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.

• Gul Sumera vs Adj, Etc.2016 NLR Civil 67 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-10Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad alias Gulla vs The State and others2016 YLR 856 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-22
  criminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtocular evidencecapital punishmentmurder trialmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the offences of Qatl-i-Amd and attempt to murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the identity of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular testimony and an identification parade conducted years after the occurrence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. The Court observed that the eye-witnesses had not provided physical descriptions of the accused in the FIR, nor did they participate in the identification parade, rendering their subsequent in-court identification unreliable. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that medical evidence, while corroborating the nature of injuries, cannot independently connect an accused to the crime. Emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a fundamental right of the accused rather than a concession, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Is an in-court identification of an accused reliable when the accused was unknown to the witnesses and no prior description was provided in the FIR?
  • Can medical evidence alone be sufficient to connect an accused to the commission of a crime?
  • Does the failure of key eye-witnesses to participate in a pre-trial identification parade undermine the credibility of their subsequent in-court identification?
  Read full judgment →
• Gu Longbin vs The State and others2016 P Cr. L J 1210 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-17
  superdariinterim custodydonkey hidesstolen propertycase propertypossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a Chinese national challenging the concurrent orders of the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Kasur, which dismissed his application for the superdari (interim custody) of confiscated donkey hides. The police had seized the hides from a rented premises following the registration of an FIR under Sections 379, 429, and 270 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging that the nominated accused were part of a gang stealing donkeys and illegally selling their meat. The petitioner claimed ownership of the hides as a businessman, arguing that withholding them would harm foreign investment. The High Court observed that under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, custody is ordinarily granted to the person last in possession. The petitioner failed to prove ownership or possession, as the rent agreement was in another person's name. Furthermore, the court held that stolen property cannot be released on superdari to a purchaser who acquired it from a thief. The petition was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person who fails to prove ownership or last possession of seized case property is entitled to its custody under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can stolen property seized by the police as case property be released on superdari to a person who allegedly purchased it from the accused thieves?
  • What is the proper course of action for the disposal of perishable case property, such as animal hides, when the ownership is contested and a trial is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Govt. of Punjab, etc. vs Mst. Saba Jabeen2016 C.L.R. 757 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-02Read full judgment →
• Govt. of Punjab, etc. vs Met. Saba Jabeen2016 C.L.R. 757, 2016 LHC 439, 2018 LHC 450, K.L.R. 2016 Civil Cases 115, 2022 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-02Read full judgment →
• Govt. of Punjab etc. vs Mst. Saba Jabeen2016 LHC 439 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-02Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others vs Syed Riaz Ali Zaidi2016 PLJ Lahore 60, 2016 PLC (C.S.) 1074 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-09
  judicial independencefinancial autonomycharged expenditureHigh Court establishmentadministrative expensesservice rulesProvincial Consolidated Fund
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a judgment directing the Provincial Government to implement a 50% increase in Judicial and Ad hoc Allowances for Lahore High Court (LHC) employees. The Appellants contended that such increases required the Governor's approval under Rule 17 of the High Court Rules and that the Prime Minister’s directive regarding these allowances was not binding. The core legal question concerned the extent of the High Court's financial autonomy and whether its administrative expenses, including staff remuneration, are subject to executive interference or Governor approval. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Chief Justice and the Administrative Committee possess exclusive authority to determine the terms and conditions of service for LHC staff. It affirmed that judicial independence encompasses financial independence, rendering LHC administrative expenses "charged expenditure" under the Constitution, which cannot be altered or delayed by the executive. The Court clarified that Rule 17 does not mandate Governor approval for individual pay increases, as the Governor's role is limited to the initial promulgation of service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Governor's approval under Rule 17 of the High Court Rules require authorization for every individual increase in pay and allowances for High Court employees?
  • Are the administrative expenses and remuneration of High Court employees considered 'charged expenditure' under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the Provincial Executive alter or refuse to implement decisions made by the Chief Justice and the Administrative Committee regarding the remuneration of High Court staff?
  • Does the independence of the judiciary include the power to determine the terms and conditions of service for its own establishment without executive interference?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Lahore2016 PLJ Lahore 60 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gohar Ali vs Muhammad Yousaf, Etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 20, 2016 NLR Revenue 45 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-02Read full judgment →
• Giajlam Qasim and others vs The State and others2016 YLR 687 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-11
  kidnapping for ransomtest identification paradebenefit of the doubtcapital sentencere-appraisal of evidencetainted evidenceanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing the appellants to death under Section 365-A read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for kidnapping for ransom. The core legal questions pertained to the reliability of the foundational FIR, the evidentiary value of test identification parades where witnesses gave contradictory or partial identifications, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a capital case. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions in the FIR, manipulation of timelines, flaws in the test identification parades, and the failure of the prosecution to prove its case through unimpeachable evidence rendered the convictions unsafe. The court established that a tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another tainted piece and that where identification evidence is indivisible and fails as to one co-accused, it loses its sting against others similarly placed. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt and answered the capital sentence reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of prosecution witnesses to identify one co-accused during a test identification parade vitiates the identification of another co-accused placed in an identical position?
  • Can a tainted piece of evidence corroborate another tainted piece of evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Whether contradictions between the medical evidence and the prosecution's narrative regarding a witness's unconsciousness are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Is it safe to maintain capital convictions based on circumstantial evidence that fails to exclude every hypothesis of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yasin vs The State, etc.K.L.R. 2016 Criminal Cases 102 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-30
  pre-arrest bailhonour killingmurdercompounding of offencesprohibitory clausewaiver and compromise
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of his 16/17-year-old daughter in the name of honour. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail could be granted in an honour killing case where legal heirs had purportedly pardoned the accused. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy that cannot be extended to an accused facing a prima facie case of murder, particularly when the offence is heinous, affects the society at large, and falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down that a compromise or waiver by legal heirs in cases of honour killing cannot be routinely accepted without satisfying statutory conditions and obtaining the mandatory approval of the trial court, and such offences do not warrant the concession of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pardon by legal heirs is sufficient to entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail in an honour killing case?
  • Does an offence committed in the name of honour fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a compromise be allowed for a murder committed in the name or on the pretext of honor without the approval and conditions imposed by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yasin vs The State and anotherK.L.R. 2016 Criminal Cases 102, 2017 PLD Lahore 103 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-30
  pre-arrest bailbail before arresthonour killingqatl-i-amdcompounding of offencesprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Ghulam Yasin seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 323 of 2015 registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Satyana, District Faisalabad, for the alleged murder of his minor daughter. The core legal question revolves around whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused charged with honour killing merely on the basis of a compromise or pardon by the legal heirs. The court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be granted to an accused against whom a prima facie case of murder in the name of honour is made out, as such offences are against the society and state, and compromise provisions are strictly regulated under the law. The key principle laid down is that honour killing cases do not warrant the concession of pre-arrest bail, and compounding of such offences requires strict adherence to statutory conditions and court approval.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pardon by the legal heirs of the deceased entitles an accused to pre-arrest bail in a case of honour killing?
  • Does an offence committed in the name of honour fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a compromise in an offence committed under the pretext of karokari or similar customs be effected without the approval of the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir Malik vs The State and another2016 LHC 1310, 2016 P Cr. L J 1365 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-06
  criminal appealEmigration Ordinanceacquittalburden of proofreasonable doubtwitness contradictionfraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court (Central), Faisalabad, under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly defrauding a complainant by promising foreign employment and providing fake visa documents. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the violation of the Emigration Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the alleged victim was never produced as a witness, and significant contradictions existed in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the payment of money. Furthermore, no evidence confirmed the appellant was an Overseas Employment Promoter or that he possessed illicit documents. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on disjointed, unreliable evidence, and that any reasonable doubt created in the prosecution's case warrants the acquittal of the accused, consistent with established Supreme Court precedents regarding the burden of proof in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the alleged victim as a witness create a reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Can a conviction under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish that the accused is an Overseas Employment Promoter?
  • Does a material contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the payment of money warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir Malik vs The State & another2016 LHC 1310 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-06
  emigration fraudunlawful emigrationreceiving money for foreign employmentbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalcontradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (Central), Faisalabad, convicting the appellant under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly defrauding the complainant's brother by promising foreign employment and providing fake visa documents. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, including the receipt of money and the appellant's status or actions violating the Emigration Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to material contradictions in witness testimonies, non-production of key witnesses including the alleged victim and the father, lack of recovery of incriminating material or fake documents, and absence of proof that the appellant was an Overseas Employment Promoter or acted in violation of the relevant statute. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on unreliable and disjointed evidence, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case warrants the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 can be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce the primary victim and crucial eyewitnesses?
  • Does the failure to recover any fake emigration documents or passports from the accused vitiate a charge under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether material contradictions regarding the handing over of alleged tainted money between prosecution witnesses create sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal?
  • What is the legal effect of a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case on the accused's liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Khan Lalwani, vs StatePLJ 2016.Cr.C. (Lahore) 689 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-11
  disproportionate assetsknown sources of incomebenami transactionburden of proofstatutory presumptionaccountability courtpublic officebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and criminal revision challenge the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellant, a public servant, under Section 10(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, and seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the extent of the prosecution's initial burden of proof under Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, regarding assets disproportionate to known sources of income and alleged benami transactions, and whether a conviction can be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish this initial onus. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution must first produce convincing, affirmative evidence establishing the foundational facts—including the accused's known sources of income, the value of the properties, and a nexus for benami transactions—before any statutory presumption of guilt or shift in the burden of proof under Section 14 can be invoked against the accused. The court laid down the principle that failure of the prosecution to discharge its initial onus of proving the core ingredients of corruption and corrupt practices entitles the accused to an acquittal, regardless of any weaknesses in the defense evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 shift the initial burden of proof to the accused before the prosecution establishes its case?
  • What are the essential ingredients that the prosecution must prove in a charge of acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of income?
  • Can a conviction for a benami transaction be sustained when the prosecution fails to adduce evidence regarding the source of consideration and the real owner?
  • Is an accused's conviction justified solely on the basis of weak defense evidence when the prosecution fails to discharge its initial onus?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Khan Lalwani vs The StatePLJ 2016.Cr.C. (Lahore) 689, 2016 P Cr. L J 1343 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-11
  Accountability Referencedisproportionate assetsbenami transactionpresumption of guiltburden of proofpublic officeacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a former DIG (Prisons), was convicted by an Accountability Court under Section 10(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and for benami transactions. The appellant challenged his conviction, while the State sought an enhancement of his sentence. The Lahore High Court examined the scope of Section 14 of the Ordinance regarding the presumption of guilt. The Court held that the statutory presumption under Section 14(c) does not shift the initial burden of proof from the prosecution, which must first establish a prima facie case with tangible evidence of disproportionate assets and a nexus between the accused and the benami properties. Finding that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of the appellant's known sources of income during the acquisition period or prove the source of funds for the benami properties, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presumption under Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 shift the initial burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused?
  • What essential ingredients must the prosecution prove to establish a charge of possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income?
  • What factors must be established by the prosecution to prove that a transaction is benami in nature?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the weakness of the defence evidence when the prosecution has failed to discharge its initial burden of proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar (Late) through Legal Heirs, etc. vs Mst, Naseem Akhtar, etc2016 PLJ Lahore 991 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sakina and another vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum2016 C.L.R. 191, 2016 CLC 1164 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul (deceased) through his Legal Heirs etc. vs Ihsan Ullah2016 LHC 2190, 2016 PLJ Lahore 955 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul (deceased) through his legal heirs etc vs Ihsan Ullah2016 LHC 2190 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Nasir Iqbal and 4 others2016 PLJ Lahore 273 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Govt. of Punjab through District Officer (Revenue), Sahiwal etc2016 LHC 1505 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Government of Punjab through District Officer2016 MLD 1660 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-03
  review petitionwithdrawal of suitstate landproprietary rightsillegal occupantCharagahCode of Civil Procedureregular lessee
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition challenges an order of the Lahore High Court that dismissed a civil revision as withdrawn. The petitioner sought to recall the withdrawal order to instead withdraw the original civil suit, aiming to bypass concurrent adverse judgments regarding his claim for proprietary rights over state land. The core legal questions were whether a litigant can withdraw a suit after it has been adjudicated on merits, and whether an illegal occupant of state land classified as Charagah is entitled to proprietary rights under the 2003 policy. The Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the petitioner, having failed to prove status as a regular lessee and occupying resumed land, had no legal claim. The Court ruled that a party cannot withdraw proceedings to circumvent binding judgments that have attained finality, particularly when doing so would perpetuate injustice or prejudice the state. The principle established is that courts will decline withdrawal requests where the intent is to prevent the finality of adverse decisions or to avoid the consequences of illegal occupation, as equity is not available to those who do not come with clean hands.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party withdraw a suit after it has been decided on merits by the trial and appellate courts?
  • Is an illegal occupant of state land entitled to claim proprietary rights under the 2003 policy?
  • Does the court have the discretion to refuse the withdrawal of a suit if it would perpetuate injustice or defeat the ends of justice?
  • Is land classified as Charagah eligible for allotment or sale to private individuals under the 2003 policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Bibi Mazharam2021 [M] C L R 226, 2016 LHC 4046 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Abdul Ghafoor and 8 others2016 LHC 3090 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rabbani vs Member Judl., Board of Revenue etc2016 LHC 4098 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim vs State and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 311 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-02
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsbhang recoverychemical examiner reportcriminal history
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Ghulam Qasim, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, concerning the alleged recovery of 10 kilograms of bhang. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial given the circumstances of the recovery and the absence of a chemical examiner report. The Lahore High Court held that the petition should be allowed, noting that no particular part of the recovered substance was specified in the FIR to conclusively determine applicability, the Chemical Examiner's report was still awaited, the petitioner had been incarcerated for seven months, was no longer required for investigation, and had no previous criminal history. The court established that where the exact nature and categorization of the recovered substance remain unconfirmed and pending chemical analysis alongside statutory delay, a case is made out for the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the Chemical Examiner's report regarding the recovered substance is awaited?
  • Does the absence of a previous criminal history and prolonged incarceration justify the grant of bail in narcotics cases?
  • Whether uncertainty regarding the exact nature of the recovered substance constitutes a ground for further inquiry under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and 2 others vs Shabbir Hussain Cheema2016 CLC 322 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nazik etc. vs ZTBL etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 582 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Muhammad Irfan and 2 others2016 P Cr. LJ 1134 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-29
  acquittal appealextra-judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencemurderbenefit of doubtrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court for offences under sections 302 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. The court laid down the principle that extra-judicial confessions require strict credibility and corroboration, that recoveries of incriminating items must be free from doubt with clear chemical examiner support, and that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment unless it is perverse or arbitrary, as the presumption of innocence is further strengthened by a trial court acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction without strong corroborative evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove blood grouping on a recovered weapon render the recovery inconclusive?
  • Whether an appellate court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal when the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances?
  • What is the evidentiary value of unexamined material witnesses whose source of information is not disclosed by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Chaudhary etc, vs Returning Officer, etc.2016 PLJ Lahore 343 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa, Etc. Muhammad Nawaz, Etcimtiaz Alias Kalosahib2016 NLR Criminal 278 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 702, 2016 KLR Criminal Cases 277 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-23
  murder appealcapital punishmentchance witnessbenefit of the doubtmedical evidence contradictiondelayed forensic reportmurder referencecriminal acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through trustworthy ocular testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was highly doubtful, their testimony contradicted medical evidence, and delayed dispatch of crime empties to the forensic lab rendered recoveries unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant on the benefit of the doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that multiple infirmities in ocular and circumstantial evidence, creating even a single instance of reasonable doubt, are sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses who fail to provide convincing reasons for their presence at the crime scene can be relied upon to sustain a capital conviction?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the location of injuries create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of crime empties sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory only after the arrest of the accused?
  • Can supportive pieces of evidence like recoveries advance the prosecution case when the primary ocular account is found untrustworthy?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs State and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 702 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-23
  murder appealchance witnessesocular accountmedical evidence contradictionbenefit of doubtweapon recoverydeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected murder reference seeking confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony from chance witnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence and delayed forensic weapon recoveries, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the eye-witnesses were unconvincing chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful and whose testimony contradicted the medical evidence regarding the injuries. Furthermore, the delayed transmission of crime empties to the forensic laboratory rendered the recovery evidence suspect. The court established that when the main ocular account is untrustworthy, supporting recovery evidence cannot sustain a conviction, and a single reasonable doubt warrants acquittal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses can be relied upon without a cogent explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Can supportive evidence like weapon recovery sustain a conviction when the primary ocular testimony is found untrustworthy?
  • What is the legal effect of delayed transmission of crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Director General, Agriculture, etc.2016 C.L.R. 450 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-02
  contract employmentwrit jurisdictiontermination of serviceshow-cause noticereinstatementcontract appointment policydepartmental appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner’s contract employment as a Supervisor under the National Program of Improvement of Water Courses. The petitioner alleged that his termination was unlawful, citing illness and prior criminal proceedings as reasons for his absence, and claimed he was denied a fair opportunity of hearing. The core legal question was whether the termination of a contract employee, who failed to respond to multiple show-cause notices and did not raise the plea of medical incapacity before the departmental authorities, was sustainable. The Court held that the petition was meritless. It observed that the petitioner failed to respond to show-cause notices and did not assert his medical condition during the departmental appeal process. Consequently, the Court ruled that pleas not raised before competent authorities cannot be introduced for the first time in writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under the Contract Appointment Policy, 2004, a terminated contract employee is not entitled to reinstatement, and the department acted within its authority given the petitioner's non-compliance with contractual obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner raise a plea of medical incapacity in a writ petition if it was not raised before the departmental authorities?
  • Is a contract employee entitled to reinstatement after termination under the Contract Appointment Policy, 2004?
  • Does the failure to respond to show-cause notices justify the termination of a contract employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs A.S.J. Chunian and others2016 PLD Lahore 251 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa and The State vs The State and Ghulam Mustafa2016 LHC 1434 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-21
  murder referencebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceSection 342 statementgrave and sudden provocationocular evidencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction and sentence of death, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the sentence. The appellant was convicted for the murder of two individuals. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the inconsistencies in the ocular account, and whether the appellant's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, admitting the killings under grave and sudden provocation, could sustain a conviction when the prosecution's evidence was found unreliable. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence was riddled with doubts, including unexplained delays in the post-mortem examinations and the disbelieving of eyewitness testimony regarding co-accused persons. The Court reaffirmed the principle that a conviction cannot be based solely on an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which can only serve to corroborate otherwise reliable prosecution evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based solely on an admission made by an accused in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the testimony of witnesses disbelieved against co-accused require independent corroboration to be reliable against the remaining accused?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution evidence is found to be unreliable and the occurrence appears to have remained unwitnessed?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza alias Bubal vs The State & another2016 LHC 187 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-03
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryextra-judicial confessionsupplementary statementmurderdacoitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Ghulam Murtaza alias Bubal sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 653 dated 28.08.2015 registered under Sections 302 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gadai, District Dera Ghazi Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the weak nature of the evidence implicating him, including a delayed supplementary statement, a dark-night occurrence with unidentified assailants, recovery of non-incriminating items, and an alleged extra-judicial confession. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's involvement fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the investigation was complete and continued incarceration served no useful purpose. The petition was consequently allowed, admitting the petitioner to bail subject to surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when implicated through a delayed supplementary statement based on weak evidence in a dark-night occurrence?
  • Does the recovery of a non-weapon item and an alleged extra-judicial confession warrant continued incarceration during trial?
  • When does a criminal case constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza alias Bubal vs State & anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 601 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-03
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurderdacoityextra-judicial confessiondark-night occurrencesupplementary statement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Ghulam Murtaza alias Bubal sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 653 dated 28.8.2015 under Sections 302 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Gadai, District Dera Ghazi Khan, concerning a robbery and murder during a dark-night occurrence involving unknown masked assailants. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail given the weak supplementary statement, delayed identification based on belief, non-identification of features in the FIR, and questionable recovery of a veil coupled with an extra-judicial confession. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's continued incarceration served no useful purpose and that his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the law. The Court established the principle that reliance on weak supplementary statements, belief-based implication in dark-night occurrences without facial descriptions, and questionable extra-judicial confessions or non-weapon recoveries justify admitting an accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is implicated through a delayed supplementary statement based purely on suspicion in a dark-night occurrence?
  • Does the recovery of an item other than the weapon of the offence and an alleged extra-judicial confession warrant further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the initial FIR describes unknown masked assailants without mentioning any identifying features?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Member (Judicial-III), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore2016 C.L.R. 1079 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue Punjab2016 LHC 1585 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain alias Gullu vs The State and another2016 KLR Criminal Cases 264 · Lahore High Court · 2013-02-13
  post-arrest bailidentification paraderule of consistencyfurther inquirycriminal procedureevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a second application for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Ghulam Hussain alias Gullu, in a case registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not named in the F.I.R., the identification parade was arguably compromised, and a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail. The Court held that the identification parade lacked evidentiary value because the complainant and witness had seen the accused at the police station prior to the parade. Furthermore, applying the rule of consistency, the Court noted that the co-accused had been granted bail based on the complainant's exonerating affidavit. The Court concluded that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry and that his continued incarceration served no useful purpose, as the investigation was complete. Consequently, the Court granted the bail application, emphasizing that the recovery of common market items and the lack of a valid identification process supported the petitioner's entitlement to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade have legal value if the witnesses saw the accused at the police station prior to the parade?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail on the rule of consistency if a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail?
  • Does the recovery of common, easily available items from an accused constitute strong evidence for denying bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hiader Thind vs Federation of Pakistan etc2016 LHC 917 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Fazal Ahmad2016 YLR 1875 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider Thind vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2016 C L R 845 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider Thind vs Federation of Pakistan and otherss2016 C L R 845, 2016 LHC 917, 2016 MLD 1680 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs Naseer Ahmad and others2016 PLD Lahore 478 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs Government of Pakistan and others2016 PLC (C.S.) 653 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-11
  pensionary benefitsgratuity allowanceretirement duesconstitutional petitionfundamental rightslegitimate expectancyPakistan Railways
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of his commutation and gratuity allowance due after his retirement from Pakistan Railways. The core legal question concerned whether the department could withhold post-retirement pensionary benefits on the ground of financial constraints. The Lahore High Court held that the non-payment of gratuity violates the fundamental rights of employees and that state functionaries are legally bound to pay pensionary benefits on the day of retirement, as employees have a legitimate expectancy to receive them. Although the petitioner's individual grievance was redressed during the proceedings through the payment of his dues, the Court extended relief to 328 other similarly situated retired employees. The key principle laid down is that financial crises do not justify withholding retirement benefits, and all pensionary dues must be paid to employees on the exact date of their retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether financial constraints constitute a valid legal justification for withholding the post-retirement gratuity of an employee?
  • Is it the constitutional and legal obligation of state functionaries to pay pensionary benefits on the very day an employee retires?
  • Can a High Court under Article 199 grant relief to other similarly situated employees whose gratuity has been withheld, even after the individual petitioner's grievance has been redressed?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs Delimitation Auuthority, D.G.Khan and 4 others2016 CLC 871 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Bari vs Haji Basher Ahmad through L.Rs. & others2016 PLJ Lahore 118 · Lahore High Court · 2012-03-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali Asghar vs The State & another2015-SCP-94 · Lahore High Court · -
  blasphemySection 295-A PPCcriminal appealinvestigation guidelinesreligious feelingsprosecution evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his acquittal by the trial court on charges under Sections 295-C and 298-A. The core legal question was whether the prosecution provided sufficient, reliable evidence to establish that the appellant’s alleged remarks constituted an offence under Section 295-A, specifically regarding the intent to outrage religious feelings. The Lahore High Court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed, noting that the witnesses were unreliable, contradictory, and failed to demonstrate that any class of persons had their religious feelings injured. Furthermore, the Court observed that the investigation was perfunctory, failing to adhere to established judicial guidelines requiring expert consultation in blasphemy cases. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence and procedural deficiencies, including the failure to properly confront the appellant with the specific derogatory words in the charge. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that blasphemy laws must not be misused to settle personal scores and require rigorous evidentiary standards.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conviction under Section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require proof that the religious feelings of a specific class of persons were actually injured?
  • Is a conviction sustainable where the prosecution fails to confront the accused with the specific derogatory words in the charge?
  • What are the procedural requirements for police investigation in blasphemy cases regarding the consultation of religious scholars?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar and 5 others vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2016 PLC (C.S.) 1254 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-20
  police servicespecial law versus general lawage relaxationdepartmental promotion quotareasonable classificationsubordinate legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves several connected writ petitions filed by in-service Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors challenging the age limits and eligibility criteria advertised by the Punjab Public Service Commission for recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspectors. The core legal questions involve whether general civil service age relaxation rules override special police service rules, and whether the prescription of specific age limits and qualifications in subordinate rules violates the parent statute or constitutes unlawful discrimination. The Court held that the police force is a disciplined force governed by special laws, specifically the Police Order, 2002 and the Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013, which exclude the application of general laws such as the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the Punjab Civil Servants (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976. The Court established that special statutory service rules prevail over general rules, that the fixing of reasonable age limits and criteria for departmental quotas does not violate fundamental rights or constitute impermissible discrimination, and that the competent authority is fully empowered under the parent statute to frame special rules regulating recruitment and promotions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Civil Servants (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 apply to members of the police force?
  • Can subordinate rules prescribe age limits and qualifications not explicitly detailed in the parent statute?
  • Does the fixation of different age limits for in-service candidates competing against fresh graduates violate the principle of non-discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Whether the Government is competent to alter promotion criteria and qualifications during the subsistence of service of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas, etc. vs State, etc.PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 9 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 3 others2016 CLC 199 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs Chief Secretary and 2 others2016 PLC ( C.S.) 87 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-19
  civil servantpromotioneligibility vs fitnessjurisdictionconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged his non-consideration for promotion, arguing that the issue concerned his fitness for the post, thereby bypassing the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, citing the bar on jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The Court examined whether the grievance pertained to 'eligibility' or 'fitness' for promotion. It held that the petitioner's case involved a determination of eligibility, as he had never been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Court clarified that eligibility for promotion constitutes a term and condition of service, which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition due to the constitutional bar under Article 212, and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding a civil servant's eligibility for promotion?
  • Is the question of eligibility for promotion considered a term and condition of service under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the bar on jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 apply when a civil servant has not yet been considered for promotion by the relevant departmental committee?
  Read full judgment →
• G-Hulam Alt, Etc. vs The State, Etc.2016 NLR Criminal 198 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-12
  qatl-e-amdmedical evidence vs ocular evidencemitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationabsent motivebenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular versus medical evidence, the effect of unproven motive and recoveries, and the existence of mitigating circumstances regarding the quantum of sentence. The Lahore High Court held that where a clear conflict exists between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the nature of injuries and weapon used, preference must be given to the medical evidence, entitling co-accused to acquittal where firearm injuries were disproved. Furthermore, the court held that while unimpeachable ocular testimony can sustain a conviction for murder even in the absence of motive or recovery evidence, the absence of a proven motive against the principal accused and his youthful age at the time of the offense serve as mitigating circumstances justifying the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The key principles laid down relate to the primacy of medical evidence over ocular testimony in cases of conflict, and the evaluation of mitigating circumstances for sentencing in murder trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether preference is to be given to medical evidence when there is a conflict between ocular testimony and the medical report regarding the nature of injuries?
  • Does the absence of a proven motive or failure to prove weapon recovery vitiate a conviction for murder when supported by unimpeachable ocular evidence?
  • Can the unproven motive and the youthful age of the accused at the time of the occurrence be considered mitigating circumstances to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Fouzia Shaukat (2) Muhammad Naveed vs The State and another2016 LHC 2838 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-06
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of the doubtocular accountmedical evidencechance witnesscontradictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case relied heavily on ocular testimony provided by closely related chance witnesses, medical evidence, and delayed reporting to the police. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given the doubtful presence of the eye-witnesses, material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, and significant improvements made during the trial. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the eye-witnesses were unconvincing chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful, and the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the time of death and injuries sustained. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, laying down the principle that suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and that material discrepancies and uncorroborated improvements by related chance witnesses warrant acquittal by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful and fraught with material improvements?
  • Whether medical evidence contradicting the ocular account regarding the time of death and nature of injuries is sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • Is suspicion, regardless of how grave or strong it may be, considered a valid substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal jurisprudence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of closely related witnesses who fail to provide solid reasons for their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time?
  Read full judgment →
• Flying Cement Company vs Federation of Pakistan and others2016 PLD Lahore 35 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-29
  electricity tariffsurchargeNEPRAexcessive delegationconstitutional virestaxationregulatory autonomyunjust enrichment
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore High Court adjudicated upon several Intra-Court Appeals and writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 31(5) of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, and various surcharges (Equalization, Debt Servicing, Universal Obligation Fund, and Neelum Jhelum Surcharges) levied by the Federal Government. The core legal questions involved whether the Federal Government possessed the competence to levy such surcharges independent of NEPRA's exclusive tariff-setting authority and whether Section 31(5) constituted an excessive delegation of legislative power. The Court held that NEPRA is the sole autonomous regulator for tariff determination under the Act, and the Federal Government's role is limited to notification or requesting reconsideration. The Court found the surcharges to be compulsory extractions of money lacking constitutional sanction as they were neither valid taxes nor fees with quid pro quo. Consequently, the Court declared Section 31(5) unconstitutional for excessive delegation and lack of legislative guidelines, setting aside the surcharges and ordering the Federal Government to refund the illegally collected amounts through future tariff adjustments.

  Read full judgment →
• Firdous Cloth Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2016 PTD 257, PTCL 2016 CL. 143 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-09Read full judgment →
• Fidda Hussain and another vs The State and another2016 LHC 2387 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-03
  post-arrest bailabductionrapefurther inquirydelay in FIRfree-will marriageNikah Nama
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 287/15 registered under Sections 365-B and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kalyana, District Pakpattan. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail in light of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the exoneration of several co-accused during investigation, the alleged victim's statement and Nikah Nama indicating a free-will marriage, and the absence of any recovery. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that an unexplained delay in reporting, coupled with a prima facie voluntary marriage contract by the abductee and lack of recoveries or previous criminal record, makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR for abduction and rape constitutes grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the execution of a Nikah Nama and a statement by the alleged abductee regarding a free-will marriage justify granting post-arrest bail to the accused?
  • Whether the lack of recoveries and the completion of investigation make the further incarceration of an accused in a heinous offense unnecessary?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain vs The State2016 MLD 1484 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-12
  criminal appealmurderextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtacquittal of co-accusedsame set of evidencere-appraisal of evidenceunseen occurrence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife, arising from a trial in which his co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through unseen evidence, motive, medical testimony, and an extra-judicial confession, particularly when the same evidence had been disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable chain of evidence, as the extra-judicial confession was legally infirm and improbable, the motive was weak and unsubstantiated, and the recovery of the dead body alone was insufficient to connect the appellant to the crime. The court established that when co-accused facing the exact same allegations are acquitted on the same set of evidence, extra care and caution must be exercised, and a conviction cannot be sustained without strong, independent, and impartial corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on the same set of evidence upon which co-accused have already been acquitted without strong independent corroboration?
  • What constitutes a valid and legally acceptable extra-judicial confession in a criminal trial?
  • Does the mere recovery of a dead body from an open field sufficiently connect an accused to a murder charge without further incriminating evidence?
  • How should courts evaluate motive in circumstantial evidence cases when the underlying dispute was allegedly resolved prior to the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain vs The State and 3 others2016 P Cr. LJ 1147 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-21
  Qatl-e-AmdQisasTa'zirPartial compromiseWaliDiyatSentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the trial court's dismissal of an application for partial compromise in a murder case. The convict, Mushtaq Ahmad, had been sentenced to death for Qatl-e-Amd, but the trial court failed to specify the clause of Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, under which the conviction was recorded. The petitioner, claiming to be a Wali of the deceased, argued that this omission necessitated construing the conviction as falling under Section 302(a), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (Qisas), thereby enabling a partial compromise and waiver of Qisas. The High Court held that the argument was misconceived. It determined that Qisas can only be exacted if proof requirements under Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or Article 17, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, are satisfied, which were absent here. Consequently, the conviction was deemed to be under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (Ta'zir), where death is a discretionary penalty. The court affirmed that a clerical omission regarding the clause does not automatically invoke the provisions of Qisas, and thus, the partial compromise was legally ineffective.

  Questions settled

  • Does an omission by a trial court to specify the clause of Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in a conviction order automatically render the conviction one under Section 302(a)?
  • Can a partial compromise be accepted in a murder case where the conviction was recorded under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the evidentiary requirements under Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, to sustain a conviction under Section 302(a)?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain Shah vs Rehmat Ali Khan and another2021 [M] C L R 1289, 2016 LHC 4059 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-06Read full judgment →
• FESCO, through Chief Executive Officer, Faisalabad and 4 others vs Javed2016 PLJ Lahore 858 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-13Read full judgment →
• FESCO through its SDO/Am FESCO Nia Lahore Sub-Division vs NEPRA2016 PLJ Lahore 826 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• FESCO Ltd. Through its Chief Executive, Faisalabad Region vs Ijaz Ahmad2016 PLJ Lahore 1066 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• FESCO and others vs Sh. Jamil Ahmad2016 CLC 1104 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-17Read full judgment →
• Feryal Ali Gauhar and others vs Environmental Protection Agency, Punjab and others2016 CLD 1011 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-11
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityalternative remedyenvironmental approvalenvironmental protectionLDA Actaggrieved person
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency, Punjab, granting environmental approval for the construction of a multi-storey hotel in Lahore, alleging procedural and substantive legal violations. The petitioners also sought to declare specific provisions of the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) Act, 1975 and the LDA Rules, 2014 as unconstitutional. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction when alternative statutory remedies exist. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, as the petitioners failed to exhaust the adequate and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Environmental Protection Tribunal, as provided under the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997. Regarding the constitutional challenges to the LDA Act, the Court observed that these issues were already settled by the Supreme Court in Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739). The Court affirmed the principle that constitutional petitions are not maintainable where a statute provides a specific appellate procedure, emphasizing that compliance with prescribed legal procedures is mandatory.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when an adequate alternative remedy of appeal exists under the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997?
  • Does the Environmental Protection Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders passed by the Environmental Protection Agency, Punjab?
  • What constitutes an 'aggrieved person' for the purpose of invoking Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Are the provisions of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, unconstitutional in light of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ishaq vs Additional Sessions Judge Gujranwala and 3 others2016 P Cr. L J 449 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-19
  cross-examinationright of cross-examinationfair trialprosecution witnessesrevision petitioncriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged orders passed by the trial court and the revisional court whereby his right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-3) was closed due to the non-availability of his counsel on the date fixed, stemming from a death in the family. The core legal question was whether the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses should be permanently forfeited for the non-appearance of counsel. The Lahore High Court held that while the petitioner's prior conduct showed some delay, punishing him by relying on half-recorded statements would be injurious to a fair trial, and the interest of justice would be best served by affording a final opportunity for cross-examination. The court laid down the principle that the veracity of a witness's statement can only be determined through proper cross-examination, and courts should ensure a just decision rather than penalizing an accused irrevocably for counsel's absence, provided cooperation is assured.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right of an accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses can be permanently closed due to the non-availability of counsel on a single date?
  • Does the closure of the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses cause prejudice to a fair trial under criminal jurisprudence?
  • Can a revisional court or high court restore the right of cross-examination in the interest of justice despite previous delays by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• FC Fri-Chicks vs Akhter Mehmood2016 CLD 1279 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-19
  contempt of courttrademark infringementregistered trademarkservice markbona fide useundertakingintellectual property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal original petition filed by the petitioner seeking to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the respondent for allegedly violating an undertaking given in a previous order dated 01.06.2015. The petitioner alleged that the respondent breached an undertaking to restrict the use of his trademark to goods only, rather than services. The core legal question was whether the respondent's use of a registered trademark for services, despite it being registered only for goods, constituted contempt or a violation of law, and whether the respondent had indeed given such an undertaking. The Court held that no such undertaking was given by the respondent. Furthermore, the Court found that the bona fide use of an unregistered trademark, or the use of a registered trademark for services not specifically covered by the registration, is permissible provided it does not infringe upon the rights of third parties or violate existing laws. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition with costs, establishing that in the absence of specific statutory prohibition or third-party infringement, such usage remains lawful.

  Questions settled

  • Can a registered trademark be used for services if it is only registered for goods?
  • Is the bona fide use of an unregistered trademark restricted by law in the absence of third-party infringement?
  • Does the use of a trademark for services not covered by its registration constitute contempt of court?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Haque and another vs The State and another2016 MLD 1225 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-15
  pre-arrest bailfake bank guaranteecivil nature disputemala fiderecovery proceedingsforgery
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a fake bank guarantee submitted to a bank to adjust outstanding loan liabilities. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners were directly involved in the preparation and use of the forged bank guarantee or if the criminal proceedings were instituted with mala fide intent as a pressure tactic for civil recovery arising from a disputed settlement agreement. The Lahore High Court held that the dispute was primarily of a civil nature, arising from long-standing litigation and execution proceedings, and that the prosecution failed to establish prima facie the petitioners' direct involvement in the forgery, noting mala fides on the part of the complainant bank. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners, laying down the principle that criminal process cannot be abused to effect civil recoveries or victimize accused individuals where liability is yet to be determined at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when a criminal case appears to be a pressure tactic for civil recovery arising from a settlement agreement?
  • Does the registration of a criminal case for offenses relating to forgery warrant pre-arrest bail when the prosecution fails to establish prima facie involvement of the accused?
  • Is a dispute primarily civil in nature a ground for granting extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ahmad Ranjha and 28 others vs Government of the Punjab2016 PLC (C.S.) 1209 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-05
  civil servantterms and conditions of servicewrit jurisdictionArticle 212 bartransfer and postingService Tribunalrepatriation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants, who were teachers posted as District Teacher Educators (DTEs), challenged their repatriation/transfer from these positions. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to adjudicate matters concerning the transfer, posting, or repatriation of civil servants, or if such matters are exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunals under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that the appellants were civil servants and their posting as DTEs constituted a matter relating to the terms and conditions of their service. Consequently, the Court ruled that the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution is absolute, ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain such petitions, even if the departmental orders are alleged to be mala fide, ultra vires, or without jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, including transfer and posting, are exclusively triable by Service Tribunals, and the High Court lacks jurisdiction to intervene under its writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate matters relating to the transfer or posting of a civil servant?
  • Is the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution absolute regarding the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Can a civil servant claim a vested right to a specific post or place of posting?
  • Is an opportunity of hearing mandatory when transferring or posting a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Hussain vs National Bank of Pakistan, etc.2016 LHC 559 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-24Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmad and others vs Mst. Anaza Bukhari and others2016 MLD 1271 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-27Read full judgment →
• Favyaz Hussain vs National Bank of Pakistan, etc.2016 LHC 559, 2016 PLJ Lahore 775 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-24Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad, etc. vs Din Muhammad, etc.2016 C.L.R. 102 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-13Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad, etc. vs Allah Wasaya, etc.2016 C.L.R. 83 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-07Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad etc vs Allah Ditta etc2016 LHC 1386 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-27Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and another vs The State2016 MLD 1569 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-09
  criminal appealsentence reductioncompromiseArshDamanprivate defencesudden provocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for assaulting the injured complainant. During the hearing, the appellants chose not to contest their conviction on merits, having settled the matter with the complainant and injured party by agreeing to pay the awarded amounts of Arsh and Daman instantaneously. The injured and the complainant expressed their full satisfaction, confirmed the receipt of the monetary compensation before the court, and agreed to forgo further litigation, including the pending revision petition for enhancement of sentences. The Lahore High Court noted that the incident arose from sudden provocation and excesses by the injured party, and that the parties had reached a lasting truce. Consequently, the court maintained the conviction but modified the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellants in jail, dismissing both the criminal appeal and the connected revision petition accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can reduce a criminal sentence to the period already undergone based on a compromise and payment of Arsh and Daman between the parties?
  • Can an appellant choose not to contest a conviction on merits while seeking modification of the quantum of sentence?
  • Whether a revision petition for enhancement of sentence can be dismissed as withdrawn upon a settlement between the complainant and the convicts?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad alias Gogay Khan vs The State2016 MLD 1755 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-02
  narcoticschemical analysissample collectioncriminal appealsentencing policyControl of Narcotic Substances Actrecovery of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question concerns the quantum of sentence and the evidentiary value of bulk narcotics recovered in multiple packets when only a single sample was sent for chemical analysis. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the entire bulk quantity because the investigating officer mixed multiple packets of charas into one sample. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence, holding the appellant liable only for the quantity represented by the tested sample. The key principle, derived from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ameer Zeb v. The State, is that where narcotics are recovered in separate packets, wrappers, or forms, a separate sample must be taken from each for chemical analysis. Failure to do so limits the accused's criminal liability to only the quantity from which a sample was taken and tested with a positive result.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally necessary to take a separate sample from each packet or slab of recovered narcotics for chemical analysis?
  • What is the consequence of failing to take separate samples from multiple packets of recovered narcotics?
  • Can an accused be convicted for the entire bulk quantity of narcotics if only a single sample was taken from a mixture of multiple packets?
  Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali and others vs Bashir Ahmad2016 YLR 1233 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-16Read full judgment →
• Farzana Chaudhry vs Province of the PUNJABthrough Chief Secretary2016 LHC 291, 2016 MLD 1453 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-15Read full judgment →
• Farzana Chaudhry vs Province of the Punjab, etc.2016 LHC 291 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-15Read full judgment →
• Faryal Noureen vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and others2016 MLD 438 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-19Read full judgment →
• Faryal Noureen vs Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Sargodha, etc2016 C.L.R. 277 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-19Read full judgment →
• Faryad Ali alias Muhammad Nawaz vs The State and another2016 MLD 307 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-12
  post-arrest bailrapeattempted rapesupplementary statementcontradictory statementsfurther inquirymedico-legal report
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Faryad Ali alias Muhammad Nawaz, facing allegations of entering a house and attempting to rape a minor girl. The core legal question involves determining whether contradictory subsequent statements by the complainant and the victim, coupled with a delayed medical report indicating an old healed condition, create a case of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court held that the significant improvements in secondary statements, delay in reporting, and the medical findings suggesting the victim was accustomed to coitus or that it might be a consenting affair make the petitioner's involvement questionable and prone to potential mala fides. The court confirmed the ad interim bail granted to the petitioner, laying down the principle that material contradictions between initial and supplementary statements along with inconclusive medical evidence warrant the concession of post-arrest bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the complainant and victim make material improvements in their supplementary statements compared to the initial FIR?
  • Does a delayed medical examination indicating an old, healed condition of the victim create a case for further inquiry regarding the accused's involvement?
  • Can bail be confirmed when the probability of false involvement due to mala fides or a consenting affair cannot be ruled out at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Farrukh Akhtar (2) Shahid Ali (3) Ghulam Sarwar (4) The State vs (1) The2016 LHC 3008 · Lahore High Court · 2016-09-29
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextrajudicial confessionbenefit of doubtmurder referenceforensic reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the murder of the deceased, based on circumstantial evidence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s evidence—comprising testimony of the deceased being "last seen" with the appellants, an alleged extrajudicial confession, and subsequent recoveries of weapons and casings—was sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient and unreliable. The "last seen" evidence was discarded due to an unexplained, significant delay in reporting, and the extrajudicial confession was deemed an uncorroborated, "old poor script." Furthermore, the Court noted that the forensic report was rendered inconsequential due to the delayed dispatch of recovered items. Emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain that excludes every hypothesis of innocence, the Court found the prosecution's case lacked the necessary nexus to establish guilt. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing that it is unsafe to convict on weak, uncorroborated circumstantial evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is incomplete?
  • Is a retracted extrajudicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Does a significant delay in reporting 'last seen' evidence render it unreliable?
  • What is the effect of delayed dispatch of crime scene evidence to the forensic laboratory on the reliability of the forensic report?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Nawaz vs State, etc.sPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 918 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-04
  suspension of sentencenarcotic substancespost-conviction bailshort sentenceinfructuous appealcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the convict, Farooq Nawaz, seeking suspension of his sentence of four years and six months rigorous imprisonment, imposed following his conviction under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question before the Court was whether the sentence should be suspended pending the final adjudication of the main appeal, given the short duration of the sentence and the likelihood that the appeal would not be heard before the sentence was fully served. The Court observed that the petitioner had remained on bail throughout the trial without any allegation of misuse of that concession. Holding that the petitioner might serve the entire sentence before the appeal is decided—effectively rendering the appeal infructuous and amounting to punishment in advance—the Court allowed the petition. The key principle laid down is that where a sentence is short and the main appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future, the suspension of sentence is appropriate to prevent the appeal from becoming infructuous, provided the petitioner did not misuse bail during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended if the main appeal is unlikely to be heard before the sentence is served?
  • Does the fact that a convict remained on bail during trial without misuse support a request for suspension of sentence?
  • Is it a valid ground for suspension of sentence that the appeal might become infructuous due to the short duration of the sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Farhat Shaheen etc (2) Ghulam Abbas vs (1) The State etc (2) Farhat2016 LHC 3290 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-16
  circumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionlast-seen evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtmurdercriminal appealmaterial improvements
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected criminal revision challenge the trial court's judgment convicting the appellants under Sections 302(b)/34 and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, extra-judicial confessions, medical evidence, motive, and subsequent conduct. The core legal questions involved evaluating the evidentiary weight of extra-judicial confessions, the reliability of last-seen evidence coupled with material contradictions and improvements, inconsistencies in medical evidence regarding the cause of death, and the standard of proof required in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the appellants, discredited the alleged extra-judicial confessions and improvements in witness statements, found the medical evidence inconsistent with the theory of manual strangulation, and held that the prosecution must stand on its own legs. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellants on the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the revision petition for enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession without independent corroboration is sufficient to sustain a conviction in an un-witnessed murder case?
  • Does proof of the 'last-seen' circumstance alone conclusively establish the guilt of the accused in the absence of a complete chain of circumstances?
  • Can a conviction for strangulation stand when the medical evidence and histopathological reports are inconsistent with the presence of ante-judicial neck injuries and fractures?
  • What is the effect of material improvements and contradictions in the testimony of eyewitnesses upon the credibility of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Faraz Shaukat vs The State and another2016 PLD Lahore 408 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-26
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailleave to appealevidentiary discrepancieschance witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought suspension of his sentence under section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, pending his appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence after the Supreme Court had granted leave to appeal, given the significant contentions regarding the prosecution's case, including delayed FIR, discrepant medical evidence, and the status of eye-witnesses as chance witnesses. The Court held that while the grant of leave to appeal does not automatically entitle a convict to suspension of sentence, the specific circumstances—including the petitioner's incarceration for over eleven years and the substantial doubts raised by the apex court regarding the prosecution's evidence—warranted the exercise of discretion. Consequently, the Court suspended the sentence and ordered the petitioner's release on bail. The key principle laid down is that where the apex court has granted leave to appeal based on serious evidentiary doubts, and the convict has served a substantial portion of their sentence, the High Court may exercise its discretion under section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to suspend the sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court automatically entitle a convict to the suspension of their sentence?
  • Can the High Court suspend a sentence under section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal based on serious evidentiary doubts?
  • Is the length of time spent in incarceration a relevant factor for the High Court when considering a petition for suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad and 6 otherss vs Ferhat Hussain and others2016 YLR 2355 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-11Read full judgment →
• Faqir Masih vs Joint Secretary (Admn.) and another2016 PLC (C.S.) 637 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-15
  removal from servicespeaking orderappellate authorityregular inquiryproportionality of punishmentservice lawdepartmental appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges the orders of the competent authority and the appellate authority imposing the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner, a sweeper, for habitual absence from duty. The core legal question concerns whether the appellate authority's order, which merely affirmed the original decision without independent reasoning, constitutes a valid speaking order, and whether the imposition of a major penalty without a regular inquiry was legally justified. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate order was unsustainable as it failed to provide an independent finding or address the gravity of the offense and the proportionality of the punishment. The Court emphasized that an appellate authority must act as a quasi-judicial body, providing a reasoned, speaking order that addresses the issues, evidence, and proportionality of the penalty. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that while major penalties may be imposed, they must be commensurate with the offense, and dispensing with a regular inquiry requires specific, recorded reasons. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients of a valid speaking order to be passed by an appellate authority in service matters?
  • Is an appellate authority required to provide independent reasoning when affirming a penalty imposed by a competent authority?
  • Can a major penalty of removal from service be imposed without holding a regular inquiry?
  • Does the principle of proportionality require that a penalty must be commensurate with the offense committed by an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Famous Brands Ltd., Lahore through Director vs Province of Punjab2016 PLJ Lahore 1090 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Fakhar-Ud-Din vs Muhammad Feroze and 2 others2016 YLR 866 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
• Fakhar-ud-Din Butt (Deceased) through L.Rs., etc. vs Manzoor Baqai, etc.2016 KLR Civil Cases 32 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-01Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 1621 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-04
  grave and sudden provocationmurder referencemitigating circumstanceappreciation of evidencequantum of sentenceocular accountcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and whether the appellant’s plea of grave and sudden provocation warranted a reduction in sentence or acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution’s ocular account, supported by medical evidence and forensic reports, was reliable and sufficient to prove guilt, despite the failure to establish a motive. The Court rejected the appellant's plea of grave and sudden provocation, noting the lack of supporting evidence and the absence of proof regarding the alleged indecent jokes. However, citing the failure to prove motive, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, establishing the principle that while an unproven motive does not negate guilt, it serves as a mitigating circumstance regarding the quantum of punishment. The Court also granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Can a plea of grave and sudden provocation be accepted without supporting evidence or proof of the specific provocative act?
  • Is an unproven motive considered a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing in a murder case?
  • What are the principles for the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases involving two versions?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad through L.Rs, vs Muhammad Boota through L.Rs, and others2016 CLC 1744 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-04Read full judgment →
• Faiz Fareed, etc vs The State, etc2016 LHC 46 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-13
  criminal revisionsummoning of accusedcolumn No. 2police investigationtrial court powerscognizance of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur Tamewali, which summoned the petitioners to face trial for an offence under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite the police having declared them innocent and placed their names in column No. 2 of the report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the authority to summon an accused person who has been declared innocent by the police during the investigation phase. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court acted within its legal authority. The ratio of the decision is that the police's opinion regarding an accused's innocence is not binding upon the court. The key principle laid down is that a trial court is empowered to summon an accused placed in column No. 2 of the challan to stand trial, provided the case has not been cancelled, as the court is not bound by the ipse dixit of the investigating agency.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court bound by the police's opinion declaring an accused innocent in the report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court summon an accused person who has been placed in column No. 2 of the police report?
  • Does the summoning of an accused placed in column No. 2 require the trial court to justify its order with reference to incriminating material?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Fareed, etc vs State, etcs2016 LHC 46, PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Lahore) 798 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-13Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad and The State vs The State etc and Faiz Ahmad2016 LHC 1446 · Lahore High Court · 2016-04-27
  murder appealdeath sentence confirmationdelay in FIRocular and medical discrepancyinterested witnessesbenefit of doubtacquittalsafe custody of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the appellant's conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, unexplained delays in lodging the First Information Report and conducting post-mortem examinations, discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence, proof of motive, and the admissibility of police-custody confessions. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the interested and uncorroborated nature of the eyewitnesses, fatal delays in reporting and autopsies, material improvements in testimony, lack of safe custody for the recovered weapon rendering the forensic report unreliable, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report and conducting the post-mortem examination on the credibility of the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's ocular evidence is in direct conflict with the medical evidence regarding the seat of injuries?
  • Does the acquittal of the majority of co-accused on the same evidence warrant the acquittal of the remaining accused without strong corroboration?
  • Is a confessional statement allegedly made by an accused while in police custody admissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →