitation rights contingent upon the clearance and regular payment of the minor's maintenance allowance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Perveen vs Home Department, etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 5, 2016 KLR Criminal Cases 38 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Perveen vs Home Department and others2016 PLD Lahore 153 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Jan vs Asghar Khan and 5 others2016 MLD 1956 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Bibi vs The State and another2016 P Cr. LJ 732 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-29
  juvenile offenderdetermination of ageNADRA birth certificateForm-Bossification testcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby respondent No.2 was declared a juvenile offender facing trial under sections 364-A and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court was bound to hold a formal inquiry and order an ossification test despite the availability of official documentary evidence like a NADRA birth certificate and Form-B regarding the accused's age. The Lahore High Court held that an inquiry is not mandatory where authentic official documents issued prior to the crime establish minority, and an ossification test is unnecessary when reliable documentary evidence exists. The petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order declaring the respondent a juvenile offender under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a court to hold a formal inquiry for age determination under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 when authentic official birth documents are available?
  • When is an ossification test necessary for determining the age of an accused claiming to be a juvenile?
  • Does a NADRA-issued birth certificate and Form-B carry a presumption of truth regarding the age of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Rizwan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2016 CLC 1719 · Lahore High Court · 2014-08-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nawab Bibi and others vs Ch. Allah Ditta and 13 others2016 LHC 1621 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naveeda Kausar and others vs Mauzzam Khan and others2016 CLC 180 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs State & another2016 PCRLJ 1867, 2017 YLR 1571, PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 71 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabductionprostitutiondelay in FIRbail for women
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Mst. Naseem Akhtar, sought post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 297/2015, registered at Police Station Budhla Cantt, Multan, for offences under Sections 376, 371-A, 371-B, and 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused abducted the complainant's daughter for the purpose of prostitution and misappropriated cash and gold ornaments. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of three months. Furthermore, the medical examination of the alleged victim showed no signs of violence. The Court noted that the petitioner is the ex-wife of the complainant and the mother of the alleged victim. Crucially, the Court found that co-accused persons had already been granted bail based on the statements of the complainant and the victim, which exonerated them. Given the petitioner's status as a woman and the fact that her case was on a better footing than the co-accused who were released, the Court held that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained three-month delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is a female accused entitled to bail when her case stands on a better footing than co-accused who have already been granted bail?
  • Does the absence of violence marks on the alleged victim's body support a plea for further inquiry in an abduction case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nabeela Kausar vs S.H.O. Police Station Chowk Azam, District, Layyah and 3 others2016 PLJ Lahore 718 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarat Bib! and 2 others vs The State and another2016 P Cr. L J 121 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-10
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of the doubtinterested witnesschance witnessmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-i-Amd of the deceased and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involve the credibility of interested and chance witnesses, the reliability of dishonest improvements in witness testimony, the evidentiary value of uncorroborated joint attributions of fatal blows, and the application of the benefit of the doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a shadow of doubt, as the eye-witnesses were established to be chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, their testimonies suffered from deliberate improvements, and the medical evidence and recoveries did not corroborate the charges against the appellants. Consequently, the court laid down that uncorroborated testimony of interested and unreliable witnesses cannot form the basis of a conviction, accepting the appeal and acquitting the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eye-witness who is a chance witness and fails to establish his natural presence at the crime scene can be relied upon for sustaining a conviction?
  • Does a material and dishonest improvement made by a witness in subsequent testimony destroy the credibility of such witness?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on a joint attribution of a single fatal injury to multiple accused without corroborative evidence?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution evidence is riddled with material contradictions, delay in lodging the FIR, and uncorroborated interested testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Manzoor Elahi vs Sessions Judge and 4 others2016 P Cr. L J 211 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-12
  exhumationpostmortem examinationinquestdiscretionary powercriminal investigationcause of death
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of an application for the exhumation and second postmortem examination of a deceased woman, Mst. Sumaira Bibi. The petitioner, the mother-in-law of the deceased, alleged that the deceased committed suicide due to family pressure and that the initial postmortem report was fabricated to include blunt weapon injuries. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate and the revisional court erred in refusing to order a second postmortem under sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the power to order a second postmortem is discretionary and requires compelling new circumstances, which were absent here. The Court found the initial postmortem report credible and dismissed the theory of suicide as unsupported by the record. The key principle laid down is that the power to order exhumation and re-postmortem examination under sections 174 and 176, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is an extraordinary measure that cannot be exercised based on mere whims or unsubstantiated allegations when the cause of death is already unequivocally established.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate order a second postmortem examination of a dead body under sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the power to order exhumation and re-postmortem examination discretionary or mandatory upon the request of a party?
  • Does a discrepancy between the injury statement prepared by the police and the medical officer's report automatically necessitate a second postmortem examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mamuna Amin vs Government of Punjab etc2016 LHC 4216 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mahtab Tayab vs State and 2 othersPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 492 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-11
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmalicious litigationdelayed FIRbusiness dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, confirming the pre-arrest bail of respondents in a case registered under Sections 380, 457, and 506-B of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether pre-arrest bail confirmed by the lower court warrants cancellation due to misuse of concession or other compelling grounds, particularly amidst a background of commercial disputes between partners of an educational institution, delayed FIR registration, and subsequent repetitive and unprosecuted petitions filed by the complainant. The Lahore High Court held that no justification exists to recall the bail-granting order, noting that the complainant failed to demonstrate any misuse of bail concession and was instead using the litigation process to harass the respondents through repeated, abandoned petitions. The court established that repeated filing of bail cancellation petitions without diligent prosecution, coupled with an absence of proof regarding the misuse of bail, does not justify interference with a well-reasoned pre-arrest bail confirmation order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be cancelled when the complainant fails to establish any misuse of the concession of bail?
  • Does the filing of repetitive and non-prosecuted petitions for bail cancellation constitute an abuse of the process of law?
  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and subsequent execution of an affidavit exonerating the accused are relevant factors in confirming pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kattu and others vs Eesa2016 MLD 39 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Begum alias Shadan and others vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 407 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-31
  drug traffickingmutual legal assistanceretrospective application of lawSection 342 examinationburden of proofcriminal appealnarcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded by the Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances, for alleged drug trafficking. The core legal questions concern the sustainability of convictions based on foreign reports without proper evidentiary proof, the failure to adhere to statutory mutual legal assistance procedures, and procedural irregularities during trial, specifically the failure to confront the accused with incriminating evidence during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proof. It found that the trial court relied on inadmissible foreign documents, failed to follow the mandatory legal mechanism for international cooperation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1997, and incorrectly applied the law retrospectively. Furthermore, the failure to confront the accused with material evidence rendered the trial fundamentally flawed. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, establishing that criminal liability cannot be based on presumptions, and that strict compliance with procedural and evidentiary rules is mandatory for a valid conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained based on foreign reports that have not been proven in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the failure to confront an accused with incriminating material during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the conviction?
  • Is it permissible to apply the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 to an offence committed before its enactment?
  • Must the prosecution strictly comply with the statutory mechanism for international mutual legal assistance when relying on evidence gathered in a foreign jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum, etc. vs Syed Muhammad Sadiq, etc.2016 C.L.R. 1131 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hina Liaquat vs Secretary Education, etc.2016 C.L.R 1673 · Lahore High Court · 2004-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hifsa Naseer vs Additional District Judge, Gujjar Khan and others2016 LHC 2446, 2016 KLR Civil Cases 351 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hifsa Naseer vs Additional District Judge, Gujar Khan and others2016 LHC 2446 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hayatan Mai vs Mst. Aziz Mai alias Azizi through L.Rs.2016 YLR 539 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameedan Bibi and another vs Muhammad Sharif2016 LHC 894 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghania Hassan vs Shahid Hussain Shahid and another2016 LHC 592, 2016 PLJ Lahore 756, 2017 PLD Lahore 41 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghania Hassan vs Shahid Hussain Shahid & another2016 LHC 592 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fozia Shabnam vs Additional Sessions Judge, Multan and 8 others2016 PLD Lahore 518 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-24
  exhumationdisintermentunnatural deathcriminal inquirywrit jurisdictionreasonable suspicioncause of death
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, the sister of the deceased, sought the disinterment and exhumation of her brother's body, alleging he was murdered by poisoning and strangulation. The Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed her application, citing potential mala fides and family disputes. The Lahore High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the lower courts erred by focusing on collateral issues like inheritance and family disputes rather than the statutory requirements for exhumation. The Court held that the primary consideration under Sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is whether the circumstances raise a reasonable suspicion that an offence was committed in relation to the death. The Court emphasized that the right to know the cause of death is paramount, and exhumation can be ordered even on the request of a stranger, let alone a close relative, to dispel suspicions of unnatural death. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' orders and directed the Judicial Magistrate to manage the disinterment to ascertain the cause of death.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Judicial Magistrate consider collateral issues like inheritance disputes when deciding an application for the exhumation of a dead body?
  • Is the registration of an F.I.R. a prerequisite or an impediment to holding an inquiry into the cause of death under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the primary legal test for ordering the exhumation of a dead body under Sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the alleged mala fide intent of an applicant preclude the court from ordering an exhumation if there is a reasonable suspicion of an unnatural death?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farrukh Habib vs Saeed Ahmad Khan etc2016 LHC 1497 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farhat Begum through Legal Heir vs Judge Banking Court No.12016 CLD 1089 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Falak Naz vs Tariq Mehmood Khan, Lac2016 LHC 4081 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-04
  contempt of courtland acquisitioncompensationexecution of decreereferee courtjudicial adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for alleged non-compliance with a previous court order regarding the payment of compensation for acquired land. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to pay a specific sum of Rs.33,58,460/-, which had been mentioned in the court's earlier order. The core legal question was whether the mention of a claimed amount in a court order, based on a petitioner's assertion, constitutes a binding judicial determination of that specific amount, thereby rendering non-payment a contempt of court. The court held that the amount mentioned in the previous order was merely a reflection of the petitioner's claim and not an adjudicated sum fixed by the court. The court clarified that it had not intended to direct payment of a specific disputed amount without proper adjudication. The key principle laid down is that a court's direction to pay compensation in accordance with statutory provisions does not convert a claimant's asserted figure into a binding judicial decree, and disputes regarding compensation amounts must be resolved through the statutory mechanism of the Referee Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mention of a claimed amount in a court order constitute a binding judicial determination of that amount?
  • Can a party initiate contempt proceedings for non-payment of a sum that was merely asserted by the claimant and not adjudicated by the court?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a landowner dissatisfied with the compensation amount determined in a land acquisition award?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fahmida vs Sajjad Ashraf and another2016 YLR 2119 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bushra Bibi and others vs Hidayatullah and others2016 MLD 80 · Lahore High Court · 2013-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran Bibi vs Adj, etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 365 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashir Begum vs Member Judl., Board of Revenue etc2021 [M] C L R 704, 2021 KLR Revenue Cases 38, 2016 LHC 4098, 2021 YLR · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayyan Ali vs The State and another2016 P Cr. L J 654 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-14
  post-arrest bailcustoms smugglingforeign currencybaggage declarationstatutory leniencyfemale accused
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 2(s), 156(1)(8), 70, 157, 178 of the Customs Act, 1969, read with section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and section 3(1) of I.T.C, 1950, after her previous bail applications were dismissed by the lower forums. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's apprehension at the airport counter before making a baggage declaration constituted an attempt to smuggle foreign currency, warranting continued detention. The Lahore High Court held that since the stage of making a declaration had not arrived and her custody was no longer required for investigation, a case for further probe was made out. Furthermore, considering her status as a female with no previous criminal record and that the offense was technical in nature, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail pursuant to the first proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the apprehension of a passenger before reaching the customs counter for baggage declaration constitute an attempt to smuggle foreign currency?
  • Whether the offense of taking foreign currency out of Pakistan beyond the prescribed limit is considered technical rather than immoral or anti-social for the purpose of bail?
  • Does a female accused with no previous criminal record qualify for leniency under the first proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayesha Malik vs S.H.O. Police Station City Jampur District2016 YLR 2106 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asghari Bibi vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions2016 PLJ Lahore 711 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amena Gulnaz alias Aimena vs State2016 LHC 493, PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 801 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-26
  criminal appealmurderacquittalSection 342 statementburden of proofprosecution evidenceforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The trial court had acquitted the co-accused but convicted the appellant based solely on her statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where she admitted to killing the deceased after he allegedly committed rape against her. The core legal question was whether an accused can be convicted on their Section 342 statement alone when the prosecution’s evidence has been rejected in its entirety. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the ocular evidence was unreliable and the forensic evidence was compromised by procedural delays. Relying on established precedent, the Court ruled that if the prosecution fails to prove its case, the accused must be acquitted, regardless of any admission made in their statement. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a statement under Section 342 must be accepted or rejected in its entirety, and cannot be used selectively to convict when the primary prosecution case is discarded. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on their statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution's evidence is rejected in its entirety?
  • Must a statement of an accused recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case necessitate the acquittal of an accused even if they have admitted to the act in their Section 342 statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amena alias Gulnaz Aimena vs The State2016 LHC 493 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-26
  criminal appealmurder convictionSection 342 statementevidentiary value of confessionbenefit of doubtforensic evidence delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Mst. Amena Gulnaz alias Aimena, challenged her conviction under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Abu Bakar, for which she was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment. The trial court had acquitted her co-accused but convicted the appellant based on her own statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein she admitted to shooting the deceased after he allegedly raped her at gunpoint. The core legal question was whether an accused can be convicted solely on their own statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when the prosecution's evidence has been rejected in its entirety. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the ocular account was unreliable, the motive was unproven, and the forensic evidence was compromised by delayed submission. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court ruled that if the prosecution fails to prove its case, the accused must be acquitted, even if they admitted the act in their statement. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution's evidence is rejected in its entirety?
  • Does the statement of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have to be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  • What is the legal effect of sending crime empties to a forensic laboratory after the arrest of the accused or with significant delay?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction if the ocular account is found unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtar Fatima through Legal Heirs and others vs Bakhat Rafee Shah2016 CLC 887 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-09Read full judgment →
• Ms. Shabina Riaz Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2016 CLC 458 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-12
  election commission of pakistanfake degreecorrupt practicesrepresentation of the people actwrit jurisdictioninvestigationcriminal complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) directing a complaint to be filed against the petitioner before the Sessions Judge for allegedly posing as a graduate on the basis of a fake degree. The core legal question was whether the ECP acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with Supreme Court mandates when it issued the impugned order of prosecution without conducting a proper investigation or collecting tangible evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the ECP exceeded its mandate by assuming the role of an adjudicating authority to record definitive findings of fact rather than conducting the required investigation to unearth triable evidence of corrupt practices. The Court ruled that the ECP's function under the Supreme Court's directives was to investigate and gather positive evidence before filing a complaint, rather than prematurely judging the defense or prejudicing a fair trial. Consequently, the impugned order was declared a nullity in the eye of law. The key principle laid down is that the ECP must strictly confine its actions to conducting genuine investigations and collecting tangible evidence before initiating criminal complaints for corrupt practices regarding forged educational qualifications, without usurping the trial court's adjudicatory domain.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the jurisdiction to act as an adjudicating authority to record definitive findings of fact regarding a fake degree before filing a complaint?
  • What is the proper scope of an inquiry or investigation mandated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning parliamentarians accused of using forged educational qualifications?
  • Who is competent to lodge a complaint for corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act 1976?
  • Can an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan be declared a nullity if it is passed in excess of the mandate given by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Humaira Najmi Mujahid and anothers vs Defence Housing2016 MLD 1774 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Muhammad Khan (Deceased) represented2016 C.L.R. 77 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →