Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Ghulam Nabi (Judicial-II) Punjab, Lahore and 3 others vs Member Board2015 PLJ Lahore 84 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-24Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs The State and 5 others2015 YLR 2230 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges concurrent orders passed by a Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the disinterment and exhumation of his deceased paternal aunt's body. The core legal question was whether exhumation of a grave could be ordered based on a belated, unverified suspicion of unnatural death without the registration of a criminal case or a medico-legal report. The Lahore High Court held that exhumation cannot be ordered casually or as an academic exercise in the absence of a registered criminal case under sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that Islamic law and jurisprudence strictly prohibit the desecration or exhumation of a Muslim dead body unless justified by compelling legal necessities, serious accusations, or established exceptions, and that mere suspicion raised long after burial over property disputes does not warrant disinterment.
Questions settled- Whether exhumation of a dead body can be ordered under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the prior registration of a criminal case?
- Can a disinterment application be entertained on the basis of a belated and unverified suspicion raised by a relative?
- What are the religious and legal principles governing the sanctity and prohibition of exhumation of a Muslim dead body in Pakistani jurisprudence?
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Shamim Akhtar etc2015 LHC 4968 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Ghulam Sarwar2015 C.L.R. 283 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Director General, Agriculture etc.2015 LHC 8253 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's contract employment as a Supervisor under the National Program of Improvement of Water Courses. The petitioner alleged that his termination was unlawful, citing his prior acquittal in criminal proceedings and medical incapacity due to severe backache as reasons for his absence. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to respond to multiple show-cause notices and personal hearing opportunities, and that his continuous unauthorized absence violated the terms of his contract. The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish that he had properly communicated his medical condition to the authorities during the disciplinary process, noting that his subsequent appeals lacked any mention of such illness. The Court held that a contract employee who fails to comply with service terms or respond to disciplinary notices cannot claim reinstatement. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under the Contract Appointment Policy, 2004, a contract employee whose services have been terminated cannot be reinstated. The petition was dismissed in limine, as no illegality was found in the departmental orders.
Questions settled- Can a contract employee whose services have been terminated be reinstated under the Contract Appointment Policy, 2004?
- Can a petitioner raise a plea of medical incapacity in a writ petition if it was not asserted before the departmental authorities?
- Is the termination of a contract employee lawful if the employee fails to respond to multiple show-cause notices and opportunities for personal hearing?
- Ghulam Mustafa and others vs State and othersPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 424 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and capital sentence reference arise from the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for murder and other offences following an armed attack resulting in five deaths and injuries. The core legal question involves the appraisal of ocular and medical evidence to determine the guilt of the appellants, the establishment of motive, and the applicability of anti-terrorism laws. The Lahore High Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the participation of the appellants and corroborated the ocular account with medical evidence, the occurrence stemmed from a personal vendetta and pre-existing enmity rather than acts designed to create terror or insecurity in society. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, set aside the conviction under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and maintained the remaining convictions under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that personal blood feuds and private vendettas do not ordinarily attract the provisions of anti-terrorism legislation unless the specific statutory criteria of creating panic or terror in society are met.
Questions settled- Whether an offence arising out of a personal vendetta or private blood feud falls within the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Can the death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life when the incident is rooted in previous enmity and private retaliation?
- Does the acquittal of some co-accused necessarily vitiate the conviction of remaining appellants when ocular testimony is corroborated by medical evidence?
- Ghulam Murtaza vs The State2015 LHC 4069 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, a juvenile, who was tried and convicted by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to imprisonment for life, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involve the credibility of the ocular account, the establishment of the alleged motive, and the acceptance of the appellant's version under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding grave and sudden provocation. The Lahore High Court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses (father and brother of the deceased) was doubtful and not confidence-inspiring, and the alleged motive was illogical. Consequently, relying on the appellant's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as a whole, the court concluded that the offense fell under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court laid down the principle that when prosecution ocular evidence is discarded, the exculpatory-cum-inculpatory statement of the accused under Section 342 must be accepted as a whole, converting the conviction accordingly and reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses can be doubted when independent witnesses are withheld and their presence at the crime scene appears unnatural?
- Can an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted as a whole when the prosecution evidence is disbelieved?
- Does catching the deceased in an objectionable position with the accused's mother amount to grave and sudden provocation sufficient to bring a murder case within the ambit of Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the sentence of a juvenile offender can be reduced to the period already undergone upon conversion of conviction to a lesser category of murder?
- Ghulam Murtaza and others vs Mst. Bivi and others2015 CLC 166 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad, etc vs Muhammad Waris2015 KLR Civil Cases 180 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad (Deceased) through his Legal Heirs, etc. vs Khuda2015 LHC 3366, 2015 LHC 3366 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad (deceased) through his Legal Heirs and others vs Khuda Bakhsh and others2015 LHC 3366, 2015 PLJ Lahore 1286 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain, etc vs Muhammad Rafique, etc2015 C.L.R. 1276 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 1178 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the appellant’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Sections 302(b), 324, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt through reliable ocular and medical evidence, and whether the appellant’s counter-version of acting in defense of his daughter’s honor was substantiated. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the convictions. The Court held that the presence of the injured complainant and the eyewitness at the crime scene was natural and fully corroborated by medical reports and the recovery of the blood-stained weapon. Applying established jurisprudence on counter-versions, the Court placed both narratives in juxtaposition and found the prosecution's story highly probable. Crucially, the Court laid down that under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the burden of proving a specific defense plea rests on the accused. The appellant's failure to testify on oath, produce the daughter as a key witness, or document his alleged injuries rendered his defense plea unsubstantiated.
Questions settled- How should a court evaluate evidence when presented with counter-versions of a criminal incident?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when an accused raises a specific plea of self-defense or defense of honor?
- Can a delay in lodging a First Information Report be excused if the complainant party prioritized seeking medical treatment for the injured?
- Whether the failure of the accused to produce the star witness of their defense plea weakens the credibility of that defense?
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State and others2015 P Cr. L J 197 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by the trial court, which had initially charged him under Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 496-A, specifically that the woman was enticed, concealed, or detained with the intent that she might have illicit intercourse with any person. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting significant material contradictions, the unreliability of the complainant and the alleged abductee, and the absence of any evidence suggesting the appellant intended to force the woman into illicit intercourse. The Court emphasized that the mere proposal of marriage, absent any element of force or intent for illicit sexual relations, does not satisfy the requirements of Section 496-A. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on evidence characterized by inordinate delays in reporting, material improvements, and lack of proof regarding the specific criminal intent required by the statute.
Questions settled- Does the mere proposal of marriage constitute the offence of enticing or detaining a woman for illicit intercourse under Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a conviction under Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of evidence proving an intent for illicit sexual intercourse?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's case is marred by inordinate delays in recording statements and material contradictions in witness testimony?
- Ghulam Hussain vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 167 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application arises out of a case where the petitioner, Ghulam Hussain, was apprehended while driving a vehicle allegedly loaded with twenty-nine bags of bhang weighing around 510 kilograms. The core legal question concerns whether the recovery of bhang falls under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 or the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, and whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the circumstances of the recovery and statutory definitions. The court held that since the contents of the F.I.R. do not explicitly reveal that the recovered material consisted of flowering or fruit tops wherefrom resin had not been extracted, the matter requires trial determination and may attract the Prohibition Order rather than the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. Furthermore, as the recovery was from a vehicle rather than the petitioner's direct physical person, conscious knowledge remains a question for trial, and keeping the accused in continuous confinement served no useful purpose. The court laid down the principle that the legal categorization of bhang depends on whether specific parts like flowering or fruiting tops are involved, affecting statutory applicability.
Questions settled- Whether the recovery of bhang falls under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 or the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- Does the definition of cannabis under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 include general bhang without specifying flowering or fruiting tops?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the recovery is made from a vehicle and conscious knowledge of the contents is yet to be determined at trial?
- Ghulam Hussain etc. vs Muhammad Rafique, etc2015 C.L.R. 1276, 2015 MLD 1583, 2015 PLJ Lahore 537 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain etc. vs Muhammad Rafique etc.2015 LHC 1187 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain and another vs Muhammad Rafique and 6 others2015 MLD 1583 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider, etc. vs Elahi Bakhsh (deceased) through LRs etc.2015 LHC 8564, 2015 PLJ Lahore 1215 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider vs The State and others2015 YLR 898 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Ghulam Haider, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal questions involve the assessment of ocular and medical evidence, the reliability of a related eyewitness, the proof of motive, and the quantum of sentence in the absence of a proved motive. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, sufficiently proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive and the recovery of the weapon. However, considering mitigating circumstances—including the unproved motive, the single firearm injury, and the failure to unfold the immediate cause of the occurrence—the court concluded that the death sentence was unduly harsh. The court laid down the principle that an unproved motive and mysterious immediate circumstances surrounding an incident can serve as mitigating factors warranting the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Whether the unproved motive and undisclosed immediate cause of an occurrence can be treated as a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Can related eyewitnesses be relied upon for conviction when their presence is natural and their testimony remains unshaken during cross-examination?
- Does the failure of a weapon recovery vitiate an otherwise consistent and trustworthy ocular account in a murder trial?
- Whether a single firearm injury without repetition constitutes a mitigating factor in the determination of the quantum of sentence?
- Ghulam Haider Ibrar Haider Ibrar Haider The State vs The State Sajjad Ali2015 LHC 6748 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused and a revision petition for compensation enhancement. The core legal questions concern the reliability of a solitary eyewitness account in the absence of corroborative forensic evidence and the validity of the trial court's acquittal of co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt through a credible ocular account and dying declaration, the sentence of death was excessive given the lack of direct motive and the delayed forensic analysis of crime weapons. Consequently, the court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The court affirmed the principle that a conviction may rest on the testimony of a single witness if it inspires confidence, and that acquittal of co-accused warrants no interference absent perversity. Furthermore, the court clarified that delayed forensic submission of crime empties diminishes the evidentiary value of recovery evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness?
- Does the delay in sending crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory diminish the evidentiary value of the recovery of the crime weapon?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
- Is the death penalty mandatory for a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Ghulam Haider etc. vs Elahi Bakhsh (deceased) through LRs etc.2015 LHC 8564 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Fatima vs Dur Muhammad, Etc.s2015 NLR Revenue 154 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Fatima vs Dur Muhammad and others2015 NLR Revenue 154, 2015 MLD 1169 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid vs Government of Pakistan, etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 479 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid vs Government of Pakistan, etc2015 C.L.R. 239 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid vs District Judge Layyah, etc2015 C.L.R. 328 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid and 3 others vs The State2015 LHC 4079 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of four appellants for the murder of two individuals. The prosecution alleged that the appellants killed the victims due to suspicion of illicit relations. The trial court convicted all four appellants under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon review, the High Court found the prosecution's ocular evidence unreliable, noting significant inconsistencies and the absence of independent witnesses. Consequently, the court discarded the prosecution's narrative. Regarding the appellants' statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court acquitted three appellants due to insufficient evidence. However, it accepted the statement of the fourth appellant, Ghulam Fareed, who admitted to the killings after discovering the victims in a compromising position. The court held that this admission established the defense of grave and sudden provocation. Accordingly, the court altered Ghulam Fareed's conviction to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and reduced his sentence to the period already served, while acquitting the remaining appellants.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution evidence is discarded?
- Does the discovery of victims in a compromising position constitute grave and sudden provocation under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an ocular account credible when the witnesses are close relatives and the occurrence took place at night without independent corroboration?
- Ghulam Fareed vs Delimitation Authority D.G. Khan Division, D.G. Khan2015 LHC 5655 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ali Asghar vs The State & another2015 LHC 8087 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an FIR registered at Police Station Sadar Talagang, District Chakwal, for allegedly uttering derogatory words. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and credibility of the prosecution evidence, the proper standard of proof in sensitive blasphemy cases, and whether the essential ingredients of the offence were established. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant, noting that star witnesses did not support the core allegations, no class of persons whose feelings were hurt was identified or produced, and the investigation suffered from perfunctory working and a lack of proper legal guidance. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, ordering the immediate release of the appellant. The key principle laid down is that blasphemy and related religious offences require the highest standard of proof, meticulous investigation by competent gazetted officers preferably aided by Islamic scholars, and strict judicial scrutiny to prevent abuse of the law.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under Section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained when the prosecution witnesses fail to depose that their religious feelings were hurt?
- What standard of proof and investigative rigor are required in criminal cases involving sensitive religious accusations?
- Can an accused be convicted under a specific penal charge when the alleged derogatory words were never confronted to him during the framing of that specific charge?
- Ghulam Akbar vs The State etc.2015 LHC 4147 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Akbar vs The State and others2015 YLR 2409, 2015 LHC 4147 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Akbar and 2 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 439 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas, etc. vs The State etc.2015 LHC 4371 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal appeals challenging the conviction and sentence of three appellants for the possession of 10 kilograms of opium under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the absence of private witnesses vitiated the proceedings, and whether the appellants were in joint possession of the contraband. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the trial court's judgment. The court held that police officials are competent witnesses in narcotic cases, and the failure to associate private witnesses does not invalidate recovery proceedings, particularly given the substantial quantity of narcotics involved. It further established that possession of narcotics can be joint among multiple occupants of a vehicle. The court affirmed that once the prosecution establishes the recovery beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and found no merit in the defense's claims of mala fide or procedural irregularities.
Questions settled- Does the failure to associate private witnesses in a narcotic recovery case invalidate the prosecution's evidence?
- Can possession of narcotics be considered joint when multiple individuals are found in the same vehicle?
- When does the burden of proof shift to the accused in cases involving the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Ghulam Abbas vs The State and another2015 LHC 2387 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under sections 302, 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, involving a fatal vehicular incident. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, who was a passenger in a vehicle driven by a co-accused that struck and killed the deceased, can be held criminally liable for murder and granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, finding that his mere presence as a passenger does not establish common intention or mens rea to commit murder. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to provide cogent reasons connecting the petitioner to the alleged crime at this tentative stage. Furthermore, the petitioner's status as a first-time offender and the completion of the investigation supported the grant of relief. The key principle laid down is that the mere fact of being a passenger in a vehicle involved in an occurrence does not automatically establish criminal culpability for murder without evidence of shared intent or instigation, warranting further inquiry into guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does mere presence as a passenger in a vehicle involved in a fatal accident establish common intention for murder?
- When does a case against an accused person fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted to an accused in a heinous offence if the investigation is complete and the accused is a first-time offender?
- Ghulam Abbas vs Regional Police Officer, D.G. Khan and 12 others2015 PLJ Lahore 1227 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs Federation of PAKISTANthrough Secretary Finance and 3 others2015 CLD 913 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas through legal heirs vs Khalil Ahmad, etc2015 C.L.R. 195 · Lahore High Court · 2014-09-10Read full judgment →
- Ghazi Muhammad Farooq- vs Muhammad Yasir and others2015 YLR 269 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-06Read full judgment →
- Ghafran Bukhsh (deceased) vs Ekhtiar Hussain through his legal heirs2015 LHC 5893 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-21Read full judgment →
- Ghaffar-Ul-Hassan vs National Command Authority and others2015 PLC (C.S.) 117 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the petitioner's removal from service by the National Command Authority for unauthorized absence. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the writ petition given the ouster clause in the National Command Authority Act, 2010, and whether the penalty of removal was proportionate when the authority had simultaneously treated the period of absence as leave without pay. The Court held that the petition was maintainable, as the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, cannot be curtailed by subordinate legislation. Regarding the merits, the Court found the impugned order contradictory and arbitrary. It established the principle that once an authority condones or regularizes a period of absence by treating it as leave without pay, it cannot simultaneously impose a major penalty for that same absence. The Court emphasized that discretionary powers must be structured and rational, and punishments must be proportionate to the gravity of the charge. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh decision by the appellate authority in accordance with due process.
Questions settled- Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 be curtailed by subordinate legislation?
- Is a penalty of removal from service sustainable when the authority has simultaneously treated the period of absence as leave without pay?
- Does the failure to exhaust departmental remedies bar the High Court from exercising writ jurisdiction in cases of arbitrary administrative action?
- Fsco through Chief Executive Officer and 3 others vs Al-Murtaza Cotton2015 PLJ Lahore 470, 2015 MLD 1307 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-17Read full judgment →
- Flying Cement Company vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2015 LHC 3448 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-11Read full judgment →
- Flying Cement Company vs Federation of Pakistan and others2015 PTD 1945 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-29Read full judgment →
- Flying Cement Co. Ltd. and otherss vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power and others2015 PLD Lahore 146 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses multiple constitutional petitions challenging the imposition, enhancement, and levy of Surcharges and Equalization Surcharges (EQ Surcharges) on electricity consumers through various notifications issued between 2011 and 2013 by the Government of Pakistan. The core legal questions involve whether the government has the exclusive power under section 31(5) of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 to levy a surcharge independently of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA), whether such surcharges constitute taxes requiring parliamentary money bill procedures, and whether their selective imposition or application violates constitutional guarantees of equality and provincial autonomy under Articles 25 and 157 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Court held that a surcharge is distinct from a tariff, rate, or charge, and that the Federal Government is statutorily empowered under section 31(5) of the Act of 1997 to levy surcharges without prior determination or intervention by NEPRA. The Court further ruled that the surcharges do not amount to independent unconstitutional taxes, were validly enacted, do not require routing through the Council of Common Interests (CCI), and do not constitute unlawful discrimination given the reasonable legislative classification. The petitions were consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the term 'surcharge' carries the same meaning as 'tariff', 'rate', or 'charge' under the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997?
- Is the Federal Government statutorily empowered under section 31(5) of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 to impose an electricity surcharge without prior determination by NEPRA?
- Whether the imposition of an electricity surcharge by the Federal Government requires prior routing and approval through the Council of Common Interests (CCI)?
- Does the provincial government hold exclusive power under Article 157 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 to levy a tax or surcharge on the distribution of electricity within the province subsequent to the 18th Constitutional Amendment?
- Whether the imposition of an Equalization Surcharge exclusively on industrial consumers or certain categories amounts to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- First Woman Bank Ltd. through Branch Manager vs Gulistan Textile2015 CLD 482 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-23Read full judgment →
- First Punjab Modaraba vs M/s. Alamgir Granite Processing Company and2015 P.C.T.L.R. 959 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- First Ibl MODARABAthrough Duly Authorized Officer vs Mrs. Rana Azhar2015 CLD 569 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-12Read full judgment →
- Firdous Cloth Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2015 LHC 4088, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 1131 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-09Read full judgment →
- Firdous Cloth Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2015 LHC 4088 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-09Read full judgment →
- find Wadda alias Jindla vs The State2015 LHC 5480 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the prosecution's eye-witnesses and whether the appellant’s plea of sudden and grave provocation, arising from finding his wife in an objectionable position with another man, warranted a modification of the conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable due to significant, unexplained delays in reporting the crime and the failure to examine an independent witness, necessitating an adverse inference. Consequently, the Court rejected the prosecution's version and accepted the appellant's plea of sudden provocation. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that such circumstances fall under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The conviction was accordingly altered from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c), and the sentence was reduced to fifteen years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the compensation order.
Questions settled- What is the legal consequence of the prosecution failing to examine an available independent witness?
- How should a court evaluate the statement of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution evidence is rejected?
- Does a murder committed under sudden and grave provocation, such as finding a spouse in an objectionable position, fall under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Fida Muhammad vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Muzaffargarh2015 CLC 801 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-10Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain vs The State etc2015 LHC 5460 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-20Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain vs StatePLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 32 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of his wife. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s conviction could be sustained based on the same evidence that the trial court had previously rejected when acquitting his co-accused, and whether the alleged extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence were sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that where the prosecution relies on the same set of evidence against multiple accused, and that evidence has been disbelieved by the trial court regarding some co-accused, the appellate court must exercise extra care and caution before relying on it to convict the remaining accused. Additionally, the Court ruled that an extra-judicial confession lacking specific details of the occurrence and appearing improbable in the circumstances is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Finally, the discovery of a dead body, without further evidence connecting the accused to the crime, is insufficient to establish guilt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when the same evidence was disbelieved by the trial court regarding co-accused who were acquitted?
- Is an extra-judicial confession valid if it lacks specific details of the crime and the circumstances of the confession are improbable?
- Does the recovery of a dead body alone, without further evidence connecting the accused, suffice to prove a murder charge?
- FESCO vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2015 CL. 10 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-03Read full judgment →
- FESCO through Chief Executive Officer, Faisalabad and 3 others vs Al-2015 PLJ Lahore 470 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Fazal-E-Haq vs The State and another2015 P Cr. L J 189 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a police officer, challenged his conviction under Article 155-C of the Police Order, 2002, for continuing an investigation after his suspension. The appellant argued that the Regional Police Officer (RPO) lacked the authority to suspend him and that his conviction under the Police Order was legally flawed because the original charge was framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the RPO, as a superior officer, possessed the requisite authority to suspend the appellant. The Court further affirmed that a Special Judge is empowered to convict an accused for any offence established by the facts, provided the accused is aware of the nature of the accusation, as supported by the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court concluded that the appellant was fully aware of the allegations regarding his unauthorized continuation of the investigation, rendering the conviction legally sound and free from procedural irregularity.
Questions settled- Can a Special Judge convict an accused for an offence other than the one originally charged if the facts support it?
- Does a Regional Police Officer have the authority to suspend a police officer if the DPO or CPO is the designated appointing authority?
- Does the suspension of a police officer automatically render their continued investigation of a case illegal?
- Fazal Sons etc. vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited2015 LHC 447 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-04Read full judgment →
- Fazal Qadir vs Jamshed Ellahi Butt and 2 others2015 P Cr. L J 865 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal under Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Rawalpindi/Islamabad, which acquitted the respondents of the charge under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by extending them the benefit of doubt. The core issue before the High Court was whether the trial court had misread or overlooked material evidence, justifying interference with the acquittal. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, affirming the acquittal. The Court noted an unexplained one-year delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' statements, lack of evidence regarding the place of confinement or payment of ransom, and an admission by the investigating officer that the FIR was concocted. The Court reiterated that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence into a double presumption, which cannot be overturned unless the trial court judgment is perverse, illegal, or grossly erroneous.
Questions settled- Can an order of acquittal be overturned merely because another view is possible upon re-appraisal of the evidence?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case?
- Can uncorroborated recovery evidence sustain a conviction when the prosecution fails to establish the primary charge of abduction for ransom?
- What is the evidentiary effect of an unexplained one-year delay in registering an FIR alleging abduction for ransom?
- Fazal Kareem (deceased) through legal heirs. vs Muhammad Ilyas2015 LHC 2995 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-15Read full judgment →
- Fazal Haque, etc. vs The State, etc.2015 LHC 6622 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 12/2015, registered at Police Station FIA, Lahore, under Sections 420, 467, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of submitting a fake bank guarantee to the Bank of Punjab to settle outstanding loan liabilities. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the ongoing civil litigation between the parties and the alleged mala fides of the complainant bank. The Court held that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, stemming from a settlement agreement and pending execution proceedings. It observed that the criminal case appeared to be a tool for recovery rather than a genuine criminal matter, noting the lack of investigation into the bank's own role and the failure to verify the alleged forgery forensically. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect individuals from victimization and the abuse of criminal process for ulterior motives, particularly when the underlying dispute is civil.
Questions settled- Can a criminal case be registered to exert pressure for the recovery of a debt that is the subject of pending civil execution proceedings?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the underlying dispute between the parties is primarily of a civil nature?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to conduct a forensic investigation into alleged forged documents create sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of bail?
- Fazal Din vs Mir Muhammad Jan, etc2015 C.L.R. 121 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-05Read full judgment →
- Fazal Din through Legal Heirs and others vs Mir Muhammad Jan and another2015 CLC 536 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-05Read full judgment →
- Fazal Ahmad Ranjha etc. vs Govt. of the Punjab etc.2015 LHC 1564 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-25Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Mahmood Khan and 2 others vs Haji Abdul Rehman through L.Rs, and others2015 YLR 411 · Lahore High Court · 2013-10-01Read full judgment →
- Fayyaz Hussain vs The State and 4 others2015 YLR 194 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-24Read full judgment →
- Fatima Sugar Mills Limited through Company Secretary and others_ In the matter of vs Not2015 PLD Lahore 632 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns whether an order passed by the High Court sanctioning a scheme of arrangement or amalgamation under section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, constitutes an 'instrument' or 'conveyance' liable to stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioner companies argued that such orders are not instruments, that the transfer is not 'inter vivos', and that they are exempt under Notification No. 1 dated 16-1-1937. The Court held that an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement is based on the consent of the shareholders and functions as an instrument under section 2(14) of the Stamp Act, 1899. Furthermore, the Court determined that such an order falls within the purview of Article 27-A of the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1899, as it involves the transfer of immovable property based on consent. The Court rejected the argument that the transfer is not 'inter vivos', affirming that juristic persons can engage in such transfers. Consequently, the Court ruled that these orders are liable to stamp duty, and parties must provide requisite stamp papers before such orders are finalized.
Questions settled- Does a court order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement or amalgamation under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, constitute an instrument liable to stamp duty?
- Is an order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement or amalgamation considered a conveyance under the Stamp Act, 1899?
- Does the term 'inter vivos' in the context of the Stamp Act, 1899, include transfers between juristic persons?
- Is a court order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement based on shareholder consent subject to Article 27-A of the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1899?
- Fatima Bibi and others vs Muhammad Hanif and others2015 YLR 1789 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-22Read full judgment →
- Fateh Sher and others vs The State and others2015 P Cr. L J 1540 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal appeals against convictions and sentences for murder and abduction, alongside an acquittal appeal, revision for compensation, and a murder reference arising from a judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot. The core legal questions concern the credibility of ocular and circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, and the standard of proof required in criminal trials. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the sole eyewitness kept a suspicious and unexplained silence for several days, the last-seen evidence and extra-judicial confessions suffered from glaring improvements and contradictions, and corroborative recoveries and medical evidence were insufficient in isolation. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that multiple infirmities, unexplained delays, and material contradictions in prosecution evidence entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether unexplained and mysterious silence of an eyewitness for several days renders their ocular account untrustworthy?
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on an extra-judicial confession marked by major improvements and contradictions when co-accused have already been acquitted on the same evidence?
- Is a belated recovery of crime weapons at the instance of an accused in police custody sufficient to connect them to the crime in the absence of reliable direct evidence?
- Does medical evidence alone suffice to identify the culprits in a criminal trial?
- Fateh Muhammad, etc vs Allah Wasaya, etc2015 LHC 7040 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-07Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad vs Ghulam Hassan and another2015 MLD 105 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-03Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad etc. vs Din Muhammad etc.2015 LHC 7005 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-13Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muahmmad and 2 others vs Din Muhammad and 2 others2015 LHC 7005, 2015 PLJ Lahore 1103 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-13Read full judgment →
- Farzand All etc. vs Bashir Ahmad2015 LHC 3216 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-16Read full judgment →
- Farzana Roohi vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways and 42015 PLC 101 · Lahore High Court · 2014-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the Railway Department's refusal to grant compensation for the death of the petitioner's father, a train driver who died while performing official duties in India. The core legal question was whether a death resulting from a heart attack during the course of employment qualifies as an "accident" under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Court held that the impugned order denying compensation was unlawful and set it aside. It established that the term "accident" in the Act must be interpreted in its popular sense as an unexpected, untoward, and unlooked-for mishap. The Court reasoned that a heart attack suffered during the performance of strenuous official duties, especially when the employee is isolated from family and home, possesses a sufficient causal connection to employment. Therefore, such an event constitutes an "accident" arising out of and in the course of employment, entitling the legal heirs to compensation. The Court further directed the respondents to process the compensation claim within 45 days, rejecting the necessity of exhuming the body after eight years to ascertain the cause of death.
Questions settled- Does a heart attack suffered by an employee during the performance of official duties constitute an "accident" under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
- Is a causal connection between the work performed and the injury required to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
- Can an employer deny compensation for a death occurring during employment based solely on the medical cause of death being a heart attack?
- Faryal Noureen vs Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Sargodha etc2015 LHC 6795 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-19Read full judgment →
- Farooq Ahmed & another vs Additional District Judge, Samundari, District Faisalabad and 6 others2015 PLJ Lahore 774 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Through this constitutional petition, the petitioners sought the setting aside of orders passed by the Executing Court and the Additional District Judge whereby Petitioner No. 1, the general attorney and brother of the judgment debtor, was sent to civil prison and Petitioner No. 2's surety bond was enforced in execution of a maintenance decree. The core legal question was whether an attorney and a surety who voluntarily undertook liability during execution proceedings can frustrate the execution of a maintenance decree passed under family laws. The Lahore High Court held that the judgment debtor, his attorney, and his surety cannot frustrate the execution of a decree, and the Executing Court possesses ample powers under the law, including arrest and detention, to ensure the realization of decretal amounts. The key principle laid down is that Family Court proceedings are special in nature, and executing courts must utilize all prescribed legal modes—including those borrowed from land revenue recovery and civil procedure—to effectively enforce and execute maintenance decrees.
Questions settled- Can an attorney and a surety frustrate the execution of a maintenance decree passed against a judgment debtor?
- What modes of recovery can an Executing Court adopt for the execution of a money decree under the Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Whether the liability of an attorney and surety is coextensive with that of the judgment debtor in family court execution proceedings?
- Farooq Ahmad Chaudhry vs Government of the Punjab and others2015 LHC 324, 2015 PLC (C.S.) 402 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant constitutional petition was filed by a former senior cashier of the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. (P.P.C.B.L.) challenging an order passed by the Administrator of the Bank directing the recovery of a pecuniary loss from him, notwithstanding a prior Award rendered by the Registrar of Societies under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, which had absolved him of liability for the cash shortage. The core legal question was whether the Bank, having initiated proceedings before the Registrar and obtained an Award, could subsequently upend that decision through internal departmental proceedings to impose financial liability on the petitioner. The Lahore High Court held that the Bank could not turn around and revisit the findings of the Registrar after submitting to his jurisdiction, as doing so would amount to impermissible double jeopardy. The Court laid down the principle that once a statutory functionary determines liability and renders a final Award regarding an alleged embezzlement upon the application of a party, that party is bound by it and cannot circumvent it through internal administrative or disciplinary actions.
Questions settled- Whether the Administrator of a bank can upend an Award rendered by the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
- Does it amount to double jeopardy for a bank to initiate internal recovery proceedings after a statutory Registrar has already absolved an employee of liability in an Award?
- Can a party that approaches a statutory forum and submits to its jurisdiction subsequently turn around and take a different stance?
- Farman Ali alias Gulla The State vs The State Farman Ali alias Gulla2015 LHC 2125 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Farman Ali alias Gulla, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected murder reference. The prosecution alleged that the appellant inflicted fatal knife blows on the deceased during an altercation in a graveyard. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eyewitnesses, the legal effect of a delayed FIR and a discarded weapon recovery, and the presence of mitigating circumstances warranting the reduction of the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness testimony was consistent, trustworthy, and corroborated by medical evidence despite the relatedness of the witnesses and the acquittal of co-accused. However, the court ruled that the delayed recovery of the blood-stained weapon without matching blood grouping reports, alongside the acquittal of co-accused, constituted mitigating circumstances. The court upheld the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but altered the sentence from death to imprisonment for life, answering the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder trial?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused persons automatically require the acquittal of the main appellant based on the same evidence?
- Can the recovery of a weapon after a considerable delay without matching serological reports be used as incriminating evidence?
- What constitutes sufficient mitigating circumstances to commute a sentence of death to imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Faqir Masih vs The Joint Secretary (Admn.) and anotherK.L.R. 2015 Labour & Service Cases 1, 2015 C.L.R. 346 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges orders passed under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, whereby the petitioner, a sweeper, was removed from service on allegations of absence from duty, and his departmental appeal was subsequently dismissed. The core legal questions involved the requirement of a speaking order by an appellate authority and the necessity of a regular inquiry before imposing a major penalty. The Lahore High Court held that an appellate authority must independently analyze the case and render a reasoned, speaking order rather than merely endorsing the lower authority's decision, and that major penalties generally require a regular inquiry unless lawfully dispensed with by giving reasons. The court set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh through a reasoned order.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate authority is required to render an independent and speaking order when deciding an appeal against a major penalty?
- Can a major penalty of removal from service be imposed without holding a regular inquiry?
- What are the essential ingredients of a proper speaking order by an appellate authority in service matters?
- Faqir Bakhsh vs The State and others2015 PLD Lahore 93 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rojhan, which directed the petitioners to hand over possession of disputed land to the complainant as interim relief under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the authority to grant interim relief for the restoration of possession under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, prior to the formal commencement of the trial. The High Court held that the impugned order was legally unsustainable because the statutory condition of granting such relief 'during the trial' had not been met. The Court clarified that the mere taking of cognizance does not constitute the commencement of a trial; rather, a trial commences only upon the framing of a charge. Since no charge had been framed against the accused, the trial had not yet begun, rendering the interim order premature. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and decide the case within two months.
Questions settled- Does the mere taking of cognizance by a court constitute the commencement of a trial?
- At what stage of criminal proceedings does a trial formally commence?
- Can a trial court grant interim relief for the restoration of possession under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, before the framing of a charge?
- Fakhar-ud-Din vs Member (Judicial-v), Board of Revenue, etc2015 C.L.R. 523 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-12Read full judgment →
- Fakhar-ud-Din vs Member (Judicial-v), Board of Revenue etc.2015 LHC 596 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-12Read full judgment →
- Fakhar-Ud-Din through L.Rs,s vs Muhammad Iqbal and others2015 CLC 994 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-04Read full judgment →
- Fakhar-Ud-Din (deceased) through LRs vs Muhammad Iqbal, etc.2015 PLJ Lahore 395 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-04Read full judgment →
- Fakhar Abbas vs Additional District Judge Tandlianwala, District2015 LHC 554 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-27Read full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad vs Dr. Waheed Ullah Khan etc.2015 LHC 2528 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate Section 30, Bhakhar, under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in a private complaint concerning land dispute, trespass, and arson. The core legal question revolves around whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused at an early stage under Section 249-A when there was allegedly no probability of conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the long unexplained delay in reporting the matter, discrepancies between the initial application and the private complaint, lack of medical corroboration, and pending Section 145 proceedings rendered the prosecution case groundless with no remote chance of conviction. The court affirmed that an accused may be acquitted at any stage under Section 249-A if the charge is groundless or if there is no likelihood of conviction, reinforcing the double presumption of innocence that attaches to an acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court can acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at any stage of the trial if the charge is groundless?
- Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in filing a private complaint weaken the prosecution's case sufficiently to justify acquittal?
- Whether discrepancies between an initial police application and a subsequent private complaint affect the probity of the prosecution story?
- Faiz Muhammad and otherss vs Muhammad Boota and others2015 PLJ Lahore 1225 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-04Read full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Boota and others2015 LHC 1015 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-25Read full judgment →
- Faisalabad Electric Supply Company through Chief Executive and 52015 PLJ Lahore 989 · Lahore High Court · 2014-10-31Read full judgment →
- Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited through its HR & Admin.2015 MLD 1004, 2015 C.L.R. 315 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-15Read full judgment →
- Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited through HR and Admin2015 MLD 1004 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-15Read full judgment →
- Faisal alias Mithu vs The State and another2015 LHC 6924 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 1003/14, involving charges under sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, named in the FIR, is alleged to have caused a firearm injury to an injured victim on the thigh but is not accused of causing injury to the deceased. The Court observed that the injury attributed to the petitioner falls under section 337-F(iii), which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory report matching crime empties with the recovered weapon, rendering the recovery's evidentiary value a matter for trial. Emphasizing that mere heinousness of an offense is insufficient to deny bail and that the petitioner is a previous non-convict who has been incarcerated since January 2015, the Court held that the case warrants further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, prioritizing the principle that unjustified incarceration of an innocent person cannot be adequately remedied.
Questions settled- Does an offense carrying a maximum punishment of three years fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the absence of a forensic report matching crime empties with a recovered weapon a ground for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be denied solely on the basis of the heinousness of the alleged offense?
- Faheem-ud-Din vs Muhammad Kaleem Athar, etc2015 C.L.R. 296 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-13Read full judgment →
- Executive Engineer, River Division Basira, Muzaffargarh. vs Punjab Labour2015 LHC 1250 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of writ petitions filed by the Executive Engineer, River Division Basira, challenging the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which ordered the regularization of several employees initially appointed on a 'work-charge' basis. The core legal question was whether such employees, having served for many years on projects of a permanent nature, attained the status of permanent workmen under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Court held that the employees were indeed permanent workmen, as the nature of their work was permanent and they had satisfied the statutory duration requirements. The Court emphasized that 'work-charge' status cannot be used as a device to deny rights to workers who have served for years. The ratio established is that the nature of the work, rather than the appointment label, determines the status of a workman, and concurrent findings of fact by labour forums regarding this status are not subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction absent jurisdictional defects.
Questions settled- Does an employee appointed on a 'work-charge' basis attain the status of a permanent workman if the nature of their work is permanent and they have served for more than nine months?
- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by a Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
- Does the principle of equal protection under Article 25 of the Constitution require extending the benefits of a court judgment to similarly situated employees who were not parties to the litigation?
- Which judgment prevails when there is a conflict between a judgment of a larger bench and a smaller bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Executive Engineer vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 22015 LHC 4109, 2015 KLR Labour & Service Cases 121 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the judgments of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which regularized the service of a work-charged employee. The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, sought to overturn these decisions, arguing that the employee was not working against a permanent post and thus did not qualify for regularization under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. However, the primary issue before the High Court was the procedural dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Labour Appellate Tribunal due to a four-day delay in filing. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, merely citing administrative procedures for obtaining permission to appeal. The Court reaffirmed the established legal principle that in matters of limitation, a party must explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of the court, and that no special preference or leniency is extended to state departments. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Is a government department required to explain each day's delay in filing an appeal to the same extent as a private litigant?
- Does the mere act of seeking internal departmental permission to file an appeal constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay?
- Is the length of employment alone sufficient to declare an employee a permanent workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Executive Engineer vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore & 2 others2015 LHC 4109 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges judgments passed by the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the regularization of service of a work-charge employee. The core legal question revolves around whether the departmental appeal before the Tribunal was validly dismissed due to an unexplained delay of four days and whether departmental procedures constitute a sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of each and every day in filing the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's dismissal of the time-barred appeal. The key principle laid down is that the State or government departments are not entitled to preferential treatment regarding limitation, and a party seeking condonation of delay must provide solid grounds and explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of the court.
Questions settled- Whether departmental correspondence and seeking permission to file an appeal constitute a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay?
- Is the State or a government department entitled to preferential treatment in matters of limitation and explaining daily delay?
- Does the length of period of employment by itself serve as a ground for declaring a work-charge employee as a permanent workman?
- Engro Foods Ltd. vs C. D. G. etc.2015 LHC 5398 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-30Read full judgment →
- Elahi Bakhsh and another vs Jind Wada and 2 others2015 PLJ Lahore 1079 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-02Read full judgment →
- Edward Naseer vs The State & another2015 LHC 4144 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three consolidated post-arrest bail petitions filed by several petitioners accused in FIR No. 392/2015, involving offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, arising from an incident of rioting, blocking of Ferozpur Road, and attacks on police and public property. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the evidentiary material available at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that most petitioners were entitled to bail as they were not specifically nominated in the FIR, and the recovery of common sticks and clubs was insufficient to prima facie connect them to the specific offences. However, the Court distinguished the case of one petitioner, Imran, whose case was corroborated by the recovery of a looted PDA device from the Metro Bus Station. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to all petitioners except Imran, whose bail petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that while general recoveries of common items may not sufficiently connect an accused to an offence, the recovery of specific looted property can provide sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail.
Questions settled- Does the recovery of common items like sticks and clubs at the instance of an accused provide sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Can the recovery of specific looted property from an accused distinguish their case from co-accused persons for the purpose of bail?
- Are petitioners who are not specifically nominated in an FIR entitled to post-arrest bail when the case against them is based on CCTV footage and identification parades?