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.

• Fat Enterprises through Managing Partner, Lahore vs Government of Punjab and 3 others2012 PLD Lahore 25, 2012 CLD 83 · Lahore High Court · 2011-08-17Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali vs The State and others2012 MLD 882 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-02
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailidentification paradereappraisal of evidencecriminal appealvicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition filed under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of a sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, following his conviction under Sections 302, 460, 392, and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not nominated in the initial First Information Report and whose conviction relied on the statement of a co-accused and an identification parade, was entitled to the suspension of his sentence pending the hearing of his main appeal. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the suspension of his sentence, noting that he was not nominated in the FIR, no specific role was attributed to him in the commission of injuries, and the recovery of the weapon was inconsequential due to the lack of a positive forensic report. The Court established that where the main appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future and the petitioner's specific role requires deeper evidentiary reappraisal, suspension of sentence is appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR and the main appeal is unlikely to be heard soon?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon inconsequential for the purposes of bail or sentence suspension if there is no positive forensic report linking it to the crime?
  • Does the lack of a specific role assigned to an accused in the commission of injuries warrant the suspension of their sentence pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Shehzad vs The State2012 P Cr. L J 352 · Lahore High Court · 2011-10-12
  confessional statementguilty pleacriminal trial procedurenarcotic substancescharge framingacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the trial court convicted the appellant based on a confessional statement recorded after the appellant had already formally pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The core legal question is whether a trial court can accept a guilty plea and convict an accused after the accused has already denied the charge and the case has proceeded to the stage of trial. The Court held that once a formal charge is framed and denied, the provisions of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 become inoperative, and the court is mandated to proceed under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by recording prosecution evidence. The Court laid down the principle that a confessional statement made after the denial of a charge and the commencement of trial proceedings is of no legal effect, and that independent evidence must be gathered to support a conviction even if an accused attempts to plead guilty during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court accept a confessional statement and convict an accused after the accused has already pleaded not guilty and claimed trial?
  • Does the denial of a charge under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the provisions of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 inoperative?
  • Is independent evidence required to support a conviction even if an accused pleads guilty during the course of a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Riaz and 4 others vs Government of Punjab through Home2012 PLC (C.S.) 941 · Lahore High Court · 2011-09-28
  police recruitmentage relaxationcivil servantsspecial law vs general lawdisciplined forcedepartmental candidatesPolice Order 2002
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions filed by serving police personnel seeking relaxation of the upper age limit for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector through the Punjab Public Service Commission. The core legal question is whether departmental candidates, who are civil servants, can invoke the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 to override the specific age limits prescribed for direct recruitment under the Police Rules, 1934 and the Police Order, 2002. The Court held that the Police Order, 2002 and Police Rules, 1934 constitute special laws governing a disciplined force, whereas the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and its associated rules are of general application. Applying the legal maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, the Court determined that the special provisions of the police laws prevail over the general provisions of the civil service rules. Consequently, the Court ruled that departmental candidates are not entitled to the benefit of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 for direct recruitment to Assistant Sub-Inspector posts, thereby dismissing the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Can serving police personnel claim the benefit of the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976 for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector?
  • Do the Police Order, 2002 and Police Rules, 1934 prevail over the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 regarding the terms and conditions of service for subordinate police officers?
  • Does the legal maxim generalia specialibus non derogant apply to the conflict between the Police Rules, 1934 and the Punjab Civil Servants Recruitment (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Altaf and others vs Muhammad Afzal and others2012 YLR 1744 · Lahore High Court · 2012-03-30Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmed vs Government of Punjab and others2012 C.L.R. 415 · Lahore High Court · 2011-07-22Read full judgment →
• Farhan vs The State and anothers2012 YLR 2414 · Lahore High Court · 2012-06-29
  post-arrest bailcircumstantial evidencecause of deathischaemic heart diseasetest identification paradefurther inquiryrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 392, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Chinab Nagar, District Chiniot. The case primarily rested on circumstantial evidence, including a test identification parade, evidence of last seen, and recoveries made during physical remand. The medical reports and final opinion of the medical officer indicated that the cause of death was ischaemic heart disease, while noting that psychogenic stress due to robbery leading to myocardial infarction could not be ruled out. The court observed that the medical opinion left the cause of death hazy and uncertain, failing to establish definitively that the deceased met an unnatural death, and noted that a co-accused had already been admitted to bail. Holding that the cumulative circumstances called for further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Lahore High Court accepted the bail petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the medical evidence leaves the cause of death uncertain and subject to further probe?
  • Does uncertainty in the medical report regarding unnatural death attract the provisions of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How is circumstantial evidence including identification parades and recoveries treated at the bail stage when the primary cause of death is disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Fareed Bakhsh etc. vs State and anotherPLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Lahore) 684 · Lahore High Court · 2012-05-23
  criminal appealprivate complaintbenefit of doubtmedical evidencecause of deathacquittalstrangulationexhumation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a connected revision petition for sentence enhancement and a petition for leave to appeal against an acquittal. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of culpable homicide amounting to murder through reliable medical and ocular evidence despite a delayed first information report, an inconclusive post-mortem examination, and a failure to examine the investigating officer. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the medical board could not ascertain the cause of death and explicitly ruled out strangulation. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, dismissed the acquittal appeal, and disposed of the revision petition as infructuous. The key legal principle laid down is that where the medical evidence fails to establish the cause of death and key investigative links are unproven, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted of murder when the medical board fails to ascertain the cause of death and rules out strangulation?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to examine the investigating officer in a private criminal complaint?
  • Does an inordinate delay in reporting an offense, coupled with hasty burial and subsequent exhumation, weaken the prosecution's case?
  • How does the acquittal of the main appellants impact a pending revision petition for enhancement of sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher alias Bholli vs The State2011 P Cr. L J 1366 · Lahore High Court · 2011-03-08
  inherent powerssection 382-b cr.p.c.benefit of detention periodjuvenile offendercriminal miscellaneoussentencing modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court via a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, moved by the convict Falak Sher seeking the extension of the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court, possessing inherent powers under Section 561-A, can grant the benefit of Section 382-B when the trial court withheld it through a separate note appended after the main judgment due to the convict's absence, and when the appellate court's judgment remained silent on the point. The court held that the trial court's withholding of the benefit was arbitrary, stemming from annoyance over the accused's absence rather than sound judicial principles, and since the appellate court did not address it, the High Court can invoke its inherent powers to grant the relief. The key principle laid down is that withholding the benefit of Section 382-B must be grounded in sound judicial reasons within the main judgment rather than arbitrary post-judgment notes prompted by a convict's absence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court invoke its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant the benefit of Section 382-B after the disposal of an appeal?
  • Whether the withholding of the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a trial court through a separate note after signing the main judgment is legally valid?
  • Is a trial court justified in withholding the benefit of Section 382-B solely due to the convict's absence at the time of the pronouncement of judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Fakhar Abbas and others vs Punjab Public Service COMMISSIONand2012 PLD Lahore 213 · Lahore High Court · 2011-10-10Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs Ghulam Shabbir2012 YLR 2403 · Lahore High Court · 2012-05-23
  pre-emptionTalb-e-IshhadTalb-e-Muwathibatcivil revisionmisreading of evidencecross-examinationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which had decreed a suit for pre-emption in favor of the respondent-plaintiff. The core legal question was whether the respondent-plaintiff had successfully proven the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad in accordance with the law. The petitioner-defendant contended that the findings were based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, specifically noting that the respondent failed to prove the service of the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad and that the petitioner's testimony denying receipt of such notice remained unchallenged during cross-examination. The High Court held that the failure to cross-examine a material portion of the defendant's testimony creates a presumption of acceptance. Furthermore, the Court found that the respondent failed to produce essential witnesses, such as the writer of the notice or the postman, and failed to prove the service of the notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove the required Talbs, and dismissed the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to cross-examine a specific portion of a witness's testimony create a presumption of acceptance of that testimony?
  • Is a pre-emption suit maintainable if the plaintiff fails to prove the service of the notice of Talb-e-Ishhad?
  • Can a court set aside concurrent findings of fact if they are based on misreading or non-reading of material evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad vs Zahoor-Ul-Haq Siddiqui and another2012 MLD 922 · Lahore High Court · 2012-01-13Read full judgment →
• Faisalabad Development Authority through Director-General vs Messrs2012 CLD 1380 · Lahore High Court · 2011-11-02Read full judgment →
• Faisal Mehmood vs Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura and 72012 MLD 768 · Lahore High Court · 2012-01-19Read full judgment →
• Faisal Mehmood and others vs The State and others2012 P Cr. L J 1189 · Lahore High Court · 2012-03-14
  capital punishmentcommutation of sentenceocular evidencecriminal appealmurder referenceappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction and death sentences imposed by the trial court for the murder of two individuals, Abdul Hameed and Abdul Hafeez. The appellants challenged the prosecution's version, arguing that the incident arose from a scuffle where the deceased were the aggressors, and that the ocular evidence was unreliable. The court examined whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants through ocular testimony and medical evidence. The court held that the prosecution's witnesses were natural and credible, and their testimony was corroborated by medical findings, rejecting the defense's theory of a scuffle. The court affirmed the convictions of Faisal Mehmood and Nisar Ahmad, confirming their death sentences, but commuted the death sentence of Bilal Ali to life imprisonment, noting that his specific act—causing a non-fatal injury—did not warrant capital punishment. The principle laid down is that while ocular evidence is primary, the court must carefully sift the evidence to determine the specific role and culpability of each accused, adjusting sentences proportionately to the nature of the injuries inflicted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused's specific act did not cause the fatal injury?
  • Does the presence of tattooing around a gunshot wound necessarily disprove the prosecution's version of the occurrence?
  • Is the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased sufficient ground to discard their testimony?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive or the recovery of weapons invalidate the entire case if ocular evidence is reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Mehboob Khan vs Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Home2012 PLJ Lahore 538 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-21Read full judgment →
• Faisal Ejaz vs State and 3 others2012 PLJ Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 2011-03-09Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board and others vs Additional District Judge2012 YLR 2066 · Lahore High Court · 2011-10-26Read full judgment →
• Elahi Bakhsh, etc. vs Ahmad Bakhsh, etc.2012 C.L.R. 598 · Lahore High Court · 2012-01-09
  civil revisionlimitation periodcertified copiesinheritance mutationMohammadan Lawpleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a suit challenging a mutation of inheritance was partially decreed. The core legal questions involved the computation of the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 when certified copies are delayed without notice, and the correct interpretation of inheritance rules regarding nephews and nieces under Mohammadan Law. The Lahore High Court held that the period from the application for certified copies until their actual delivery must be excluded when no notice of preparation is given by the Copying Agency, making the first appellate court's dismissal on limitation grounds incorrect. However, on the merits regarding inheritance, the Court upheld the lower courts' findings that daughters of a predeceased brother are not entitled to inherit in the presence of other heirs as per Mohammadan Law, and defendants cannot set up a case contrary to their pleadings. The civil revision was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time consumed in the preparation and delivery of certified copies is to be excluded from the period of limitation under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 when no notice of preparation is given?
  • Are daughters of a predeceased brother entitled to inherit from the propositus under Mohammadan Law?
  • Can defendants raise objections or advance arguments contrary to their written statement pleadings during a civil revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Elahi Bakhsh and others vs Ahmad Bakhsh and others2012 C.L.R. 598, 2012 MLD 1308 · Lahore High Court · 2012-01-09
  civil revisioninheritance mutationlimitation periodcertified copiesIslamic Lawpleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenges concurrent findings of the lower courts arising from a suit for declaration regarding the inheritance mutation of an individual, Gumna, who died issueless. The core legal questions involved the computation of the period of limitation for filing an appeal when certified copies were delayed without notice, and the correct interpretation of inheritance shares under Islamic Law where pre-deceased brothers' descendants claim shares. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, when no notice of preparation of copies is given by the Copying Agency, the time up to actual delivery of copies must be excluded from limitation, rendering the first appeal timely. However, on the merits regarding inheritance, the court affirmed that the lower courts correctly interpreted the applicable rules of Islamic Law and held that defendants cannot raise pleas contrary to their own written statements. The civil revision was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period for obtaining certified copies should be excluded from limitation under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 when no notice of preparation of copies is given?
  • How does Islamic Law govern the distribution of inheritance among nephews and nieces when the brothers of the propositus predeceased him?
  • Can a defendant raise an argument in appeal or revision that is contrary to the pleadings taken in the written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad Tarar and 2 others vs The State and another2012 MLD 1507 · Lahore High Court · 2012-01-24
  pre-arrest bailcompromisedacoitycriminal liabilitybail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by three petitioners facing charges under Section 395 and Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Sukheki Mandi. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of their interim pre-arrest bail given a compromise reached between the parties. During the proceedings, the complainant appeared in person and stated that he would have no objection to the confirmation of bail if he were compensated for the loss of his tractor and trailer, valued at Rs. 400,000. The petitioners accepted this offer and paid the full amount to the complainant, who acknowledged receipt and expressed his intent not to pursue the case against the petitioners. Consequently, the Deputy Prosecutor-General also raised no objection to the confirmation of bail. The Court held that, in light of the compromise and the complainant's lack of objection, the interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The principle laid down is that where a complainant is compensated for their loss and expresses no objection, bail may be confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed if the complainant is compensated for their loss and has no objection?
  • Does a compromise between the complainant and the accused justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan vs State & anotherPLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Lahore) 691 · Lahore High Court · 2012-05-09
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidence contradictionocular accountfirearm injurycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, who is accused in FIR No. 489/2011 for offenses under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when there is a significant discrepancy between the ocular account in the FIR and the medical evidence. The petitioner was alleged to have caused a firearm injury to the deceased's right leg, yet the post-mortem report did not reflect this specific injury, identifying the wound as an exit wound instead. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to recover crime empties from the scene of the occurrence. The Court held that the contradiction between the ocular account and the medical report, combined with the lack of corroborative forensic evidence, rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that material contradictions between medical evidence and the prosecution's version of events constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry, thereby entitling an accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between the ocular account in an FIR and the medical post-mortem report 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 specific injury attributed to them in the FIR is not supported by the medical examination report?
  • Does the failure to recover crime empties from the scene of the occurrence affect the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• East Pakistan Chrome Tannery (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation Of PakistanandPTCL 2012 CL. 565 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Sitara Abdul Rehman vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2012 PLC (C.S.) 1203 · Lahore High Court · 2010-12-23
  contract employeetermination of servicedue processmisconductsecurity of tenurereinstatementPIDA Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's services by the Government of Punjab. The petitioner, a contract employee, was terminated without a charge sheet or show-cause notice, allegedly for misconduct and poor performance. The respondents argued that as a contract employee, the petitioner's services could be terminated upon payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. The core legal question was whether a government contract employee can be terminated for misconduct without due process, specifically by bypassing statutory inquiry procedures. The Lahore High Court held that even contract employees are entitled to be dealt with in accordance with the law. The Court ruled that the government cannot use contract employment as a device to dispense with statutory protections, such as those under the PIDA Act, to deprive servants of security of tenure. Consequently, the termination order was set aside, and the petitioner was reinstated, though without back-benefits, granting the respondents liberty to proceed against the petitioner through proper legal channels if they so desired.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government contract employee be terminated for misconduct without a formal inquiry?
  • Does the status of a contract employee allow the government to bypass statutory disciplinary procedures?
  • Is a contract employee entitled to due process protections similar to permanent government servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shazia Khawaja vs Chairman and Dean of Sheikh Zayed Post2012 PLC (C.S.) 1057 · Lahore High Court · 2011-12-20
  quo warrantowrit jurisdictionservice lawpromotionmala fidediscretionary relieflocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a writ of quo warranto to challenge the promotion of two Associate Professors at Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore. The petitioner alleged that the respondents' promotions were illegal, mala fide, and void, citing adverse remarks in their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), lack of eligibility, and the fact that one respondent was under suspension at the time of promotion. The respondents contended that the petition was filed at the behest of a hostile Head of Department who had a history of litigation with them and had attempted to sabotage their careers. The Court held that the petition was not filed pro bono publico but rather as a retaliatory measure by the Head of Department. Emphasizing that the issuance of a writ of quo warranto is discretionary and not a matter of course, the Court ruled that it could examine the petitioner's conduct and motives. Finding the petition vexatious and mala fide, the Court dismissed it with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can the court inquire into the conduct and motives of a petitioner seeking a writ of quo warranto?
  • Is the issuance of a writ of quo warranto a matter of right or a discretionary remedy?
  • Can a writ of quo warranto be refused if the petition is found to be vexatious or filed for personal vendetta?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Saima Malik vs Capital City Police Officer, Lahore and 2 others2012 P Cr. LJ 1433 · Lahore High Court · 2012-05-28
  habeas corpuscustody of minorHizanatvisitation rightsguardianship
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the mother seeking the custody of her minor child, alleging that respondent No. 3 breached an agreement to return the child after a visitation period. The core legal question is whether a petition under Section 491, Cr.P.C. is maintainable during the pendency of guardianship proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, and whether the mother is entitled to the custody ('Hizanat') of the minor. The Lahore High Court held that Section 491 proceedings remain maintainable despite pending guardianship proceedings, especially where the respondent approached the Guardian Court with unclean hands after retaining the child contrary to an agreement. The court established that the mother, being the real mother of a five-year-old child, possesses the right of Hizanat, and accordingly accepted the application to restore custody to her while preserving visitation rights.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 maintainable during the pendency of a petition before the Guardian Judge?
  • Does the mother have the right of Hizanat for a five-year-old minor under the circumstances of a breached custody agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Qamar Mahmood and 2 others vs Rukhsana Kausar and 5 others2012 CLD 981 · Lahore High Court · 2011-12-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Shahid, Medical Officer, Ruralhealth, Center, Teh. Kot2012 PLJ Lahore 160 · Lahore High Court · 2011-07-18Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Shahid vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2012 PLJ Lahore 160, 2012 PLC (C.S.) 323 · Lahore High Court · 2011-07-18
  civil servanttransfer and postingconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalterms and conditions of serviceouster of jurisdictionmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a Medical Officer challenging his transfer order dated 11-7-2011, alleging it was unlawful, against government policy, and motivated by the influence of a corrupt subordinate. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate a challenge to a transfer order of a civil servant, given the constitutional bar regarding terms and conditions of service. The Court held that transfer and posting matters squarely fall within the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. Consequently, the Court ruled that Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters, vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Service Tribunal. The principle laid down is that the High Court cannot entertain a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a civil servant, even if the order is alleged to be mala fide, as the appropriate remedy lies before the Service Tribunal after exhausting departmental avenues.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere with the transfer order of a civil servant?
  • Does the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution apply to transfer orders even when mala fide is alleged?
  • Is a transfer order of a civil servant considered a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Muhammad Naeem Atta vs Additional District Judge, Gojra and 32012 PLJ Lahore 79 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Naee Sheikh vs Dr. Muhammad Sali Sheikh2012 C.L.R. 1466 · Lahore High Court · 2012-06-08Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Bashir- vs Additional District Judge, Vehari and 52012 CLC 347 · Lahore High Court · 2011-02-02Read full judgment →
• Dr. Majid Naeem vs National Accountability BEREAUthrough Chairman2012 PLD Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 2011-11-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Lal Hussain Akhtar and others vs ChIEF Secretary Punjab and others2012 PLJ Lahore 347, 2012 PLC (C.S.) 286 · Lahore High Court · 2011-11-30
  regularization of contract employeesconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunal barterms and conditions of servicelegitimate expectationinitial recruitment quotafeeding cadre
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves writ petitions and criminal original petitions filed by regular civil servants challenging the regularization of contract employees in the Agriculture Department of Punjab. The core legal questions relate to whether the regularization of contract employees recruited under initial recruitment quotas violates the terms and conditions of service or legitimate expectations of regular employees belonging to the feeding cadre, and whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that regular employees and contract employees belong to distinct categories, meaning the regularization policy does not violate the principle of equality under Article 25. The Court ruled that the formulation of recruitment and regularization policies is the prerogative of the government, that no vested or legal rights of the petitioners were infringed, and that service matters involving terms and conditions are barred from the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the regularization of contract employees appointed under the initial recruitment quota infringes upon the vested rights or legitimate expectations of regular employees in the feeding cadre?
  • Does the regularization of contract employees in higher grades constitute discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are service-related grievances concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants barred from the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Javaid Shahbaz Rab vs The State through Chairman National2011 P Cr. L J 376 · Lahore High Court · 2010-09-28
  plea-bargainnational accountabilitydisqualificationfinancial facilitiesdeemed convictionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under section 32 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, challenging an Accountability Court's order that imposed a ten-year embargo on the appellant obtaining financial facilities from government-owned banks or financial institutions following the acceptance of his plea-bargain. The core legal question was whether the disqualification specified in section 15(b) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, applies to a person who enters into a plea-bargain under section 25(b) and is thereby deemed to have been convicted, or whether it is restricted only to persons actually convicted after a trial under section 9. The Lahore High Court held that the legislature intentionally distinguished between a 'person convicted' after trial and a 'person deemed to have been convicted' through plea-bargain; consequently, the additional disqualification under section 15(b) regarding government-backed financial facilities does not apply to persons availing plea-bargain under section 25(b). The court set aside the impugned order to the extent of the financial embargo.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the disqualification under section 15(b) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 applies to an accused person who has availed the benefit of plea-bargain under section 25(b)?
  • Is there a legal distinction between a person actually convicted after trial and a person deemed to have been convicted under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can an Accountability Court lawfully impose an embargo on obtaining financial facilities from government-controlled financial institutions upon an accused whose plea-bargain has been approved?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hassan Amir Shah vs Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary2012 PLC (C.S.) 290 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-24
  writ petitionVice-Chancellor appointmentSearch Committeeevaluation criteriareasonable classificationdiscriminationlocus standishortlistinghigher education
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of five connected writ petitions challenging the selection process for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in six public sector universities in Punjab. The petitioners, who were excluded from the shortlist of 89 candidates out of 224 applicants, challenged the legal basis of the Search Committee, the evaluation criteria, the allocation of additional marks for foreign PhDs, and the allocation of 40 marks for interviews. The High Court examined the relevant university statutes and the guidelines issued by the Higher Education Commission. The Court held that the Search Committee, comprising eminent educationists, was validly constituted by the Governor/Chancellor to eliminate arbitrariness. It ruled that awarding additional marks for PhDs from top-ranking foreign universities constitutes a reasonable classification based on academic standards and does not amount to discrimination. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the interview marks as they failed to qualify for the interview stage. Finding no illegality or lack of transparency, the Court dismissed the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the constitution of a Search Committee by the Governor/Chancellor for selecting university Vice-Chancellors is legally valid in the absence of specific statutory rules?
  • Does the allocation of additional marks to candidates holding PhD degrees from top-ranking foreign universities constitute unlawful discrimination against local degree holders?
  • Can a candidate who has not been shortlisted for an interview challenge the allocation of marks designated for the interview stage of a selection process?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farooq Raza vs Province of Punjab, etc.2012 C.L.R. 1633 · Lahore High Court · 2012-05-14Read full judgment →
• DR, Mulazim Hussain Sumro, Medical Superintendent Tehsil2012 PLJ Lahore 85 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-08Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad And Other vs Meraj Din And OtherK.L.R. 2012 Civil Cases 119 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-28Read full judgment →
• Director Small Industries vs Mushtaq Hussain2012 C.L.R. 4 · Lahore High Court · 2011-11-14Read full judgment →
• Dilber Khan and others vs The State and others2011 P Cr. L J 1555 · Lahore High Court · 2011-03-22
  Qatl-e-amdmitigating circumstancefailure to prove motiveocular evidencedeath penalty reductioncompensationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the charge of Qatl-e-amd beyond reasonable doubt, whether the failure to prove the alleged motive warrants a reduction in sentence, and whether the trial court erred in imposing a fine alongside the death penalty. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular testimony, despite minor discrepancies in the FIR and the absence of forensic evidence regarding the weapon, as no empty casings were recovered. However, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the motive set forth in the FIR. The key principles laid down are that while the absence or failure to prove a motive does not necessarily invalidate a prosecution case, a failed motive constitutes a significant mitigating circumstance for sentencing, and that a fine is not a prescribed sentence under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, necessitating a conversion to compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive set forth in the FIR constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Can a trial court impose a fine as a sentence under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the absence of forensic reports regarding a weapon fatal to the prosecution's case when no empty casings were recovered from the crime scene?
  • Does the failure to prove a motive cast doubt on the overall prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilbar Ali vs Water and Power Development Authority, Islamabad through its Secretary and 2 others2012 C.L.R. 699 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-16Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain vs The State and another2011 P Cr. L J 420 · Lahore High Court · 2010-07-27
  post-arrest bailSection 436 PPCdefinition of buildingjhuggiprohibitory clausefurther inquirycommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose out of an FIR registered against the petitioner under Sections 436 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the complainant saw the petitioner and co-accused fleeing after his thatched hut (jhuggi) was set ablaze. The primary legal questions before the High Court were whether a temporary jhuggi constitutes a 'building' within the ambit of Section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the alleged offence fell under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that a makeshift jhuggi is not a permanent structure and thus does not constitute a 'building' under Section 436. Furthermore, as no witness saw the petitioner actually ignite the fire, his common intention and vicarious liability remained a matter for further inquiry. Consequently, Section 436 was held inapplicable, removing the matter from the prohibitory clause and entitling the petitioner to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a temporary makeshift hut or jhuggi constitute a building within the scope of Section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does setting fire to a jhuggi attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail where no direct witness saw them set the fire and their vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires further inquiry at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority, Lahore through Secretary vs Muhammad2012 YLR 1671 · Lahore High Court · 2012-03-08Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority, Lahore through Secretary vs Muhammad2012 YLR 2940 · Lahore High Court · 2012-04-10Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority, Lahore through Secretary vs Lt.-Col.(R) Riaz2012 YLR 1682 · Lahore High Court · 2012-03-19Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority, Lahore Cantt. through Secretary vs Asif2012 MLD 1802 · Lahore High Court · 2012-04-10Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority vs Deputy Commissioned Income Tax, Etc.2011 P.C.T.L.R. 22 · Lahore High Court · 2010-07-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax/Wealth Tax (Legal), Regional Tax Office,PTCL 2012 CL. 84 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-I, Lahore vs Ayesha2012 PTD 1611 · Lahore High Court · 2011-12-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax Wealth Tax, Legal Division, Multan. vs Musarrat Mumtaz Lady Dr., C_O D.H.Q. Hospital, D.G. KhanPTCL 2012 CL. 152 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Division, Bahawalpur vs ZulfiqarPLJ 2012 Tax Cases (Lah.) 38, 2012 PTD 964 · Lahore High Court · 2012-03-01
  Income TaxReference PetitionAmended AssessmentDocumentary EvidenceSufficient CauseQuestion of LawAdvisory JurisdictionNatural Justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference petition under Section 133(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was filed by the Revenue challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue. The core dispute involved whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in admitting a reconciliation statement under Section 128(5) of the Ordinance without establishing 'sufficient cause' for its non-production before the Taxation Officer. The Revenue had amended the respondent’s assessment after finding an investment in property that exceeded declared income, allegedly without providing the mandatory three opportunities of 15 days each as per CBR Circular No. 7(2) of 1994. The Court observed that the respondent was only given five days for compliance, violating procedural requirements. Regarding Section 128(5), the Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had recorded his satisfaction to exercise such powers, and the Revenue failed to challenge that satisfaction timely. The Court further clarified that its advisory jurisdiction under Section 133(4) is reserved for substantial and debatable 'questions of law' rather than mere 'points of law' or factual controversies. Consequently, the Court declined to answer the question, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Division Zone, Rahim Yar Khan, Bahawalpur vs Zulfiqar Ali, Prop. M_S. Ali Electronic Spare Parts Rahim Yar KhanPLJ 2012 Tax Cases (Lah.) 38 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Messrs Cresent Textile Mills and others2012 PTD 1092 · Lahore High Court · 2011-12-07Read full judgment →
• Cholistan Development Authority vs Jamal Khan and others2012 MLD 859 · Lahore High Court · 2011-07-11Read full judgment →
• Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, Multan vs Muhammad Bilal and 72012 PLJ Lahore 149, 2012 PLC (C.S.) 112 · Lahore High Court · 2011-07-06
  consent orderacting charge basishigher post salarydepartmental promotion examinationmaintainability of appealcivil servants promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal was filed by the Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue to challenge an order passed by a Single Judge in Chamber in a writ petition, whereby respondents' claim for promotion as Inspectors in BPS-14 and payment of corresponding salary on acting charge basis was disposed of in terms of a consent order. The core legal question was whether an appeal is maintainable against a consent order and whether civil servants appointed on acting charge basis are entitled to the salary of the higher post and consideration for promotion. The Lahore High Court held that no appeal lies against a consent order or compromise decree under Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that civil servants performing duties on acting charge basis are entitled to the pay of the higher post. The key principle laid down is that parties cannot assail a lawful consent order or compromise decree through an appeal, and acting charge appointees fulfilling required criteria are entitled to higher pay scales.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal lies against a consent order or compromise decree passed by a court?
  • Is a civil servant appointed on an acting charge basis to a higher post entitled to the salary of that higher post?
  • Whether executive authorities are bound to follow judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue Regional Tax Office, Multan vs Muhammad Bilal and 7 others2012 PLJ Lahore 149 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chaudhry Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Government, Of Pakistan And Other2012 PTD 798, PTCL 2012 CL. 598 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-27Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Government of Punjab and others2012 PTD 798 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-27
  Federal Excise ActFinance ActMoney Billsubordinate legislationSpecial Excise DutyConstitutional lawvires of notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses a batch of intra-court appeals challenging the vires of S.R.O. No.655(I)/2007 and General Order No.3 of 2007, issued under section 3A of the Federal Excise Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the respondents could issue subordinate legislation on 29-6-2007 under a power conferred by the Finance Act, 2007, which received presidential assent on 30-6-2007 and took effect on 1-7-2007. The court held that a passed Money Bill under Article 73 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is valid legislation that can be analogized with a passed Act for the purposes of section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, making the notification validly framed. Furthermore, the levy was supported by enabling legislation upon its enforcement on 1-7-2007 in compliance with Article 77 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and the term 'additional' or 'special' excise duty does not alter the character of the excise duty. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether subordinate legislation can be issued after the passing of a Bill by the National Assembly but before receiving presidential assent?
  • Can a passed Money Bill be analogized with a passed Act for the purposes of section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Does the designation of an excise duty as 'additional' or 'special' alter the substantive character of the levy under the Federal Excise Act, 2005?
  • Whether the levy of Special Excise Duty under section 3A of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 complies with Article 77 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Muhammad Anwar vs Habib Bank Ltd. through Manager2012 CLD 1183 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-01Read full judgment →
• Dawood Hercules Chemicals and others: In the matter of vs Not2012 CLD 582 · Lahore High Court · 2011-01-27
  scheme of arrangementcorporate demergersanction of schemeshareholder approvalCompanies Ordinance 1984wholly owned subsidiarytransfer of assets
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, concerns a proposed Scheme of Arrangement involving the demerger of Dawood Hercules Chemicals Limited (Petitioner No. 1) into two entities, with its fertilizer business transferred to its wholly-owned subsidiary, DH Fertilizers Limited (Petitioner No. 2). The core legal question was whether the court should sanction the Scheme despite an objection from a third party claiming ownership of shares in Petitioner No. 1, and whether the procedural requirements for such a corporate restructuring had been satisfied. The Court held that the Scheme met all statutory requirements, noting that it had been approved by an overwhelming majority of shareholders and that all secured creditors had consented. The Court rejected the third-party objection, finding it irrelevant to the demerger as it concerned a separate family dispute over share ownership, which did not affect the corporate assets or the rights of existing shareholders. The Court sanctioned the Scheme under Section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and issued consequential orders for the transfer of assets and change of company name.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court sanction a scheme of arrangement if a third party raises a dispute regarding share ownership that is pending in another court?
  • What are the requirements for a company to demerge its business into a wholly owned subsidiary under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Does a scheme of arrangement require the consent of secured creditors to be sanctioned by the court?
  • Is a third party who is not a member of a company entitled to object to a scheme of arrangement involving the company's internal restructuring?
  Read full judgment →
• Chakwal Spinning Mills, Ltd. vs Securities Exchange Commission of Pakistan2012 PLJ Lahore 740 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-20Read full judgment →
• Chairman Indus Motors Co vs Muhammad Arshad and others2012 PLD Lahore 264 · Lahore High Court · 2010-10-25Read full judgment →
• Ch. Zafar Hussain and 5 others vs Border Area Committee through Chairman and 6 others2012 MLD 1538 · Lahore High Court · 2012-05-29
  Border Area CommitteeNo Objection Certificateallotment cancellationsubsequent purchaserfundamental rightsconstitutional petitionproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged the order of the Border Area Committee cancelling the allotment and subsequent transfers of land originally allotted to an army personnel in 1962. The core legal question was whether a fresh No Objection Certificate (NOC) is required from the Border Area Committee or General Headquarters for subsequent transactions of land once a valid NOC has already been obtained by the original allottee. The Court held that once an original allottee obtains an NOC and transfers the property, the terms and conditions under the West Pakistan Border Area Regulations, 1959, come to an end regarding that land, and subsequent purchasers are not required to obtain a fresh NOC for further transactions. The Court ruled that subsequent purchasers hold the property as free citizens protected by the fundamental rights of property ownership under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution. Consequently, the cancellation order by the Border Area Committee was declared without lawful authority and set aside, allowing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a fresh No Objection Certificate is required by a subsequent purchaser for further transactions of land once a No Objection Certificate was obtained by the original allottee?
  • Does the Border Area Committee have the power under the West Pakistan Border Area Regulations, 1959 to cancel an allotment from the name of a subsequent transferee after a valid initial transfer?
  • Are subsequent purchasers of land originally allotted under the West Pakistan Border Area Regulations, 1959 bound to observe the conditions applicable to the original allottee?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Suneel Shamshad Ahmed vs Directorgeneral, NAB Punjab, Lahore2012 PLJ Lahore 642, 2012 PLD Lahore 404 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Suneel Shamshad Ahmad vs Director General NAB, Lahore, Punjab2012 PLJ Lahore 642 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Sikandar Ali vs Chief Security Officer and others2012 PLC (C.S.) 563 · Lahore High Court · 2011-09-12
  compulsory retirementPakistan Army Act Rulesstigmamajor punishmentdue processcivil servantpensionary benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition challenging the compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the post of Security Officer, ABF, vide order dated 10-12-2001 issued under Rule 12(1)(a) of the Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954. The core legal question was whether the retirement order improperly imposed a major punishment of compulsory retirement carrying a stigma without due process, and whether Rule 12 contemplates compulsory retirement as a punitive measure. The Lahore High Court held that neither Rule 12(1) of the Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954 nor Section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 contemplate compulsory retirement as a mode of punishment, and that the use of the word 'compulsory' in the impugned order carried an adverse connotation amounting to an illegal major punishment inflicted without due process or inquiry. The court partly allowed the petition by directing the respondents to modify the retirement order by deleting the word 'compulsory', while preserving the effective retirement date and reserving the petitioner's right to claim compensation for distress.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 12(1) of the Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954 contemplate compulsory retirement as a mode of punishment?
  • Whether the use of the word 'compulsory' in a retirement order carries an adverse connotation amounting to a major punishment?
  • Can an officer be subjected to a major punishment of compulsory retirement without an inquiry and due process under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  Read full judgment →
• CH. Sher Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs DR.2012 PLJ Lahore 42 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Nizam Din vs WAPDA through Chairman and others2012 MLD 1270 · Lahore High Court · 2012-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Nazir Ahmed vs Ali Ahmed and another2012 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 2011-09-13Read full judgment →
• CH. Muhammad Yaqoob vs Kaneez Fatima (deceased) through L.Rs, and another2012 PLJ Lahore 599 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Nazir Cheema vs Mujahid Sher Dil, DCO_Chairman, District Task Force, Sialkot and 3 others2012 CLC 764 · Lahore High Court · 2011-11-28
  constitutional petitiondispossession from propertyprivate land disputeultra vires notificationsBoard of RevenueDistrict Coordination Officerrule of lawfundamental rightsright to propertyfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the District Coordination Officer (DCO)/Chairman District Task Force, Sialkot, which dispossessed the petitioner from private land, a cinema, and handed its possession to a private respondent. The DCO's action was based on notifications issued by the Board of Revenue, Punjab, aimed at addressing "Qabza Groups" and illegal land grabbers. The core legal questions were whether the Board of Revenue had the authority to issue such notifications concerning private land and private parties, and if the DCO could dispossess a person from private property through an executive order under these notifications. The Lahore High Court held that the Board of Revenue lacked legal authority to issue notifications dealing with private land disputes between private parties. Consequently, the DCO's order, being based on ultra vires notifications, was declared without lawful authority and set aside. The Court emphasized that executive actions, however well-intentioned, must be backed by law, and dispossession from private property must strictly follow established legal frameworks like the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, in adherence to constitutional rights under Articles 4, 10A, and 23. The DCO was directed to restore possession to the petitioner and was burdened with compensatory costs.

  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Aslam vs C.P.O. Rawalpindi and others2011 P Cr. L J 1870 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-15
  second FIRaggrieved personlocus standiconstitutional petitionassassinationcriminal investigationalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses a set of writ petitions seeking various reliefs, principally the registration of a second First Information Report (F.I.R.) regarding the assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Shaheed, the transfer of investigation, and prohibition of respondents from leaving the country. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of a constitutional petition by the petitioner, whether a second F.I.R. can be ordered after the commencement of a trial on a prompt earlier F.I.R., and whether the petitioner qualifies as an 'aggrieved person'. The Court held that a second F.I.R. carrying only an amplification or supplementation of an earlier version rather than a distinct and separate version cannot be ordered, especially after an inordinate delay, and when a trial has already commenced with charges framed and prosecution witnesses examined. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner, having no direct legal nexus or personal injury distinct from the general public or the surviving legal heirs who expressed satisfaction with the proceedings, lacks locus standi and is not an 'aggrieved person' under Article 199 of the Constitution. Consequently, all connected petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second F.I.R. can be ordered to be registered when a prompt F.I.R. has already been lodged and the trial has commenced?
  • Does a political worker or protocol officer qualify as an 'aggrieved person' under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge investigation or seek a second F.I.R. regarding the assassination of a political leader survived by immediate family members?
  • Whether a person having information of a cognizable offence under Section 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically becomes a complainant or an aggrieved person?
  • Does the availability of an alternative remedy such as a private complaint bar the registration of a second F.I.R. through constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• CH. Iftikhar Ahmad vs Chief Secretary Punjab, etc.2012 PLJ Lahore 482 · Lahore High Court · 2012-04-26Read full judgment →
• Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad vs Chief Secretary Punjab and others2012 PLJ Lahore 482, 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1470 · Lahore High Court · 2012-04-26
  regularization of servicead hoc employeejudicial reviewWednesbury unreasonablenessadministrative discretiondiscriminationmisfeasance in public officeintra court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the regularization of his deceased wife’s service as an Ad hoc Lecturer. Despite previous directions from the Punjab Services Tribunal to assess her suitability, the department failed to comply, causing significant delay and frustration until her death. The respondents later regularized her service only from a recent date, citing that rules could not be relaxed for a deceased person. The Lahore High Court, applying the principles of judicial review regarding administrative discretion—specifically illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety—found the respondents' actions discriminatory and malicious. The Court held that the department’s failure to regularize the deceased’s service, while doing so for similarly situated colleagues, violated the constitutional guarantees of equality and fair treatment. Emphasizing that no citizen should suffer due to the negligence or malfeasance of public functionaries, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondents to regularize the deceased's service effective from her initial date of joining.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative authority refuse to regularize a deceased civil servant's service if similarly situated colleagues were regularized?
  • Does the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness apply to the exercise of administrative discretion by public functionaries in Pakistan?
  • Can a civil servant be penalized for the negligence or delay caused by the department in processing their regularization?
  • Are administrative decisions subject to judicial review on the grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety?
  Read full judgment →
• CH. Farooq Alam vs StatePLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Lahore) 894 · Lahore High Court · 2012-08-02
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecriminal liabilitybail criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Ch. Farooq Alam, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing a dishonoured cheque amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail given the nature of the offence and his incarceration period, despite allegations of his involvement in other similar cases. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had not been convicted in any of the other cases cited by the prosecution. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception, provided there is no prior conviction record to disentitle the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail a rule when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the mere involvement in other similar cases, without conviction, disentitle an accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• CH. Farooq Alam vs State and anotherPLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Lahore) 889 · Lahore High Court · 2012-08-13
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequefurther inquiryprohibitory clauseabscondancecriminal breach of trustbusiness transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail concerns an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged dishonouring of a cheque. The petitioner contended that the cheque was issued as a guarantee in a business transaction, that the F.I.R. was delayed, and that the matter was essentially civil in nature, pending before a civil court. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's status as a habitual offender, his prior abscondance, and the magnitude of the financial loss. The Court held that the absence of details regarding the underlying transaction in the F.I.R. and the lack of documentary evidence rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, as the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, the Court granted bail, establishing that an accused entitled to bail on merits cannot be denied relief solely due to prior abscondance. The Court emphasized that in non-prohibitory offences, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of details regarding the underlying transaction in an F.I.R. for a dishonoured cheque make a case one of further inquiry?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused solely on the ground of abscondance if the case otherwise merits bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Basharat Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Labour2012 PLC 219 · Lahore High Court · 2012-03-13
  Eighteenth AmendmentConcurrent Legislative Listlegislative competenceIndustrial Relations Ordinance 2011industry-wide trade unionsILO Conventionstrans-provincial disputesconstitutional validity
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment decides five consolidated writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2011 (IRO 2011). The petitioners contended that following the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan, the Concurrent Legislative List was abolished, making labour a provincial subject. Consequently, they argued the Federation lacked legislative competence to promulgate IRO 2011. The respondents argued that the Federation retained authority under the Federal Legislative List to implement international treaties and regulate industry-wide trade unions spanning multiple provinces. The Court held that while labour generally devolved to provinces, the Federation remains empowered under Items 3 and 59 of the Federal Legislative List to legislate on matters necessary to implement international conventions (ILO Nos. 87 and 98) and to regulate trans-provincial industrial disputes which individual provinces cannot govern. The Court declared IRO 2011 intra vires the Constitution, establishing that the Federation's power to honor international commitments and manage inter-provincial industrial relations remains intact despite the abolition of the Concurrent List.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federation has the power to legislate on labour issues after the abolition of the Concurrent Legislative List via the Eighteenth Amendment?
  • Does the implementation of international treaties and ILO conventions under the Federal Legislative List empower the Federation to enact labour laws?
  • Can a province legislate for industry-wide trade unions that operate across multiple provincial boundaries?
  • Is the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2011 constitutionally valid in light of the devolution of power to the provinces?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Amjad Hussain and 17 others vs Public Prosecution Department2012 PLC (C.S.) 632 · Lahore High Court · 2011-07-25
  ad hoc appointmentpublic prosecution servicetemporary employmentpromotion quotapublic poststransparency in appointments
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal arises from a judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by ad hoc or temporary Deputy Prosecutors General and Additional Prosecutors General seeking retention of their services pending regular appointments. The core legal question is whether temporary or ad hoc appointees lacking statutory qualifications and PPSC selection can claim a right to retain public posts on grounds of administrative convenience and practicality until regular promotees are appointed. The Lahore High Court held that public posts must be filled transparently and strictly in accordance with law, and considerations of convenience cannot override statutory qualification requirements. Furthermore, the court held that temporary appointments cannot exceed the maximum period of one year as affirmed by the Supreme Court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ad hoc or temporary appointees can claim a legal right to retain public posts on grounds of practicality and convenience until regular promotees are appointed?
  • Can considerations of administrative convenience override statutory requirements for filling public posts through promotion or initial recruitment?
  • What is the maximum permissible duration for a temporary or contract appointment in public service as interpreted by the superior courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ahsan Ahmad, Judge, Accountability Court No. 1, Lahore And 2 Other vs Government Of Pakistan, Law & Justice Division, Islamabad Through Its Secretary And AnotherK.L.R. 2012 Civil Cases 213 · Lahore High Court
  Accountability CourtNational Judicial Policydeputationcontract servicepremature terminationdistrict judiciary
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving as District and Sessions Judges, were appointed as Judges of Accountability Courts under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, on deputation and later on contract after reaching the age of superannuation. Their contracts were prematurely terminated by the Federal Government pursuant to a decision of the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee and a directive concerning retired judges holding ex-cadre posts. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' contracts of service could be lawfully terminated under the National Judicial Policy. The Lahore High Court held that the National Judicial Policy only restricts retired judges of the superior judiciary from holding certain posts and does not apply to retired members of the district judiciary serving as Accountability Court judges. The court ruled that the premature termination of the petitioners' contracts was illegal and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that policies formulated by the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee cannot override statutory provisions or terms of contract validly entered into under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, and cannot be misapplied to district judiciary members who do not fall within the category of retired superior court judges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Judicial Policy applies to retired judges of the district judiciary serving as Accountability Court judges?
  • Can the contract of service of an Accountability Court judge appointed under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 be terminated prematurely based on the National Judicial Policy?
  • Whether members of the district judiciary appointed as Accountability Court judges are considered retired judges of the superior judiciary?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ahsan Ahmad, Judge Accountability Court No.1, Lahore and 2K.L.R. 2012 Civil Cases 213, 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1344 · Lahore High Court · 2012-05-30
  Accountability CourtNational Judicial Policycontractual appointmentpremature terminationDistrict and Sessions Judgejudicial independencedeputation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the premature termination of the petitioners' contracts as Judges of Accountability Courts. The core legal question was whether the National Judicial Policy, which mandates the removal of retired judges from certain posts, applied to the petitioners, who were retired District and Sessions Judges. The court held that the termination was illegal and without lawful authority. The ratio decidendi is that the National Judicial Policy specifically targets retired judges of the Superior Judiciary and does not extend to retired members of the District Judiciary. Consequently, the executive's reliance on the policy to terminate the petitioners' contracts was based on a misinterpretation of the policy's scope. The court affirmed that the National Judicial Policy is not a statute and cannot override the specific terms of a contract or statutory appointments. As the petitioners were not the class of persons targeted by the policy, their premature removal was unsustainable, and they were entitled to complete their tenure as per their respective contracts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Judicial Policy apply to retired judges of the District Judiciary?
  • Can the government terminate a contract of service for an Accountability Court Judge based on a policy that does not apply to their specific class?
  • Is the National Judicial Policy a statute capable of overriding existing contracts of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Capital Steel Rerolling Mills through Partner vs Managing Director, SNGPL, Lahore and another2012 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High Court · 2011-10-17Read full judgment →
• Bushra Asghar vs Dr. Rehmat Ali and 3 others2012 MLD 1755 · Lahore High Court · 2012-03-22
  guardianship and custodywelfare of the minornatural guardianfather and mothervisitation rightsinterview of minors
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from guardianship and custody proceedings between the mother and father of two minor boys. The mother filed an application under section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking guardianship and custody, which was dismissed by the Family Court and the appellate court, though visitation rights were granted to the mother. During the hearing in the High Court, the minors were interviewed in privacy and expressed their desire to live with their mother and each other, noting that their father had little time for them. The Lahore High Court held that while a father is the natural guardian of the minors and cannot be removed without being found unfit under section 19 of the Act, guardianship and custody are distinct concepts and can rest with different persons. Emphasizing the welfare of the minors, the intelligence and preference of the mature minors, and the right of the brothers to live together, the Court set aside the lower courts' orders, retained the father as the legal guardian, but awarded the actual custody of the minors to the mother with visitation rights for the father.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the guardianship and the right to custody may rest with one person or may be entrusted to two persons?
  • Can a court appoint a guardian for a minor whose living father is not proven unfit?
  • Whether an application for guardianship can be treated as an application for custody as well?
  • What is the significance of a minor's preference in determining child custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Bsco, Islamabad through Chief Executive and 2 others vs Advisory2012 YLR 1650 · Lahore High Court · 2009-06-03Read full judgment →
• Brothers Sugar Mills Limited vs Punjab Co-operative Board for Liquidation, etc2012 C.L.R. 1234 · Lahore High Court · 2009-10-14Read full judgment →
• Brothers Sugar Mills Limited and others vs Punjab Cooperative Board2012 CLC 1369 · Lahore High Court · 2009-10-14
  writ jurisdictionpersona designatacooperative judgeconstitutional petitionmaintainabilityspecial law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of constitutional petitions filed against orders passed by a Cooperative Judge under the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993. The core legal question was whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is competent against an order passed by a Cooperative Judge acting as a persona designata. The court examined conflicting precedents regarding the availability of constitutional jurisdiction in such matters. The Court held that a Cooperative Judge, while exercising powers under the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993, acts as a persona designata. Consequently, the Court affirmed that such an entity falls within the definition of 'person' under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is available against orders passed by a persona designata, even when the order is rendered by a Judge of the High Court acting in that specific capacity under special legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 maintainable against an order passed by a Cooperative Judge?
  • Does a Judge of the High Court acting under the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 function as a persona designata?
  • Does a persona designata fall within the definition of 'person' for the purpose of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Brother Sugar Mills Ltd vs Government Of Pakistanand 8 OtherPTCL 2012 CL. 269 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Binyamin Khalil vs National Accountability Bureau and others2012 YLR 2885 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-13
  wilful defaultquashment of proceedingsstatutory noticeNational Accountability BureauState Bank of Pakistanaccountability referencefinancial facility
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions seeking the quashment of proceedings pending before an Accountability Court pursuant to an Accountability Reference filed under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, regarding alleged wilful default of a financial facility. The core legal question was whether the mandatory statutory notice requirements under the Ordinance, specifically regarding notices by the financial institution and the Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, were fulfilled prior to initiating the reference. The court held that the mandatory requirement of issuing a thirty-day notice by the financial institution followed by a seven-day notice by the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan, was not met in the correct sequence and manner, rendering the proceedings void ab initio. The key principle laid down is that failure to comply with mandatory pre-requisites such as statutory notice provisions under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 vitiates the entire inquiry, investigation, and reference proceedings, making them liable to be quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to issue mandatory statutory notices under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 renders accountability proceedings void?
  • Does the initiation of an accountability reference without a proper reference from the Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan make the proceedings illegal?
  • Can proceedings pending before an Accountability Court be quashed for non-compliance with pre-trial notice requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal vs The State and another2012 PLD Lahore 311 · Lahore High Court · 2011-12-01
  statutory bailsuspension of sentenceenhancement of sentenceshow cause noticecriminal revisionpendency of appealCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application concerns a request for the suspension of sentence by a convict, Bilal, who was sentenced to life imprisonment by an Additional Sessions Judge in 2006. The applicant sought bail on statutory grounds under section 426(1A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that his appeal had been pending for several years without resolution. The core legal question was whether the mere pendency of a criminal revision petition for enhancement of sentence, ordered to be heard alongside the appeal, constituted a formal notice to the accused under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby barring the suspension of his sentence. The Court held that an order directing a revision petition to be heard with an appeal does not amount to a formal show-cause notice for sentence enhancement. The Court established that a mandatory show-cause notice must be issued to the convict regarding potential enhancement before such pendency can bar bail. Finding no evidence of delay caused by the applicant or that he was a dangerous criminal, the Court suspended the sentence and granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order directing a criminal revision petition to be heard along with a criminal appeal constitute a formal notice to the accused for enhancement of sentence?
  • Is the mere pendency of a revision petition for enhancement of sentence sufficient to deny the suspension of a convict's sentence?
  • What is the requirement for a court to issue a show-cause notice to a convict before enhancing their sentence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Before Sagheer AhmadABDUL Wahab and 3 others vs Additional Sessions2012 PLJ Lahore 326, 2012 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 2012-01-23
  Illegal Dispossession Actfunctus officiocompromiserestoration of possessionlease agreementdishonoured chequeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge directing the restoration of land possession to a complainant following the dishonor of a lease payment cheque under a prior compromise. The core legal question was whether an Additional Sessions Judge retains jurisdiction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to entertain applications and order the restoration of possession after a complaint under the Act has already been disposed of as compromised and the court has become functus officio. The Lahore High Court held that once a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act is disposed of based on a compromise recognizing the respondent as a lawful lessee rather than an illegal dispossessor, the trial court becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to subsequently order the restoration of possession for breach of settlement terms or dishonor of lease cheques. The key principle laid down is that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 does not provide for post-disposal execution or enforcement mechanisms regarding private lease compromises, and aggrieved parties must resort to appropriate civil or other lawful forums for such remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Additional Sessions Judge retains jurisdiction to order the restoration of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 after a complaint has been disposed of as compromised?
  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 provide for post-disposal execution mechanisms to enforce private lease agreements or compromises reached between parties?
  • Can a court pass an order for eviction and recovery of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 without declaring the possession of the accused to be illegal during ongoing trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Bati vs The State and another2011 P Cr. L J 1414 · Lahore High Court · 2011-01-28
  suspension of sentencemedical groundsold ageconvictjail treatmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the suspension of sentence filed by a convict, Batti, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's advanced age and serious medical condition, which could not be treated within the jail premises, constituted sufficient grounds for the suspension of his sentence pending appeal. The court held that the petitioner's conviction after a regular trial negated arguments regarding his innocence during the investigation phase. However, based on the medical board's report confirming the petitioner suffered from a condition requiring specialized urological treatment unavailable in jail, and considering his advanced age, the court exercised its discretion to suspend the sentence. The key principle laid down is that while old age alone is not a ground for suspension of sentence, a serious medical condition that cannot be adequately treated within the prison environment, supported by expert medical evidence, provides a valid basis for the suspension of a sentence pending the final disposal of an appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is old age alone a sufficient ground for the suspension of a sentence?
  • Can a sentence be suspended if the prisoner's medical condition cannot be treated within the jail premises?
  • Does a finding of innocence during the police investigation provide a ground for suspension of sentence after a conviction has been recorded by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashiran Bibi and others vs Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation2012 CLD 429 · Lahore High Court · 2011-11-04Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Messrs Skyline Lahore (Pvt.) Company through Chief2012 CLD 1627 · Lahore High Court · 2012-01-25Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed and others vs Secretary Irrigation and others2012 MLD 820 · Lahore High Court · 2010-08-05Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State and anothers2012 YLR 545 · Lahore High Court · 2011-03-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycross versionssuppression of injuriesdeclared innocentmurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  Bashir Ahmad filed a petition before the Lahore High Court seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 454 of 2010 registered under sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was declared innocent during police investigation, the case involved multiple competing versions including cross-complaints, injuries attributed to him were simple, and no fatal injury was assigned to him regarding the deceased. The court held that the petitioner had made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noting the existence of multiple versions, suppression of injuries of a co-accused in the F.I.R., and the petitioner being declared innocent by the police. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal case involves conflicting versions, suppression of material facts like injuries on the opposite side, and a declaration of innocence by the police, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused declared innocent by the police during investigation is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of multiple versions and cross-complaints in a criminal case make out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Whether suppression of injuries sustained by a co-accused in the F.I.R. affects the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State and 5 others2012 PLD Lahore 260 · Lahore High Court · 2012-01-08
  physical remandpolice custodyfundamental rightsjudicial discretionconstitutional jurisdictionrecovery of stolen propertycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged orders passed by an Illaqa Magistrate and a Sessions Judge refusing to grant further physical remand of accused persons to the police. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is bound to grant physical remand up to the maximum statutory limit of fifteen days mechanically upon police request, or whether remand requires a judicious assessment of necessity based on investigation progress. The Lahore High Court held that physical remand cannot be granted in a perfunctory manner or routinely merely to exhaust the fifteen-day limit, compel recoveries, or obtain confessional statements. The Court ruled that a Magistrate must independently examine the police file and satisfy himself regarding the necessity of further detention to safeguard fundamental rights to liberty. As the police failed to show any progress during the initial six days of physical remand, the lower courts rightly declined further remand. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate is bound to grant physical remand of an accused up to the maximum statutory limit of fifteen days upon the routine request of the police?
  • Is a Magistrate under a legal obligation to examine the police file and record reasons before deciding on a request for the extension of physical remand?
  • Can physical remand be granted mechanically for the purpose of compelling an accused to effect recoveries or obtain a confessional statement?
  • Does the refusal of a Magistrate to grant further physical remand warrant interference under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs State & 5 others2012 PLJ Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-08Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Khan and others vs Ghulam Sadar-Ud-Din Khan and others2012 CLC 699 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-13
  civil revisionmutationpre-emption decreeburden of proofco-sharerslimitationdeclaratory suitpresumption of correctness
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' suit for declaration regarding agricultural land. The petitioners challenged certain mutation entries dating back to 1946-47 as forged and collusive, while the respondents defended them on the basis of an alleged 1926 pre-emption decree. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of mutations, the burden of proof regarding transactions embodied in mutations, the application of limitation in suits by co-sharers against void entries, and the scope of revisional jurisdiction regarding concurrent findings of fact. The Lahore High Court held that mutations do not by themselves create title, that the beneficiary must prove the underlying transaction through independent and cogent evidence, and that no presumption of correctness attaches to mutations not proved in accordance with law. The Court further held that for co-sharers challenging void mutation entries, limitation does not bar the suit since every succeeding jamabandi gives a fresh cause of action. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the suit decreed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mutation entry by itself create or confer title to property?
  • Upon whom lies the burden of proving the transaction embodied in a disputed mutation?
  • Does the bar of limitation apply to co-sharers challenging void mutation entries?
  • Can the High Court review and set aside concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs Ghulam Muhammad2012 C.L.R. 1011 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-15Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and 2 others vs Naseer Ahmad and another2012 C.L.R. 86 · Lahore High Court · 2011-11-15Read full judgment →