Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Noor Muhammad vs Vice-Chancellor, Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan and 2 others2015 PLJ Lahore 278 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad & Others vs Mst. Farzana & Others2015 LHC 4861 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Badshah vs United Bank Limited through President and 3 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 468 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-11
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityprivatized bankservice rulesstatutory rulesnon-statutory ruleswrit jurisdictionfundamental rightspensionary benefitsState Bank of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore High Court addressed multiple constitutional petitions filed by retired employees of United Bank Limited (UBL) seeking the release of withheld grade increments and recalculation of pensionary benefits. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of such petitions against a privatized bank, the statutory nature of its service rules, and the role of the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP). The Court held that UBL, having been privatized and lacking State financial interest or control, is a private entity, and its service rules are non-statutory. Consequently, individual service grievances of its employees are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. Furthermore, SBP, as a mere regulatory body under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, has no statutory obligation concerning employees' service terms or pension matters and is not a necessary party. The Court concluded that the petitioners' claims constituted private disputes arising from non-statutory contracts, not enforceable fundamental rights through a public law remedy like a constitutional petition, and thus dismissed the petitions as incompetent.

  Read full judgment →
• Noor Alam through LRs and another vs Muhammad Bashir and another2015 LHC 2513 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-16Read full judgment →
• Noor Alam through L.Rs, and another vs Muhammad Bashir and another2015 LHC 2513, 2015 CLC 1675 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-16
  power of attorneyarbitration agreementstrict constructionrevisional jurisdictionagent authoritycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts, which had upheld an arbitration award as a rule of court. The petitioners, oustees of the Mangla Dam Scheme, disputed the validity of an arbitration agreement entered into by their attorney, Wallayat Khan, arguing he lacked the authority to bind them to arbitration. The core legal question was whether a general power of attorney authorizing an agent to 'compromise' and 'submit a compromise deed' implicitly grants the authority to enter into an arbitration agreement. The Lahore High Court held that powers of attorney must be construed strictly, and specific authority to appoint an arbitrator cannot be presumed from general powers to compromise. Finding that the attorney lacked express authorization to refer the dispute to arbitration, the Court ruled the arbitration agreement and subsequent award invalid. The Court emphasized that an agent's powers are limited to those expressly delegated, and general words in a power of attorney do not confer powers beyond what is necessary for the specific acts authorized.

  Questions settled

  • Does a general power of attorney authorizing an agent to compromise a dispute implicitly include the power to enter into an arbitration agreement?
  • Should a power of attorney be construed strictly regarding the specific powers delegated to an agent?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if there is a misreading of evidence or legal error?
  • Is an agent's authority to appoint an arbitrator presumed if not expressly stated in the power of attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Noon Sugar Mills Ltd. through Manager Taxation vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and others2015 LHC 1621, 2015 PTD 1653 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-02Read full judgment →
• Noon Sugar Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2015 LHC 1621 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-02Read full judgment →
• Nishat Chunian Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2015 CLC 22 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-03Read full judgment →
• Nishat (Chunian) Ltd. vs Federal Board of Revenue112 TAX 183 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-12Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed vs Additional District Judge, Khanpur District Rahimyar Khan2015 LHC 5693 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-08Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed Bhatti vs Addl. Sessions Judge etc2015 LHC 5067 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-05Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad Sabri through L.Rs. and others vs Government of Punjab2015 LHC 3277, 2015 YLR 2095 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-11Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad Sabri (deceased) through LRs etc. vs Government of Punjab2015 LHC 3277 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-11Read full judgment →
• Nib Bank Limited vs Manzoor Textile Mills2015 LHC 6390 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-03Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad vs Muhammad Sarwar and 2 others2015 YLR 2673 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-06Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali Shah vs The State and another2015 P Cr. L J 766 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-15
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionvicarious liabilitysilent spectatorfurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from FIR No. 466. The core legal question was whether an accused person whose mere presence is recorded at the crime scene carrying a weapon without attribution of any specific injury is entitled to post-arrest bail, and whether the question of vicarious liability and common intention can be decided at the bail stage. The court held that the petitioner was merely shown as a silent spectator without using his weapon, that a wide net appeared to have been cast to involve all male family members, and that the question of vicarious liability requires recording of evidence during trial. Consequently, the petition was accepted and the petitioner was admitted to bail. The key principle laid down is that the question of vicarious liability and sharing of common intention cannot be conclusively decided at the bail stage when only mere presence is attributed, making the case one for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when only mere presence without active attribution of injury is recorded in the FIR?
  • Can the question of vicarious liability and sharing of common intention be decided at the bail stage?
  • Does the mere carrying of a weapon without using it during an occurrence disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed vs Hasrat Mahmood & 3 others2015 LHC 5022 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-13
  criminal appealacquittalconsolidation of trialsprivate complaintcircumstantial evidenceproof beyond reasonable doubtprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents in a murder case. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court's consolidation of a State case and a private complaint, involving identical accused and allegations, caused prejudice to the complainant by preventing effective cross-examination of the investigating officer. The Court held that consolidation is permissible and does not violate procedural fairness when the accusations and accused are the same, as the State retains primary responsibility for prosecution. The Court affirmed the acquittal, noting that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It emphasized that circumstantial evidence, including delayed witness statements and an extrajudicial confession, was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The judgment reaffirms the principle that suspicion cannot substitute for positive proof in criminal trials and that moral certainty is not equivalent to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court concluded that the trial court's decision was a possible view, thereby upholding the double presumption of innocence afforded to the acquitted respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the consolidation of a State case and a private complaint with identical accused and allegations cause legal prejudice to the complainant?
  • Can a conviction in a criminal case be based on moral certainty rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution of offences and infliction of corporal penalties primarily a State attribute even in the presence of a private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• New Habib Khan Road Linkers. vs Province of Punjab & 3 others.2015 LHC 2205 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-16Read full judgment →
• New Chaudhry Fiber through Sale Proprietor vs Excise and Taxation2015 PLD Lahore 369 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-28Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Muhammad Jamil, etc2015 C.L.R. 1377 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-12Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Chairman, Customs Appellate Tribunal etc.2015 LHC 4832 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-15Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed and another vs The State and others2015 YLR 1066 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-03
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessocular evidencemedical evidenceFIR delaycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences handed down by the trial court for the murder of Abdul Khaliq. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding the credibility of alleged eye-witnesses, the impact of significant delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem examination, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the eye-witnesses were "chance witnesses" whose presence was improbable, and their testimony contained material contradictions. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the unexplained 16-hour delay in registering the FIR and the 36-hour delay in the post-mortem examination cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, set aside the convictions, and acquitted them. The key principle laid down is that while medical evidence may corroborate ocular testimony, it cannot independently connect an accused to a crime, and unexplained delays in procedural steps significantly undermine the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can the evidence of chance witnesses be relied upon when their presence at the scene is improbable and lacks corroboration?
  • Does a delay in conducting a post-mortem examination, without a plausible explanation, undermine the credibility of the prosecution's story?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to connect an accused to a crime in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and 3 otherss vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 382 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-26
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquirymalicious prosecutionFIR delayinvestigation completion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Nazir Ahmad, Ghulam Shabbir, Muhammad Iqbal, and Muhammad Zafar in connection with FIR No. 170/2014, registered for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of armed trespass and physical assault. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained two-day delay and that the investigation officer concluded the alleged occurrence did not happen as described, noting the place of occurrence belonged to the accused and that existing civil litigation suggested a dispute between the parties. Furthermore, the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the investigation was complete with no requirement for custodial interrogation. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, holding that the case against the petitioners required further inquiry and that their false implication due to malice could not be ruled out.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case warrant further inquiry when the investigation officer concludes the alleged occurrence did not take place as described in the FIR?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed if the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the existence of prior civil litigation between parties a relevant factor in determining the possibility of false implication in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazim Hussain vs Ex-officio Justice of Peace and 7 others2015 LHC 8673 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-08Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad Waraich etc vs Zonal Head, State Life Insurance2015 LHC 7491 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-18Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 758 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-16
  murdercircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencerecovery of dead bodyquantum of sentencecommutation of death sentencejuvenile offender
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 2009 and Murder Reference No. 145 of 2009 arose from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant, Nazar Muhammad, for offenses including murder, kidnapping, and sodomy. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, notably last-seen evidence, disclosure leading to the recovery of the deceased's dead body from a concealed river bed, and the recovery of the deceased's donkey cart. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302, 364-A, and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to death under Section 302. Upon appeal, the Lahore High Court examined the merits and found the circumstantial and recovery evidence cogent and confidence-inspiring. However, considering the tender age of the appellant noted during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court held that the death penalty should be commuted. The court dismissed the appeal regarding conviction but converted the death sentence into imprisonment for life, answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recovery of a dead body pursuant to an accused's disclosure is sufficient to maintain a conviction on circumstantial evidence?
  • Can the death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life on the ground of the appellant's tender age?
  • Whether last-seen evidence combined with the recovery of incriminating articles constitutes cogent proof in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Abbas vs State, etcPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 43 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-10
  juvenile delinquencydetermination of ageossification testmedical board reportdocumentary evidencebirth certificatecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala, which declared the respondent a juvenile based primarily on a medical board's age assessment. The petitioner, a complainant, argued that the trial court ignored documentary evidence, specifically a birth certificate and a school leaving certificate, which indicated a different age. The core legal question was whether a court, when determining the age of an accused under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, can rely solely on a medical ossification test while ignoring available documentary evidence. The High Court held that a medical report is not conclusive and should only be a last resort when no other reliable proof exists. The court emphasized that documents like birth certificates and school records, maintained in the ordinary course of duty, carry a presumption of truth and must be prioritized. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court, directing it to conduct a comprehensive inquiry, including the examination of documentary evidence, to determine the accused's age.

  Questions settled

  • Is a medical ossification test conclusive proof of an accused's age for the purpose of determining juvenility?
  • Must a court prioritize documentary evidence like birth certificates over medical board reports when determining the age of an accused?
  • What is the scope of the inquiry required by a court under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 to determine if an accused is a juvenile?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazakat Ali alias Jaqu vs The State and another2015 LHC 3652 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-30
  post-arrest bailnarcotics offenceprevious convictstatutory barrecovery of charasnon-bailable offencejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Nazakat Ali, sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of 1180 grams of Charas, an offence punishable under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's status as a previous convict for a narcotics offence constituted a valid ground for refusing bail, notwithstanding arguments regarding the applicability of Section 75 of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the provisos of Section 497 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner's prior conviction brought his case within the exceptional circumstances where bail should be refused. The Court reaffirmed the principle established in Tariq Bashir v. The State, which dictates that while bail in non-bailable offences is generally a rule, it remains an exception where there is a danger of the offence being repeated or where the accused is a previous convict. Furthermore, the Court held that the statutory bar under Section 51 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, explicitly applies to previous convicts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a previous conviction for a narcotics offence constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying the refusal of post-arrest bail?
  • Does Section 75 of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, apply to the determination of bail for a previous convict in a narcotics case?
  • Does the bar under Section 51 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, apply to an accused who is a previous convict?
  Read full judgment →
• Nayyer Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi Cantt. and others2015 CLC 978 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-17Read full judgment →
• Nawaz vs The State and another2015 LHC 8606 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-18
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirycross-versionprohibitory clausedelay in FIR registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an FIR registered under Sections 324, 148, 149, 337F(iv), and 337F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, including the delay in FIR registration, the nature of the injuries, and the existence of a cross-version. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, reasoning that the eight-day delay in FIR registration was unexplained, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the injury attributed to the petitioner did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the petitioner was entitled to the rule of consistency as a co-accused with a similar role had been granted bail. The Court also noted the existence of a cross-version suppressed by the complainant, rendering the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was allowed, establishing that where a case involves two versions and non-prohibitory offences, bail is appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail under the rule of consistency if a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
  • Does the existence of a cross-version in a criminal case render the matter one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can an accused be granted bail if the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab-Ud-Din Saingal vs Additional District Judge and others2015 YLR 1674 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-11Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din vs SHO, etc.2015 LHC 6617 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-16Read full judgment →
• Naveeda Abbas vs Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, etc.2015 LHC 5842 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-13Read full judgment →
• Naveeda Abbas vs Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala and 2 others2015 LHC 5842, 2015 P Cr. L J 1597 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-13
  Intra-Court Appealhabeas corpuscustody of minorLaw Reforms Ordinance 1972maintainabilityGuardians and Wards Act 1890Section 491 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal was filed against a single Judge's judgment dismissing a constitutional petition (under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973) that sought habeas corpus relief and the recovery of a minor child under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant had initially approached the Additional Sessions Judge for the recovery of her minor daughter from her brother, but the petition was disposed of directing her to seek remedy before the Guardian Judge. The High Court addressed both the maintainability of the appeal and the merits of exercising habeas corpus jurisdiction. The High Court held that under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, an Intra-Court Appeal is explicitly barred against an order passed by a single Judge under Article 199(1)(b)(i) of the Constitution (habeas corpus jurisdiction). On merits, the Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction under Section 491 Cr.P.C. for custody of minors should be exercised sparingly only in exceptional cases of tender age, recent snatching, and extreme urgency, leaving custody determination to the Guardian Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against a single Judge's judgment passed in habeas corpus proceedings under Article 199(1)(b)(i) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the statutory bar in Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 exclude Intra-Court Appeals against orders issued under sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of Article 199(1) of the Constitution?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the custody of minor children?
  Read full judgment →
• National Silk and Rayon Mills vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 others2015 MLD 995 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-04Read full judgment →
• National Electric Power Regulatory Authority vs Faisalabad Electric Supply2015 LHC 3160 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-28Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh and 2 others2015 PLJ Lahore 236, 2015 MLD 222 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-13Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Additional District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh2015 PLJ Lahore 236 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-13Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan2015 P.C.T.L.R. 648 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan &2015 LHC 1836 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-31Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through President vs Executive District2015 CLD 1917, 2015 LHC 1836, 2015 CLC 1618 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-31
  constitutional petitionproperty taxtax exemptioncorporate veilsovereign immunityNational Bank of PakistanArticle 165commercial activity
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged property tax notices issued by the Excise and Taxation Department against the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP). The core legal question was whether NBP, as a state-owned entity, is exempt from provincial property tax under Article 165 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 4(a) of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that NBP is not exempt from such taxation. The ratio decidendi establishes that the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil cannot be invoked to grant tax exemptions to commercial corporations, even if government-owned. The Court reasoned that NBP operates as a commercial banking entity competing with private sector banks and does not perform sovereign government functions. Consequently, extending tax immunity to NBP would violate Article 25 of the Constitution by creating discriminatory advantages over competitors. The Court affirmed that the burden of proving an exemption lies on the claimant and that courts must interpret exemption provisions narrowly in favor of the revenue.

  Questions settled

  • Is the National Bank of Pakistan exempt from provincial property tax under Article 165 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil be invoked to grant tax exemptions to a government-owned commercial corporation?
  • Does the performance of commercial banking activities by a state-owned entity entitle it to the constitutional tax immunity reserved for government property?
  • Does granting tax exemptions to a state-owned commercial entity violate the principle of non-discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Akhtar vs Mian Abbas, SHO etc2015 LHC 5102 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-30
  private complaintnon-appearance of complainantsessions trialacquittalmagisterial trialcriminal appealfake police encounter
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal appeal, the appellant assailed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, whereby a private complaint under Section 302, 148, and 149 PPC was dismissed under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the respondents were acquitted due to the non-appearance of the complainant. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Section 247 Cr.P.C., permitting acquittal upon the complainant's non-appearance, are applicable to trials conducted by a Court of Session. The Lahore High Court held that Section 247 Cr.P.C. applies exclusively to Magisterial trials for non-cognizable or compoundable offences and cannot be invoked by a Sessions Court conducting a trial for cognizable offences under Chapter XXII-A of the Code. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned order as illegal and remanded the matter back to the trial court for proceedings in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Sessions Court dismiss a private complaint and acquit the accused under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the non-appearance of the complainant?
  • Do the provisions of Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to trials conducted by Courts of Session?
  • What is the correct procedure to be followed by a Sessions Court when dealing with a pending private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Waheed. vs Ministry of Interior, etc.2015 LHC 4644 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-26Read full judgment →
• Nasir the State Shahadat vs The State-- Nasir2015 NLR Criminal 264 · Lahore High Court
  murder referencedeath sentence commutationmitigating circumstancesbenefit of doubtcrl appealappeal against acquittalocular accountmedical corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence and imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions involved the assessment of ocular and medical evidence, the sufficiency of corroboration in the absence of crime empties and recovered forensic reports, and the determination of whether mitigating circumstances justified commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that while the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt regarding the commission of the offence, mitigating factors such as a remote motive, the occurrence taking place at the spur of the moment due to family altercations, and lack of forensic corroboration warranted extenuating leniency. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal against conviction with a modification, commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while upholding the convictions under Section 324 and the compensation orders, and dismissing the complainant's appeals regarding sentence enhancement and co-accused acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of crime empties and forensic reports creates a sufficient dent in the prosecution case to warrant commutation of a death sentence?
  • Can a sudden fight or an occurrence arising at the spur of the moment serve as a mitigating circumstance to substitute a death sentence with imprisonment for life?
  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal in the absence of perversity, arbitrariness, or grave miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Mehmood and 2 others vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Multan2015 PLJ Lahore 288 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-13Read full judgment →
• Nasir Khan. vs The State.2015 LHC 1550 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-11Read full judgment →
• Nasir Hussain vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 343 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-25Read full judgment →
• Nasir alias Nasrullah The State vs The State Nasir alias Nasrullah2015 LHC 6771 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-26
  murderdeath penaltycommutation of sentenceocular evidencecriminal appealdisproportionate violencelife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence for the murder of a thirteen-year-old boy. The prosecution alleged that the appellant murdered the deceased following a dispute over credit at a grocery shop. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to death. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence and medical testimony sufficiently established guilt and whether the death penalty was the appropriate sentence given the circumstances. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular account of the father and another witness consistent and credible, supported by medical evidence. However, the Court held that the extreme violence inflicted was disproportionate to the alleged motive of a minor credit dispute, and noted that the immediate circumstances preceding the crime remained unclear. Consequently, the Court declined to confirm the death sentence, converting it to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that where the motive is disproportionate to the violence and the immediate circumstances of the crime are shrouded in mystery, the death penalty may be commuted to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can the death penalty be commuted to life imprisonment when the violence inflicted is disproportionate to the alleged motive?
  • Is the testimony of a father regarding the murder of his son considered credible in the absence of evidence suggesting he would falsely implicate an innocent person?
  • Does the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to a sentence of life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Abbas vs The State2015 YLR 629 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-16
  capital sentence referencemurderterrorismhostile witnessocular evidencemedical contradictionforensic delaybenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad, which convicted and sentenced the appellant to death on multiple counts under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for the murder of nine individuals. The prosecution alleged that the appellant entered his sister-in-law's house and resorted to indiscriminate firing due to a matrimonial dispute. The Lahore High Court analyzed the evidence and found the prosecution's case highly doubtful. The sole supporting eyewitness, a close relative, made material improvements to align his testimony with medical evidence, and his presence at the scene was unnatural. Furthermore, two independent eyewitnesses turned hostile, and the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, particularly regarding blunt-force injuries on one victim and the police's initial uncertainty about the cause of death. Additionally, the delayed dispatch of crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory destroyed their corroborative value. Applying the principle of abundant caution, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, accepted the appeal, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of an eyewitness's testimony when they make deliberate and dishonest improvements to align with medical evidence?
  • Does the delayed dispatch of recovered crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory affect their corroborative value?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs The State2015 LHC 7736 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-23
  attempted rapebenefit of doubtcriminal appealdelayed FIRdishonest improvementevidentiary valuecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for attempted rape under Sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant delay in FIR registration, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and lack of corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case, citing an unexplained seven-day delay in lodging the FIR, the complainant's lack of personal knowledge as an eyewitness, and the victim's reliance on dishonest improvements in testimony to bolster the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of medical evidence for alleged injuries and the failure to recover the weapon mentioned. The court reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and where it fails, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • What is the legal consequence of a witness making dishonest improvements in their testimony to strengthen the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the failure to recover an alleged weapon mentioned in the FIR undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs Muhammad Khan2015 CLC 566 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-29Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad alias Matto and another vs The State and another2015 LHC 1368, 2015 KLR Criminal Cases 255 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-03
  narcotics controlpossession of charassafe custody of samplesdual capacity of investigatorquantum of punishmentstatutory rules vs enactmentburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Judge Special Court Control of Narcotic Substances, Lahore, convicting the appellant Naseer Ahmad alias Matto under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500,000. The prosecution alleged that eleven kilograms of charas were recovered from a car driven by the appellant during a raid conducted by Anti-Narcotics Force officials. The core legal questions involved whether the search and arrest were vitiated by non-compliance with statutory provisions, whether a police officer can act as both complainant and investigating officer, and whether the quantum of sentence was legally sustainable. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery and safe custody of the narcotics, that the Anti-Narcotics Force officials were duly authorized under Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that a complainant may act as an investigating officer unless prejudice is shown. The Court laid down that for determining punishment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the quantity of the substance prevails over its quality, and the Act's main provisions override conflicting subsidiary rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to comply strictly with Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 renders trial proceedings void or constitutes a curable irregularity?
  • Does any legal prohibition prevent a police officer from acting simultaneously as the complainant and the investigating officer in a criminal case?
  • Whether the quantity or the quality of the recovered narcotic substance is determinative for awarding the minimum mandatory sentence under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 once the prosecution establishes initial recovery from a vehicle under the accused's control?
  Read full judgment →
• Najaf Khan Muhammad Ayub The State vs The State Najaf Khan Najaf2015 LHC 6127 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-09
  benefit of doubtchance witnessmedical evidence contradictionocular accountmurder referencecriminal appealwithholding of natural witnessesabscondance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of death awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a connected murder reference and a revision petition for enhancement of compensation. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, and corroborative material like recovery and motive. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from numerous infirmities, including unexplained delay in reporting and post-mortem, an interested and chance sole eyewitness whose testimony had inconsistencies with medical evidence regarding firing distance, withholding of natural witnesses, lack of forensic analysis of the weapon and empties, and failure to establish the source of light. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant on the principle of benefit of the doubt, dismissed the revision petition as infructuous, and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing that uncorroborated, doubtful eyewitness testimony and unexplained procedural delays entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in reporting the crime and conducting post-mortem examinations casts doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of a chance and interested witness without strong corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to send the crime weapon and empties for forensic analysis weaken its case?
  • What is the legal effect of withholding natural witnesses who were present at the scene of the crime?
  • Is abscondance alone sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused in the absence of other connecting evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Naimat Ali, etc. vs Nisar Ahmad Aleem, etc2015 C.L.R. 304 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-29Read full judgment →
• Naeem Adil vs A.S.J., etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-23Read full judgment →
• Naeem Abbas vs Director General, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Islamabad and 7 others2015 P Cr. L J 1592 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-11
  quashment of FIRillegal termination of international trafficalternative remedypartial quashmenttaking of cognizanceconstitutional petitioncyber crimes
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court via a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under section 31 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996, sections 36 and 37 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, and section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on allegations of illegal termination of international traffic bypassing legal gateway exchanges. The core legal questions involve whether an FIR can be quashed after the submission of a challan and taking of cognizance by the trial court, whether partial quashment of an FIR regarding only one of multiple co-accused is permissible, and whether the bar under section 31(5) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 applies when other distinct penal provisions are also invoked. The court held that the petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an adequate alternate remedy under sections 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 once cognizance has been taken, that partial quashing of an FIR is a legal impossibility, and that the statutory bar does not apply when offences under other ordinances and the Pakistan Penal Code are additionally charged. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be quashed under constitutional jurisdiction after a challan has been submitted and the trial court has taken cognizance of the case?
  • Is partial quashment of an FIR permissible to the extent of only one co-accused while leaving it intact for others?
  • Does the requirement of a written complaint by an authorized officer under section 31(5) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 bar an FIR that also includes offences under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 49 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-20Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Tariq vs Full Board, Board of Revenue (Member Judicial-v & VIII), Punjab, Lahore, etcK.L.R. 2015 Revenue Cases 16 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nadeem Tariq vs Full Board, Board of Revenue (Member Judicial-v & VIII)2015 LHC 587, 2015 C.L.R. 542 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nadeem Masood. vs The State2015 LHC 4524 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-01
  rapeDNA evidenceconsenting partyfornicationcompensation to victim childmental anguishcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rape and sentencing him to twenty years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of medical and DNA evidence, whether the offence constituted rape or fornication, and the power of the appellate court to award compensation under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1860 to the child born as a result of the crime. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent victim testimony, corroborative medical evidence, and a positive DNA report establishing the appellant as the biological father of the fetus. The Court further ruled that the appellant failed to establish the defense of consent or fornication, and that the minor child born from the crime qualifies as a person suffering mental anguish and psychological damage entitled to compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1860. The appeal was dismissed with a modification to include monetary compensation for the victim child.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a positive DNA report corroborating victim testimony is sufficient to prove the charge of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does sexual intercourse with a victim under the age of sixteen years constitute rape regardless of the issue of consent?
  • Whether a child born as a result of a crime such as rape is eligible for compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as a person suffering mental anguish or psychological damage?
  • Can an appellate court modify a sentence to award compensation to a victim or affected child under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Masood vs The State2015 LHC 4524, 2015 P Cr. L J 1633 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-01
  rapezina bil jabrcompensation to victimvictim compensationcriminal appealDNA evidencestatutory interpretationmental anguish
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for rape under Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt, whether the defense of consent (arguing for the lesser offence of fornication) was valid, and whether the court could award compensation to the child born as a result of the crime. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding that the appellant failed to establish consent and that the victim was under sixteen years of age, bringing the act within the definition of rape under Section 375, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Crucially, the Court held that under Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a court may award compensation to a child born of a crime, as such a child is a person suffering lifelong mental anguish and psychological damage. This principle establishes that the right to compensation extends beyond the direct victim to include innocent third parties suffering harm due to the criminal act.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court award compensation to a child born as a result of a criminal offence under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does sexual intercourse with a minor under sixteen years of age constitute rape under Section 375 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regardless of consent?
  • Can an appellate court modify a sentence to include compensation for victims under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the burden of proof on the accused to establish a plea of consent when the prosecution has established the offence of rape?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Masih vs The State etc.2015 LHC 1682 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-14
  post-arrest bailattempted murderdelay in FIRfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 whereby the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 304/14 registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling him to post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting a three-day unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR, the single non-repeated fire attributed to the petitioner resulting in an injury kept under observation, the petitioner's status as a previous non-convict, the completion of investigation qua the petitioner, and the fact that maximum punishment is not to be solely considered while deciding bail. The court laid down the principle that where an accused has not repeated the fire, the exact applicability of Section 324 PPC requires deeper appreciation of evidence at trial, rendering the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR can contribute to making out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the non-repetition of a gunshot by an accused person bring the case within the scope of further inquiry for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the maximum punishment prescribed for an offense to be taken into consideration while deciding a bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Iqbal. vs D.C.O. etc.2015 LHC 3762 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-10Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Iqbal vs District Co-Ordination Officer/Chairman, District2015 LHC 3762, 2015 PLJ Lahore 1163 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-10Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Asghar Nadeem etc. vs Province of the Punjab, etc.2015 LHC 4805 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-06
  probationer terminationfair trialdue processcivil servantreading downtermination simpliciterconstitutional petitionjudicial service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 10(1)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which permits the termination of a probationer without notice, arguing it violates the right to due process and fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether this provision allows for arbitrary termination without notice or reasons. The Court held that while the provision is not inherently unconstitutional, it must be "read down" to align with constitutional guarantees. The ratio is that where termination is punitive—based on allegations of misconduct, inefficiency, or corruption—prior notice is mandatory. Conversely, where termination is "simpliciter" due to failure to meet eligibility requirements, notice is not required, but the order must explicitly state the reasons. The Court emphasized that authorities cannot use "termination simpliciter" to mask punitive actions. The key principle laid down is that Article 10A and Article 14 (dignity) mandate that all termination orders must be reasoned, ensuring transparency and protecting civil servants from arbitrary administrative action.

  Questions settled

  • Does the termination of a probationer without notice violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a public authority use 'termination simpliciter' to mask punitive termination based on misconduct or inefficiency?
  • Is a termination order of a civil servant required to disclose the reasons for such action?
  • Under what circumstances is prior notice mandatory for the termination of a probationer under Section 10(1)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Asghar Nadeem and others vs Province of the Punjab and others2015 LHC 4805, 2015 CLC 1509 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-06
  probationer terminationright to fair trialdue processreading down statutecivil servanttermination simpliciterpunitive terminationconstitutional challenge
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed as Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates, challenged the constitutionality of section 10(1)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which permits the termination of a civil servant's service without notice during the initial or extended period of probation, arguing it violates the right to fair trial and due process under Article 10A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal questions involved whether section 10(1)(i) offends Article 10A when a termination order is punitive on grounds of misconduct, inefficiency, or corruption, and whether termination orders must disclose reasons. The Lahore High Court held that while section 10(1)(i) allows termination without notice where a probationer fails basic eligibility requirements like departmental examinations or training (termination simpliciter), it cannot be used to bypass notice when termination is punitive, nor can it withhold reasons. Applying the principle of reading down to save the statutory provision from unconstitutionality, the court ruled that prior notice is mandatory for punitive terminations, and all termination orders must be reasoned.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 10(1)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 offends Article 10A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by not allowing notice to a probationer before termination when the termination is punitive in nature?
  • Whether Articles 4, 9, 10A, 14, and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 mandate that a termination order of a probationer, including termination simpliciter, must disclose reasons for termination?
  • Can the competent authority opt for termination simpliciter by withholding real reasons to bypass the requirement of notice when a probationer faces allegations of misconduct, inefficiency, or corruption?
  • Whether the theory of reading down can be applied to save section 10(1)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 from being declared entirely unconstitutional?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Abbas vs District Coordination Officer & 3 others2015 LHC 4465 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-25Read full judgment →
• M/s. Zor Engineers Limited, LAHOREthrough its Director vs Eastern Federal2015 PLJ Lahore 984 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Zarco Real Estate vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2015 PLJ Lahore 429 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-30Read full judgment →
• M/s. Wazir Khan Store, etc. vs United Bank Limited2015 P.C.T.L.R. 581 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-19Read full judgment →
• M/s. Wasim Radio Traders vs Federation of Pakistan and others2015 P.C.T.L.R. 207 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-03Read full judgment →
• M/s. Visiontex, etc. vs Habib Bank Limited2015 P.C.T.L.R. 566 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-16Read full judgment →
• M/s. Talon Sports Pvt. Ltd. vs Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Ltd.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 388 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Swera Traders vs The Customs Appellate Tribunal and others2015 P.C.T.L.R. 514 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. SHV Energy Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. vs Province of the Punjab etc.2015 LHC 5407, PLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Lah.) 139 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-26Read full judgment →
• M/s. Rasheed C.N.G. Station vs Federation of Pakistan, etcK.L.R. 2015 Civil Cases 80 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pak Autos vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 643 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Nishat Chunian Ltd vs Federal Board of Revenue and othersPTCL 2015 CL. 16 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-05Read full judgment →
• M/s. Montgomery Flour and General Mills through its Chief Executive vs2015 PLJ Lahore 1170 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Montgomery Flour & General Mills vs Muslim Commercial Bank2015 PLJ Lahore 887 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. MCB Bank Ltd vs The Commissioner, Inland RevenuePTCL 2015 CL. 360 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (IDBP) vs The Learned Judge2015 CLD 1089, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 227 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-11Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ihsan Yousaf Textiles (Pvt.) Limited vs The Commissioner of Income2015 P.C.T.L.R. 218 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Ibrahim Oil Mills, etc. vs MCB Limited2015 CLD 802, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 310 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-27Read full judgment →
• M/s. Fazal Sons, etc vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited2015 C.L.R. 494 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-26Read full judgment →
• M/s. Daewoo Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2015 LHC 4187, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 1112 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. Colony Textile Mills Ltd. vs Water & Power Development Authority2015 LHC 3019 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. CoCa-Cola Beverages Pakistan Limited vs Government of Punjab, etc.2015 PLC 186, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 726 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-10
  payment of wagesalternative remedyconstitutional petitionmandatory depositstatutory appeallabor lawswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple writ petitions filed by CoCa-Cola Beverages Pakistan Limited challenging an order issued by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which directed the payment of unpaid wages and other dues to private respondents claiming to be employees of the company. The core legal question is whether the High Court should entertain constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan against an order of the Authority when an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal exists under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, particularly where the statutory appeal requires a mandatory deposit of the awarded amount. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner bypassed the statutory appellate forum merely to avoid depositing the awarded sum as mandated by Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The court held that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent statutory remedies and defeat the legislative intent of a beneficial labour legislation. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot bypass a statutory remedy of appeal requiring the deposit of awarded sums in order to invoke the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court without exceptional justification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 when a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act is available?
  • Can an employer bypass the requirement of depositing the awarded amount under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does an appeal lie from a decision of a court or authority even if it is alleged to have exercised jurisdiction without lawful authority?
  • Is the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 considered a beneficial legislation that must be construed to advance the remedy provided to workers?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Chief Sarhad Cargo Service, etc vs Judge Banking Court No, II, Lahore,2015 P.C.T.L.R. 254 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-18Read full judgment →
• M/s. Chaudhary Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Chief Commissioner etc2015 LHC 5713, PLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Lah.) 124 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. Bisma Textile Mills Limited, Lahore. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2015 LHC 8064 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-20Read full judgment →
• M/s. Asia Poultry Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federal Board of Revenue etc.2015 LHC 4844 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ali Traders and another vs National Bank of Pakistan2015 P.C.T.L.R. 556 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-24Read full judgment →
• M/s. 0. S. Corporation vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2015 CL.510 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Swera Traders vs The Customs Appellate Tribunal and others2015 LHC 1476 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-23Read full judgment →
• M/s SHV Energy Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Province of the Punjab etc2015 LHC 5407 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-26Read full judgment →
• M/s Rana Textiles Limited vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited etc.2015 LHC 3817 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-03Read full judgment →
• M/s Nishat (Chunian) Ltd. vs Federal Board of Revenue etc.2015 LHC 1990 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-12Read full judgment →
• M/s NestleMilkpak Limited vs Judge Social Security Court, Lahore &2 others2015 LHC 6871 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-30
  social security contributionemployee wage ceilingprovincial social security ordinanceproviso interpretationsecond appealbeneficial legislationwages definition
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under the Provincial Social Security Ordinance, 1965 arose from a demand notice issued by the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (PESSI) requiring the appellant establishment to pay less-paid social security contributions for the period between January 1995 and December 1998. The appellant challenged the demand through a complaint under Section 57 and subsequently an appeal under Section 59, contending that employees whose wages exceeded the statutory ceiling ceased to be 'employees' under Section 2(8)(f) of the Ordinance. Both the Vice Commissioner and the Social Security Court ruled against the appellant. Upon remand from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Lahore High Court addressed the core question regarding the true effect and interpretation of the proviso added to Section 2(8)(f) of the Ordinance by the Labour Laws (Amendment) Act, 1994. The High Court held that the proviso is declaratory, beneficial, remedial, and curative in nature, ensuring that an employee does not cease to be an employee merely because their monthly wages exceed the specified wage ceiling. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the validity of the recovery demand.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed before the High Court under Section 64 of the Provincial Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is to be treated as a Second Appeal (SAO)?
  • Does an employee cease to be an employee under Section 2(8)(f) of the Provincial Social Security Ordinance, 1965 if their monthly wages exceed the statutory wage ceiling?
  • What is the legal nature and effect of the proviso added to Section 2(8)(f) of the Provincial Social Security Ordinance, 1965 by the Labour Laws (Amendment) Act, 1994?
  • Are employers liable to pay social security contributions in respect of employees who cross the wage threshold during the relevant contribution period?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Montgomery Flour & General Mills vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.2015 LHC 2542 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-04Read full judgment →