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.

• Syed Tafsir Hussain vs Muhammad Rashid Janjua2013 MLD 1648 · Lahore High Court · 2011-11-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Pervez Musharraf vs Returning Officer Na48, Islamabad and others2013 YLR 2422 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Nusrat. Abbas Naqvi vs Province of Punjab, etc.2013 C.L.R. 549 · Lahore High Court · 2011-10-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Mustafa Hussain vs District Coordination Officer, Multan and 32013 PLJ Lahore 564, 2013 C.L.R. 1231, 2013 CLC 1580 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-24
  commercialization feesealing of premiseswrit jurisdictionsub judiceinjunctive orderretrospective operationlocal government authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges the sealing of the petitioner's restaurant premises by local government authorities. The core legal question is whether the authorities possess the statutory power to seal premises solely for the non-payment of commercialization fees, particularly when the building plans were previously approved and a civil suit regarding the property is currently sub judice. The Court held that neither Section 146-D of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, nor clause 8.2.2(b) of the Building Zoning Bye-Laws, 2007, empowers an Inspector to seal premises for non-payment of commercialization fees. The Court emphasized that clause 8.2.2(b) only permits sealing in cases of illegal construction, which was inapplicable here as the building plans were sanctioned. Furthermore, the Court ruled that sealing property while a civil suit with an operative injunctive order is pending is mala fide and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that statutes creating new liabilities for past transactions cannot be applied retrospectively, and administrative action cannot override active judicial injunctions.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 146-D of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, empower an Inspector to seal premises for non-payment of commercialization fees?
  • Can a local authority seal premises for alleged illegal construction when the building plans were previously sanctioned and approved?
  • Is it lawful for an administrative authority to seal premises while a civil suit concerning the same property is sub judice and an injunctive order is in force?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mustafa Hussain Gardezi vs District Coordination Officer, Multan, and 3 others2013 PLJ Lahore 564 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Mustafa Hassan Girdazi vs DCO, Multan, etc.2013 C.L.R. 1231 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Mushtaq Hussain Bukhari vs Pepco, etc2013 PLJ Lahore 424 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Musa Raza vs State & anotherPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 304 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-28
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction baildelayed FIRrape convictioncriminal appealSection 426 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending the disposal of the petitioner's appeal against his conviction under Section 376(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner had been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to suspension of sentence and bail given the circumstances of the case, including a significant delay in lodging the FIR, the delayed medical examination of the victim, and the fact that the petitioner was acquitted of other charges, including kidnapping. The Court held that the prosecution's case was weakened by the substantial delay in reporting the crime and the subsequent medical examination, alongside the fact that the petitioner was acquitted of the primary abduction charge. Consequently, the Court suspended the petitioner's sentence and granted bail, noting the lack of likelihood of an early hearing for the main appeal. The key principle established is that unexplained, significant delays in reporting and medical examination, coupled with a partial acquittal, constitute valid grounds for suspending a sentence pending appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR and conducting a medical examination constitute sufficient grounds for suspending a sentence pending appeal?
  • Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is no likelihood of an early hearing of the main appeal?
  • Is the positive report of a Chemical Examiner sufficient to advance a prosecution case in a rape trial involving a married woman when other prosecution allegations were found to be false?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muneeb Ahmed Shah vs Additional Collector, etc2013 PLJ Lahore 487 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Shah vs Additional District Judge Faisalabad and 22013 YLR 468 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Baqir Shah vs Farida Sajid2013 CLC 52 · Lahore High Court · 2011-09-08
  civil revisionPardahnashin ladyburden of prooffraudinheritancelimitationframing of issues
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition was filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts decreeing the respondent/plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession regarding inherited land. The respondent alleged that the impugned mutations transferring her inherited property share to her brother (the petitioner) were fake, fraudulent, and obtained through collusion with revenue officials while she was living elsewhere. The petitioner argued that the suit was time-barred, no specific issue on fraud was framed, and the respondent was an educated lady not entitled to 'Pardahnashin' protection. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision, holding that being educated does not preclude a woman from observing 'Pardah' or being entitled to legal protection. The burden was on the beneficiary to establish the validity and bona fides of the transactions executed by a Pardahnashin lady, which the petitioner failed to discharge by not producing the Revenue Officer, attesting witnesses, or appearing in the witness box. The Court also held that limitation does not run against inheritance rights or void transactions based on proven fraud, and non-framing of a specific issue on fraud was inconsequential as parties were fully aware of the controversy and led evidence accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an educated or previously employed woman can claim the legal protections available to a Pardahnashin lady?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a transaction affecting the property rights of a Pardahnashin lady is challenged on grounds of fraud?
  • Does the statute of limitation apply to bar a suit challenging property transfers based on proven fraud in inheritance matters?
  • Does the non-framing of a specific issue on fraud vitiate a trial when both parties were aware of the controversy and led evidence on it?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Abbas Shah vs Returning Officer and 7 others2013 CLC 1374 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-10
  election appealnomination papersdisqualificationwater chargesgovernment duesreturning officereligibility of candidate
  Summary & questions settled

  This election appeal challenged the rejection of the appellant's nomination papers by the Returning Officer, which was based on the allegation that the appellant owed outstanding water charges and penalties. The core legal question was whether the appellant incurred ineligibility under Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, due to these alleged dues. The appellant argued that the dues were owed by his father, not himself, and that no conviction or disqualifying default existed. The Court held that the disqualification under Article 63(1)(o) applies only when a candidate personally defaults in the payment of government dues, including water charges, for over six months. Since the evidence showed the dues were owed by the appellant's father and not the candidate himself, the rejection of the nomination papers was legally unsustainable. Furthermore, the allegation that the appellant filed a false affidavit regarding his financial liabilities remained unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Court set aside the Returning Officer's order and accepted the appellant's nomination papers, establishing that personal liability is a prerequisite for disqualification based on government dues.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate incur ineligibility under Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 for government dues owed by a family member?
  • Is personal default in payment of government dues a prerequisite for disqualification under Article 63(1)(o) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a Returning Officer reject nomination papers based on unproven allegations of false affidavits regarding financial liabilities?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehmood Ali Shah vs Zulfiqar Ali and 6 others2013 YLR 1304 · Lahore High Court · 2010-10-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Jafar Hussain Shah and anothers vs Government of Punjab2013 PLD Lahore 673 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Iqbal Haider vs Ashfaq Ahmed Bajwa and another2013 PLJ Lahore 693 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Imran Ali Shah vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary2013 PLC 143 · Lahore High Court · 2012-04-12
  18th Amendmentdevolution of powerprovincial autonomyEOBIlabour lawsexecutive authorityImplementation CommissionConcurrent Legislative List
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenged the Federal Government's continued administrative and executive control over the Employees' Old Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) following the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan. The petitioner contended that after the omission of the Concurrent Legislative List, the subject of labour fell into the exclusive provincial domain, rendering federal notifications regarding the EOBI Board of Trustees and fund utilization illegal. The High Court examined the effect of Article 270AA, which provides for the devolution of subjects from the Federation to the Provinces. The Court held that while existing laws like the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act, 1976, remain in force until altered or repealed by the competent provincial legislature, the executive authority of the Federation ceased upon the amendment's enactment. The Court ruled that the Federal Government's role was limited to constituting an Implementation Commission to oversee the transfer of assets and liabilities within a one-year timeframe. Consequently, the Court declared the federal notifications reconstituting the Board and managing EOBI affairs as unconstitutional and without lawful authority.

  Read full judgment →
• Syed Feroze Shah. Ghillani and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2013 PLD Lahore 659 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-29
  Council of Common InterestsKalabagh DamArticle 154Water and Powerfundamental rightsFederal Government dutyconstitutional directive
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court concerned the non-implementation of decisions taken by the Council of Common Interests (CCI) regarding the construction and feasibility of the Kalabagh Dam multipurpose project. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government is constitutionally bound to implement the decisions of the CCI under Article 154 of the Constitution, and whether inaction on water and power projects impacting public welfare violates fundamental rights. The High Court held that CCI decisions have obligatory effect unless modified by Parliament pursuant to Article 154(7). Observing that power shortages, water scarcity, and floods violate citizens' fundamental rights under Articles 9 and 25 of the Constitution, the Court directed the Federal Government to implement the CCI's decisions dated 16-9-1991 and 9-5-1998 in letter and spirit. The Court laid down the principle that the Federal Government has a constitutional duty under Article 154 to effectuate the policy decisions of the CCI and to faithfully resolve political or technical concerns through administrative frameworks rather than abandoning feasible national projects.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decision made by the Council of Common Interests binding on the Federal Government under Article 154 of the Constitution?
  • Can the Federal Government ignore or fail to implement decisions of the Council of Common Interests without seeking modification from Parliament?
  • Does the failure to address severe energy shortages and water scarcity violate fundamental rights under Articles 9 and 25 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Farhat Ghaus Gilani vs Justice of Peace, Rajanpur and 6 others2013 MLD 629 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Basharat Ali vs WASA through its Managing Director and 4 others2013 PLJ Lahore 255 · Lahore High Court · 2013-01-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Baqir Hussain Rizvi, etc. vs Senior Member Board of Revenue, etc.2013 C.L.R. 191 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-20
  civil servanttransfer and postingwrit jurisdictionservice tribunalterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional barmala fide transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Consolidation Officer, challenged his transfer order to the Board of Revenue, alleging political victimization and mala fide intentions. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the constitutional jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer and posting of a civil servant, given the bar on jurisdiction regarding terms and conditions of service. The Court held that the transfer of a civil servant is a matter strictly pertaining to the terms and conditions of service, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Relying on Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the Court determined that the High Court's jurisdiction is ousted in such matters, even if the transfer order is alleged to be mala fide or politically motivated. The principle laid down is that a civil servant has no vested right to remain posted at a particular station, and any grievance regarding transfer must be adjudicated exclusively by the appropriate Service Tribunal, not by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
  • Does the bar on jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 apply to transfer orders alleged to be mala fide?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to remain posted at a particular place of their choosing?
  • Which forum has the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Baqir Hussain Rizvi, Consolidation Officer Alipur, District2013 PLJ Lahore 316 · Lahore High Court
  civil servanttransfer and postingterms and conditions of servicewrit jurisdictionService TribunalArticle 212malafide transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Consolidation Officer, challenged his transfer order, alleging it was motivated by political victimization and malafide intent, citing frequent transfers. The respondent argued that the transfer was an administrative decision based on the petitioner's involvement in corruption and forgery, and asserted that the High Court lacked jurisdiction over the transfer of a civil servant, as such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court examined Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, which mandates that civil servants are liable to serve anywhere as directed by the government. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that matters concerning the posting and transfer of civil servants relate to the terms and conditions of service. Consequently, the Court ruled that Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, bars the High Court's jurisdiction in such matters, even where allegations of malafide or political influence are raised. The Court affirmed that such grievances must be adjudicated exclusively by the appropriate Service Tribunal, and subsequently dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer of a civil servant under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 apply to transfer orders alleged to be malafide or politically motivated?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to remain posted at a particular place of their choosing?
  • Which forum has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Baqir Hussain Rizvi vs Senior Member Board of Revenue and 22013 C.L.R. 191, 2013 PLJ Lahore 316, 2013 PLC (C.S.) 559 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-20
  civil servicetransfer and postingjurisdictional barpolitical victimizationterms and conditions of servicewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Consolidation Officer, challenged his transfer order directing him to report to the Board of Revenue, Punjab, on administrative grounds. The petitioner contended that the transfer was politically motivated, made within a short span of time, and constituted political victimization. The respondents argued that the transfer was made on administrative grounds due to allegations of corruption and forgery, and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that under Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, a civil servant is liable to serve anywhere and has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. Furthermore, the Court ruled that matters of posting and transfer relate to the terms and conditions of service, and under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred, leaving such disputes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, even where allegations of mala fides or political influence are raised.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a petition challenging the transfer of a civil servant?
  • Whether allegations of mala fides or political influence in a transfer order can bypass the jurisdictional bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a civil servant possess a vested legal right to remain posted at a particular place or post under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Azhar Abbas and anothers vs The State and anothers2013 MLD 869 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-26
  post-arrest bailabscondenceproclaimed offenderdouble murderprohibitory clauseinvestigating officer opinionforged affidavits
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous petition for post-arrest bail filed by Syed Azhar Abbas and Syed Zahid Abbas in a double murder case registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given their long-term abscondence, the gravity of the allegations, and an investigating officer's report finding them innocent based on allegedly forged affidavits. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioners remained unexplainably proclaimed offenders for six years, which extinguishes their normal procedural and substantive rights. The court further ruled that the police report of innocence was based on perverse and fabricated material, and the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that unexplained long-term abscondence disentitles an accused person to discretionary relief of post-arrest bail, and an investigating officer's opinion of innocence carrying no cogent evidentiary basis does not create a tentative case for further inquiry under section 497(2).

  Questions settled

  • Does unexplained long-term abscondence by an accused person disentitle them to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Can an investigating officer's opinion of innocence based on allegedly forged affidavits provide sufficient ground for bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an offense carrying capital punishment falling within the prohibitory clause bar the grant of bail when reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused is guilty?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashfaq Shah vs Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Arifwala and 82013 PLJ Lahore 560 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi vs Addl. District Judge, etc.2013 YLR 2187, 2013 C.L.R. 1093 · Lahore High Court · 2013-02-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Abrar Hussain Naqvi vs Additional District Judge and others2013 YLR 2187 · Lahore High Court · 2013-02-28Read full judgment →
• Sumaira Ashraf vs The State and anothers2013 MLD 1197 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-21
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysupplementary statementgender-based reliefprohibitory clausemurderevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a woman, was implicated in the murder of the deceased through a supplementary statement recorded one day after the F.I.R., which did not name her. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations, her gender, and the evidentiary value of the supplementary statement. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that she was not named in the F.I.R., the supplementary statement lacked immediate explanation for the delay, and no specific injury was attributed to her, only an allegation of holding the deceased. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that as a woman, the petitioner fell within the protective ambit of the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court concluded that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that her continued incarceration served no beneficial purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of an accused in a supplementary statement after a delay without explanation warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is a female accused entitled to concessionary treatment under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the framing of a charge against an accused preclude the grant of bail if the case otherwise warrants further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan alias Sulli and anothers vs The State2013 YLR 350 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-10
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencechance witnessbenefit of doubtmedical evidencerecoverymotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the murder of Falak Sher alias Dulla under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular evidence, the validity of the alleged motive, and the consistency between medical and testimonial evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the alleged eyewitnesses were "chance witnesses" whose presence was not independently corroborated, and the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged motive. Furthermore, significant material contradictions existed between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained. The Court also noted the violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding recovery proceedings and found the defense evidence credible. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that where prosecution evidence is riddled with doubts and contradictions, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of a chance witness require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  • What is the legal consequence when there is a material contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence?
  • Does the failure to join private witnesses during recovery proceedings violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a bald assertion of motive sufficient to support a conviction in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Special Judge Antiterrorism Court-II, Rawalpindi and others2013 PLJ Lahore 657 · Lahore High Court · 2013-03-18Read full judgment →
• State vs SajidPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 929 · Lahore High Court · 2013-01-23
  criminal appealmurder referencecommutation of sentencedeath penaltyfamilial disputemitigating circumstancessolitary injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence handed down by the trial court for the murder of the appellant's wife. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, motivated by a familial dispute regarding an exchange marriage, stabbed the deceased once in the back, resulting in her death. The appellant denied the charge, alleging false implication. Upon review, the Court found the prosecution's evidence credible and the conviction sound. However, regarding the quantum of sentence, the Court observed that the incident arose from a domestic dispute, involved a single injury, and that the appellant's execution would leave his minor children orphaned and destitute. Consequently, the Court held that the death sentence was disproportionately harsh under the circumstances. The conviction was maintained, but the sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life, with a reduction in the compensation amount. The principle established is that while a conviction for murder may be sustained based on credible evidence, the death penalty may be commuted to life imprisonment where the crime stems from domestic conflict, involves a solitary injury, and where the execution would cause undue hardship to dependent minor children.

  Questions settled

  • Can the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the murder arises from a domestic dispute and involves a single injury?
  • Does the existence of minor children dependent on the accused constitute a valid ground for mitigating a death sentence?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the appellant claims false implication due to familial rivalry?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporationof Pakistan through Principal Office2013 CLD 2149 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-12Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through its Principal Office vs Mst. Maqsoodan Bibi2013 C.L.R. 1007 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through its Principal2013 PLJ Lahore 498 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• State & others vs Muhammad Pervaiz & othersPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 592 · Lahore High Court
  murderbenefit of the doubtmedical contradictionocular accountmotiveprivate complaintdeath sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences of the appellants for murder and hurt arising from a private complaint, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of a death sentence and a revision petition for enhancement of sentences. The core legal questions involve the reliability of the ocular account vis-a-vis medical evidence regarding the distance of firing, the proof of motive, and the corroboration of prosecution allegations. The Lahore High Court held that material contradictions between the eye-witness testimony and the medical report—specifically regarding the presence of burn margins and the nature of the injuries—coupled with an unproven motive and lack of corroborative recovery, rendered the prosecution case doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants resulting in their acquittal, dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony irreconcilably contradicts medical evidence on material aspects such as the range of firing and weapon nature, and is uncorroborated, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ocular account can be relied upon when it is materially contradicted by medical evidence regarding the range of fire?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive cast serious doubt on its case?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt when material eye-witnesses are withheld and recoveries are not established?
  Read full judgment →
• State & other vs Jaray Khan & othersPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 976 · Lahore High Court · 2013-09-17
  murder referencebenefit of doubtocular evidencechance witnessesFIR delaycapital sentencerecovery evidencedouble-edged weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of Umar Wada under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the sentence and an appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account provided by related witnesses, the impact of significant delays in FIR registration and post-mortem examination, and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a capital conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found the eye-witnesses to be chance witnesses whose testimony was inconsistent, unnatural, and unsupported by independent evidence. Furthermore, the Court determined that the FIR was likely fabricated, given the unexplained 33-hour delay in the post-mortem examination. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and declined to confirm the death sentence. The principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is discarded as unreliable, recovery evidence loses its corroborative value, and a conviction cannot be maintained solely on a motive that acts as a double-edged sword.

  Questions settled

  • Does an FIR lodged after preliminary investigation lose its evidentiary value?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the ocular account is discarded and the recovery evidence is the only remaining link?
  • Is motive a sufficient basis for conviction in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  • Does a significant delay in conducting a post-mortem examination cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Mehmood vs State and 4 other2013 PLJ Lahore 54 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-04Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ikram and otherss vs Mujahid Shah and others2013 CLD 2263 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-27Read full judgment →
• SNGPL vs OGRA and others2013 PLD Lahore 289 · Lahore High Court · 2013-01-15
  Unaccounted For GasUFG benchmarkEstimated Revenue Requirementyardstick regulationgas tariff determinationregulatory discretionpublic utilityOGRA Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 12(2) of the OGRA Ordinance, 2002, by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) challenging the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority's (OGRA) determination of the Estimated Revenue Requirement for the financial year 2012-2013. The petitioner primarily contested the Unaccounted For Gas (UFG) benchmark set at 4.5%, arguing that benchmarks must be determined annually through yardstick regulations and meaningful consultation with experts and licensees. The petitioner further challenged the disallowance of certain Human Resource costs, provisions for doubtful debts, and the treatment of Late Payment Surcharge as operating income, characterizing the UFG disallowance as an unlawful penalty. The High Court held that neither the OGRA Ordinance nor the relevant Tariff Rules require annual benchmarking; rather, benchmarks serve as long-term efficiency targets. The Court found that OGRA followed due process, consulted stakeholders, and provided reasoned justifications for its technical determinations. It clarified that UFG disallowance based on performance targets does not constitute a penalty under Rule 20. The petition was dismissed as the regulator's exercise of discretion was found to be lawful, structured, and transparent.

  Read full judgment →
• Sitara and 15 others vs Sohrab and 10 others2013 C.L.R. 1624 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-03Read full judgment →
• Silke Ingrid Rassmann vs The State and 2 others2013 YLR 1963 · Lahore High Court · 2011-12-20
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailplea of alibifurther inquiryprohibitory clauseinvestigation reportmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, in a murder case registered under sections 302, 109, 120/B, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the respondents were attributed specific firing roles, absconded after the occurrence, and that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Conversely, the respondents contended that they were found innocent during the investigation, successfully established a verified plea of alibi, and were falsely implicated due to deep-seated prior enmity. The Lahore High Court observed that the respondents were found not involved during the investigation, their plea of alibi was verified by the Investigating Officer, and the case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances existed to interfere with the discretion exercised by the bail-granting court, the High Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that considerations for bail cancellation differ from those for its initial grant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether exceptional circumstances are required to interfere with an order granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can bail once granted be cancelled when the accused's plea of alibi is verified during the investigation?
  • Does a case falling under further inquiry pursuant to section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the refusal to cancel bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddique Akbar vs Chairman State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi and 4 others2013 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-12
  back benefitsexonerationreinstatementpro forma promotionconstitutional petitionservice benefitsno work no wages
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from the dismissal of the petitioner from service as Zonal Head with the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan on allegations of misconduct, followed by prolonged litigation before the High Court, the Federal Service Tribunal, and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and ordered a de novo inquiry, upon completion of which the petitioner was unconditionally exonerated of all charges. Despite his exoneration and reinstatement, the respondent Corporation refused to treat the entire intervening period as duty, withheld back-benefits, annual increments for certain years, and denied consideration for pro forma promotion. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that an employee who is unlawfully kept away from duty through no fault of their own and is subsequently exonerated is entitled to all consequential service benefits, including back-benefits and seniority. The Court laid down that the principle of 'no work no wages' does not apply where an employee is ready and willing to work but is prevented by the employer's unlawful action, and that denial of back-benefits is impermissible unless gainful employment elsewhere is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee whose dismissal is set aside and who is unconditionally exonerated of all charges is entitled to back benefits and salary for the period spent out of service?
  • Does the principle of 'no work no wages' apply to an employee who was ready and willing to work but was prevented from doing so due to an unlawful termination?
  • Whether an employee can be denied service benefits, increments, and seniority on account of administrative acts or omissions of superior authorities for which the employee is not at fault?
  • Is an employer required to prove gainful employment of the reinstated employee elsewhere in order to justify the withholding of back benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoukat, Etc. vs The State, Etc.2013 KLR Criminal Cases 213 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-09
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailpending appealdelay in disposal of appealSection 426 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner, Dais Muhammad, seeking the suspension of his sentence pending the final adjudication of his appeal against conviction. The petitioner, convicted under Section 302(b) and Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, argued that he was not named in the initial First Information Report, was declared innocent during the police investigation, and that his appeal had remained pending for over two years without fault on his part. The State opposed the application, citing the gravity of the offense involving multiple casualties. The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for more than two years since the impugned judgment, and the delay in the appeal's disposal could not be attributed to him. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence. The key principle established is that where a convict has served a significant period of imprisonment and the appeal is not likely to be decided in the near future through no fault of the appellant, the suspension of sentence is warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an appeal has remained pending for over two years without fault of the appellant?
  • Is the suspension of a sentence pending appeal contingent upon the merits of the conviction?
  • Does the gravity of an offense, such as one involving multiple casualties, automatically preclude the suspension of a sentence pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Mushtaq vs Muhammad Qasim and others2013 CLC 487 · Lahore High Court · 2013-01-29Read full judgment →
• Sher Shah vs Muhammad Suleman and 2 others2013 YLR 1017 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-03
  civil revisionspecific performanceagreement to sellunilateral contractregistered sale-deedproof of executionstamp vendorscribe
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1 on the basis of an un-registered agreement to sell (Exh.P.1), alongside a challenge to a subsequent registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. The trial court decreed the suit and the first appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner contended before the Lahore High Court that the agreement to sell was ante-dated, fictitious, unilaterally signed by only one party, and unproven. The core legal questions were whether an agreement signed by only one party constitutes an enforceable agreement and whether the evidence produced was sufficient to establish its valid execution against a subsequent registered sale-deed. The High Court held that a document unilaterally signed by one party lacks enforceability. It further held that non-production of the scribe, the stamp vendor, and a second witness was fatal to proving execution on a specific date. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below.

  Questions settled

  • Is a document signed by only one party an agreement to sell enforceable under the law?
  • Is the production of the stamp vendor and scribe necessary to establish the execution and existence of an agreement on a specific date?
  • Does a subsequent registered sale-deed take precedence over a prior disputed unregistered agreement to sell where execution and notice are not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Afzal vs R.P.O. Sargodha and others2013 PLC (C.S.) 286 · Lahore High Court · 2012-07-12
  constitutional petitiontransfer of civil servantterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of High CourtService TribunalArticle 212mala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a transfer order issued by the Regional Police Officer, Sargodha, which transferred the petitioner, a Head Constable, along with twenty-four others, to P.C. Farooqabad for two years. The petitioner contended that the transfer was motivated by mala fide intentions, discriminatory, and infringed upon his vested rights, arguing that senior officers were bypassed. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a civil servant, given the nature of the grievance. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that transfer matters relate to the terms and conditions of service, which fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that the High Court's jurisdiction is ousted in such matters under Article 212 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant has no fundamental right to be posted at a particular station, and disputes regarding transfers must be adjudicated by the Service Tribunal, not the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition challenging the transfer of a civil servant?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right or fundamental right to be posted at a particular station?
  • Is a transfer order relating to terms and conditions of service subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed vs Badar Zia2013 YLR 2530 · Lahore High Court · 2013-02-01Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq vs The State and anothers2013 P Cr. L J 252 · Lahore High Court · 2012-07-02
  post-arrest bailfraud and forgerycognizable and non-cognizable offencesparallel civil and criminal proceedingsprohibitory clause of section 497cheating
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of fraud, cheating, and forgery involving a substantial financial dispute over unpaid gold purchases and fraudulent transfer of mortgaged property. The core legal questions involved whether blending a non-cognizable offence with cognizable offences requires prior magistrate permission under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whether the pendency of civil litigation bars parallel criminal proceedings, and whether bail must be granted as a matter of rule when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1). The Lahore High Court held that police investigation does not require prior magistrate permission when a non-cognizable offence is blended with a cognizable one, that civil and criminal litigation can proceed concurrently, and that the rule favoring bail in non-prohibitory offences is not absolute and depends on the peculiar facts of the case. The court dismissed the bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the blending of a non-cognizable offence with a cognizable offence require prior authorization from a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for police investigation?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation between the parties bar the initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings arising from the same transaction?
  • Is an accused charged with an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitled to bail as an absolute matter of right regardless of the facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Ajmal vs The State and another2013 PLD Lahore 59 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-18
  interim custodyspurdaricontrol of narcotic substancescompetency of appealspecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was preferred under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 against the orders of the Magistrate 1st Class and the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, which dismissed the appellant's application for the interim custody (Spurdari) of a car taken into possession in a narcotics case. The core legal question was whether an appeal under section 48 of the said Act is maintainable against orders passed by courts of ordinary criminal jurisdiction rather than a Special Court, and whether an appeal lies against an order passed in criminal revision. The Lahore High Court held that the appeal was incompetent because orders passed by ordinary courts cannot be challenged via section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which exclusively applies to orders of a Special Court, and further noted that no appeal lies against an order passed in criminal revision. The key principles laid down are that appeals under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are restricted to orders passed by Special Courts constituted under the statute, and no appeal lies against an order passed in criminal revision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be preferred against orders passed by courts of ordinary jurisdiction?
  • Can an appeal be preferred against an order passed in a criminal revision?
  • Which court has the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Afzal vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB)2013 P Cr. L J 562 · Lahore High Court · 2011-05-24
  post-arrest bailNAB referencebank fraudeconomic crimeabscondancerule of consistencyconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two consolidated writ petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking post-arrest bail in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference involving a massive financial fraud and misappropriation of billions of rupees from the Bank of Punjab. The core legal questions revolved around whether the petitioners, identified as the mastermind of the fictitious accounts and the former President of the bank, were entitled to bail on grounds of statutory delay, rule of consistency with co-accused, medical condition, lack of prior approval from the Governor State Bank of Pakistan, and completion of investigation. The Lahore High Court dismissed both petitions, holding that prima facie the petitioners were directly connected to a colossal banking fraud that brought the bank to the verge of bankruptcy, that their past conduct of abscondance and arrest from abroad raised serious apprehensions of fleeing justice and tampering with evidence, and that their roles were distinguishable from minor co-accused who had been released on bail. The court laid down that in heinous economic crimes involving public funds, bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely due to the passage of time or completion of interim investigation when active connivance, fake documentation, and flight risk are firmly established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused involved in a massive economic fraud causing billions of rupees loss to a public bank is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of considerable delay in the conclusion of the trial?
  • Can bail be granted on the basis of the rule of consistency when the role of the petitioner is distinguishable from co-accused who were mere subordinates or employees acting under duress?
  • Whether prior approval of the Governor State Bank of Pakistan is a mandatory condition precedent for initiating proceedings and filing a reference by the National Accountability Bureau under the NAB Ordinance?
  • Does past abscondance and evasion of law disentitle an accused from claiming discretionary relief of bail from a constitutional court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Kamran alias Kami vs Gul Muhammad and another2013 YLR 193 · Lahore High Court · 2011-02-03Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ansar Ahmad vs The State and anothers2013 MLD 1183 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-01
  post-arrest bailEphedrine quotacontrol of narcotic substancesmisuse of authorityfurther inquirybailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by Sheikh Ansar Ahmad, serving as a Drug Controller, who was implicated in F.I.R. No. 40 registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, regarding the unlawful issuance and misuse of an Ephedrine quota. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner's involvement in noting and drafting on files for quota allocation attracted penal provisions under section 9 carrying capital punishment or a lesser offence under section 16 of the Act. The Lahore High Court held that at the preliminary stage, the petitioner's role primarily indicated a potential violation of rules or misuse of authority, aligning prima facie with section 16 rather than section 9, making it a bailable offence. The court laid down the principle that applicability of major penal provisions involving prohibitive clauses requires assessment after recording evidence at trial, and where reasonable grounds exist for further inquiry into the exact categorization of the offence, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an official involved in noting and drafting for Ephedrine quota allocation falls under section 9 or section 16 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the alleged misuse of authority in issuing drug quotas attract further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for the purpose of bail?
  • When can the applicability of provisions carrying major penalties under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be properly determined?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzada Akhtar vs Bank Alflah Ltd. and others2013 CLD 1718, 2013 CLD 416, 2013 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-23Read full judgment →
• Shehzada Akhtar vs Bank Alfalah Ltd. and others2013 CLD 1718 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-23Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ullah Khan Bangash vs Adil Tiwana and others2013 CLC 1570 · Lahore High Court · 2013-04-04Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat Khan vs Additional District Judge, Mianwali and 22013 CLC 601 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-10
  dowry claimchild custodywelfare of minorfamily court jurisdictionburden of proofpersonal property of wifeguardianship
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves cross-writ petitions concerning dowry claims, a monetary claim based on an undertaking, and child custody. The petitioner challenged a partial decree regarding dowry and the dismissal of his custody petition, while the respondent challenged the refusal of a claim based on an 'Iqrar Nama.' The Court held that the dowry claim must be dismissed as the plaintiff failed to prove the items or their value, and there was no admission of liability by the defendant. Regarding the monetary claim, the Court ruled that an undertaking to pay compensation does not constitute 'personal property or belongings of a wife' under the Schedule of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, thus falling outside the Family Court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the denial of custody to the father, emphasizing that the minor’s welfare is paramount. The Court established that a father's provision of maintenance is a legal duty, not a ground for custody, and that removing a child from the mother’s custody after long-term care, especially given the father's remarriage, would be psychologically damaging.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Family Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim based on an undertaking to pay compensation?
  • Is the provision of maintenance by a father a valid ground for claiming the custody of a minor child?
  • Does the mere exhibition of a document in evidence constitute proof of its contents?
  • Can a dowry claim be decreed in the absence of evidence proving the purchase or existence of the articles?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The State2013 YLR 76 · Lahore High Court · 2012-01-17
  murder referenceocular testimonyindependent corroborationbenefit of doubtappraisal of evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibuscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Shaukat Ali, for the murder of Ilyas Khan and for launching a murderous assault on Naazer Khan. The trial court had convicted the appellant under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting four co-accused who were charged with the same incident. The core legal question was whether the appellant could be convicted based on the same ocular testimony that was rejected by the trial court regarding the acquitted co-accused, in the absence of independent corroboration. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to distinguish the appellant's role from that of the acquitted co-accused, as identical roles were attributed to all. Relying on the principle that when ocular testimony is disbelieved against one set of accused, it requires strong independent corroboration to sustain a conviction against others, the Court found such corroboration lacking. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted based on ocular testimony that has already been rejected by the trial court for co-accused facing the same trial?
  • Is independent corroboration required to sustain a conviction when the prosecution's ocular evidence has been disbelieved against other co-accused?
  • Does the lack of a Serologist's report regarding blood on a recovered weapon prevent it from being considered corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 986 · Lahore High Court · 2013-07-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitymurdercriminal enmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Shaukat Ali in connection with FIR No. 372 dated 30.10.2012 registered under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Garh, District Faisalabad. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner, who was attributed the specific role of holding the deceased by his arm during the commission of the offense by a co-accused, is entitled to bail in the face of deep-seated prior animosity and the implication of multiple family members. The Lahore High Court held that the determination of vicarious liability and the precise role played by the petitioner amid admitted inter-se animosity warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that where previous enmity exists and family-wide implication with specific restraining roles is open to question, the determination of vicarious liability is best reserved for trial, making the case one of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the role of holding the deceased attributed to an accused creates sufficient grounds for further inquiry regarding vicarious liability?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when previous enmity and the implication of an entire family are evident in the FIR?
  • Does the corroboration of a hold by a post-mortem report preclude the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Muhammad Sharif2013 PLJ Lahore 154, 2013 CLC 1558 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-10
  civil revisionpreliminary decreepartition suitmemorandum of appealdecree-sheetact of courtappellate court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the legality of the appellate court's judgment whereby an appeal against a preliminary decree in a partition suit was accepted. The core legal question was whether an appeal filed without a certified copy of the decree-sheet, due to the trial court's failure to prepare one, is competent, and how the appellate court should address such a defect. The Lahore High Court held that while the requirement to accompany a memorandum of appeal with a copy of the decree is mandatory, a litigant cannot be penalized for the court's neglect in failing to draw up a formal decree-sheet. The appellate court erred in accepting the appeal when it was technically incompetent due to the missing decree-sheet; instead, it should have directed the trial court to prepare the decree-sheet and required the appellant to submit a certified copy. The Court laid down the principle that procedural defaults arising from the court's own negligence are rectifiable in the interest of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal is competent when filed without a copy of the decree-sheet due to the trial court's failure to prepare it?
  • Can a party be penalized for the neglect or omission of the trial court in preparing a formal decree-sheet?
  • What course of action should an appellate court adopt when a memorandum of appeal is not accompanied by a decree-sheet owing to the trial court's default?
  Read full judgment →
• Shauk at Ali vs The State and another2013 YLR 316 · Lahore High Court · 2012-06-25
  post-arrest bailsupplementary statementtwo versionsabscondancefurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Shaukat Ali, in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ahmadpur Sial, District Jhang. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the existence of two conflicting versions by the complainant, where the petitioner was initially listed as an eyewitness in the FIR but later implicated as an accused through a supplementary statement, alongside his subsequent abscondance and proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution presented two divergent versions regarding the petitioner's role, rendering his actual involvement a matter of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that abscondance alone does not impede the grant of bail when the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that an improbable allegation of a co-accused holding the deceased while facing direct gunfire requires deeper scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the existence of two conflicting versions by the complainant regarding the role of an accused warrants post-arrest bail under further inquiry?
  • Does the abscondance of an accused and proceedings under Section 87 and Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail?
  • Is an allegation of catching a deceased during firing sufficient to deny bail when it appears unnatural or unreasonable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Kaleem vs Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar and 112013 CLC 185 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-29
  Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009ejectment petitionleave to contestprescribed noticestriking off defenceArticle 10-Adue processaudi alteram partem
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional writ petition before the Lahore High Court challenged orders of the Rent Tribunal and Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar, which struck off the petitioners' right to defend ejectment petitions and ordered their eviction. The core legal question was whether a tenant's defence can be struck off under Section 22(6) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 for failing to file an application for leave to contest within ten days of appearance, where the mandatory notice on the form prescribed in the Schedule under Section 21(1) of the Act was never served. The High Court allowed the petitions, holding that compliance with Section 21(1) is mandatory, as the word 'shall' requires the Rent Tribunal to serve notice in the prescribed Schedule form along with copies of the application and annexed documents. The Court laid down that failure to adhere to the statutory notice procedure denies due process, violating Article 10-A of the Constitution and the principle of audi alteram partem, thereby rendering any penal order under Section 22(6) unlawful. The impugned orders were set aside and the cases remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Is service of notice in the form prescribed in the Schedule under Section 21(1) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 mandatory before penalizing a respondent under Section 22(6)?
  • Can a tenant's right to defend an ejectment petition be struck off under Section 22(6) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 if no notice on the prescribed Schedule pro forma was served upon them?
  • Does the failure to issue statutory notice in the prescribed form under Section 21(1) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 violate Article 10-A of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 33 · Lahore High Court · 2011-10-17
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecriminal liabilitybail as rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused in an FIR registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs. 500,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the duration of his incarceration. The Court observed that the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the petitioner had been incarcerated for approximately six months, his presence was no longer required for investigation, and he had no prior criminal history. The Court held that in cases where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of dishonouring a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases involving offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shanshah Shamil Paracha vs Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and others2013 MLD 674 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-19Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Akhtar vs The State and another2013 YLR 828 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-30
  cancellation of bailpre-arrest baildishonest issuance of chequesuppression of factscriminal liabilitybail parameters
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail previously granted to the respondent in a case involving Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged dishonest issuance of a cheque. The petitioner contended that the respondent had obtained bail by suppressing material facts and misleading the court regarding the nature of the transaction and the existence of a prior FIR involving the same cheque. The core legal question was whether the grounds for cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were met. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any serious legal infirmity or exceptional circumstance in the original bail-granting order. Furthermore, the Court observed that the prosecution's case remained vague, lacking corroboratory evidence regarding the underlying transaction. The key principle laid down is that the cancellation of bail is an extraordinary measure requiring proof of misuse of the concession of bail or the presence of significant legal flaws in the original order, neither of which was established in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • What are the necessary grounds for the cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the mere existence of a dispute over the underlying transaction justify the cancellation of pre-arrest bail in a case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the absence of corroboratory evidence regarding the issuance of a cheque a relevant factor in maintaining a bail order?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamas-Ud-Din vs State, etcPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 485 · Lahore High Court · 2012-08-29
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaytrial delayincarceration periodcriminal recordbail bond
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a third petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shamas-ud-Din, in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 324, 337F(v), 337F(iv), and 337F(iii)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial, noting his continuous incarceration since April 2011 without the trial reaching a conclusion. The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that delays were not attributable to the complainant and that the petitioner had previously sought adjournments. The Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over a year, even after excluding adjournments requested by the defense, and that no prosecution witnesses had been examined. Finding no evidence that the delay was attributable to the petitioner and noting his lack of a criminal record, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail under the 6th proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the trial is delayed without fault on their part?
  • Does the exclusion of defense-requested adjournments still allow for bail based on statutory delay if the incarceration period exceeds one year?
  • Can bail be granted under the 6th proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamas Naveed vs State etcPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 290 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-01
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtunnatural conductdelayed FIRocular evidenceacquittalcontradictory statements
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of his wife. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the substantial, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and material contradictions in the ocular evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed. The Court observed that the complainant’s conduct—leaving his severely injured sister with the accused without seeking medical aid—was unnatural and cast doubt on the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses. Furthermore, the Court noted significant discrepancies between the initial FIR and the subsequent application for exhumation, indicating dishonest improvements in the prosecution's narrative. Emphasizing that a single circumstance casting reasonable doubt is sufficient for acquittal, the Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the Court affirming that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, combined with material contradictions in witness testimony, warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  • Is the unnatural conduct of a complainant, such as failing to seek medical assistance for a severely injured relative, sufficient to discredit prosecution witnesses?
  • Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused when the prosecution fails to provide consistent and credible evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shama Enterprises vs City District Government etc2013 PLJ Lahore 535 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-19Read full judgment →
• Shama Enterprises vs City District Government and others2013 PLJ Lahore 535, 2013 MLD 1891 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-19Read full judgment →
• Shakran Bibi vs The State and another2013 YLR 452 · Lahore High Court · 2012-04-26
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausegeneralized allegationssuicidecriminal procedurebail as of right
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shakran Bibi, who was implicated in a case involving the death of the complainant's daughter, Mst. Rukhsana Bibi, by burning. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman accused of an offense punishable by death, was entitled to bail despite the allegations falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the FIR contained only generalized allegations against the accused without assigning specific roles, and that the investigation concluded the death was a suicide. Holding that the case against the petitioner fell under the scope of further inquiry as per subsection (2) of Section 497, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where a case against an accused, even one involving capital punishment, falls under the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2), the accused is entitled to the concession of bail as a matter of right, particularly when the investigation is complete and the accused is a woman.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person is entitled to bail as a matter of right when the case falls under the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of a specific role ascribed to an accused in the FIR justify the grant of bail in cases involving capital punishment?
  • Can bail be granted to a woman accused of an offense falling within the prohibitory clause if the investigation suggests the death was a suicide?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakoor vs Province of Punjab through Collector and others2013 PLJ Lahore 660, 2013 PLD Lahore 17 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-25
  additional evidenceappellate court discretioncivil revisionproduction of documentslacuna in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an order passed by the District Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the production of additional evidence during the pendency of an appeal. The core legal question concerns the scope and limitations of an appellate court's power to admit additional evidence, specifically under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27 and Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that parties who had the opportunity to produce evidence during trial cannot be allowed to fill up omissions or patch up weaker parts of their case on appeal. The court laid down the principle that additional evidence cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that the appellate court's discretion to permit such evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment applies strictly to remedy inherent lacunae or defects in the existing record, rather than to assist a negligent party.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party be permitted to produce additional evidence in appeal to fill up omissions or patch up the weaker parts of its case?
  • What is the scope of the appellate court's power to admit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a party entitled as a matter of right to the admission of additional evidence in appellate proceedings?
  • Under what circumstances may an appellate court invoke the expression to enable it to pronounce judgment for admitting additional evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakoor vs Pop, etc2013 PLJ Lahore 660 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shakil Mehmood through Special Attorney vs District Judge, Sialkot and 3 others2013 YLR 852 · Lahore High Court · 2011-12-15Read full judgment →
• Shakil Haider and others vs M Tufail and others2013 CLC 241 · Lahore High Court · 2012-06-18Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Akhtar vs Bank Alflah Ltd. through Manager and 3 others2013 CLD 416 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-23Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Waseem vs The State2013 YLR 2161 · Lahore High Court · 2013-03-18
  benefit of doubtmurdercontradictory ocular and medical evidencesudden quarrelcricket match disputeappreciation of evidencecounsel admission
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an FIR registered for murder following a sudden altercation during a cricket match. The core legal question revolves around whether a conviction for murder can be sustained when multiple accused are attributed the sole fatal injury, the medical evidence conflicts with the ocular account regarding the number of injuries, and the prosecution's case suffers from material contradictions and a lack of corroboration. The Lahore High Court held that where the attribution of a fatal injury is shrouded in mystery and multiple persons are saddled with liability for a single injury that does not match the eyewitness account, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove its own case beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot base a conviction on admissions or suggestions made during cross-examination by defence counsel, reaffirming that the benefit of every doubt goes to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of the doubt should be extended to an accused when multiple persons are attributed a single fatal injury and it remains shrouded in mystery as to who actually caused it?
  • Can the prosecution take the benefit of suggestions or admissions made by defence counsel during cross-examination?
  • Is an accused bound by admissions made by their counsel in a criminal trial?
  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained when the ocular account is at variance with the medical evidence regarding the number of injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Saleem and 2 others vs Tariq Mahmood and others2013 YLR 2071 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-28Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Hussain vs Judge Family Court, etc.2013 C.L.R. 943 · Lahore High Court · 2010-12-24Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh vs Bashir Ahmad and anothers2013 P Cr. L J 584 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-11
  suspension of sentencejuvenile offenderrelease on probationmurderbail after convictionjuvenile justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the suspension of sentence and release on bail of the petitioner, who was convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Juvenile Court. The core legal question revolves around whether a juvenile offender convicted of murder is entitled to suspension of sentence and release on probation under section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, having been attributed a major role involving multiple injuries on a vital part of the deceased's body executed with mature skill, was not entitled to suspension of sentence or probation, as statutory protections for juveniles are not meant for those who use minority as a shield for heinous crimes. The court dismissed the petition, laying down that the provisions of section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 regarding release on probation are discretionary for the trial court and inappropriate for serious offenses like murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a juvenile offender convicted of murder is entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal?
  • Does the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 mandate the release on probation of a juvenile convicted of a heinous offense like murder?
  • Can the benefit of section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 be extended to a child offender convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh vs Bashir Ahmad And Another2013 KLR Criminal Cases 167 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-11
  suspension of sentencejuvenile offenderrelease on probationbail after convictionmurderjuvenile justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the suspension of sentence and release on bail of the petitioner, a juvenile convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether a convicted juvenile offender involved in a heinous crime like murder is entitled to suspension of sentence pending appeal and release on probation under Section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The Lahore High Court held that the statutory protections and probation provisions for juveniles are intended for minor, innocent lawbreakers rather than those who commit serious, well-planned violent offences using minority as a shield. The court ruled that granting probation or suspending the sentence for a life imprisonment conviction in such circumstances is unwarranted. Consequently, the petition for suspension of sentence was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of a juvenile convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a juvenile offender convicted of a heinous crime entitled to release on probation under Section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does the protection afforded by juvenile legislation apply to an accused who uses minority as a shield for a maturely planned violent crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Parveen, etc. vs Rizwana Shaheen, etc.2013 C.L.R. 429 · Lahore High Court · 2011-10-05Read full judgment →
• Shahid Orakzai vs Punjab through Chief Secretary, etc.2013 C.L.R. 890 · Lahore High Court · 2011-03-22Read full judgment →
• Shahid Nazir vs The State and another2013 YLR 260 · Lahore High Court · 2011-08-16
  suspension of sentenceimprisonment for lifestatutory grounddelay in disposal of appealhardened criminalbailmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from a petition seeking the suspension of a sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the petitioner, Shahid Nazir, in a private murder complaint. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's sentence of imprisonment for life ought to be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the statutory amendments, the period already spent behind bars, and the lack of a timely hearing of the main appeal. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the suspension of his sentence because he does not fall within the exclusionary proviso to Section 426(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as a desperate, hardened, previous, or dangerous criminal, and further considering his young age, his status as a student, the lack of previous convictions, and the undue delay in the fixation of his appeal for hearing. The key principle laid down is that where a convict does not fall within the statutory exceptions of being a hardened or dangerous criminal, and the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future through no fault of the appellant, the sentence of imprisonment may be suspended.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of imprisonment for life can be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future?
  • Does a convict who delivered a single blow without repetition qualify as a hardened or dangerous criminal under the proviso to Section 426(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the relevant factors to be examined by the court when deciding an application for the suspension of sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Maseeh and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 259 · Lahore High Court · 2013-02-12
  pre-arrest bailprinciple of parityprohibitory clausecriminal procedurebail consistencygeneral role
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by two petitioners accused in an FIR registered for offences under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the principle of parity. The Court observed that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that no specific injury was attributed to the petitioners, and the specific injury under Section 337-A(ii) was assigned to a co-accused. Finding that the petitioners' case was on par with co-accused who had already been granted bail, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency and parity applies when co-accused in similar circumstances have been granted bail, particularly when the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail on the principle of parity if co-accused in the same case have already been granted bail?
  • Does the absence of a specific injury attributed to an accused justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Are offences under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered to fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs State and anotherPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 34 · Lahore High Court · 2011-09-28
  post-arrest bailrobberyhurtcross-versionsudden fightprevious non-convict
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in respect of case FIR No. 198/2011 registered at Police Station Chotti, District D.G. Khan, for offences under Sections 337-F(i), 337-A(i), and 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries sustained by both parties and the circumstances of the occurrence. The Court held that since the petitioner sustained five injuries during the incident which were not negated by the prosecution, the injuries suffered by the complainant were not of a serious nature, and the petitioner was a previous non-convict with no prior criminal record, the petition should be allowed. The key principle laid down is that where mutual injuries are sustained in a sudden occurrence and fall outside the prohibitory clause or warrant further inquiry, coupled with the absence of previous criminal record, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when both parties sustained injuries in a sudden occurrence?
  • Does the attribution of an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. invariably bar the grant of bail when mitigating circumstances exist?
  • Is a previous non-convict with no prior criminal record entitled to bail when injuries attributed to him are bailable in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain and anothers vs The State and others2013 YLR 1281 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-26
  post-arrest bailmurderattempted murderpolice investigation reportocular evidencemedical evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition sought post-arrest bail for petitioners accused of murder and attempted murder under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the conflict between the promptly lodged FIR, which attributed specific firing roles to them, and the police investigation report, which suggested they were present but empty-handed. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail. It reasoned that the ocular account and medical evidence provided overwhelming prima facie evidence connecting the petitioners to the crime. The Court distinguished the cited precedents, noting that each criminal case must be decided on its own merits. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that police investigation findings are not binding on the court if they are not supported by sufficient material on the record. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the prosecution's case remained strong despite the police's alternative version.

  Questions settled

  • Are findings of the police investigation binding upon the court when considering a bail application?
  • Does the grant of bail to co-accused automatically entitle other accused persons to the same relief?
  • Can an accused be granted post-arrest bail when specific roles of firing are attributed in a promptly lodged FIR supported by medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Sadiq vs A.D.J. etc.2013 C.L.R. 72 · Lahore High Court · 2012-03-16Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Khan vs Additional District Judge; Ferozewala and 6 others2013 MLD 962 · Lahore High Court · 2012-07-16Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ali and another vs State and othersPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 5 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-10
  post-arrest baildacoityfurther inquirysupplementary statementtest identification paradeevidentiary valuecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the grant of post-arrest bail for two accused persons charged under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a dacoity case. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given that they were not named in the initial crime report and were only implicated through a supplementary statement filed 44 days after the occurrence. The Court held that the case against the petitioners constituted a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the delay in naming the accused, the absence of a test identification parade, and the lack of a clear source of information in the supplementary statement created significant doubt regarding their involvement. Furthermore, the Court noted that the evidentiary value of the alleged recoveries required determination at trial. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail, establishing that where prosecution evidence is weak and the case requires further inquiry, continued detention serves no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Does the implication of an accused in a supplementary statement after a significant delay without a test identification parade constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution fails to provide a plausible explanation for the delay in naming the accused in the initial crime report?
  • Can the evidentiary value of alleged recoveries be determined at the bail stage, or is it a matter for the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz A. Khokhar vs Habib Bank Limited2013 CLD 1802 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-21
  banking suitleave to defendfinancial institutions recoverytriable issueremandrecovery of financesPLA
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment and decree passed by a Banking Court in a recovery suit filed by a bank against the appellant. The appellant had previously filed a suit against the respondent bank alleging financial loss due to the bank's delay in encashing US dollar deposits. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s application for leave to defend while granting the same to the respondent, subsequently decreeing the bank's suit. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted inconsistently by identifying the same factual controversy—the alleged delay in encashment—as a triable issue for one party but not the other. The High Court held that the trial court erred in law by failing to recognize that if a factual premise constitutes a triable issue in one suit, it must necessarily constitute a triable issue in the cross-suit. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned judgment and decree, remanding the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision on the appellant's application for leave to defend, emphasizing that such issues require evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court simultaneously grant leave to defend to one party and deny it to the other when both suits involve the same core triable issue?
  • Does the existence of a common factual controversy in cross-suits necessitate the granting of leave to defend in both matters?
  • Is a banking court required to record evidence when the competence of an attorney to file a suit is challenged in a leave to defend application?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahadat Ali alias Chhadi vs The State and another2013 YLR 536 · Lahore High Court · 2012-01-18
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabscondenceacquittal of co-accusedpolice encounterprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shahadat Ali, in a private complaint involving charges under sections 302, 365, 211, and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that co-accused persons, including the individual alleged to have committed the fatal injury, had already been acquitted by the trial court, which had determined the underlying incident was a genuine police encounter. The petitioner further argued that his case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that his abscondence did not preclude bail if the merits of the case were otherwise favorable. The court held that since the main accused had been acquitted and the judicial inquiry supported the genuineness of the police encounter, the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The court affirmed the principle that mere abscondence is insufficient to deny bail when the accused has a strong case on merits, and accordingly admitted the petitioner to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the abscondence of an accused person automatically disentitle them to bail if the case otherwise merits it?
  • Can bail be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when co-accused persons charged with the main role have already been acquitted?
  • Is a judicial inquiry report regarding the nature of a police encounter relevant to the determination of bail for an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz alias Chullu vs The State and anothersPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 525, 2013 P Cr. L J 1782 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-20
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryattempted rapepresumption of innocenceabscondancecriminal recordzina
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by an accused charged under sections 376/511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding an alleged attempted rape. The core legal questions were whether the provisions of section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were applicable given the allegations, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite allegations of abscondance and involvement in other criminal cases. The Court held that the provisions of section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were not prima facie applicable as the complainant alleged an attempt to commit zina rather than completed rape, which requires penetration. Furthermore, the Court found the complainant's narrative doubtful due to her previous affidavit exonerating a co-accused. The Court laid down the principle that bail cannot be refused solely on the ground of abscondance if the accused establishes a case for further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, it held that an accused cannot be denied bail merely due to pending criminal cases absent prior convictions, as the presumption of innocence prevails.

  Questions settled

  • Does the allegation of an attempt to commit zina satisfy the requirements for the application of section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused solely on the ground that they remained a fugitive from law if a case for further inquiry is established?
  • Is an accused person disentitled to bail merely because they have other criminal cases registered against them, in the absence of prior convictions?
  • Does the exoneration of a co-accused by the complainant through an affidavit cast doubt on the entire prosecution story?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz alias Chullu vs State and anotherPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 525 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-20
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryattempted rapeabscondancecriminal liabilitybail principles
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged with attempted rape under Sections 376/511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the provisions of Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were applicable given the absence of penetration, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite allegations of abscondance and involvement in other criminal cases. The Court held that since the FIR alleged only an attempt to commit zina rather than completed rape, the provisions of Section 376 were prima facie inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's case doubtful due to the complainant's previous affidavit exonerating a co-accused. The Court laid down the principle that if an accused establishes a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail cannot be refused solely on the ground of being a fugitive from law, nor can it be denied merely due to the existence of other pending criminal cases where no conviction has been secured.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of penetration in an allegation of sexual assault preclude the application of Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can bail be refused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground that the accused was a fugitive from law?
  • Is an accused person entitled to be denied bail merely because other criminal cases are registered against them, in the absence of any prior conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Bibi vs Judge Family Court, Mailsi, etc.2013 C.L.R. 823 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-10Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Bibi vs Judge Family Court, Mails! and others2013 C.L.R. 823, 2013 C.L.R. 199, 2013 MLD 487 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-10
  dissolution of marriageKhulareturn of dowerHaq Mehrreconciliation stagefamily courtconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the order of the Judge Family Court directing her to return the dower in lieu of Khula during pre-trial reconciliation proceedings in a suit for dissolution of marriage. The core legal question was whether the return of dower is mandatory under the law when a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula is passed at the reconciliation stage under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The Lahore High Court held that under the proviso to section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the use of the word "shall" makes the return of dower to the husband mandatory, leaving no discretion with the court to refuse it when a decree on the basis of Khula is granted at the reconciliation stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the return of dower mandatory upon the dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula during pre-trial reconciliation proceedings under section 10(4) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does a Family Court have the discretion to refuse the return of dower when granting a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula at the reconciliation stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Bibi vs Judge Family Court Mailsi etc.2013 C.L.R. 199 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-10Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmad vs Public-at-Large and 4 others2013 PLJ Lahore 553 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-05Read full judgment →
• Shabhir Hussain vs The State2013 KLR Criminal Cases 318 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State and anothers2013 MLD 1303 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-07
  post-arrest bailgas theftfurther inquirydefective investigationprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner Shabbir Hussain facing allegations of gas theft and illegal gas connections under sections 462-C and 462-F of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to defective investigation and doubtful circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that the investigation was dishonest and incompetent, key prosecution witnesses did not corroborate the allegations against the petitioner, and material verification was withheld by the police, creating reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail and directed an inquiry into the conduct of the investigating officer. The key principle laid down is that where an investigation suffers from serious lapses, dishonest reporting, and lack of corroboration connecting the accused, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation is found to be incompetent and doubtful attracting further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a case of gas theft under sections 462-C and 462-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically bar the grant of bail when glaring discrepancies exist in the police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed vs The State and anothers2013 P Cr. L J 111 · Lahore High Court · 2012-11-28
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailprejudicing prosecution caseanti-terrorismtransfer of trialransom
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition is filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question involves whether bail granted by a trial court can be cancelled when the trial court's order contains definite findings prejudicing the prosecution's case and ignoring incriminating material. The Lahore High Court held that since the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by giving a definite opinion on the merits regarding the applicability of Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and thereby prejudiced the prosecution case, exceptional circumstances existed to interfere. The court established the principle that while the considerations for granting and cancelling bail differ, a bail order that evaluates the merits prematurely and prejudices the case warrants cancellation, and in such instances where the judge has disclosed their mind, the trial should be transferred to another court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial court has given definite findings prejudicing the prosecution case?
  • Can a trial court evaluating a bail petition give a conclusive opinion on the applicability of penal provisions such as Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the transfer of a case to another trial court warranted when the presiding judge has disclosed a fixed mind regarding the merits of the case during bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed vs Farzana Farid and 2 others2013 YLR 836 · Lahore High Court · 2010-03-24Read full judgment →
• Sh. Munir Ahmad and others vs The State and others2013 YLR 359 · Lahore High Court · 2012-04-04
  pre-arrest bailconfirm bailfurther inquiryindiscriminate firingcross-versionmala fideSection 497(2) CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arose out of FIR No. 144 registered under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Naseerabad, District Lahore. The complainant alleged that the accused party arrived in a bazaar, conducted indiscriminate firing, and inflicted injuries on the complainant and his nephew. Petitioners Nos. 6, 8, and 9 withdrew their petition as they were not required by police. Regarding petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 and 7, the core legal question was whether they were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the lack of specific roles assigned to them and the absence of recovered empty cartridges.

  The Lahore High Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail for petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 and 7, subject to bail bonds. The Court held that the case fell under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requiring further inquiry, as no specific active role was attributed to these petitioners and doubtful circumstances established grounds for anticipatory bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether absence of specific role attribution to individual accused in an FIR justifies confirmation of pre-arrest bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • Does the lack of physical evidence such as recovered empties create doubtful circumstances entitling an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an investigating officer determines that the active participation of the accused requires further probe?
  Read full judgment →