Latest Judgments

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

• Muhammad Arshad etc vs The State etc2015 LHC 4345 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-25
  narcoticschemical analysistampering of case propertyreduction of sentencebenefit of the doubtpsychotropic substanceControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing them to life imprisonment with fines. The core legal question revolves around the reliability of the case property, its tampering and misappropriation during judicial proceedings, and the determination of the correct quantum of sentence based on the chemical analysis report of the remaining narcotics by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. The Lahore High Court held that since the original case property was found tampered with and unsealed during trial, and subsequent forensic analysis showed reduced quantities of narcotics without any detected opium or validly linked psychotropic substances, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the appellants regarding the missing quantities. The court maintained the conviction based on the verified quantities of recovered contraband but modified the sentence of life imprisonment to the period already undergone, while significantly reducing the fines in accordance with established sentencing precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted for quantities of narcotics that were found missing or unsealed and tampered with while in police custody?
  • Can the prosecution rely on the detection of psychotropic substances when the accused were never indicted for the recovery of such substances upon remand of the case?
  • Whether the sentence of life imprisonment can be reduced to the period already undergone when the integrity of the bulk case property is compromised during trial?
  • What is the legal effect of a chemical examiner's report showing a discrepancy in the nature and quantity of the alleged contraband recovered from the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and 3 others vs The State and 3 others2015 P Cr. L J 268 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-30
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtmurderlast seen evidencecriminal appealdeath referenceweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from a judgment convicting and sentencing four appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, following their acquittal under Section 364 of the same code. The core legal question concerned whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—including delayed reporting, questionable 'last seen' evidence, and inconsequential weapon recoveries—was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence were incomplete, the identification of the mutilated dead body was doubtful, and the prosecution failed to establish its case conclusively. The Court established the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must form a continuous, unbroken chain touching both the dead body and the accused, and any missing link entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. The appeal was consequently allowed, the convictions and death sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must prove a continuous and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the crime in cases lacking direct evidence?
  • Can an uncorroborated and delayed 'last seen' piece of evidence form the sole basis for a capital conviction?
  • Does a failure in the proper identification of a mutilated dead body create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and 2 others vs Muhammad Akram and 10 others2015 LHC 8191 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State2015 YLR 2454 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-24
  murdercriminal appealeyewitness credibilitySection 342 statementbenefit of doubtself-defenseacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of eyewitnesses whose presence at the scene at 4:00 a.m. was contested, and whether the prosecution could rely on the inculpatory portion of the appellant's statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to secure a conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the presence of the eyewitnesses at the shop during the early morning hours was unnatural and improbable, given that the business employed workers for such tasks. Furthermore, the Court established that the prosecution cannot derive strength from an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the primary evidence is insufficient. The statement of an accused must be accepted or rejected in its entirety; thus, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution rely on the inculpatory part of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution's evidence is otherwise unreliable?
  • Does the presence of eyewitnesses at an improbable time and place render their testimony insufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • Must a statement made by an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 328 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Saeed Ahmad vs The State The State & another2015 LHC 2767 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-24
  murder convictioneyewitness credibilitySection 342 statementbenefit of doubtself-defensecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellant stabbed the deceased inside a confectionary shop, supported by eyewitness testimony. The appellant, while admitting his presence and the act, claimed he acted in self-defense against an attempted assault. The Lahore High Court scrutinized the prosecution's case and found the presence of the eyewitnesses at 4:00 a.m. in the shop to be unnatural and improbable, given the circumstances and the nature of the business. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Crucially, the court ruled that the prosecution cannot selectively rely on an accused's statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to fill evidentiary gaps. Such a statement must be accepted or rejected in its entirety. Finding the prosecution's evidence unreliable, the court refused to bifurcate the appellant's statement to support the charge, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, thereby dismissing the related revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution selectively rely on an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to fill gaps in its case?
  • Does the unnatural and improbable presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of occurrence entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Should an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted or rejected in its entirety?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Rasheed Ahmad vs The State Muhammad Arif & another2015 LHC 2829 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-21
  murderbenefit of doubtcapital chargeocular accountmedical evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, alongside a connected criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on the ocular account, medical evidence, motive, and weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that despite the prosecution presenting a seemingly cohesive narrative of a single-shot murder with corroborative evidence, improbabilities regarding the eyewitnesses' presence, a doubtful motive, delayed post-mortem examination, and inconclusive weapon recovery created lurking doubts in the case. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that narrative precision alone cannot form the basis for a conviction on a capital charge unless it fits the ambit of probability, and any real doubts rooted in the prosecution's own case must be resolved in favor of the accused. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the conviction set aside, the appellant acquitted, and the revision petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can narrative precision alone form the basis for a conviction on a capital charge without fitting the ambit of probability?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt must be extended to an accused when lurking doubts are rooted in the stated positions of the prosecution?
  • Does the uncorroborated presence of closely related eyewitnesses at the exact time of an incident warrant careful scrutiny of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State2015 LHC 6710 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-05
  right of private defencemurderwatchmanself-defencecriminal appealacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, a watchman, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the shooting and killing of two individuals during a nocturnal incident, holding that he had exceeded his right of private defence. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the appellant acted within the lawful bounds of the right of private defence when he fired upon the deceased persons, who had a criminal history and allegedly confronted him with weapons while attempting a theft. The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution witnesses lacked credibility and failed to explain their presence at the scene, whereas the appellant's version was supported by his injuries and the surrounding circumstances. The key principle laid down is that the exercise of the right of self-defence cannot be weighed in golden scales and represents a natural human response to an immediate threat of death or grievous hurt under the instinct of self-preservation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right of private defence can be weighed in golden scales when evaluating a person's reaction to a sudden threat?
  • Does a watchman firing a single shot at armed intruders during an attempted theft exceed the right of private defence under Section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution eyewitnesses fail to explain their presence at the scene and do not join the police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs National Bank of PAKISTANthrough2015 PLC (C.S.) 903 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-13
  natural justiceaudi alteram partemcompulsory retirementopportunity of hearingdiscriminationservice benefitsadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges two orders issued by the National Bank of Pakistan denying the petitioner medical facilities and retirement benefits following his compulsory retirement, a penalty converted from dismissal by the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether the respondent Bank was obligated to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and address his claims of discrimination before rejecting his request for benefits. The Court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable because the Bank failed to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and neglected to address his specific allegations of discriminatory treatment compared to similarly situated employees. The Court emphasized that the principle of natural justice, specifically the rule of audi alteram partem, requires an opportunity of hearing unless the case falls within established legal exceptions. Since the petitioner's situation did not meet these exceptions, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Bank to reconsider the matter after affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing and issuing a reasoned decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is an opportunity of hearing a mandatory requirement when a department decides an employee's grievance regarding retirement benefits?
  • Does the failure to address an allegation of discrimination in an administrative order render it unsustainable?
  • Under what circumstances can the requirement of an opportunity of hearing be dispensed with in administrative proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Ikhlas, etc2015 C.L.R. 1368 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Ikhlas etc.2015 LHC 4457 · Lahore High Court · 2015-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Aslam etc.2015 LHC 5867 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Ujali and 4 others vs Asghar Ali2015 MLD 1145 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan and another vs Khalid Mahmood and others2015 MLD 1090 · Lahore High Court · 2013-01-28
  quo warrantofake degreedisqualification of lawmakerconstitutional petitioneducational qualificationimpersonationfraudulent degree
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, by registered voters challenging the qualification and membership of respondent No. 1 as an elected Member of the Punjab Provincial Assembly, alleging that he secured his seat through a fake and forged graduation degree and by impersonation. The core legal question was whether respondent No. 1 possessed the requisite educational qualifications and acted honestly and truthfully as mandated by the Constitution, or whether he procured his degree through fraud and forged educational records. The Lahore High Court held that the documentary evidence, including school and board records, conclusively proved that respondent No. 1 failed his matriculation examination and fraudulently utilized the credentials and records of another individual bearing a similar name to falsely claim intermediate and graduation qualifications. The court established that lawmakers must possess high standards of personal character, honesty, and integrity, and that individuals who secure educational documents through unfair means are disqualified from holding public office and representing the public. The petition was accordingly accepted, and the respondent's election was declared fraudulent and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction undertake a factual inquiry regarding the authenticity of a degree?
  • Whether a person who secures educational qualifications through fraudulent means fulfills the requirements of Article 62 of the Constitution?
  • Does a constitutional petition of quo warranto lie against a Member of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly?
  • What constitutes a past and closed transaction regarding election disputes and educational degrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and others vs Mehdi Khan and others2015 YLR 2290 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The State and another2015 YLR 1582 · Lahore High Court · 2014-01-09
  pre-arrest bailbona fide purchaserfraudulent transferpower of attorneyprinciple of consistencydelayed FIRanticipatory bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in a criminal case registered under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, concerning the alleged fraudulent transfer of a plot through a forged general power of attorney. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner, who claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without direct involvement in the forgery, was entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of consistency with co-accused, inordinate delay in reporting the matter, and questionable applicability of certain penal provisions. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest bail, noting the delay in registration of the FIR, the grant of relief to co-accused, the petitioner's status as a bona fide purchaser based on a registered power of attorney, and the pendency of a civil suit regarding the property. The court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that a purchaser without notice of forgery, facing bailable charges and questionable anti-corruption applicability, is entitled to pre-arrest bail when mala fides for pressure are evident.

  Questions settled

  • Is a purchaser of property through a registered power of attorney entitled to pre-arrest bail when there is no direct allegation of forgery against him?
  • Whether inordinate delay in lodging an FIR without explanation constitutes a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Does Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 apply to a private person who is not a government servant?
  • Can bail be granted on the principle of consistency when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 7 · Lahore High Court · 2014-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Najma Parveen, etc2015 PLJ Lahore 107 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge,2015 MLD 463 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Judge, Family Court, Sahiwal and 3 others2015 PLJ Lahore 75, 2015 YLR 316 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-12
  family courtexecution of decreemaintenance decreesurety bondliability of suretyarrears of land revenuejoint and several liabilitycancellation of surety bond
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Sahiwal, which dismissed the petitioner's application to withdraw his surety bond and be absolved of liability arising from it. The decree-holders had instituted a suit for maintenance against the judgment-debtor, who was arrested during execution proceedings but released upon paying a partial amount and providing the petitioner as surety. The petitioner submitted a surety bond and recorded a statement undertaking liability for Rs. 500,000 if the judgment-debtor defaulted. The core legal questions were whether an executing Family Court is strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or limited to recovering money decrees as arrears of land revenue, and whether a surety is relieved of liability when the judgment-debtor is incarcerated. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, the CPC (except Sections 10 and 11) is excluded and the Family Court may adopt any procedure to enforce its decrees. Furthermore, money decrees are recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 13(3) only if directed at the time of passing the decree; otherwise, the court may adopt other execution modes. The Court laid down that a surety's liability is joint and several with the judgment-debtor, and the arrest of the judgment-debtor does not absolve the surety from fulfilling his undertaking.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 exclude the application of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in execution proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Can a money decree passed by a Family Court be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 if no such direction was given at the time of passing the decree?
  • Does the arrest or incarceration of a judgment-debtor in execution proceedings absolve a surety of his personal and property liability under a executed surety bond?
  • Is an executing Family Court required to exhaust remedies against the property of the judgment-debtor before proceeding against the property of the surety?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Judge Family Court, Sahiwal and 3 others2015 PLJ Lahore 75 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and others vs WAPDA through Chairman and others2015 MLD 1327 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameer vs State, etc.PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 362 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameer Qazi vs Muhammad Asif Ali and others2015 PLD Lahore 235 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-20
  Consumer Court jurisdictionagreement to sellimmovable propertybreach of contractconsent of partiesPunjab Consumer Protection Actcivil jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses three connected first appeal against orders (F.A.O. Nos. 17, 18, and 19 of 2009) arising from an order passed by the District Consumer Court, Bahawalpur, which had entertained applications from respondents regarding the specific performance and transfer of plots based on an agreement to sell. The core legal question was whether a District Consumer Court has the jurisdiction to entertain disputes relating to agreements to sell immovable property and breach of contract. The Lahore High Court held that the Consumer Court lacked jurisdiction, ruling that a dispute concerning immovable property does not constitute a consumer dispute under the relevant legislation, as it involves neither the purchase of goods nor the hiring of services for consideration. Furthermore, the Court held that consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction where none is provided by law. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the orders of the District Consumer Court were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does a District Consumer Court have jurisdiction to entertain disputes regarding agreements to sell immovable property?
  • Can the consent of parties confer jurisdiction upon a court or tribunal where no such jurisdiction is provided by law?
  • Does a dispute regarding the transfer of plots purchased on installments fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005?
  • What is the duty of a court when an issue concerning the bar of its jurisdiction is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amanat Khan. vs The State, etc.2015 LHC 77 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-08
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryco-accused statementacquittal of co-accusedmurderdacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition arising from FIR No.232/2011 registered under Sections 302, 392, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Sections 13, 20, and 65 of the Arms Ordinance at Police Station Hazro, District Attock. The core legal question concerns whether post-arrest bail should be granted to an accused whose sole implication stems from a co-accused's statement during investigation, particularly when that co-accused has already been acquitted. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the sole evidence linking him to the crime was the statement of an acquitted co-accused, rendering his involvement debatable. The court laid down the principle that implication solely through a co-accused's statement who has subsequently been acquitted, coupled with the absence of direct identification or incriminating material, establishes a case for further inquiry, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused implicated solely through the statement of a co-accused who has subsequently been acquitted is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the mere absconsion of an accused disentitle them to bail when they otherwise have a meritorious case?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf vs The State2015 LHC 3533 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-14
  narcotic substancescriminal appealburden of proofbenefit of doubtrecovery memochain of custodyfalse implicationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 3000 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully discharged its initial burden of proof regarding the recovery of the contraband, given the material contradictions in the evidence and the appellant's plea of false implication. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with significant discrepancies, including inconsistent testimonies regarding the time and manner of the raid, the chain of custody of the recovered parcels, and the unexplained use of a seal monogram that did not correspond to the investigating officer. The Court emphasized that while Section 29 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, shifts the burden of proof to the accused once the prosecution establishes its case, the initial onus remains squarely on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Finding the prosecution evidence highly deficient and the defence version plausible, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the initial burden of proof in a narcotics case under The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, lie with the prosecution despite the provisions of Section 29?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery proceedings?
  • Is the use of an unexplained seal monogram on recovered contraband parcels fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Wali Muhammad2015 LHC 2243 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Siddique2015 LHC 2826 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Athar vs NAB, Etc.s2015 NLR Criminal 289 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Ansari vs Manzoor Ahmad ParachaK.L.R. 2015 Civil Cases 91 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali alias Mammi vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 61 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-15
  post-arrest bailCNSAcharas recoveryfurther inquiryweight of narcoticswrapper ambiguity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after being allegedly found in possession of 1210-grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the recovery of a narcotic substance allegedly slightly above the threshold, where weighing methodology involving the wrapper or shopper is uncertain, warrants further inquiry for the grant of bail. The court held that the ambiguity regarding whether the narcotic was weighed with or without its wrapper creates a favorable inference for the accused, making the exact weight a matter of further inquiry and casting doubt on the applicability of Section 9(c). The key principle laid down is that where the exact weight of a recovered contraband is subject to doubt due to the failure to ascertain whether it was weighed with its packaging, benefit of the doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused, particularly when the accused is a previous non-convict and the trial has not made progress.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ambiguity regarding whether a recovered narcotic substance was weighed with or without its wrapper entitles the accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Does a small margin exceeding the threshold for a narcotics offense warrant further inquiry when weighing procedures are unclear?
  • Can the lack of progress in a trial and the fact that an accused is a previous non-convict be considered grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Hussain vs The State2015 LHC 6715 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-14
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencematerial improvementsrule of consistencymurder convictionwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and causing injuries under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the material improvements in the ocular account and the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The court found that the eye-witnesses made significant, dishonest improvements regarding the time of the occurrence and the specific roles of the accused, rendering their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the medical evidence failed to conclusively link the appellant to the fatal injuries. Applying the rule of consistency, the court noted that co-accused had already been acquitted on the same evidence. The court emphasized the principle that when a witness deliberately improves their version of events, their credibility is compromised. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling the appellant to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, and set aside the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when eye-witnesses make material improvements to their initial statements?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to prove the identity of an assailant in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram. vs The State etc.2015 LHC 5389 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-24
  illegal gratificationanti-corruptionbenefit of doubttainted evidenceinterested witnessescriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Punjab, convicting the appellant under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt through trustworthy and corroborated evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to glaring material contradictions between prosecution witnesses, lack of independent corroboration, absence of recovery of tainted money, and failure to establish the time, date, and place of the alleged bribe payments. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must stand on its own legs, that one tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. The appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can one tainted piece of evidence corroborate another tainted piece of evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to an acquittal?
  • Does the failure to put material incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar their use as evidence?
  • Whether the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt without shifting the burden of proof to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State etc.2015 LHC 464 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State and another2015 MLD 54 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-10
  secondary evidenceproclaimed offenderproof of signature and handwritingInvestigating Officerrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge calling a Head Constable to record secondary evidence regarding documents prepared by an absconding Investigating Officer who was a proclaimed offender. The core legal question was whether a witness who has already testified as a prosecution witness can be summoned to give secondary evidence regarding the handwriting and signatures of an unavailable Investigating Officer, and whether secondary evidence is permissible under the law in such circumstances. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, permits proving handwriting and signatures through a person acquainted with them when the original writer is unavailable, and there is no legal bar against examining a witness again for this purpose. The key principle laid down is that where an Investigating Officer becomes a proclaimed offender and unavailable during trial, secondary evidence of documents prepared by him can be brought on record through a witness acquainted with his handwriting and signatures.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness who has already been examined as a prosecution witness be recalled to adduce secondary evidence regarding the handwriting of an unavailable Investigating Officer?
  • Whether secondary evidence of documents prepared by an Investigating Officer who is a proclaimed offender can be brought on record through a person acquainted with his handwriting?
  • What are the legal modes available under the law for proving the signature and handwriting of a person alleged to have signed or written a document?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 269 · Lahore High Court · 2014-08-12
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayspeedy trialcross-version casecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Akram, who is accused in a cross-version case registered under FIR No. 09/2013 at Police Station City Lodhran. The petitioner faced allegations of inflicting 'Sarya' blows on the complainant's head and chest. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the principle of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. Upon reviewing the record and a report from the trial court, the High Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated since March 2013, yet the trial had not progressed significantly, with the charge not even framed by July 2014. The trial court estimated a further five months for completion. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had established a valid ground for bail due to the inordinate and statutory delay in the disposal of the case. The petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental consideration in bail adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial?
  • Does the failure to frame a charge within a reasonable period constitute a valid ground for bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs State and 3 others2015 PLJ Lahore 1144 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Special Judge Banking Court-I, Lahore and 82015 PLJ Lahore 770 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Javaid, etc vs Bashir Ahmed Shauk, etc2015 LHC 3637 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akmal and others vs The State and others2015 P Cr. L J 1443 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-25
  rapeminor victimmedical evidencechemical examiner reportcriminal appealsentence enhancementcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the rape of a minor, while a connected criminal revision seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial court. The High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through the consistent testimony of the minor victim, which was corroborated by medical evidence showing fresh injuries and a positive chemical examiner's report confirming the presence of semen. The Court rejected the defense's claim of false implication due to enmity, noting that no evidence supported such a motive and that families are unlikely to sacrifice a minor's honor for petty disputes. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction and the ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, while also dismissing the revision petition for enhancement, finding the trial court's sentence appropriate given the circumstances and the lack of prior criminal record.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a minor victim sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape when corroborated by medical and chemical evidence?
  • Does the defense of false implication due to enmity require independent evidence to be accepted by the court?
  • Can a sentence for rape be enhanced in revision if the trial court has already imposed the minimum statutory sentence and the convict has no prior criminal record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs State and anothersPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 221 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-11
  post-arrest bailbailable offencesprohibitory clausefurther inquirybogus documentscriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Muhammad Akhtar sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 139/2014 registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Khairpur Tamewali, District Bahawalpur, relating to a disputed tractor transaction and alleged bogus documents. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that the offences under Sections 420 and 471 are bailable, the application of Section 468 was doubtful as no forged documents were recovered or placed on record, and the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court decided to allow the petition, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and investigation is complete without incriminating material, the case falls under Section 497(2) for further probe, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether offences under Sections 420 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code are bailable?
  • Does an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure entitle the accused to bail as a matter of right when investigation is complete?
  • When does a case warrant further probe under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs Deputy Director Customs (Intelligence &2015 PLJ Lahore 756 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 229 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-15
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationbail dismissalspecific attributiongeneral allegationsmedico-legal certificatecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 144 registered under Section 452/337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar, Bahawalpur. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific and general allegations of causing injuries to the complainant. The Lahore High Court held that the pre-arrest bail petition of the first petitioner, to whom a specific injury and weapon attribution was made supported by the medical evidence, should be dismissed. Conversely, the court held that pre-arrest bail should be confirmed for the remaining petitioners against whom only general allegations were raised and whose attribution conflicted with the single head injury noted in the medico-legal certificate, establishing grounds of further inquiry and potential mala fide. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be refused where specific and corroborated allegations of physical harm exist, but is appropriately confirmed where general allegations conflict with medical evidence, creating reasonable doubt as to active participation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be refused to an accused specifically nominated for causing a corroborated head injury?
  • Is pre-arrest bail to be confirmed when general allegations against co-accused conflict with the single injury reported in the medico-legal certificate?
  • Does conflict between oral allegations in an F.I.R. and medical evidence establish potential mala fide for granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 242 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-24
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabductionZinadelay in FIRNikahnamacriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 365-B, 376, and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of abduction and Zina. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances, including a significant delay in FIR registration and the existence of a Nikahnama. The court observed that the complainant was a major, and there was an unexplained 31-day delay in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, the complainant had previously appeared before a Magistrate and a Sessions Judge regarding other matters but failed to report the alleged abduction or Zina at those opportunities. Additionally, the existence of a Nikahnama raised questions regarding the prosecution's version. Holding that the case against the petitioner constituted a matter of further inquiry, the court accepted the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where there is an unexplained, inordinate delay in FIR registration and the complainant had prior opportunities to report the offense to judicial authorities but failed to do so, the case may warrant further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained 31-day delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can the failure of a complainant to report an alleged offense during prior court appearances impact the credibility of the prosecution's case for bail purposes?
  • Is a case considered one of further inquiry when there is a disputed Nikahnama and contradictory statements by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs Distt. Returning Officer, etc.2015 LHC 7422 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal Khan vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited through Branch2015 CLD 1197 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsan. vs The State etc.2015 LHC 7581 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-17
  murderabscondanceocular evidencemedical evidencecriminal appealsentence enhancementcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, for the murder of Fayyaz Ahmad under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, and whether the appellant's prolonged abscondance served as corroborative evidence of guilt. The court held that the prosecution's case was consistent, as the ocular account provided by eyewitnesses was corroborated by medical evidence and the prompt registration of the FIR. The court further held that the appellant's abscondance for over two years, while not substantive evidence on its own, acted as a vital corroborative factor when read with other evidence. Consequently, the court maintained the conviction and sentence, dismissing both the appellant's appeal and the complainant's criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The judgment affirms that substitution of a real culprit is a rare phenomenon and that an unsubstantiated plea of enmity is insufficient to discard credible prosecution evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the abscondance of an accused be used as a corroborative piece of evidence to support a conviction?
  • Is an unsubstantiated plea of enmity sufficient to discard credible ocular evidence in a murder case?
  • Does the failure of an accused to produce evidence in defense under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken their case?
  • Can a sentence of life imprisonment be enhanced to death solely based on a criminal revision petition without additional compelling grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal, etc vs Allah Ditta, etc2015 KLR Civil Cases 476 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State2015 LHC 1881 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-14
  summary trialcontempt of courtprocedural irregularitySection 228 PPCSection 480 CrPCpolice negligencedue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by an Additional Sessions Judge under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding an alleged intentional insult to the court and interruption of judicial proceedings. The core legal question was whether the trial court followed the mandatory statutory procedure prescribed under Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when summarily convicting the appellant, a police official, for his alleged failure to serve court processes efficiently. The High Court held that the trial court acted in undue haste, failed to adhere to the procedural requirements of Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and lacked sufficient grounds to establish the offence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment establishes the principle that courts exercising summary powers to punish for contempt or obstruction must strictly comply with the procedural safeguards mandated by law, ensuring that such powers are not exercised arbitrarily or based on generalized grievances against administrative agencies, but rather upon clear evidence of the specific offence committed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the authority to summarily convict a person for an offence under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without following the procedure prescribed in Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court impose a conviction for intentional insult to the court based on generalized dissatisfaction with police performance?
  • Is strict adherence to the procedural requirements of Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for a court exercising summary jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State and another2015 LHC 8609 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-20
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytentative assessmentdelay in FIRvicarious liabilityzina
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, who was implicated in FIR No. 539/2015 registered under Sections 496-A, 376, and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite being named in the FIR, was entitled to the concession of bail given the evidentiary material available at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the two-day delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of specific allegations against the petitioner regarding the abduction or the commission of zina, observing that the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 failed to implicate him, likely due to his relationship as the brother of the main accused. The Court established that the case fell under the category of further inquiry and affirmed the principle that the mere heinousness of an offense is not sufficient grounds to refuse bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to the concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the basis of the heinous nature of the alleged offense?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not specifically implicate them?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs State2015 LHC 1881, PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 433 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-14
  contempt of courtintentional insultsummary trial procedurepolice officialdue processbail discharge
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, for allegedly showing intentional insult and interrupting judicial proceedings during a murder trial. The core legal question was whether the trial court followed the mandatory statutory procedure under Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether the appellant's actions constituted an offense under Section 228 PPC. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted in undue haste, exhibited predetermination, and failed to follow the proper procedure prescribed under Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the circumstances did not disclose any intentional insult or obstruction by the appellant. The court laid down the principle that summary punishment under Section 228 PPC requires strict adherence to the procedural safeguards and powers outlined in Section 480 Cr.P.C., and cannot be utilized arbitrarily or out of generalized dissatisfaction with police conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether summary conviction under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires strict adherence to the procedure provided under Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court punish a process server for contempt without establishing intentional insult or interruption of judicial proceedings?
  • Does generalized dissatisfaction with police performance justify the issuance of a show-cause notice and conviction under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Riaz vs Special Judge-ACE etc.2015 LHC 762 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan, etc. vs National Bank of Pakistan, etcK.L.R. 2015 Civil Cases 27 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan and anothers vs National Bank of PakistanK.L.R. 2015 Civil Cases 27, 2015 CLD 464 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-22
  auction saleexecution proceedingsreserve pricematerial irregularityvoid ab initiobanking courtauction proclamation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order by the Banking Court dismissing an objection petition against an auction sale of property conducted during execution proceedings. The core legal question was whether the auction proceedings, which failed to fix a reserve price and omitted the place of sale in the proclamation, alongside the purchaser's failure to deposit 25% of the purchase money, rendered the sale void. The Court held that the auction was vitiated by material irregularities. It affirmed that the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 66, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are mandatory, requiring the court to fix a reserve price to protect the judgment-debtor's interests. Furthermore, the failure to specify the place of sale in the proclamation and the purchaser's failure to deposit 25% of the purchase money immediately, as required by Order XXI, Rule 84, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, constitute fatal irregularities. Consequently, the Court set aside the auction sale and all consequential orders, establishing that sales conducted in violation of mandatory procedural law are void ab initio.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to fix a reserve price in an auction proclamation constitute a material irregularity vitiating the sale?
  • Is the omission of the place of sale in an auction proclamation a material irregularity?
  • What is the legal consequence of an auction purchaser's failure to deposit 25% of the purchase money immediately under Order XXI, Rule 84, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to execution proceedings before a Banking Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal etc vs Fida Hussain etc.2015 LHC 5898 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Deura vs Orix Leasing Pakistan, etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 234 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Deura vs Orix Leasing Pakistan and others2015 CLD 439 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs The State and others2015 YLR 2665 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-04
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailcriminal appeallife imprisonmentbail pending appealremanded trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the suspension of sentence filed by Muhammad Hayat and Bashir Ahmad, who were convicted under Sections 302(b)/34 and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala. The petitioners were sentenced to life imprisonment and other penalties following a remanded trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending the final adjudication of their criminal appeal. The Court observed that the petitioners had already served approximately 12 years of their sentence and noted that their co-accused, who faced a death sentence, had been convicted separately. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to demonstrate any prior criminal involvement of the petitioners. Consequently, the Court held that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose. The Court granted the petition, suspending the sentences and ordering the release of the petitioners on bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, emphasizing the lack of likelihood of an early conclusion to the main appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the long duration of time already served in custody constitute a valid ground for the suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  • Can a sentence be suspended if the prosecution fails to show any prior criminal involvement of the accused?
  • Is the lack of likelihood of an early conclusion of the main appeal a relevant factor for granting bail to a convict?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and 2 others vs The State2015 YLR 1699 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-06
  circumstantial evidencejudicial confessionretracted confessionbenefit of the doubtmurder referenceanti-terrorismdeath sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing the appellants under sections 302, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Sections 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for the gruesome murder of five family members inside a house. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, the voluntariness and admissibility of retracted judicial confessions procured after alleged torture, and whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from major discrepancies, including an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, contradictory medical evidence, unverified recoveries, and doubtful judicial confessions. Setting aside the convictions and death sentences, the Court laid down the principle that conviction on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken, credible chain of corroborative links, and that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence in the absence of an interlinking chain of credible and cogent corroborative evidence?
  • Whether a retracted judicial confession allegedly procured through torture can form the basis of a capital conviction without strong independent corroboration?
  • Does the prosecution bear the sole burden of standing on its own legs regardless of weaknesses or defects in the defence plea?
  • What is the legal effect of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan vs State, etc.PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 330 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-09
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabductionrapedelay in FIRDNA teststatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 406 dated 28.07.2014, initially registered under Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and later amended to include Sections 365-B and 376(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the alleged abduction and rape of the complainant's wife along with her suckling baby. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that due to an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, non-recovery of alleged stolen articles, exoneration of co-accused family members during investigation, non-conduct of a DNA test due to non-cooperation of the complainant and abductee, and the unlikelihood of the conclusion of trial in the near future, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court accepted the bail application, laying down the principle that tentative assessment of circumstances indicating delayed reporting, questionable allegations, and prolonged incarceration without commencement of trial warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delayed reporting of an incident in the FIR constitutes a ground for post-arrest bail?
  • Does the exoneration of co-accused during police investigation make the case against the remaining accused one of further inquiry?
  • Whether the non-conduct of a DNA test due to non-cooperation of the complainant entitles an accused to bail under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adeel. vs Gov't. of Punjab, Etc.2015 LHC 4650 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adeel vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Home2015 LHC 4650, 2015 YLR 2422 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adeel The State vs The State Muhammad Adeel2015 LHC 7756 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-04
  Section 302(b)death sentencemurder referenceeyewitness testimonychance witnessesCCTV footagecorroborative evidenceplea of accusedburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a criminal appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the death sentence imposed by the trial court, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the capital penalty. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot the deceased at a grocery store late at night over an illicit liaison. The High Court evaluated the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies, noting that two eyewitnesses from a distant district were omitted from the initial complaint, their presence was highly improbable, and none of the witnesses or the appellant appeared on recovered CCTV footage. The Court held that when the substantive direct evidence fails to inspire confidence, corroborative evidence such as weapon recovery cannot sustain a conviction. Furthermore, the prosecution must independently establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; a plea raised by an accused cannot be used to his detriment or selectively parsed where general exceptions under Chapter IV of the Pakistan Penal Code do not apply. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the death sentence not confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Can corroborative evidence sustain a criminal conviction if the substantive ocular evidence fails to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Whether the omission of material eyewitnesses from the initial complaint creates doubt regarding their presence at the crime scene?
  • Can an accused person's defence plea be considered to their detriment when the prosecution has failed to establish its case independently?
  • Is a court permitted to selectively accept portions of an accused's plea to aid the prosecution while rejecting favorable portions, where the plea does not fall under the general exceptions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abu Bakar Mufti vs Mst. Shaheen Mufti and others2015 MLD 960 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid etc. vs State etc.2015 KLR Criminal Cases 332, PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 545 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-05
  murder referencecircumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionlast-seen evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittaljoint confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal appeals and a murder reference directed against the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven its case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically an extra-judicial confession, last-seen evidence, and alleged recoveries. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the crime, noting that the joint extra-judicial confession was inadmissible and uncorroborated, the last-seen evidence lacked credibility, and the recoveries were unverified. The Court laid down the key principle that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain of unimpeachable evidence to sustain a conviction, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeals were accepted, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a joint extra-judicial confession admissible in evidence against multiple accused persons?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence when links in the chain of circumstances are missing?
  • Does the absence of previous enmity between prosecution witnesses and the accused automatically render the testimony of witnesses truthful?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical evidence in connecting an accused person to the commission of a crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Additional Sessions Judge, etcK.L.R. 2015 Criminal Cases 87 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 290 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-21
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitysupplementary statementinvestigation reportaerial firing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Muhammad Abbas, who is charged under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence regarding his specific role in the alleged offence. The court observed that while the F.I.R. contained a joint allegation of indiscriminate firing, the complainant's supplementary statement clarified that the petitioner only engaged in aerial firing and did not cause any injury to the deceased. Furthermore, the investigating officer declared the petitioner innocent in the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the investigation declares an accused innocent and the complainant's supplementary statement contradicts the initial F.I.R. regarding the specific role of the accused, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a finding of innocence by the investigating officer constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the complainant's supplementary statement contradicts the initial F.I.R. regarding the specific role of the accused?
  • Is the question of vicarious liability in a murder case a matter for the trial court to determine after recording evidence rather than at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abaid Ullah vs Ateeq-Ur-Rehman and 8 others2015 CLD 307 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-05
  civil revisionsummary suitNegotiable Instruments Actdishonoured chequeliability of legal heirsmaintainability of suitCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional District Judge setting aside an ex parte judgment and decree in a recovery suit. The petitioner had filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the legal heirs of a deceased person on the basis of a dishonoured cheque issued by the deceased before his death. The core legal question was whether a summary recovery suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a cheque is maintainable against the legal heirs of a deceased maker who had not signed the instrument themselves. The Lahore High Court held that under sections 29 and 29-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, a person who has not signed a cheque as maker or drawer is not liable thereon, and a cheque ceases to have effect as a bill of exchange upon the death of its maker. Consequently, a summary suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be maintained against legal heirs unless they have individually signed the instrument.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a summary suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be filed against the legal heirs of a deceased person on the basis of a cheque issued by the deceased?
  • Does a cheque cease to have effect as a bill of exchange upon the death of its maker before encashment?
  • Are legal representatives liable on a negotiable instrument if they have not signed it as maker, drawer, indorser, or acceptor?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aamir vs Nazia Bibi and another2015 YLR 1667 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-10Read full judgment →
• Muhamad Yasmin vs Mst. Naheed Bano and others2015 CLC 776 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-22Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Hanif vs The State2015 LHC 3693 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-01
  criminal appealself-defenseright of private defensejuvenile offenderappreciation of evidenceSection 342 statementacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a juvenile, challenged his conviction and sentence for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot the deceased after signaling him to stop. During the trial, the appellant admitted to the shooting but asserted a plea of self-defense, claiming the deceased attempted to sodomize him. The trial court disbelieved the prosecution's version of events but partially accepted the appellant's statement, convicting him on the basis that he exceeded his right of self-defense by firing multiple shots. Upon appeal, the Lahore High Court found the prosecution's evidence unreliable, noting the failure to examine a key eyewitness and the absence of a credible motive. The Court held that once the prosecution's case is disbelieved, the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected as a whole, rather than parsed for convenience. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, ruling that his actions were justified under the circumstances of self-defense.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court partially accept and partially reject an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after disbelieving the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of a single witness sufficient for conviction when other key eyewitnesses are withheld by the prosecution?
  • Does the repetition of fire shots by an accused necessarily constitute an excess of the right of self-defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Ghafoor vs The State etc.2015 LHC 3925 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-11
  pre-arrest bailfugitive from lawabuse of process of lawbank fraudATM card fraudcriminal breach of trustforgery
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and Sections 36 and 37 of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002. The core legal question concerned whether an accused who has remained a fugitive from law for a prolonged period without justification is entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that an unexplained and unjustified period of remaining a fugitive from law disentitles the accused to pre-arrest bail and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner who remains fugitive from law for an extended period without a plausible explanation cannot be granted pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained period of being a fugitive from law disentitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether an accused who remains away from the process of law for a long period can be granted the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubasher and another vs The State2015 PLD Lahore 426 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-14
  criminal appealmurdercapital punishmentcommutation of sentencebenefit of doubtocular evidenceSection 342 CrPCcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and sentences of two appellants for murder and murderous assault. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the validity of the common intention charge, and the appropriateness of the capital sentence. The Lahore High Court acquitted the co-accused, Sarfraz, noting that no specific overt act was attributed to him and that the recovery of the motorcycle was not put to him during his Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 examination, rendering it inadmissible. Regarding the main appellant, Mubasher, the Court found the ocular account of the injured witness reliable, despite excluding the complainant's testimony due to material improvements. The Court held that while a conviction can rest on a single reliable witness, the prosecution failed to prove the motive or provide corroborative recovery evidence. Consequently, the Court upheld Mubasher’s conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the failure to prove motive and the acquittal of the co-accused as extenuating circumstances. The judgment reaffirms that accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained against an accused if the evidence used for conviction was not put to them during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the improvement of a witness's statement to strengthen the prosecution's case render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the quantum of sentence even if the conviction is upheld?
  • Can a murder conviction be based on the testimony of a single witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubara and 4 others vs Mst. Khanu through L.Rs, and others2015 CLC 1661 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-07Read full judgment →
• Mst.Shamim Akhtar vs Additional District Judge,etc.2015 LHC 792 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mst.Nusrat Perveen vs Home Department, etc.2015 LHC 5888 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-01Read full judgment →
• Mst.Najma Bibi. vs Malik Muhammad Aslam2015 LHC 1652 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Bibi vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 165 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-09
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailsupplementary statementdelayed FIRcriminal proceduremisuse of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to Respondent No. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, in a case involving offences under Sections 376, 379, 392, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled due to his subsequent implication in the case. The Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court observed that the respondent was not named in the FIR, and his inclusion via a delayed supplementary statement suggested potential deliberation. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the grounds for granting bail and cancelling bail are distinct. Cancellation requires strong, exceptional, and cogent evidence of misuse of bail, such as tampering with evidence or repeating the offence, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the Court affirmed that in the absence of such compelling circumstances, the concession of bail should not be recalled once granted.

  Questions settled

  • Are the grounds for the grant of bail and the cancellation of bail the same?
  • What specific circumstances are required to justify the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
  • Does the failure to name an accused in the initial FIR, followed by a delayed supplementary statement, constitute a ground for cancelling bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Begum vs Nazar Hussain, etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 1295 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zareena Yousafi & Others vs Mst. Zahida Bibi & Others2015 LHC 2220 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zareena Bibi vs Muhammad Ashraf and others2015 PLD Lahore 253 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zareena Ashraf vs D.C.O., etcK.L.R. 2015 Civil Cases 113 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waziran Mai through L.Rs, and others vs Rab Nawaz through L.Rs, and 2 others2015 MLD 365 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Wandul Mai vs District Police Officer, Muzaffargarh, etcK.L.R. 2015 Criminal Cases 46 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Wahdul Mai vs District Police Officer, Muzaffargarh and 3 others2015 PLJ Lahore 203 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sumera Bano vs A.D.& S.J./Appellate Authority etc.2015 LHC 7412 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sultana Begum, etc vs Member Board of Revenue, etc2015 LHC 3408 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sidra Kausar vs SHO Shera Kot etc.2015 LHC 1979 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-22
  habeas corpuscustody of minorshizanatdetentionguardian judgecriminal procedurewelfare of minors
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioner, who is the real mother, sought the custody of her two minor sons from their paternal uncle. The petitioner had been arrested as an abettor in the murder of her husband, during which period the minors remained with the respondent uncle. An Additional Sessions Judge previously granted custody of a younger child to the petitioner but dismissed the petition regarding the two older minors, aged 8 and 6 years, as they were unwilling to accompany her, directing her to the Guardian Judge. The core legal question was whether habeas corpus under Section 491 Cr.P.C. is an appropriate remedy for custody of minors who are not being forcibly detained and have expressed unwillingness to live with the mother. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the minors were not forcibly removed or detained, and given their age and expressed preference, no urgency warranted interference under Section 491 Cr.P.C., leaving the petitioner to seek remedy before the Guardian Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether habeas corpus under Section 491 Cr.P.C. is maintainable for the custody of minors who are not being forcibly detained?
  • Does a mother accused of the murder of her husband have an absolute right to custody of her minor children through a summary writ jurisdiction?
  • Can the expressed unwillingness of minors of understanding age to go with a parent influence a court's decision in a habeas corpus petition for custody?
  • Is the Guardian Court the appropriate forum for resolving custody disputes where no illegal or forcible detention is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia vs Sohail Nazir Khan2015 PLJ Lahore 79 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Naheed vs Public at Large, etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 266 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Naheed vs Public at Large and others2015 PLJ Lahore 266, 2015 PLD Lahore 268 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar, etc vs Anwar Ali and others2015 C.L.R. 74 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and another2015 LHC 792, 2015 PLJ Lahore 1022, 2015 PLD Lahore 500 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-23
  DNA profile testlegitimacy of childpaternity disputeQanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984family suitmaintenance allowanceconsent for DNA testconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner-wife challenging an order of the Additional District Judge directing the parties to undergo a DNA profile test of her minor son to determine parentage in a suit for maintenance and dowry articles. Respondent No. 2 had denied paternity after years of acknowledging the child in public records and NADRA documents. The core legal question was whether a court can order a DNA profile test to determine paternity in family disputes without the consent of the parties or the child, and whether such tests can be ordered as a matter of routine overriding the statutory presumption of legitimacy under Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Lahore High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. The Court held that DNA tests cannot be ordered routinely upon a father's denial of paternity, especially after significant delay, nor can a DNA test be conducted without explicit consent. The Court reaffirmed that children born during a valid marriage carry a statutory presumption of legitimacy under Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order a DNA profile test to determine paternity without the consent of the person concerned or the mother?
  • Can a DNA profile test be ordered as a routine matter where a child is born during the continuance of a valid marriage under Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is a considerable delay by a father in denying the paternity of a child a relevant factor when considering a request for a DNA test?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Additional District Judge, etc2015 PLJ Lahore 1022 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary,Ministry of Law and 2 others2015 PLD Lahore 129 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shakila Bibi vs SHO Police Station Chobara, District Layyah and another2015 P Cr. L J 880 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-24
  habeas corpuscustody of minorsillegal custodywelfare of minorsabandonmentseparation of siblings
  Summary & questions settled

  Mst. Shakila Bibi filed a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the recovery of her three minor children from the alleged illegal custody of their father, Muhammad Shakeel. The petitioner alleged the minors were forcibly taken away, but during the proceedings, it was revealed that she had left her matrimonial home nearly a year prior, contracted a second marriage, and abandoned the children. The minor children appeared well cared for, expressed attachment to their father, and showed aversion towards the petitioner. The Lahore High Court examined whether the custody of the minors, or alternatively the youngest child, could be handed over to the petitioner. The court held that the habeas corpus petition was baseless as the minors were not in illegal custody, and denied the custody of the children to the petitioner. The key principles laid down include that welfare of the minors is paramount in custody matters, a parent who abandons children and contracts a second marriage loses immediate equitable claim in summary habeas proceedings, separation of siblings is undesirable, and maintenance and stability strongly favor retaining custody with the natural father where minors are well-adjusted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable for the recovery of minors when they are in the custody of their natural father?
  • Can a mother who has abandoned her minor children and contracted a second marriage claim their custody through summary proceedings?
  • Is it desirable to separate minor siblings by handing over the custody of one child to a parent while leaving the others with the father?
  • Does the welfare of minors require them to remain in the custody of a father where they are well-adjusted and attached, as opposed to a mother with no independent source of income who abandoned them?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Kausar vs S.H.O., Police Station Civil Line, DistrictPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 57 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-19
  habeas corpusillegal detentionfree willNikahcustodysui juris
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a habeas corpus petition filed before the Lahore High Court concerning the alleged illegal detention of Mst. Abeera Bashir. Initially, the police sub-inspector claimed inability to trace the detenue, but following strict judicial directions and the personal appearance of the District Police Officer (DPO) Muzaffargarh and the SHO, the detenue was produced before the court. The core legal question revolved around the whereabouts and voluntary will of the alleged detenue regarding her custody and marriage. The court examined the statement of the detenue, who confirmed that she had contracted a valid Nikah of her own free will and consent with her husband, Syed Shahenshah Bukhari, and expressed a clear desire to reside with him rather than the petitioner. Holding that an adult sui juris person is entitled to reside of her own free will, the court dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The key principle laid down is that the wishes of a sui juris adult regarding their residence and marriage must be respected in habeas corpus proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a habeas corpus petition be maintained when the alleged detenue expresses a free will to reside with her husband?
  • What is the procedure when police officials fail to produce a detenue and provide doubtful explanations?
  • Is an adult free to contract marriage and decide her place of residence of her own free will?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Elahi, etc. vs I.G. Police Punjab, Lahore etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 16 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Elahi and otherss vs I.G. Police, Punjab and others2015 PLJ Lahore 16, 2015 PLD Lahore 213 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaheen Saghri vs Judge Family Court, Khanewal and another2015 PLJ Lahore 1051 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-09Read full judgment →