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.

• Waris Ali Zahid vs Member Board of Judicial (II), Board of Revenue2014 C.L.R. 762, K.L.R. 2014 Revenue Cases 48, 2014 YLR 2381 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-14Read full judgment →
• Waris Ali Zahid vs Member Board (Judi.-II), Board of Revenue, etc.K.L.R. 2014 Revenue Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-13Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Khalid Pervaiz2014 C.L.R. 1299 · Lahore High Court · 2014-08-26Read full judgment →
• Wails Ali Zahid vs Member Board (Judi.-II), Board of Revenue, etc.2014 C.L.R. 762 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-13Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs Additional District Judge and 5 others2014 MLD 130 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-24Read full judgment →
• Waheed Akhtar vs District Coordination Officer, District Khanewal2014 PLC (C.S.) 782 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-05
  constitutional petitionright to appointmentdiscriminatory treatmentmerit listpublic employmentadministrative action
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the non-issuance of an appointment letter to the petitioner, who was selected as a Sanitary Worker (BS-1) following a competitive recruitment process. Despite being declared qualified and placed at serial number 16 in a merit list of 29 candidates, the petitioner was denied appointment while 19 other candidates were appointed. The respondents justified this omission by citing a stay order issued by the Punjab Labour Court in favor of a daily wager, claiming this necessitated keeping one seat vacant. The core legal question was whether the respondents could lawfully withhold an appointment letter from a qualified candidate based on a stay order affecting a different post and a different employee. The Court held that the withholding of the appointment was unjust and discriminatory. It found no nexus between the stay order regarding a water-carrier and the post of Sanitary Worker for which the petitioner was selected. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition, directing the respondents to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner, establishing that a selected candidate's accrued right to appointment cannot be defeated by unrelated administrative stay orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public authority can withhold an appointment letter from a qualified candidate based on a stay order issued in unrelated litigation?
  • Does a selected candidate possess an accrued right to appointment once the selection process is completed and they are declared qualified?
  • Can an administrative body deny appointment to a successful candidate by citing a stay order involving a different post and different job description?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Akhtar Satti vs The State, etc.2014 P.C.T.L.R. 40 · Lahore High Court · 2013-10-22Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ahmed Siddiqui vs Additional Sessions Judge and others2014 MLD 1513 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-21Read full judgment →
• Uzma Rani vs Registrar, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and 22014 YLR 2000 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-11Read full judgment →
• Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Ltd.) Through Managing2014 CLC 238 · Lahore High Court · 2013-03-27Read full judgment →
• Union Local Loop (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federal Board of Revenue and othersPTCL 2014 CL. 515 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-30Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs Muhammad Akbar and otherss2014 YLR 2493 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-18Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat Khawaja through President and 2 others vs National Bank2014 PLC (C.S.) 871 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-14
  privilege leaveencashment of leaveretirement benefitsNational Bank of Pakistanlacheswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple writ petitions filed by retired officers of the National Bank of Pakistan seeking directions for the payment of unutilized Privilege Leave (PL) exceeding 180 days, based on Instruction Circular No.37/99. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to encashment of frozen Privilege Leave beyond the maximum limit of 180 days stipulated in subsequent Circular No.57/99. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners have already been paid for 180 days of PL in accordance with Circular 57/99 and are not entitled to any further amount. Furthermore, the court held that the claims were hit by laches, having been filed years after the respective retirements without raising any objections at the time of receiving retirement benefits. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Are retired bank employees entitled to encashment of unutilized privilege leave beyond the limit of 180 days under the bank's instructions circulars?
  • Does a belated claim for unutilized privilege leave filed years after retirement suffer from laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Umair Aslam vs Station House Officer and 7 others2014 P Cr. L J 1305 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-28
  quashing of F.I.R.criminal breach of trustabuse of process of lawcivil disputeconstitutional petitioninherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashing of an F.I.R. registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the allegations were false, the dispute was essentially civil in nature regarding a property deal, and that the F.I.R. did not disclose the commission of a criminal offence. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be quashed when the allegations do not constitute a criminal offence and the matter is civil in nature, even after the submission of a challan. The Court held that since the F.I.R. lacked specific allegations of entrustment required for criminal breach of trust and the underlying dispute concerned a property transaction, the proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the Court quashed the F.I.R., establishing that the submission of a challan does not bar the High Court from quashing proceedings if they are groundless or constitute an abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed by the High Court after the submission of a challan?
  • Does a dispute arising from a property transaction necessarily constitute a criminal offence under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the High Court empowered to quash an F.I.R. if the contents do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • Does the mere submission of a challan by the police bar the High Court from exercising its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• UBL Insurers Limited vs Ashiq Hussain and another2014 CLD 1155 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-10
  constitutional petitioninterim ordermaintainabilityinsurance tribunalright of appealwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner challenging an interim order dated 2-2-2013 passed by the Insurance Tribunal, Lahore, whereby an application for summoning witnesses was partially allowed. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against an interim order passed by the Insurance Tribunal where the governing statute excludes an appeal against interim orders. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a statute excluding a right of appeal from an interim order cannot be bypassed by invoking constitutional jurisdiction against such interim orders, and the aggrieved party must wait for the final order before challenging it in the proper forum. The key principle laid down is that interim orders of tribunals whose statutes bar appeals against interlocutory orders are not amenable to constitutional writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against an interim order passed by an Insurance Tribunal?
  • Can a party bypass the statutory exclusion of an appeal against an interim order by invoking constitutional jurisdiction?
  • At what stage can an aggrieved party challenge an interlocutory order passed by a tribunal where appeal against interim orders is barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Treet Corporation Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan etcPTCL 2014 CL. 308 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-07Read full judgment →
• Tipu Salman Makhdoom vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2014 C.L.R. 1141 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-20Read full judgment →
• Tipu Salman Makhdoom vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2014 PLD Lahore 486 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Boota2014 YLR 306 · Lahore High Court · 2012-01-19
  murder referencechild witnesscapital punishmentmitigating circumstancesqatl-e-amdtazirocular evidencecompetency of witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Murder Reference submitted to the Lahore High Court for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the convict, Muhammad Boota, for the murder of his wife, Mst. Abida Parveen. The core legal questions were whether the conviction was sustainable based on the testimony of a child witness and circumstantial evidence, and whether the failure to prove the alleged motive warranted a reduction in the sentence. The Court held that the conviction was sound, relying on the consistent and confidence-inspiring testimony of the deceased's daughter (a child witness) and supporting circumstantial and medical evidence. The Court affirmed that there is no legal requirement to record the intellect assessment of a child witness in writing, provided the trial judge is satisfied with the witness's capacity. However, the Court ruled that because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and the co-accused was acquitted, the death sentence was harsh. The principle laid down is that while a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 may be sustained on ocular evidence alone, the non-proof of a specific motive constitutes a mitigating circumstance justifying the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a child witness admissible if the trial court does not record the intellect assessment in writing?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive in a murder case constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Can a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on ocular and circumstantial evidence when the motive is unproven?
  • Is there a prescribed age limit for a witness to be considered competent to testify under the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• The Punjab Technical Education & Vocational Training Authority2014 NLR Service 13 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-17Read full judgment →
• The National College of Business Administration and Economics, Lahore vs The Higher Education Commission of Pakistan and 2 others2014 C.L.R. 994 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-31Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. Bashir BrothersPTCL 2014 CL. 638 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-25Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax & Wealth Tax, Rawalpindi vs M/s. ZulfiqarPTCL 2014 CL. 614 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-15Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Tariq Mehmood, etc.2014 P.C.T.L.R. 741 · Lahore High Court · 2014-08-19Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s. Macca CNG Gas Enterprises,2014 P.C.T.L.R. 753 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-06Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Maj. Gen. (R) Dr. C.M.Anwar etcPTCL 2014 CL. 608 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-25Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Maj. Gen. (R) Dr. C.M. Anwar, etc.2014 P.C.T.L.R. 514 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-25Read full judgment →
• The Bank of Punjab through General Attorney vs Malik Umer Farooq2014 CLD 198 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-05
  financial institutionrecovery of financeslease finance facilityleave to defendbanking court procedurerepossession of vehicle
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 against an order of the Banking Court which disposed of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction by directing the appellant Bank to return a repossessed vehicle to the respondent-customer upon payment of defaulted lease instalments. The core legal question is whether a Banking Court can summarily dispose of a suit and grant final relief without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, particularly regarding issuance of proper summons and granting the defendant an opportunity to file an application for leave to defend. The Lahore High Court held that the Banking Court erred in law by bypassing mandatory statutory procedures, denying the Bank its right to file a leave to defend application under Section 10, and granting the plaintiff final relief at the outset. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the suit was remanded to be proceeded with afresh in accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that Banking Courts must strictly adhere to the mandatory procedures for service of summons and the determination of leave to defend under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and cannot dispose of suits or grant final relief summarily without affording defendants their statutory right of defense.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Banking Court can dispose of a suit and grant final relief without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Is a defendant financial institution entitled to an opportunity to file an application for leave to defend under section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 before a suit is disposed of?
  • What are the mandatory modes of service of summons required upon the presentation of a plaint under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• The Bank of Punjab through Attorney vs Messrs Zephyr Textile Limited2014 MLD 233 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-11Read full judgment →
• The Army Welfare Trust Trading as Nizampur Cement Plant through Director of Awt and Acting Managing Director vs Soneri Bank Limited and 2 others2014 CLD 440 · Lahore High Court · 2013-10-23
  banking suitletter of creditmaintainabilitydefinition of financeobligation of financial institutionState Bank of Pakistan circularsjurisdiction of banking courtdamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a banking suit filed by the plaintiff customer against Soneri Bank Limited and others under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, seeking recovery of money and damages following the retirement of shipping documents under a letter of credit. The core legal questions were whether a banking suit remains maintainable by a customer who has already repaid the underlying finance facility, whether the scope of 'obligation' under the Ordinance covers the violation of State Bank of Pakistan circulars and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and whether claims for tortious damages or consequential losses can be adjudicated by a Banking Court. The Lahore High Court held that the repayment of a finance facility does not disentitle a customer from agitating a default in obligations that occurred during the subsistence of the facility, that obligations under State Bank circulars fall within the statutory definition of 'obligation', and that while claims arising from breach of contract or finance are triable by the Banking Court, claims based on tortious liability or remote damages are beyond its jurisdiction. The court ordered the deletion of non-maintainable claims and allowed the suit to proceed for the remaining competent claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repayment of a finance facility by a customer disentitle them to file a suit against a financial institution for defaults committed during the subsistence of the facility?
  • Do instructions and circulars issued by the State Bank of Pakistan constitute obligations under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can claims for tortious liability and consequential damages be adjudicated in a suit before the Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • What constitutes a 'customer', 'finance', and 'obligation' in terms of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Techno Time Construction Company through Partner vs Punjab2014 MLD 874 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-04
  tender evaluationlowest bidderbid scheduleperformance securityearnest money forfeitureconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the evaluation of its bid for various construction works and sought either to be declared the successful bidder or the return of its deposited earnest money (CDRs). Tenders were invited by the respondents, and the petitioner filled only the last page of the bid schedule while leaving preceding pages blank. Pursuant to Clauses 9(i) to (v) of the Tender/Contract Documents, the respondents calculated the rates, rendering the petitioner the lowest bidder. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to deposit additional performance security, which it failed to do, subsequently filing a constitutional petition. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, having become the lowest bidder under the explicit terms of the tender documents, was bound by the prescribed procedure and terms of acceptance, and could not assail the contract conditions or claim a refund of earnest money upon default. The court refused to interfere with the terms of the tender documents in the absence of any public interest violation, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contractor who leaves initial pages of a bid schedule blank can dispute the calculation method prescribed under the tender documents?
  • Can a court interfere with the terms and conditions of tender or contract documents without establishing that they are contrary to public interest?
  • Whether the earnest money of a bidder who becomes the lowest bidder under the tender terms is liable to be forfeited upon failure to furnish performance security?
  Read full judgment →
• Tayyaba Komal vs District Coordination Officer, Sialkot and 4 others2014 PLC (C.S.) 378 · Lahore High Court · 2013-03-19
  recruitment policymerit listappointmentwrit jurisdictionpublic authorityvested righteducational recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a candidate for the post of Secondary School Educator, challenged the rejection of her appointment by the District Coordination Officer. Despite being next in merit after selectees failed to join or left their posts, the authorities denied her appointment, citing the expiration of the 190-day validity period of the merit list and the completion of the recruitment phase. The Court held that under the Recruitment Policy, 2011, the appointing authority was obligated to offer the appointment to the next candidate on the merit list when a selectee failed to join or left within the specified period. The Court rejected the respondents' reliance on technicalities and administrative delays, emphasizing that public authorities cannot use their own lethargy to deprive a deserving candidate of a vested right. The Court set aside the impugned order, directed the issuance of the appointment letter, and ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the responsible official for failing to process the petitioner's case in accordance with the policy.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appointing authority required to offer a post to the next candidate on the merit list if a selectee fails to join or leaves within the stipulated period under the Recruitment Policy, 2011?
  • Can public authorities deny a candidate's appointment based on the expiration of a merit list when the delay was caused by the authority's own lethargy?
  • Does the completion of a recruitment phase preclude the court from granting relief to a deserving candidate who was denied appointment due to administrative failure?
  Read full judgment →
• Tauseef Idrees And Another vs Hamayun Khalid And Other2014 CLC 698 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-18Read full judgment →
• Tasawar Hayat and another vs The State and others2014 P Cr. L J 1591 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-26
  Qatl-e-amdmitigating circumstancesdeath penalty commutationocular evidenceunproven motivenon-repetition of firecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular evidence and whether the death penalty was appropriate given the circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular testimony and medical evidence, the death sentence was not warranted. The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but converted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The key principles laid down are that the legal maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus does not apply in criminal trials, requiring courts to sift truth from falsehood. Furthermore, the Court established that when the prosecution fails to prove an alleged motive, and where there is non-repetition of fire by the assailant, these factors constitute significant mitigating circumstances justifying the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment, as the law confers discretion upon the court to withhold the capital penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the legal maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus apply to criminal trials in Pakistan?
  • Can the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Is the non-repetition of fire by an assailant considered an extenuating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing in a murder case?
  • Does the court have the discretion to convert a death sentence to life imprisonment in a case of Qatl-e-amd?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Saeed vs The State and another2014 MLD 1561 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-05
  acquittalillicit armsSection 249-A Cr.P.C.recovery of weaponmurder trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an acquittal order passed by a Judicial Magistrate. The appellant sought to overturn the acquittal of the respondent, who had been charged under Section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965, following his earlier acquittal in a related murder case. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on his prior acquittal in the murder case, rather than adjourning the trial sine die under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the acquittal was proper because the recovery of the weapon was inseparably linked to the murder case, and the evidence regarding the recovery had already been disbelieved in the murder trial. The key principle laid down is that where the recovery of an illicit weapon is not independent but inextricably embedded in the facts of a murder case, a prior acquittal in the murder case renders the recovery evidence unreliable, justifying acquittal in the arms case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the evidence against him has already been disbelieved in a related murder case?
  • Does the acquittal of an accused in a murder case necessarily impact the outcome of a trial for the recovery of an illicit weapon used in that same murder?
  • Is it mandatory to adjourn a trial sine die under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when prosecution witnesses are unavailable, or can the court proceed to acquittal under Section 249-A?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Javed and another vs Chairman, Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority, Islamabad and anotherK.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 117 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-10Read full judgment →
• Tariq Amjad vs The State and another2014 MLD 489 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-09
  murderdaylight occurrenceeye-witness testimonyweapon recoveryossification testplea of minoritycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Chiniot, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a young boy and sentencing him to life imprisonment with compensation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the eyewitness accounts, the reliability of the medical evidence and weapon recovery, and the plea of minority raised by the appellant. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness testimony, corroborative medical evidence matching a single fatal stab wound to the chest, and the recovery of the blood-stained weapon upon the appellant's pointation, while the defense failed to establish minority against the medical board's ossification report. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and ruling that minor discrepancies in testimonies do not undermine a trustworthy daylight occurrence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies in the statements of eyewitnesses are sufficient to discard their otherwise reliable testimony in a murder case?
  • Does a medical board report regarding the age of an accused override school leaving and birth certificates?
  • Whether the recovery of a crime weapon at the pointation of the accused can be relied upon despite the absence of independent public witnesses?
  • Is a delayed post-mortem examination by itself sufficient to conclude that eyewitnesses were planted?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Shakoor vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2014 P.C.T.L.R. 300 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-06Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Shakoor vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior2014 CLD 803 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-06Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Shakoor vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and another2014 CLD 803, 2014 PLD Lahore 482 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-06Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmad and 3 others vs Mst. Moqaddas Begum and 7 others2014 MLD 687 · Lahore High Court · 2012-07-19Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Azmat Ali and otherss2014 YLR 1266 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-06
  appeal against acquittalocular and medical conflictdouble presumption of innocencemurderfalsely substitutionbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondents of murder charges under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a complaint. The core legal question was whether the ocular account was consistent with the medical evidence and sufficient to displace the double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that material contradictions existed between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence regarding firing distance and the absence of blackening or scorching on the injuries, and that the stomach contents contradicted the deceased's alleged activity prior to the incident. The court reiterated that in appeals against acquittal, interference is unwarranted unless the trial court's conclusion is perverse, shocking, or artificial, and that where two reasonable interpretations of the evidence exist, the one favouring the accused must be preferred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal judgment when the ocular testimony contradicts the medical evidence?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal where the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence?
  • Does the absence of digested food in the stomach of the deceased contradict the prosecution's account of the time and nature of the occurrence?
  • Should the interpretation of evidence favouring the accused be adopted when two conflicting and probable versions exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Taja International (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federal Board of Revenue and others2014 P.C.T.L.R. 904 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Taj International (Pvt.) Ltd. etc vs The Federal Board of Revenue, etcPTCL 2014 CL. 726 · Lahore High Court · 2013-08-19Read full judgment →
• Taj International (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federal Board of Revenue2014 PTD 1807 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-19
  tax fraudsales taxcriminal prosecutiontax assessmentover-criminalizationdue processfair trialquashing of FIRwhite collar crimecompoundability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the initiation of criminal prosecution under Sections 37A and 37B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, for alleged tax fraud before the finalization of civil tax assessment. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings and pre-trial steps, such as arrest, can be initiated under the Act without a prior determination of tax liability under Section 11. The Lahore High Court observed that while civil and criminal proceedings are generally independent, the unique architecture of the Sales Tax Act links criminal penalties (fines) and compoundability directly to the 'amount of tax involved' or 'tax loss.' The Court held that a Special Judge cannot award a sentence or compound an offence unless the tax due is first determined through the civil adjudicatory process. Consequently, initiating criminal prosecution without prior assessment constitutes over-criminalization and violates the fundamental rights to a fair trial and due process under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution. The Court quashed the FIRs, ruling that tax liability must be determined under Section 11 before criminal proceedings can commence.

  Read full judgment →
• Tahira Yasmin and others vs Government of the Punjab and others2014 PLC (C.S.) 1256 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-05
  regularization of contract employeesPunjab Public Service Commissiondiscriminatory policyvested rightadministrative discretionservice lawwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions filed by contract employees, specifically School Health and Nutrition Supervisors, challenging a government notification dated 1-3-2013 that mandated their regularization be processed through the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC). The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization without PPSC involvement and whether the requirement to undergo such assessment constituted illegal discrimination, given that other employees within the Health Department had been regularized without similar recourse. The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners possessed no vested right to regularization. The key principle laid down is that regularization policies are specific to the nature of the post; the regularization of one category of employees does not create a discriminatory precedent for others. Administrative discretion in setting regularization criteria, including PPSC involvement for specific project-based posts, is lawful. The court emphasized that each post must be evaluated individually, and the mere existence of prior, different regularization policies for other cadres does not invalidate the current policy or establish a right to automatic regularization.

  Questions settled

  • Does the regularization of one category of government employees create a vested right for other categories to be regularized on the same terms?
  • Is a government policy requiring contract employees to undergo PPSC assessment for regularization inherently discriminatory?
  • Do contract employees have a fundamental right to be regularized against their project-based posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Abbas vs The State and others2014 YLR 1242 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-24
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitycommon intentioncriminal proceduremurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of catching hold of the deceased while a co-accused fired the fatal shots, sought bail on the grounds of innocence, lack of injury attribution, and the completion of the investigation. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's specific role in the FIR and the application of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the allegation of catching hold of the deceased, while the co-accused was firing, was difficult to accept as a prudent fact. Emphasizing that vicarious liability is a matter for trial and that the petitioner's case fell under the category of further inquiry, the Court granted bail. The key principle established is that where an accused is not attributed with any specific injury and the allegation of common intention (vicarious liability) requires further evidentiary scrutiny, the case qualifies for bail under the further inquiry provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allegation of merely catching hold of a deceased person, while a co-accused inflicts fatal injuries, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Is the commencement of a trial a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it?
  • When does a case fall under the category of further inquiry for the purpose of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Tafweez Elazi Chauhan vs Sibghat Elahi Chauhan and another2014 C.L.R. 1258 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Hussain and others vs Government of Pakistan and others2014 CLC 643 · Lahore High Court · 2009-06-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Hussain And Others vs Government of Pakistan And Other2014 CLC 643 · Lahore High Court · 2009-06-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Tajamal Hussain Bukhari vs Khalid Pervaiz Hamid, etc.2014 C.L.R. 389 · Lahore High Court · 2014-01-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Sultan Shah vs Ghulam Qadir And 8 Other2014 CLC 1384 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Shan Abbas vs The State and anothers2014 YLR 882 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-27
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequecriminal liabilitystatutory interpretationdishonestly issuing a chequemens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonour of a cheque issued by a third party, which the complainant alleged was handed over by the petitioner to settle a debt regarding a property transaction. The core legal question was whether the offence of dishonestly issuing a cheque under Section 489-F is attracted when the accused hands over a cheque issued by another person, rather than issuing it from their own account. The Court held that the offence under Section 489-F is not made out in such circumstances, as the statute explicitly requires the accused to have issued the cheque themselves, evidenced by the legislative use of the word 'his' regarding bank arrangements. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, noting that while the petitioner might be liable under other provisions of law for fraud or breach of trust, the specific offence charged was inapplicable. The key principle established is that Section 489-F is strictly limited to cases where the accused personally issues the dishonoured cheque.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to an accused who hands over a cheque issued by a third party?
  • Is the personal issuance of a cheque by the accused a mandatory ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused be granted pre-arrest bail if the specific provision of law invoked by the prosecution is not attracted to the facts of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan vs Muhammad Saleem Proprietor Adnan2014 C.L.R. 970 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Nadeem Abbas vs Mst. Sadia Fida Khan and others2014 CLC 1038 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Nadeem Abbas vs Mst. Sadia Fida Khan And Other2014 CLC 1038 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Shamim Asghar vs R.D.A. and others2014 CLC 1600 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Khadim Hussain vs Judge Banking Court Noah, Lahore and another2014 CLD 335 · Lahore High Court · 2011-12-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Iftikhar Hussain Nasir vs Punjab Public Servce Commission, Lahore through Chairman and 6 others2014 PLC (C.S.) 629 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-30
  public service commissionrecruitmentcorrection of namematriculation certificatetechnical rejectionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed challenging the decision of the Punjab Public Service Commission to drop the petitioner's name from the recommended candidates for the post of Zilladar (BS-14). The petitioner had successfully qualified the written examination and interview, but his candidature was rejected on the technical ground that his name on his Matriculation Certificate ('Syed Iftikhar Hussain') differed slightly from his other academic and identity documents ('Syed Iftikhar Hussain Nasir'). Although the petitioner obtained a corrected certificate from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, the respondents refused to recommend him because the corrected certificate was not produced within their strict ten-day deadline. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the correction of a certificate by an educational board is a time-consuming administrative process beyond the candidate's control. The Court ruled that rejecting a highly qualified candidate on such a rigid, technical pretext was unjustified, and directed the respondents to recommend the petitioner, subject to verification of the corrected certificate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public service commission reject a candidate's selection solely due to a minor discrepancy in their name across academic certificates if the candidate has initiated the official correction process?
  • Is a strict administrative deadline for submitting a corrected educational certificate legally sustainable when the correction process is dependent on a third-party statutory board?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Haroon Sultan Bokhari vs Syeda Mubarak Fatima And Another2014 CLC 1270 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Gulzar All Shah vs A.D.J., etc.2014 C.L.R. 707 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Gulzar Ali Shah vs Additional District Judge and others2014 C.L.R. 707, K.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 227, 2014 CLC 929 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-03
  tentative rentstriking off defencedefault in payment of rentejectment petitionPunjab Rented Premises Actconstitutional petitionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the concurrent orders of the lower courts directing the petitioner's eviction from the demised premises for default in rent and non-compliance with a tentative rent order. The core legal question was whether a tenant can withhold compliance with a Rent Tribunal's tentative rent order passed under Section 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 based on an alleged prior determination of the rent rate. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the tentative rent determination and subsequent order to deposit arrears and future rent are mandatory, and failure to comply legally warrants the striking off of the tenant's defence and passing of an eviction order. The court laid down that a tenant cannot unilaterally refuse to comply with a tentative rent order on the pretext of dissatisfaction with the rate, and that strict compliance with statutory conditions is mandatory for enjoying tenancy protections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can withhold compliance with a tentative rent order passed by a Rent Tribunal under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009?
  • Does the setting aside of an appellate order remanding a rent matter vitiate previous provisional findings regarding the rate of rent?
  • Is a Rent Tribunal legally justified in striking off a tenant's defence for non-compliance with an order to deposit tentative future rent?
  • Whether a writ petition can be refused against an allegedly illegal order if it aids injustice or the petitioner's conduct lacks merit?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Abbas Bokhari and others vs Raja Mushtaq Ahmad and otherss2014 YLR 201 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-20
  hostage crisisrescue operationcriminal negligenceappeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocenceAnti-Terrorism Actocular testimonypolice operation
  Summary & questions settled

  This composite judgment addresses consolidated criminal appeals arising from a hostage crisis at District Jail, Sialkot, where judicial officers were taken hostage by convicts, resulting in several deaths during a subsequent police operation. The trial court had acquitted most police and jail officials but convicted two jail staff members for criminal negligence. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the acquittal of the police and jail officials, finding the prosecution's evidence inconsistent, unreliable, and contradictory, with multiple versions of the incident presented. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals of the two convicted jail officials, setting aside their convictions and acquitting them. The Court held that in appeals against acquittal, the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence, and interference is only warranted if the acquittal is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a gross misreading of evidence. The Court further determined that the police operation constituted a "rescue operation" rather than a "killing operation," and actions taken by law enforcement in good faith during emergent situations to prevent further harm are protected under the general exceptions of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal judgment that is not perverse or arbitrary?
  • Does a police operation conducted in good faith to rescue hostages fall under the general exceptions of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on contradictory and inconsistent prosecution evidence?
  • Is the opinion of an investigating officer regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused admissible as evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Farrukh Waseem and another vs Pakistan Bar Council and another2014 PLD Lahore 324 · Lahore High Court · 2013-10-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Ali Shah vs Managing Director, PTV Corporation and 402014 PLC (C.S.) 1207 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-14
  seniorityservice matterpremature petitionapprehensionimplementation of Supreme Court judgmentPakistan Television Corporationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court by an employee of the Pakistan Television Corporation seeking directions for the disposal of his pending representation and to restrain the respondents from disturbing his seniority by granting promotions/retrospective dates of appointment to other employees pursuant to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a writ petition is maintainable when it is based purely on an apprehension regarding a future seniority list and seeks to indirectly challenge or bypass the implementation of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Court held that the petition is premature and not maintainable as no final seniority list has yet been published, and the respondents are merely implementing the binding judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Islamabad High Court. The Court laid down the principle that a writ cannot be issued on the basis of mere apprehensions, and grievances concerning future seniority lists must be raised before the competent forum only after a formal cause of action arises upon the issuance of such a list.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when it is based on a mere apprehension that a seniority list might be disturbed in the future?
  • Whether a High Court can issue directions that have the effect of undoing or conflicting with a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • At what stage does a cause of action arise for an employee to challenge their inter se seniority?
  • Are the Pakistan Television Employees Service Rules statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Akbar Hussain through L.Rs, and anothers vs Mst. Naziran Begum2014 CLC 1760 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-18
  civil revisionthumb impression comparisonforensic expertadditional evidenceappellate court jurisdictionQanun-e-Shahadatdisputed documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction where the trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed applications seeking the comparison of the respondent's thumb impressions on disputed documents (Exh.D-3 and Exh.D-4) with those in the Vasiqa Register. The lower appellate court dismissed these applications, reasoning that the original documents were not produced and that the request was an attempt to fill lacunas. The High Court, upon review, observed that the original register had indeed been produced by a witness during trial, rendering the lower court's reasoning factually incorrect. The Court held that in cases of total denial of signatures or thumb impressions, forensic comparison is a vital tool for reaching a just decision. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order, allowed the application for expert verification of the thumb impressions, and directed the lower appellate court to proceed accordingly, emphasizing that modern forensic science facilitates accurate adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court refuse to order a forensic comparison of thumb impressions when the original register containing the impressions was produced in evidence?
  • Is the comparison of disputed thumb impressions with admitted ones permissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to assist in a just decision?
  • Does the denial of a signature or thumb impression on a document justify the court ordering a forensic expert's report?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad Khan vs Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, etc.2014 P.C.T.L.R. 729 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-17Read full judgment →
• Suleman and others vs The State and others2014 P Cr. L J 299 · Lahore High Court · 2013-01-15
  right of private defencecross-versionsunexplained injuriessuppression of truthmurder referenceacquittalcivil dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a connected murder reference, appeal against acquittal, and revision for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question revolved around the conflicting versions of a violent clash arising from a dispute over a passage, the existence of which was negated by prior civil court litigation, and whether the accused acted in the legitimate exercise of the right of private defence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its genesis regarding the demolition of a non-existent passage, concealed injuries sustained by the accused party, and suppressed the true facts, whereas the defence version of an illegal attempt by the complainant party to construct a passage over the accused's land was established. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that where cross-versions exist, the prosecution must plausibly explain the injuries sustained by the accused party, and where the complainant party is the aggressor attempting to trespass, the accused are justified in exercising their right of self-defence of person and property, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution is bound to explain the injuries sustained by the accused party in a clash involving cross-versions?
  • Does an accused party have the right of private defence of person and property when the complainant party attempts illegal construction and trespass?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution conceals material facts and suppresses injuries sustained by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines vs Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, etc.2014 P.C.T.L.R. 714 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-24Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines vs Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue2014 P.C.T.L.R. 714, 2014 PTD 1939 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-24
  Income Tax OrdinanceDeduction of Tax at SourceAdvance TaxDefault SurchargeUnjust EnrichmentConstitutional PetitionEconomic JusticeShow-Cause NoticeAssessment OrderTax Liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore High Court addressed petitions filed by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) and an Exploration and Production (E&P) company, challenging show-cause notices and assessment orders for non-deduction of tax at source under Section 152(2A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question revolved around the interplay between advance tax payments and the obligation to deduct tax at source, specifically whether advance tax paid by the payee/deductee for a quarter qualifies as "paid in the meanwhile" under Section 161(1B) of the Ordinance, thereby absolving the deductor of liability for the tax amount. The Court held that once the taxpayer (payee/deductee) has paid advance tax for a quarter, and has not availed any tax credit for the deduction at source, the amount of tax is deemed paid by the taxpayer. Consequently, the deductor (SNGPL) is only liable for default surcharge, not the principal tax amount. The Court emphasized that recovery of tax from the deductor or payee after advance tax payment, without allowing for tax credit, constitutes unjust enrichment and violates the constitutional principle of economic justice. Furthermore, an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the payee to establish that the deductible amount has not been paid, in compliance with Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution. The show-cause notices and assessment orders were set aside as unconstitutional and without lawful authority.

  Read full judgment →
• Sufyan vs The State and anothers2014 YLR 422 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-21
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offenderstatutory delayjuvenile justicecapital offenceossification testfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second petition seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who is facing trial under sections 302, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the fresh ground of being a juvenile at the time of the alleged occurrence. The core legal question concerns whether a juvenile accused of a capital offence is entitled to post-arrest bail under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, particularly considering statutory detention periods and the nature of the offence. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was a juvenile aged around 16 years at the time of the incident, that his continued detention exceeded the statutory thresholds, and that the offence did not fall within the exclusionary categories of being heinous or gruesome under the statute. The court laid down the principle that the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 must be construed liberally to protect minors involved in criminal litigation, and that minority/juvenility is a strong ground for granting bail even in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Is a juvenile accused of a capital offence entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does juvenility serve as a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail even in cases involving capital offences?
  • How should the provisions of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 be construed with regard to the protection and rights of minor offenders?
  Read full judgment →
• Subedar (Retd.) Muhammad Khan vs M/s. Murree Brewery CompanyK.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 102 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Subedar (Retd.) Muhammad Khan vs Messrs Murree Brewery CompanyK.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 102, 2014 YLR 1467 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-20Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation vs Co-Operative Insurance Society2014 YLR 2214 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-12Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and another vs Mst. Begum Rasheeda Jamil2014 CLD 1216 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-10Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and another vs Haji Basharat Ullah2014 CLD 726 · Lahore High Court · 2013-10-24Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Attorney vs Mst.2014 CLD 1323 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-13Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through Attorney and 32014 CLD 1543 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-30Read full judgment →
• State Life Insuracne Corporation of Pakistan through Chairman and another vs Muhammad Ashraf2014 CLD 1351 · Lahore High Court · 2014-02-12Read full judgment →
• Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Limited through Regional Litigation2014 CLD 191 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-18
  recovery suitnon-prosecutionrestoration of suitlimitation periodbanking courtclerical errormaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Appeal from Order (F.A.O.) challenges the orders of the Banking Court dismissing the appellant's recovery suit for non-prosecution and subsequently rejecting the application for its restoration. The core legal questions were whether an appeal is maintainable against an order dismissing an application for restoration of a suit dismissed for non-prosecution under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, and whether the limitation period for such an appeal runs from the date of the suit's dismissal or the date the restoration application was rejected. The Court held that the appeal was maintainable and that the limitation period for filing an appeal against the dismissal of a suit for non-prosecution commences from the date the restoration application is dismissed. Finding that the appellant’s failure to appear was due to a bona fide clerical error in noting the hearing date, and noting the lack of rebuttal to the appellant's affidavits, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case to the Banking Court to proceed from the stage of dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal maintainable against an order dismissing an application for restoration of a suit that was dismissed for non-prosecution under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001?
  • From what date is the limitation period for an appeal reckoned when a suit is dismissed for non-prosecution and a subsequent restoration application is also dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• SNGPL vs OGRA and others2014 PLD Lahore 167 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-04
  OGRAnatural justiceaudi alteram partemreview jurisdictionquorumadministrative lawgas theft
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to an order passed by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) in a review petition. The core legal questions were whether a two-member bench of OGRA possessed the jurisdiction to review a decision previously rendered by a three-member bench, and whether the review proceedings violated the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was passed by an incompetent authority, as propriety dictates that a review must be heard by a bench of at least the same composition as the original decision-making body. Furthermore, the Court found that the Authority’s refusal to grant an adjournment, resulting in a hasty decision within seven days, constituted a clear violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, establishing that any decision rendered by an incompetent authority or in violation of natural justice is void, and that such legal infirmities invalidate the entire superstructure of subsequent proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a two-member bench of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority review a decision rendered by a three-member bench?
  • Does the refusal to grant an adjournment in administrative proceedings violate the principle of audi alteram partem?
  • Does Section 4(4) of the OGRA Ordinance, 2002 validate a decision made by a bench of insufficient quorum when no vacancy exists?
  • What is the legal consequence when a basic order is passed by an incompetent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Sitara and others vs Sohrab and others2014 PLD Lahore 179 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-19Read full judgment →
• Sirbuland Khan and 16 others vs Ruqaia Khanum and 2 otherss2014 YLR 1082 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-16Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat Maken vs The State and others2014 P Cr. L J 1620 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-24
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Ordinanceselection committeepublic office appointmentcorruptionconstitutional petitioncriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was a member of the Selection Committee responsible for recommending the appointment of the Chairman of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA). The core legal question was whether the petitioner, given his role in the selection process of an individual whose appointment was later declared null and void by the Supreme Court, was entitled to bail despite allegations of facilitating corruption that caused significant financial loss to the national exchequer. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, finding prima facie evidence of his culpability. The Court reasoned that the petitioner played a pivotal role in the selection process, failed to object to the irregular shortlisting of unqualified candidates, and actively recommended an ineligible candidate. The key principle laid down is that members of a selection committee who knowingly facilitate the appointment of unqualified candidates in violation of due process, resulting in financial loss, are not entitled to bail when there is prima facie evidence of their involvement in the malfeasance.

  Questions settled

  • Is a member of a selection committee criminally liable for the appointment of an unqualified candidate if they failed to object to the selection process?
  • Does the role of a selection committee member in recommending an unqualified candidate constitute prima facie evidence of malfeasance under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can a petitioner be granted post-arrest bail when there is prima facie evidence of their involvement in a selection process that resulted in significant financial loss to the national exchequer?
  Read full judgment →
• Sidra Yasin vs Mrs. Ishrat Ishaq and others2014 PLD Lahore 408 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-04Read full judgment →
• Shifa Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Chief Executive Officer vs Government of the Punjab Through Secretary Health And 9 Other2014 CLC 477 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shifa College of Medicine vs Malik Tahir Mahmood2014 PLD Lahore 561 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-29Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Akram alias Sherazi vs The State2014 MLD 1050 · Lahore High Court · 2014-01-27
  murderanti-terrorismbenefit of doubtocular accountdelayed FIRabscondencecapital sentence referenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under sections 302(b) and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, resulting in a death sentence and reference for confirmation. The prosecution alleged that during a police raid, an exchange of firing occurred, and a constable was found dead with head injuries caused by a brick. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the reliability of recoveries, unexplained delays in lodging the First Information Report, and the validity of the abscondence proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from massive contradictions, un-explained delays, and improbable narratives regarding how an unarmed constable confronted armed suspects. The court ruled that the ocular and recovery evidence did not inspire confidence and failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the death reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an un-explained massive delay in lodging the First Information Report casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can medical evidence alone identify the author of an injury in a criminal trial?
  • Whether contradictions between the ocular account and the physical circumstances of an alleged police encounter render the eyewitness testimony unreliable?
  • Does the failure to complete the statutory period for a proclamation invalidate the evidence of abscondence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Ijaz vs Sheikh Muhammad Mushtaq2014 MLD 646 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-20Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Attiqurrehmanl vs Syed Ali Murtaza and anothers2014 YLR 1215 · Lahore High Court · 2013-12-26
  contempt of courtdelimitationjudicial reviewconstitutional jurisdictionfinality of delimitationlocal government
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a previous High Court order regarding the delimitation of Union Councils. The core legal question was whether the insertion of Section 10-A into the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, which bars courts and authorities from reviewing delimitation after the election schedule is notified, overrides the High Court's constitutional power of judicial review. The Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 cannot be abridged or curtailed by sub-constitutional legislation. It ruled that if an order is passed without lawful authority, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of constitutional principles, the Court retains the power to strike it down, regardless of statutory finality clauses. The Court emphasized that all authorities are bound to implement lawful judicial orders in letter and spirit, and such orders cannot be disregarded on the pretext of subsequent statutory amendments or administrative inconvenience. The contempt proceedings were dropped as the petitioner did not wish to pursue them, but the respondents were directed to implement the original order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sub-constitutional statute curtail the High Court's power of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the finality clause in Section 10-A of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, prevent the High Court from reviewing delimitation orders?
  • Are government authorities bound to implement court orders despite subsequent legislative changes that might conflict with the order?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehriyar Alam vs Judge, Special Court (Offences in Respect of Banks) Punjab, Lahore and 2 others2014 P Cr. L J 1252 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-06
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationfraudulent withdrawalsbank offencesinvestigationbeneficiary
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Special Judge, Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore in a case arising out of FIR No.4/2012 registered under sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the accused, who was declared innocent during the investigation and found not to be the primary beneficiary of the alleged fraudulent transactions, warranted cancellation. The Lahore High Court held that considerations for granting and cancelling bail are distinct, and since no exceptional circumstances, misuse of bail concession, or perversity in the original bail-granting order were established, the petition for bail cancellation lacked merit. The key principle laid down is that once bail is granted on merits by a competent court, very strong and exceptional circumstances, alongside established grounds such as arbitrariness or misuse of concession, are required to justify its cancellation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail once granted on merits can be cancelled without establishing very strong and exceptional circumstances?
  • Are the considerations for the grant of bail and the cancellation of bail entirely different?
  • Does the absence of incriminating material connecting an accused as a primary beneficiary justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Mst. Ameena Begum and otherss2014 YLR 378 · Lahore High Court · 2013-11-11Read full judgment →
• Sharafat alias Boda vs The State and others2014 P Cr. L J 800 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-20
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction baildelay in appealstatutory bailcriminal appealrape conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner, Sharafat alias Boda, seeking suspension of sentence pending the disposal of his appeal against a conviction under Section 376(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, who was sentenced to 17 years of rigorous imprisonment, argued that his appeal had been pending for over two years without any delay attributable to him, thereby entitling him to bail under the statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State opposed the application, characterizing the offence as heinous and the petitioner as a dangerous criminal. The Court held that in the absence of evidence suggesting the petitioner was a previous convict, a hardened criminal, or involved in terrorism, the prolonged pendency of the appeal—exceeding two years—without fault of the accused, mandated the suspension of the sentence. The Court affirmed that under the amended provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioner was entitled to bail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the sentence was suspended subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict entitled to suspension of sentence if the appeal has remained pending for more than two years without delay attributable to the appellant?
  • Does the absence of evidence regarding a petitioner being a hardened or desperate criminal support the grant of bail pending appeal?
  • Does the amendment to Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provide a statutory basis for suspending a sentence when an appeal is not disposed of within a reasonable time?
  Read full judgment →
• Shams-Ur-Rehman vs The State and others2014 MLD 431 · Lahore High Court · 2013-08-20
  post-arrest bailanti-money launderingforeign exchange regulationprohibitory clauseproceeds of crimecurrency recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Shams-ur-Rehman, who was implicated in F.I.R. No. 8 of 2013 under Section 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010, Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the recovery of massive amounts of foreign currencies from his possession without immediate valid documentation at the time. The core legal questions involved whether the alleged offences fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether the recovered foreign exchange constituted proceeds of crime under the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution could not satisfactorily contest the petitioner's contentions regarding the applicability of the sentences and the nature of the recovered currency. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, laying down the principle that offences whose maximum or minimum punishments fall outside the statutory thresholds of the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the grant of bail when the prosecution fails to make a strong counter-case.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must the foreign exchange recovered in a currency possession case constitute proceeds of crime to attract section 3 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010?
  • Whether minimum or maximum sentences determine the applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamim Bibi vs D.C.O., etc.2014 C.L.R. 899 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-18Read full judgment →
• Shamim Begum vs Feroze Din (Deceased) through LRs and othersK.L.R. 2014 Civil Cases 66 · Lahore High Court · 2014-01-16Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar vs Messrs Standard Chartered Bank Pakistan Limited2014 CLD 1034 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-25Read full judgment →
• Shamas-ud-Din vs Additional District Judge, etc.2014 C.L.R. 914 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-29Read full judgment →
• Shamas Din vs The State and another2014 MLD 473 · Lahore High Court · 2013-07-18
  post-arrest bailabductionsupplementary statementcontradictory statementsfurther inquiryheinous offenceprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through which the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 194 of 2013 registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar Pattoki, District Kasur. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delay in the F.I.R., his non-nomination in the initial report, introduction through an unverified supplementary statement, and contradictory statements by the alleged abductee. The Lahore High Court held that the case against the petitioner called for further inquiry into his guilt under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., as the victim had taken divergent stances at different forums and the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. The court laid down the principles that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail to an otherwise entitled accused, that an unverified supplementary statement holds little value, and that contradictory stances by an abductee create reasonable doubt warranting bail under the further inquiry rule.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the F.I.R. and is introduced later through a supplementary statement?
  • Does the heinousness of an offence alone constitute sufficient ground to refuse bail to an accused person?
  • What is the legal effect of contradictory statements and divergent stances taken by an alleged abductee at different forums in bail matters?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shama Khan Zafar vs District Coordination Officer, Lodhran, etc.2014 C.L.R. 1014 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-14Read full judgment →