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.

• The State vs Muhammad Ashraf and 4 others2008 YLR 1163 · Lahore High Court · 2004-04-16
  State appealacquittalcompromisecompoundable offencesabatement of appealcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a State appeal against an acquittal order dated 15-3-1992 passed by a Magistrate in Gujranwala, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 324 and 337-B of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, read with sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the proceedings, the State counsel acknowledged the death of one respondent, causing the appeal to abate against him under section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the State appeal against acquittal should proceed when the complainant and injured witnesses have entered into a compromise with the accused and no longer wish to pursue the matter. The Court held that the complainant and injured witnesses are essential parties whose standpoint is critical. Given the compromise and the compoundable nature of the offences, the Court determined that continuing the appeal would not foster peaceful relations and would reopen healed wounds. Furthermore, the State failed to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the acquittal order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the desirability of maintaining harmony between parties in compoundable offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal appeal abate upon the death of an accused respondent?
  • Can a State appeal against acquittal be dismissed on the basis of a compromise between the complainant and the accused?
  • Are the complainant and injured witnesses considered necessary parties in a State appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Arshad and another2008 YLR 242 · Lahore High Court · 2006-12-05
  appeal against acquittalmurdersingle shotprompt FIRinjured witnessmitigating circumstancesimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from a judgment passed by the trial court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 302, 397, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents for murder and related offences was perverse, speculative, and contrary to the evidence on record, particularly regarding the promptness of the First Information Report, the consistency of the ocular account, and corroboration by medical and recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt against the surviving respondent, Muhammad Arshad, whose single gunshot caused the deceased's death in a sudden flare-up over kite flying. The court laid down the principle that an acquittal based on speculative grounds and misreading of evidence will be set aside, and while converting the acquittal to a conviction under section 302(b) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the passage of a long duration since the occurrence serves as a mitigating circumstance for awarding the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life rather than the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal judgment based on speculative reasoning and the rejection of consistent ocular and medical evidence can be set aside by the High Court?
  • Does the unexplained delay of many years in deciding an appeal against acquittal constitute a mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser sentence of imprisonment for life instead of death?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness considered reliable and natural corroboration of the prosecution case in a criminal trial?
  • Whether a sudden occurrence arising from a petty dispute over kite flying without premeditation attracts the lesser punishment under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Farzana Kausar2008 YLR 2600 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-30
  suo motu bailsuckling childwelfare of minorfemale accused bailSection 497 CrPCpost-arrest bailmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a suo motu notice issued by the Lahore High Court regarding the post-arrest bail of respondent Farzana Kausar, who was incarcerated in jail along with her four-month-old suckling infant under charges under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged she assisted her co-accused paramour in murdering her husband. No eye-witness was named in the FIR, and statements regarding last seen and extra-judicial confession were recorded days after the incident. The complainant opposed bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offense. The High Court exercised its inherent and revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail to the respondent under the first proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court emphasized that holding an innocent infant in jail is incompatible with the minor's welfare and violates established principles of Islamic justice prioritizing the rights of a suckling child.

  Questions settled

  • Does the welfare of a suckling infant justify granting post-arrest bail to an accused mother under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court exercise suo motu revisional or inherent powers to grant post-arrest bail to an incarcerated woman with an infant child?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Salam Alvi and others2008 MLD 51 · Lahore High Court · 2007-10-25
  enhancement of sentencecriminal revision against acquittalinfructuous appeallesser sentencedamananti-terrorismpost-conviction relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction and multiple criminal revisions regarding sentences and acquittal arising from a judgment passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad. The core legal questions involved whether the convictions and sentences of the respondents should be maintained, enhanced, or set aside, and whether a revision against acquittal is maintainable. The Lahore High Court held that the criminal appeal filed by the convicts had become infructuous as they had already served out their sentences and paid Daman. The Court further held that a revision petition against acquittal is not maintainable and must be brought through an appeal. Regarding the enhancement of sentences, the Court noted that the trial court had disbelieved the motive and recoveries, that a majority of the co-accused had already been acquitted on the same evidence, and that the convicts had served their substantive sentences over a significant lapse of time. Consequently, the High Court withdrew the enhancement notices, dismissed the revision petitions for enhancement and acquittal, and disposed of the appeal as infructuous. The key principle laid down is that enhancement of sentence is discretionary and will not ordinarily be interfered with after sentences have been fully served, particularly where mitigating circumstances such as disbelieved motive and parity with acquitted co-accused exist.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal revision is maintainable against an order of acquittal?
  • Can an appeal against conviction become infructuous if the appellant has already served out the entire sentence?
  • Whether the High Court should enhance sentences where the trial court disbelieved the motive and weapon recoveries, and a majority of co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through ProsecutorGeneral Accountability, NAB, Islamabad vs Babar Ali Kharal2008 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 2008-04-14
  interlocutory orderproperty seizureNational Accountability Ordinancemaintainability of appealprocedural safeguardsaccountability court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an Accountability Court's order directing the return of seized property, specifically vehicles and jewelry, to the respondent who was facing charges of fraud. The core legal questions were whether an appeal lies against an interlocutory order under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 and whether the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) lawfully seized the property. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the proviso to Section 32(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 explicitly bars appeals against interlocutory orders. Furthermore, the Court found the seizure illegal, noting that NAB failed to obtain the mandatory order from the Chairman NAB and neglected to secure judicial confirmation of the seizure within the statutory fifteen-day period required by Section 12 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The principle laid down is that NAB, as a statutory agency, must strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards in the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 regarding property seizure, and that the appellate bar against interlocutory orders is absolute and cannot be bypassed by the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by an Accountability Court under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for the National Accountability Bureau to freeze or seize property under Section 12 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Does the failure of the National Accountability Bureau to obtain judicial confirmation of a seizure within fifteen days render the seizure illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Hassan and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 993 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-06
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefalsely involvedprevious enmitydeletion of offencecriminal petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of FIR registered under Sections 337-F(v)/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail considering the deletion of the major offence of zina during investigation, the nature of the injuries attributed to them, and the background of previous enmity and matrimonial disputes between the parties. The Lahore High Court held that since the offence under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was deleted by the investigating agency, the injuries attributed did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and mala fides due to prior murder convictions and family disputes were apparent, the petitioners made out a case for further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that where major allegations are dropped during investigation and false involvement stemming from previous enmity is plausible, post-arrest bail ought to be granted as a matter of judicial discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the deletion of a major offence during investigation forms a sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Are petitioners entitled to post-arrest bail when the injuries attributed to them do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  • Does prior family enmity and motive for pressurizing the accused warrant further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners?
  Read full judgment →
• The State and others vs Muhammad Khan alias Muhammad Bakhsh alias2008 YLR 338 · Lahore High Court · 2006-07-18
  murder referenceqatl-i-amddeath sentence confirmationrelated witnessesinjured witnessmedical evidencecommon intentionmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court decides a murder reference for the confirmation of a death sentence, alongside multiple criminal appeals arising from a judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha. The core legal questions involved the determination of guilt for intentional murder under section 302(b) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the evidentiary value of related eye-witnesses, the establishment of motive, and the adequacy of sentences where blunt-edged weapons were used on vital parts of the body. The court held that the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence and the presence of an injured witness, was trustworthy and established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. It ruled that a Danda or Sota when targeted at the head with sufficient force can constitute a lethal weapon establishing intent for Qatl-i-Amd. The court affirmed the death sentence of the principal accused and maintained the life imprisonments and lesser sentences, laying down that close relationship of witnesses does not render them interested without prior enmity, and that the non-recovery of weapon does not vitiate an otherwise unimpeachable ocular account.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased in the absence of previous enmity?
  • Does the use of a blunt weapon like a Sota or Danda on the vital parts of the body negate the intention to commit Qatl-i-Amd under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the non-recovery of the weapon of offense sufficient to exonerate an accused when supported by an unimpeachable ocular account?
  • Whether minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of eye-witnesses are sufficient to discard their otherwise consistent testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• The State and others vs Muhammad Imran and others2008 MLD 401 · Lahore High Court · 2006-03-30
  murderqatl-i-amdself-defencebenefit of doubtreappraisal of evidenceeyewitness testimonycriminal appealdeath sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, convicting the appellants under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of the deceased, resulting in a death sentence for one appellant and life imprisonment for the other. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the credibility of eyewitnesses, the establishment of common intention and motive, and the validity of a plea of self-defence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the main appellant beyond reasonable doubt, but that the co-appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt due to lack of motive and dubious participation. The court confirmed the death sentence of the principal offender and acquitted the co-appellant. The key legal principles laid down are that a plea of self-defence raised under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be substantiated pursuant to Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that an unproven, inconsistent afterthought defence cannot displace credible and prompt ocular testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused raising a plea of self-defence under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is bound to substantiate the same under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the failure to establish a distinct motive against a co-accused warrant the extension of the benefit of doubt leading to an acquittal?
  • Can a belated and inconsistent plea of self-defence taken for the first time during a section 342 statement be accepted without corroborative evidence?
  • Whether contradictions regarding the presence of related eyewitnesses in a prompt first information report affect the core evidentiary value of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• The State And Other vs Muhammad Sajid And OtherK.L.R. 2008 Criminal Cases 227 · Lahore High Court
  benefit of doubtinterested witnessocular accountmurder referencedeath sentencecriminal appealcorroborationmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence and appeals against the acquittal of co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on interested witnesses, the absence of independent corroboration, and the delayed registration of the First Information Report. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case, citing significant doubts regarding the ocular account, the lack of independent witnesses, and the failure to prove the motive or the identity of the assailants in a night-time occurrence. The Court emphasized that in cases of previous enmity, interested testimony requires independent corroboration, which was absent here. Consequently, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt, and the murder reference was answered in the negative, while the complainant's appeals for enhancement and against acquittal were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of interested witnesses be relied upon for conviction without independent corroboration in a murder case?
  • Does the principle of motive being a double-edged weapon apply when the prosecution fails to provide independent evidence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the First Information Report is not lodged with promptitude and the ocular account is found unreliable?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a conviction based on the benefit of the doubt when the trial court's assessment of evidence is found to be flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• The Managing Director, Escort Pakistan Limited, Lahore and another vs Munawar Khaliq and another2008 C.L.R. 1630 · Lahore High Court
  workmantermination of servicegrievance petitionindustrial relationsstanding ordersburden of proofre-designation of post
  Summary & questions settled

  This labour appeal challenges the judgment of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, which accepted the respondent's grievance petition against the termination of his services. The core legal question is whether the respondent qualified as a "workman" under relevant labour laws and whether his termination complied with statutory requirements. The court held that despite the re-designation of his post to Purchase Manager, the nature of his duties remained manual and clerical without any managerial or supervisory capacity, thereby retaining his status as a workman. Furthermore, the court held that a termination letter stating merely that services are "no more required" or that the employee is "surplus" fails to explicitly state the reasons for the action as mandated by law. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that employers must provide full and clear factual justifications for termination under the relevant Standing Orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the designation of an employee as a manager excludes them from the definition of a workman when they continue to perform manual and clerical duties?
  • Does a termination letter stating that services are no more required or that the employee is surplus satisfy the requirement of explicitly stating reasons under Standing Order 12(3)?
  • What is the effect on litigation when a party fails to produce its own evidence and relies solely on the evidence of the opposing party?
  • Does the re-designation of a post without substantial changes in duties alter the legal status of an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Incometax/Wealth Tax, Special Zone Lahore vs M/s.2008 P.C.T.L.R. 861 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tehsil Nazim, Tehsil Municipal Administration, Okara vs Abbas Ali And Another2008 KLR Labour & Service Cases 266 · Lahore High Court
  Payment of Wages ActTehsil Municipal AdministrationConstruction IndustryWorkman definitionLabour Court appealMandatory depositJurisdiction of Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated writ petitions filed by the Tehsil Nazim, Tehsil Municipal Administration, Okara, challenging orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the subsequent dismissal of appeals by the Punjab Labour Court. The core legal question was whether employees of a Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) qualify as workmen under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, thereby vesting the Authority with jurisdiction to adjudicate their claims for retirement benefits and wages. The High Court held that the TMA performs functions—such as sanitation, road construction, and infrastructure maintenance—that fall within the definition of 'construction industry' as defined in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Consequently, the Court affirmed that TMA employees are covered under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, following its amendment to include industrial and commercial establishments. Furthermore, the Court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's appeals by the Labour Court, reiterating that compliance with the deposit requirement under Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is mandatory for filing an appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Do employees of a Tehsil Municipal Administration fall within the definition of workmen under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Is the deposit of the awarded amount a mandatory condition for filing an appeal under Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Does the Tehsil Municipal Administration qualify as a 'construction industry' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can a petitioner challenge the jurisdiction of the Authority in a writ petition if the claim was admitted before the Authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Tehsil Municipal Administration, Rahimyar Khan Through Its Tehsil2008 KLR Labour & Service Cases 123 · Lahore High Court
  regularization of serviceslabour appealsweeperscoddle formalitiesdiscriminatory treatmentmaster and servantindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of labour appeals filed by the Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA), Rahimyar Khan, challenging a consolidated judgment of the Punjab Labour Court accepting the respondents' grievance petitions. The respondents, initially appointed as sweepers in basic pay scale No. 1 between 1985 and 1992 in a predecessor local council, had their services continued without a break against permanent posts. Following the merger of the local council into the TMA, the Audit Department objected that coddle formalities were not observed during their initial appointments, and the government subsequently declined a request for relaxation. The core legal question was whether employees appointed without observing procedural formalities could be denied regularization and benefits when they had served continuously for years and similar employees had been regularized. The Lahore High Court held that the failure to follow procedural formalities was the fault of the appointing authority, not the employees, and the administration could not take advantage of its own lapses. The court ruled that denying regularization constituted discriminatory treatment, and dismissed the appeals in limine, affirming the labour court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer deny regularization to employees based on procedural lapses in their initial appointment committed by the appointing authority itself?
  • Whether employees serving continuously against permanent posts for a long duration can be treated discriminatorily regarding regularization?
  • Does an employer's failure to follow coddle formalities at the time of appointment vitiate the continuous service of employees who are not at fault?
  Read full judgment →
• Tehsil Municipal Administration, Mandi Bhauddin vs Evacuee Trust2008 MLD 868 · Lahore High Court · 2005-07-05Read full judgment →
• Tehsil Municipal Administration Mandi Bahuddin vs Evacuee Trust Property2008 C.L.R. 260 · Lahore High Court · 2005-07-05Read full judgment →
• Tehsil Council Tribal Area, (de-excluded area) D.G. Khan through its Tehsil2008 C.L.R. 14 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tehseen Mazhar and 24 others vs Vice-Chancellor, University of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others2008 PLD Lahore 19 · Lahore High Court · 2007-10-01Read full judgment →
• Tayyab and others vs Falak Sher and others2008 YLR 218 · Lahore High Court · 2007-09-06
  zar-e-soampre-emption suitextension of timestatutory periodact of courtcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent for possession of land. The trial court initially ordered the plaintiff to deposit 'Zar-e-Soam' (one-third of the sale price), but subsequently granted an extension of time beyond the statutory period prescribed under section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991. Upon the defendant's application, the trial court dismissed the suit for non-compliance with the statutory deposit period. The District Judge in appeal set aside the dismissal and restored the suit. The Lahore High Court, examining the matter, held that the trial court has no jurisdiction to extend the period for depositing 'Zar-e-Soam' beyond the mandatory 30 days from the filing of the suit, and any order extending such time without jurisdiction or without hearing the opposing party is void. The Court further held that a party cannot take advantage of an illegal order obtained at its own request under the guise of an act of the court. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the dismissal of the pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court extend the period for depositing 'Zar-e-Soam' beyond the thirty-day statutory limit prescribed under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
  • Whether an order granting an extension of time to deposit pre-emption money passed without notice to the defendant is lawful?
  • Can a plaintiff claim the benefit of the maxim that an act of the court shall prejudice no man when the impugned order was obtained at the plaintiff's own request?
  Read full judgment →
• Tauseef Sarwar vs The State2008 YLR 1736 · Lahore High Court · 2008-04-21
  election riggingsummary trialSection 342 CrPCpresiding officercriminal revisionacquittalprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Presiding Officer at a polling station, was convicted by a Returning Officer for election rigging and breach of official duty, specifically regarding the casting of 400 fictitious votes, under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. The conviction was upheld on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner challenged these judgments in revision before the High Court. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence and the procedural legality of the trial, particularly the failure to examine the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to the trial court's failure to record the accused's statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C., which is mandatory in summary trials where the accused does not plead guilty. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution evidence insufficient and unreliable, noting that the Returning Officer improperly acted as a handwriting expert. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the petitioner and ordering the refund of the fine.

  Questions settled

  • Is the examination of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory in summary trials where the accused does not plead guilty?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the trial court fails to record the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a Returning Officer have the authority to act as a handwriting expert to compare thumb impressions without expert qualification?
  Read full judgment →
• Tauseef Sarwar vs StatePLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 847 · Lahore High Court · 2008-04-21
  presiding officerriggingelection offensestatement of accusedsummary trialrevision petitionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Presiding Officer at a polling station, was convicted by the Returning Officer under Sections 169, 172, 175, and 176 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 for alleged rigging and breach of official duty, which conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld with modification in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner challenged her conviction through a revision petition before the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions involved the legality of the trial procedure, specifically the failure to examine the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 during a summary trial where guilt was not admitted, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The High Court held that examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C. is mandatory in summary trials when the accused does not plead guilty, and that the prosecution evidence was insufficient and relied on hearsay. The revision petition was accepted, the judgments of the courts below were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is the examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory in summary trials when the accused does not plead guilty?
  • Whether conviction for election offenses under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 can be sustained on hearsay evidence and without proper proof?
  • Can a Returning Officer act as a handwriting expert to compare thumb impressions without expert testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Tauseef alias Captain vs The State and another2008 PLD Lahore 220 · Lahore High Court · 2008-02-04
  juvenile justicedetermination of ageossification testmedical reportseparate trialcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from an order of the trial court dismissing the petitioner's application for a separate trial as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The core legal question was whether the determination of age by the trial court without a valid and properly constituted medical report complies with the mandatory requirements of law. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, obtaining a medical report as part of the inquiry for age determination is a mandatory requirement, and a court cannot discard the medical aspect merely due to an improperly constituted board without referring the matter back for reconstitution. The revision was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh determination of the petitioner's age in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is obtaining a medical report mandatory for the determination of a juvenile's age under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
  • What course of action should a trial court adopt if it finds that a medical board for age determination was improperly constituted?
  • Can a trial court determine the age of an accused claiming to be a juvenile solely on the basis of a Union Council birth certificate while ignoring the requirement of a medical report?
  Read full judgment →
• Tassawar Hussain vs The State2008 YLR 1968 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-12
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirylack of evidencesuspicioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Tassawar Hussain, in connection with a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the lack of direct evidence and the reliance on suspicion. The petitioner was not nominated in the initial First Information Report and was arrested months later based on subsequent statements. The State conceded that no direct evidence existed against the petitioner, and conflicting affidavits from local residents cast doubt on the identity of the deceased. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be refused, nor can an individual be detained indefinitely, solely on the basis of involvement in a heinous crime when there is an absence of prima facie incriminating material to connect the accused to the offense. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to the furnishing of surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be refused in a murder case solely on the ground of the heinous nature of the crime when there is no prima facie evidence?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the prosecution relies solely on suspicion and lacks direct evidence connecting the accused to the offense?
  • Does the existence of conflicting evidence regarding the identity of the deceased warrant the grant of bail for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Tassadaq Hussain vs DPO etc.2008 PLJ Lahore 883 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-15Read full judgment →
• Tasawar Hussain vs The State2008 YLR 1102 · Lahore High Court · 2007-04-25
  narcoticscharasrecoverypublic witnessessafe custodyChemical Examiner reportbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Khushab, convicting the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The prosecution alleged that while in physical remand in another narcotics case, the appellant led the police to a khola in a cattle market and recovered 450 grams of charas buried in the earth. The core issue before the High Court was whether the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt in light of the dubious place of recovery, non-association of independent witnesses, and discrepancies regarding the transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner. The High Court observed that the alleged concealment in an open cattle market was unnatural, the police had ample time to associate independent witnesses, and there was an unclarified discrepancy concerning the dispatch and delivery dates of the sample parcel. Consequently, extending the benefit of doubt, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an alleged recovery of narcotics from a publicly accessible area such as a cattle market khola creates reasonable doubt if not supported by independent witnesses?
  • Does an unexplained contradiction between the date of dispatch stated by the carrier and the date recorded in the Chemical Examiner's report invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Whether failure by the investigating officer to associate independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during a planned recovery affects the credibility of police witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Tasawar Ahmad vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 202 · Lahore High Court · 2007-03-06
  criminal appealmurderself-defenseappreciation of evidencechance witnessespolice investigationdeath sentencesudden altercation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed upon the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the validity of the prosecution's motive, and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a capital conviction given the appellant's plea of self-defense. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with doubts, noting that the eyewitnesses were "chance" witnesses, the motive was fabricated, and the recovery evidence was tainted by police dishonesty. Conversely, the Court rejected the appellant's specific plea of self-defense as unsubstantiated by the record. Finding that neither party presented the complete truth, the Court applied the principle that in such circumstances, it must draw independent inferences from the available evidence. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction to Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, citing a sudden altercation, and reduced the sentence to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment, while setting aside the compensation order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony necessitate the alteration of a conviction under Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a court convict an accused when both the prosecution and the defense versions are found to be incomplete or untruthful?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the recovery evidence is tainted by police dishonesty and the investigation is shown to be biased?
  Read full judgment →
• Tasadduq Hussain Shah and others vs Member Board of Revenue and others2008 PLD Lahore 352 · Lahore High Court · 2008-04-15Read full judgment →
• Tariq Shahbaz vs Chairman, NAB and others2008 YLR 2561 · Lahore High Court · 2008-03-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Shahbaz and another vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and 4 others2008 YLR 2688 · Lahore High Court · 2008-03-31
  constitutional petitionnational accountabilitysubsequent referencesupplementary referencedouble jeopardyabuse of processmoney exchange
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the filing of a subsequent Accountability Reference No. 18 of 2006 under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, arguing that they were already facing trial in Accountability Reference No. 41 of 2002 for similar offences involving their money exchange business, and that multiple references violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy and constituted an abuse of process. The core legal question was whether the National Accountability Bureau could file a separate and independent subsequent reference for distinct transactions discovered later, or if such a reference must be treated as a supplementary reference. The court held that separate references cannot be filed for distinct transactions stemming from the same continuous course of conduct and business operations merely because information was received later; instead, the subsequent reference must be treated as a supplementary reference to the primary pending reference. The key principle laid down is that subsequent references on similar allegations involving the same enterprise cannot be separately maintained as independent trials but must be consolidated as supplementary references to avoid an endless multiplicity of proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Accountability Bureau can file a separate and independent subsequent reference for offences arising from the same business operations while an earlier reference is already pending trial?
  • Does the filing of a subsequent reference based on newly discovered aggrieved persons and transactions constitute a separate offence or a supplementary matter?
  • Can multiple references for similar allegations of cheating and fraud through the same company be maintained independently against an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Sajjad Alias Tahir vs The State2008 MLD 332 · Lahore High Court · 2007-07-23
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationbailable offencesjoining investigationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 337-A(i)(ii), 337-F(v), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed and his joining of the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the major injury was attributed to a co-accused, while the other applicable sections constituted bailable offences, and since the petitioner had joined the investigation and the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been submitted, incarceration would serve no useful purpose. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where offences involved are bailable or carry lesser penalties, the accused has cooperated with the investigation, and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the accused to jail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the offences attributed are bailable and the investigation has been completed?
  • Whether the submission of a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 makes the incarceration of an accused unnecessary for further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Sajjad alias Tahir vs StatePLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 513 · Lahore High Court · 2007-07-23
  pre-arrest bailconfirmation of bailhurt casescriminal procedureinvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 74 registered under Sections 337-A(i)(ii)/337-F(v)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City, Burewala. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to him and his participation in the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the injury falling under Section 337-A(ii) was attributed to a co-accused, while other injuries were bailable, and noting that the petitioner had joined the investigation and the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been submitted, no useful purpose would be served by sending him to jail. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where offences are bailable or not falling within prohibitory clauses, and where the accused has fully joined the investigation and challan has been submitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the offences involved are bailable or carry lesser penalties?
  • Does joining the investigation and submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when principal injury is attributed to a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Saeed, Former Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala vs Punjab Local Government Board, through Secretary, Government of Punjab, Local Government & Rural Department and another2008 PLJ Lahore 1073 · Lahore High Court · 2008-08-25
  plea bargaincivil service dismissalArticle 212res judicatalachesNational Accountability Bureaupublic trustwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Chief Engineer, challenged his dismissal from service following a "plea bargain" with the National Accountability Bureau. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212, the principles of res judicata and laches, and the legal effect of a "plea bargain" on civil service employment. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as the petitioner had previously sought relief unsuccessfully and failed to exhaust proper forums. The Court further ruled that a "plea bargain" under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 constitutes an admission of guilt, effectively acting as a conviction that warrants dismissal from public office. The Court emphasized that civil servants hold a position of public trust, and corruption, evidenced by a plea bargain, constitutes a fundamental breach of that trust. Consequently, the Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on precedents involving different factual circumstances, affirming the dismissal order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a 'plea bargain' under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 constitute a conviction for the purpose of disqualification from public office?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a service dismissal order in light of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a petitioner seek relief through a writ petition after a previous petition on the same subject matter has been dismissed?
  • Does the failure to hold a regular inquiry invalidate a dismissal order when the charge involves a 'plea bargain' and admitted corruption?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Rafique Sheikh vs Citi Bank N.A. through Authorized Attorney2008 CLD 1252 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-27
  leave to defendlease financedelivery of possessionbanking courtrecovery suitfinancial institutionleased asset
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by a Banking Court in favor of the respondent bank for the recovery of a financial facility extended for the purchase of a vehicle, wherein the trial court had refused the appellant leave to defend the suit. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the appellant raised substantial questions of law and fact requiring evidence, particularly regarding the delivery of the leased asset and whether the financial facility was actually availed by him or his employer fraudulently. The High Court held that under Section 10(8) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, whenever questions of law and fact needing evidence are raised, granting leave to defend is mandatory, and that the delivery of the leased asset is an essential prerequisite for creating a valid lease and liability. The court set aside the impugned decree, deemed the suit pending, and granted the appellant leave to defend subject to furnishing adequate security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the delivery of the leased asset is an essential prerequisite for creating a valid lease and establishing the hirer's liability?
  • When is a Banking Court legally bound to grant leave to defend a recovery suit under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the mere signing of finance documents and providing identity papers establish a borrower's liability when the delivery of the leased property is disputed?
  • Can questions regarding the actual utilization of a lease finance facility and possession of a vehicle be resolved summarily without recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Rafique Shaikh vs Chi Bank, N.A.2008 C.L.R. 1701 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-27
  leave to defendlease financerecovery suitdelivery of leased assetbanking courttriable issues
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a recovery suit filed by a banking company against the appellant for a lease finance facility extended for purchasing a car. The trial court refused the appellant leave to defend and decreed the suit. The appellant contended that his employer fraudulently utilized his name to obtain multiple lease facilities while bank officials connived, and that the vehicle was neither delivered to nor possessed by him. The core legal question was whether leave to defend should be granted when substantial questions of fact regarding the delivery of the leased asset and utilization of finance require recording of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the delivery of the leased asset is an essential prerequisite for a valid lease and the creation of liabilities thereunder. Finding that triable issues regarding possession and benami transaction required evidence, the court set aside the decree, allowed the appeal, and granted leave to defend subject to furnishing security. The key principle laid down is that under a lease finance agreement, liabilities only arise upon the actual delivery of the leased asset, and disputed questions regarding delivery necessitate granting leave to defend under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether leave to defend a recovery suit under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 should be granted when questions of fact regarding the delivery of the leased asset require evidence?
  • Does a liability arise for a hirer under a lease finance agreement in the absence of physical delivery of the leased asset?
  • Whether mere signing of finance and delivery documents precludes a defendant from seeking leave to defend when fraud and lack of delivery are pleaded?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Naseer and 2 others vs The State and another2008 YLR 263 · Lahore High Court · 2007-09-13
  acquittalrevision petitionmaintainabilitycriminal procedurepolice reportSection 249-A Cr.P.C.Section 417(2-A) Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, which had set aside an acquittal order previously granted by a trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners were originally charged under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had acquitted the accused after the prosecution failed to produce evidence. The complainant filed a revision petition against this acquittal, which the Sessions Judge allowed, remanding the case for trial. The High Court examined whether a revision petition is maintainable against an acquittal order passed by a Magistrate in a police-initiated case. The Court held that a revision petition is not maintainable against an acquittal order passed by a Judicial Magistrate in a case instituted by the police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court clarified that the appropriate remedy for a complainant in such circumstances is an appeal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Sessions Judge's order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an order of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate in a case instituted by the police?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a complainant against an acquittal order passed by a Magistrate in a police-initiated case?
  • Can a Sessions Judge set aside an acquittal order passed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through a revision petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood Mughal and another vs Returning Officer, Rawalpindi and 5 others2008 C.L.R. 924 · Lahore High Court · 2005-09-05Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood and others vs The State2008 YLR 170 · Lahore High Court · 2006-12-05
  Qatl-i-Amdbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidenceFIR deliberationcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for the offense of Qatl-i-Amd. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, the delay in FIR registration, and the implausibility of the motive. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences. It held that the FIR was the result of deliberation and consultation, the eyewitnesses were not present at the scene, and the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' presence or involvement. The Court emphasized that where the prosecution's case relies on evidence that is inconsistent with medical reports—specifically regarding injuries attributed to accused persons—and where the motive is implausible and the FIR appears fabricated, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. This is particularly applicable when co-accused facing identical evidence have already been acquitted, rendering the conviction unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account contradicts the medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence warrant the acquittal of the remaining appellants?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the FIR appears to have been recorded after deliberation and consultation?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs Government of Pakistan _through Joint Secretary, Ministry of Minorities (Minorities Affairs. Division), Islamabad and 3 others2008 C.L.R. 1097 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs Government of Pakistan through Joint Secretary, Ministry of Minorities (Minorities Affairs Division) Islamabad and 3 others2008 CLC 102 · Lahore High Court · 2007-11-14Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood vs Government Of Pakistan Through Joint Secretary2008 KLR Revenue Cases 164 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tariq Hameed vs The State2008 YLR 1367 · Lahore High Court · 2008-04-02
  murderprivate defensesodomygrave and sudden provocationocular evidencecriminal appealdeath sentencecompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged the murder was premeditated due to a loan dispute, while the appellant contended he acted in self-defense after the deceased attempted to commit sodomy against him at knifepoint. The Court evaluated the ocular evidence and motive, finding the prosecution's case unreliable due to inconsistencies, the absence of independent witnesses, and the failure to prove the alleged motive. Conversely, the Court found the appellant's version plausible, supported by his early disclosure to police and media reports. The Court held that while the appellant had a right to private defense against an assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust under Section 100, Clause 4th of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, he exceeded this right by inflicting twenty-eight injuries. Consequently, the Court modified the conviction to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentenced the appellant to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment, and waived the compensation requirement under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused have a right of private defense against an assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be modified to Section 302(c) when the accused exceeds the right of private defense?
  • Is compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory when an accused acts under grave and sudden provocation involving immoral activities?
  • Can a court rely on media reports as corroborative evidence for a defense plea in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ali vs Mst. Fozia Parveen and 2 others2008 CLC 1715 · Lahore High Court · 2008-03-12
  dowry articlesmaintenance allowancefamily court decreewrit jurisdictionrecovery of dowryappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Family Court and the Appellate Court, which decreed a suit for the recovery of dowry articles and maintenance allowance in favour of the respondent-wife. The petitioner-husband contended that the respondent failed to produce a list of dowry articles or purchase receipts, and challenged the credibility of the respondent's witnesses. The core legal question was whether the respondent sufficiently proved her entitlement to dowry articles and maintenance allowance despite the absence of a written list or receipts. The Court held that the respondent's detailed testimony in the plaint and as a witness, corroborated by oral evidence, sufficiently established her claim. The Court further noted that the petitioner's own offer to return some dowry articles during proceedings effectively negated his plea that no dowry was given. Finding no illegality or material irregularity in the lower courts' findings regarding the valuation of articles and maintenance, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence and value of the dowry.

  Questions settled

  • Is a separate written list of dowry articles mandatory for a wife to prove her claim for recovery of dowry in a family suit?
  • Does an offer by a husband to return some dowry articles during court proceedings constitute an admission of the existence of the dowry?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the valuation of dowry articles in a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ali vs Mst. Fozia Parveen And 2 OtherK.L.R. 2008 Civil Cases 239 · Lahore High Court · 2008-03-12Read full judgment →
• Tariq Abdullah vs The State2008 YLR 1836 · Lahore High Court · 2007-02-07
  narcoticschemical examiner reportsample discrepancybenefit of doubtcharasopiumcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged recovery of 10.5 kilograms of charas and 7 kilograms of opium. The prosecution claimed that the appellant led the police to a canal bank and retrieved the contraband. On appeal, the High Court observed a critical discrepancy in the sampling process: while the recovery memorandum and FIR recorded that two samples of 50 grams each were taken, the Chemical Examiner's report analyzed 40 samples weighing 200 grams each. The prosecution failed to produce any record or court permission justifying how or why fresh samples were drawn. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to connect the Chemical Examiner's report with the substances allegedly recovered from the appellant. Extending the benefit of doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the appellant's release.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained if there is an unexplained discrepancy between the samples drawn at the spot and those analyzed by the Chemical Examiner?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to connect the Chemical Examiner's report with the recovered contraband entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is court permission or a documented application required for drawing fresh samples of recovered narcotics from the case property?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanvir alias Tanoo vs The State2008 YLR 2576 · Lahore High Court · 2008-03-23
  post-arrest bailattempted murderhouse trespassblunt weapon injuriesprohibitory clausefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application was filed before the Lahore High Court by the petitioner, who was accused alongside six others of house trespass, attempted murder, and causing hurt under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, armed with a Sota (wooden stick), and his co-accused mercilessly beat the complainant, causing twelve blunt weapon injuries across his body, motivated by a prior dispute over a buffalo theft. The petitioner argued that the injuries attributed to him were simple, that the recovery of the weapon was complete, and that the case required further inquiry. The Court rejected these arguments, holding that the petitioner was named in the First Information Report (FIR) and had actively participated in a coordinated, merciless assault. The Court laid down the principle that even if an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail is not a matter of right and can be denied where there is active participation in a brutal, coordinated assault.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is automatically entitled to bail if the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be denied to an accused who is attributed simple injuries if they acted in prosecution of a common object to mercilessly beat a victim?
  • Does the completion of weapon recovery and the fact that the accused is in judicial lock-up automatically justify the grant of post-arrest bail in a case of coordinated assault?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanvir alias Tanoo vs StatePLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 685 · Lahore High Court · 2008-03-24
  post-arrest bailblunt weapon injuriesprohibitory clausecommon intentioncriminal assaultbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Tanvir alias Tanoo, following the rejection of his bail plea by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pindi Bhattian. The petitioner was charged under FIR No. 436 of 2007 for offences including attempted murder and house trespass, involving allegations that he and co-accused assaulted the complainant with blunt weapons, causing multiple injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the assault, despite the argument that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting the severity of the assault, the presence of twelve blunt weapon injuries on the complainant's body, and the existence of a clear motive. The Court established the principle that even where an offence may not strictly fall within the prohibitory clause, bail is not a matter of right when the accused is implicated in a brutal, multi-person assault causing multiple injuries.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right simply because the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  • Does the existence of multiple blunt weapon injuries on a complainant justify the refusal of bail for an accused involved in the assault?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanvir Ahmad vs The State and another2008 YLR 2390 · Lahore High Court · 2008-01-29
  post-arrest bailsupplementary statementfurther inquirytest identification paradestatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Tanvir Ahmad seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 349 of 2006 registered under sections 302, 460, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his subsequent nomination via a supplementary statement, the absence of a test identification parade, and the lack of attribution of the fatal blow to him. The court held that the petitioner's complicity and role called for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that an accused cannot be detained indefinitely as a measure of punishment. The petition was consequently allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused is not named in the initial FIR and is implicated later through a supplementary statement?
  • Does the absence of a test identification parade make the complicity of an accused a matter calling for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be kept behind bars indefinitely as a measure of punishment during pre-trial detention?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Hussain vs The State2008 YLR 2399 · Lahore High Court · 2008-04-23
  post-arrest bailmurderfirearm injurystatutory delaycriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner Tanveer Hussain booked in F.I.R. No. 6 of 2007 registered at Police Station City B-Division Sheikhupura under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein he was alleged to have caused a firearm injury to a witness and a shot hitting the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the role attributed, distinction from co-accused granted bail, and the advanced stage of the trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from co-accused who were found innocent in investigations, and that bail should not be granted at a late stage when six prosecution witnesses had already been examined and the trial was near conclusion. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be declined when the accused is specifically connected to the crime through consistent investigation findings and the trial is at its concluding stages.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the trial is near conclusion and multiple prosecution witnesses have been examined?
  • Does the finding of guilt in police investigations distinguish an accused's case from co-accused who were found innocent?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail merely on the ground that co-accused have been granted bail when their roles are distinguishable?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmed Khan vs The State2008 MLD 373 · Lahore High Court · 2007-01-17
  possession of charasControl of Narcotic Substances Actreduction of sentencecriminal appealfirst-time offendernarcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 250 grams of charas, resulting in a trial court sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000. At the hearing, the appellant's counsel did not contest the conviction on merits but sought a reduction in the sentence, noting that the appellant was a first-time offender and had already served a substantial portion of his imprisonment. The State counsel did not seriously oppose the request. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction based on the unchallenged findings, but partially allowed the appeal regarding the sentence, reducing the imprisonment to the period already undergone (approximately one year and seven months) and lowering the fine to Rs.3,000 with default imprisonment, while maintaining the benefit under section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may exercise discretion to reduce a narcotics offender's sentence to the period already undergone considering mitigating circumstances such as being a first-time offender and the duration already spent behind bars.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can reduce the sentence of imprisonment for an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to the period already undergone when the conviction itself is not challenged on merits?
  • Can the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be extended to a convict sentenced under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Tam Mehmood vs Mouj Din2008 YLR 2726 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-23Read full judgment →
• Tallat Mehmood vs Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others2008 PLC (C.S.) 1251 · Lahore High Court · 2008-05-06
  writ petitionofficiating promotionreversionmisconductservice lawvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner challenging the office order whereby he was reverted from the officiating post of University Engineer to his substantive post of Assistant Engineer. The core legal question was whether an employee promoted on an officiating basis, subject to approval and holding an unsatisfactory service record including charges of misconduct, can claim a vested right to hold that officiating post and challenge his reversion. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that promotion on an officiating basis subject to approval creates no vested right to regular promotion or retention in that post. The court established the principle that an authority competent to make an officiating appointment is fully justified in withdrawing the same and reverting the employee upon a record of unsatisfactory service and misconduct, provided the action is neither whimsical nor arbitrary.

  Questions settled

  • Does promotion on an officiating basis subject to approval create a vested right of promotion?
  • Can an employee appointed on an officiating basis be reverted to their original position due to unsatisfactory service and misconduct?
  • Is an order of reversion from an officiating post open to judicial review under Article 199 when based on charges of misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Judge, Family Court, Tehsil Khairpur Tamewali and another2008 CLC 1566 · Lahore High Court · 2005-02-16Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain and another vs StatePLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 134 · Lahore High Court · 2007-01-22
  murderpoisoningbenefit of doubtextra-judicial confessionocular testimonychance witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants were tried and convicted under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, for the Qatal-e-amd of their step-mother after some legal heirs waived their right of Qisas following a partial compromise. The appellants filed an appeal against their conviction, while the complainant filed a revision petition seeking an enhancement of sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of belated ocular testimony, unverified extra-judicial confessions, and medical evidence regarding poisoning. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the eye-witnesses were unnatural and chance witnesses, extra-judicial confessions were rightly disbelieved, and the medical evidence supported alternative hypotheses. The court laid down the principle that one tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another, and where eye-witnesses are untrustworthy and the initial report pointed to an accidental death, the accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conviction for Qatal-e-amd under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained when the underlying ocular and medical evidence fails to establish the administration of poison beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Can belated ocular testimony from witnesses who were not named in the initial police report and who failed to inform the deceased's family members form the basis of a murder conviction?
  • Whether uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions that have been discarded by the trial court can be relied upon along with tainted corroborative evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the source of poison or recover incriminating material entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs The State2008 YLR 1891 · Lahore High Court · 2008-04-23
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabetment and conspiracyabsconding co-accusedsupplementary statementcriminal liabilityhostage theory
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Taj Muhammad, who was implicated in a murder case (F.I.R. No. 30/2008) via a supplementary statement alleging conspiracy and abetment. The petitioner was not named in the original F.I.R. and was not present at the scene of the crime. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, implicated solely through allegations of conspiracy and abetment by witnesses who were allegedly inimical to him, was entitled to bail, particularly when his co-accused remained absconders. The Court held that the allegations of conspiracy and abetment against the petitioner required further inquiry, as they involved disputed questions of fact and lacked direct evidence of an overt act. The Court granted bail, establishing the principle that an accused cannot be held in custody as a hostage for the arrest of co-accused absconders absent evidence of contribution to their abscondence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that criminal liability is personal, and bail cannot be denied solely due to the abscondence of co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be denied bail solely because his co-accused are absconders?
  • Does the inclusion of an accused in a supplementary statement regarding conspiracy and abetment, without presence at the scene, constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be kept in jail as a hostage for the arrest of other co-accused in the absence of evidence linking him to their abscondence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahira Batool vs Additional District Judge, Mianwali and another2008 CLC 1595 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-27
  child custodywelfare of minorstep-motherguardian and wardwrit petitionmother's custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, Mianwali, which reversed the Family Court's decision and granted the custody of a minor son to the father (respondent No. 2). The core legal question concerns the welfare of the minor in the context of the father's remarriage versus the mother's financial status. The Lahore High Court held that the welfare of the minor lies with the real mother, particularly when the father has contracted a second marriage and has a child from that marriage, making it harsh to leave the minor at the mercy of a step-mother. The Court also noted the father's lack of financial sincerity towards the child's maintenance despite having a high salary. The key principle laid down is that the custody of a minor should not be handed over to the father leaving him at the mercy of a step-mother in the presence of the real mother who is properly maintaining the child, and that poverty of the mother is not a ground to deny custody when family support is available.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the custody of a minor should be given to the father when he has contracted a second marriage in the presence of the real mother?
  • Does the poverty or lack of independent income of a mother disqualify her from retaining the custody of her minor child?
  • Is the welfare of a minor better served in the custody of the real mother rather than a step-mother?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mahmood vs Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs,2008 CLC 261 · Lahore High Court · 2002-10-25
  regular second appealsuit for possessionmortgageset-offimprovementsfraudulent tacticsmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts decreeing a suit for possession of a residential plot in favour of the respondents. The core legal question was whether the appellant could resist the suit for possession or claim compensation and return of money on the basis of an alleged mortgage and improvements, despite denying the plaintiff's ownership and failing to properly prove the document or claim a set-off in the written statement. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the appellant's denial of ownership precluded claims for the return of mortgage money, that the unproven document did not constitute a valid mortgage, and that the appellant had failed to claim a set-off or provide particulars of improvements before the trial court. The court laid down the principle that a defendant who denies the plaintiff's ownership and fails to plead a set-off or prove an alleged mortgage cannot defeat a suit for possession or belatedly claim compensation for improvements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant who denies the plaintiff's ownership successfully claim the return of alleged mortgage money or compensation for improvements without pleading a set-off in the written statement?
  • Whether an unproven document can constitute a valid mortgage to defeat a suit for possession?
  • Does the institution of a subsequent suit and a Section 12(2) C.P.C. application after the dismissal of regular proceedings amount to a mala fide attempt to circumvent decrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir and another vs The State2008 MLD 909 · Lahore High Court · 2004-01-19
  criminal appealmurderright of private defenseappreciation of evidenceplea of innocencecommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and causing injuries. The core legal question involved the evaluation of the prosecution's ocular account against the appellants' plea of private defense and alleged discrepancies in the motive. The Lahore High Court held that the appellants' plea of right of private defense was wholly unbelievable, particularly given that the appellants sustained no injuries, no bullet marks were found on their property, and the nature of the occurrence contradicted their version. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that no mitigating circumstances existed for interference with the lenient view already taken by the trial court, and consequently dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of right of private defense can be sustained when the accused party has sustained no injuries and no corroborative marks of firing are present at the spot?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to strictly establish the initial motive invalidate an otherwise consistent and reliable ocular account?
  • Whether a single shot or lack of mitigating circumstances warrants interference with a sentence of life imprisonment for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ali Shah vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 564 · Lahore High Court · 2007-10-10
  post-arrest bailcircumstantial evidencefurther inquirymedical groundsprohibitory clausebail granted
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition arises out of a bail application filed on behalf of Tahir Ali Shah seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the lack of direct evidence, motive, or recovery, alongside his medical condition requiring surgical intervention not available in jail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for bail as there was no direct eyewitness to the murder, the motive appeared tentative upon assessing the mortgage deed, no recovery was effected, and the jail doctor reported the need for surgery. The court laid down the principle that where circumstantial evidence is tentative, no recovery is made, and the accused requires necessary medical treatment unavailable in jail, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry and the statutory medical proviso, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the evidence against him is purely circumstantial and tentative?
  • Does the unavailability of necessary surgical intervention in a jail hospital constitute a valid ground for bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether lack of recovery and weak motive warrant the grant of bail on the basis of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Tabassum Khurshid vs Sardar Abid Iqbal and another2008 CLC 1337 · Lahore High Court · 2008-04-30
  dissolution of marriagedowerKhulaconstitutional petitionfamily court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner wife challenged the judgment and decree of the Family Court whereby her suit for dissolution of marriage was decreed but her claim for dower amounting to Rs. 10,00,000 was dismissed on the premise that the dissolution amounted to Khula. The core legal question was whether a wife could be deprived of her dower when dissolution was granted without her seeking Khula or making any statement to that effect. The Lahore High Court held that the right to Khula can only be exercised if stated in clear words, and a wife cannot be deprived of her valuable right of dower unless dissolution is specifically sought and granted on the basis of Khula. The petition was accordingly allowed, declaring the condition to forego the dower amount to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a wife be deprived of her dower amount when the dissolution of marriage is not sought or granted on the basis of Khula?
  • Whether a statement of a wife refusing to live with her husband can automatically be construed as a claim for Khula?
  Read full judgment →
• Syeda Fizza Abbas vs Government College University, Lahore through ViceChancellor and 4 others2008 CLC 662 · Lahore High Court · 2008-03-10Read full judgment →
• Syeda Fizza Abbas vs Government College University, Lahore through its2008 C.L.R. 595 · Lahore High Court · 2007-11-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Tatheer Hussain vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan2008 C.L.R. 451 · Lahore High Court · 2007-10-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Tatheer Hussain vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan2008 CLD 73 · Lahore High Court · 2007-10-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahzaib Kamal vs The StateK.L.R. 2008 Criminal Cases 337 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-20
  post-arrest bailcross-versionfurther inquiryjuvenile offenderbailable offenceunlawful assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising out of a cross-version case registered under Sections 302, 234, and 337-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, an accused juvenile attributed a bailable injury in a cross-version incident occurring inside his own house, was entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the case presented two competing versions of the incident, the specific injury attributed to the petitioner fell under a bailable category, he had sustained injuries during the occurrence, and his case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2). The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail as of right when his case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an injury categorized as bailable under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 justify the grant of post-arrest bail notwithstanding allegations of membership in an unlawful assembly?
  • Can bail be granted in a cross-version case where the occurrence took place inside the house of the accused and the accused also sustained injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahid Mustafa and another vs Asif Ali Khan and 5 others2008 C.L.R. 85 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahid Abbas, Librarian, Chenab Club (Guarantee) Ltd., Faisalabad and 36 others vs Chenab Club (Guarrantee) Ltd. Faisalabad through its President and another2008 PLJ Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 2006-09-12
  labour lawretrenchmentindustrial establishmentunfair labour practicelimitation periodclub employeesmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two labour appeals filed by former employees of the Chenab Club (Guarantee) Ltd., Faisalabad, challenging their retrenchment from employment. The appellants had previously approached the National Industrial Relations Commission and the Labour Court, alleging unfair labour practices and wrongful termination. The core legal questions were whether the Chenab Club constitutes an 'industry' or 'establishment' under the relevant labour laws, thereby bringing its employees within the ambit of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether the grievance petitions were time-barred. The Court held that the Chenab Club, being a company limited by guarantee, does not fall within the definition of an industrial or commercial entity. Consequently, the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are inapplicable to its employees. Furthermore, the Court found the petitions were barred by limitation. The key principle laid down is that private clubs registered as companies limited by guarantee do not qualify as industrial or commercial establishments under existing labour legislation, thus excluding their employees from the protections afforded by these specific statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a club registered as a company limited by guarantee constitute an industry or commercial establishment under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Are the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applicable to the employees of a private club?
  • Can a grievance petition filed four years after the date of termination be considered within the period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahid Abbas And 37 Other vs The Chenab Club (Guarantee) Limited, Faisalabad Through Its President And Another2008 KLR Labour & Service Cases 128 · Lahore High Court · 2006-09-12
  labour appealretrenchmentindustrial relationsclub employeeslimitationunfair labour practice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two labour appeals filed by retrenched employees challenging orders of the Labour Court which dismissed their petitions against termination from employment. The core legal questions relate to whether a club registered as a company limited by guarantee constitutes an industry or establishment under labour laws, whether the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to its employees, and whether the grievance petitions were barred by limitation. The Lahore High Court held that a club does not fall within the definition of a commercial or industrial entity, making the cited labour laws inapplicable to its employees. Furthermore, the Court held that the grievance petitions filed after an elapse of several years were barred by limitation. The key principle laid down is that clubs structured as companies limited by guarantee are outside the purview of industrial relations and standing orders legislation, and delayed termination challenges are unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a club registered as a company limited by guarantee falls within the definition of an industry under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Are the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applicable to the employees of a club?
  • Whether a grievance notice and petition filed four years after termination from employment are barred by limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahid Abbas and 36 others vs Chenab Club (Guarantee) Limited, Faisalabad through President and another2008 PLC 58 · Lahore High Court · 2007-09-12
  labour lawretrenchmentunfair labour practiceindustrial establishmentlimitation periodgrievance noticemaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two consolidated labour appeals challenging the dismissal of petitions by the Labour Court concerning the retrenchment of employees from the Chenab Club (Guarantee) Limited, Faisalabad. The appellants, terminated in May 2001, sought relief under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, alleging unfair labour practices and violation of standing orders. The core legal questions were whether the respondent club qualified as an 'industry' or 'establishment' under the relevant labour laws, and whether the appellants' grievance petitions were maintainable and within the period of limitation. The Lahore High Court held that the Chenab Club, being a company limited by guarantee, does not fall within the definition of an industrial or commercial entity under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, nor does it attract the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Labour Court's decision, ruling that the petitions were incompetent and time-barred, as the grievance notice was issued four years after the termination. The principle established is that private clubs do not constitute industries for the purposes of labour legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a club registered as a company limited by guarantee qualify as an industry under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Are the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applicable to employees of a private club?
  • Can a grievance petition filed four years after the date of termination be considered within the period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shaheen Haider vs Mst. Syeda Kaneez Kubra and 3 others2008 MLD 986 · Lahore High Court · 2008-04-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Sabir Hussain Shah, Divisional Director, Local Fund Audit, Lahore2008 PLJ Lahore 1080 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Nusrat Jamal And Another vs The Inspector General Of Police, Lahore2008 KLR Labour & Service Cases 131 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Nadeem Hassan Kazmi vs Chairman, National2008 PLD Lahore 105 · Lahore High Court · 2007-11-26
  Accountability Court jurisdictionNational Accountability Ordinanceholder of public officeprivate bank employeecorruption and corrupt practiceswrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the jurisdiction of the Accountability Court, Lahore, to try the petitioner, a private bank employee, for corruption offenses. The petitioner contended that as he was not a holder of public office, he was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) or the Accountability Court under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether the Ordinance applies exclusively to holders of public office or extends to private individuals. The Court held that the Accountability Court possesses jurisdiction over private persons. Analyzing the statutory language, the Court determined that the phrase 'any other person' in Section 9(a) of the Ordinance, separated by the disjunctive 'or' from 'holder of public office,' indicates that the Ordinance covers both categories. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Section 4 of the Ordinance broadly applies to all persons in Pakistan. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that both holders of public office and private citizens are liable to be tried by an Accountability Court for corruption and corrupt practices.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 apply to private individuals who are not holders of public office?
  • Can a case be transferred from a Special Court to an Accountability Court under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Does the phrase 'any other person' in Section 9(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 include individuals who are not public office holders?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Rafique Shah vs Government of Punjab2008 PLC (C.S.) 880 · Lahore High Court · 2008-02-01
  Orderly AllowanceUnified Pay ScaleCivil ServantsEqual Pay for Equal WorkConstitutional PetitionDiscriminationFundamental Rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the refusal of the Government of Punjab to grant 'Orderly Allowance' to the petitioner, a BPS-20/21 officer, on the ground that he was not a Secretariat employee. The core legal question was whether distinguishing between Secretariat and non-Secretariat employees for the purpose of such allowances, despite both holding the same pay scale, constitutes illegal discrimination under the Constitution. The Court held that the refusal was discriminatory and void. Relying on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work,' the Court ruled that after the enforcement of Unified Pay Scales, the re-emergence of categories of Secretariat and non-Secretariat employees to justify disparate treatment is legally unsustainable. The Court affirmed that all civil servants of the same rank performing duties of similar value must be treated equally. It established that while reasonable classification based on specialized duties is permissible, further classification within a category to deny benefits violates the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law. Consequently, the petitioner was declared entitled to the allowance.

  Questions settled

  • Is the distinction between Secretariat and non-Secretariat employees for the grant of Orderly Allowance discriminatory?
  • Does the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' apply to civil servants under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a civil servant invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court if they are barred from approaching the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Idrees Bokhari vs Arif Masood and other2008 MLD 611 · Lahore High Court · 2004-07-16
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequebailable offenceremand of bail matterbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by the complainant challenging the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent-accused in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of cheques. The Additional Sessions Judge had granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent primarily on the ground that the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was bailable. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the bail was granted based on an erroneous legal premise regarding the bailable nature of the offence without considering the merits of the case. The Lahore High Court held that the offence was not bailable and that the lower court failed to touch upon the merits of the respective pleas of the parties. Consequently, by consent of the parties' counsel, the High Court set aside the impugned bail order, remanded the matter back to the Additional Sessions Judge to decide the bail application afresh on merits within thirty days, noting that investigation was complete and the challan had been submitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is bailable?
  • Can a pre-arrest bail order granted without discussing the merits of the case and on an erroneous legal premise be set aside?
  • Whether a bail matter can be remanded back to the trial court for a fresh decision when the initial order suffers from non-consideration of merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Matloob Hussain vs The State and 2 others2008 P Cr. L J 1279 · Lahore High Court · 2008-04-28
  complainantgiving up prosecution witnessmurder trialFirst Information Reportcriminal revisionprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from a murder case where the petitioner, the father of the deceased and original complainant of the F.I.R., sought to challenge a trial court order allowing the prosecution to give him up as a prosecution witness. The mother of the deceased had intervened during the investigation, nominating two accused persons whom the complainant allegedly intended to shield after being won over. The core legal question was whether the prosecution can be permitted to give up the original complainant as a witness in a murder trial when he has adopted a stance contrary to the prosecution's case and in favor of the accused. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prosecution has the right to decide what evidence to produce in support of its case and is not obliged to examine a complainant who acts to the prejudice of the prosecution. The Court laid down the principle that the prosecution may give up a complainant-witness who is undermining the case, while the trial court retains the inherent power to summon such a witness at any stage if deemed essential for a just decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution has the right to give up the original complainant as a witness during a trial?
  • Can a trial court permit the prosecution to drop the complainant as a prosecution witness when the complainant is alleged to have been won over by the accused?
  • Does the non-mentioning of an accused's name in the F.I.R. bar the prosecution from proceeding against such accused based on subsequent evidence?
  • Can the trial court summon the given-up complainant as a witness if his evidence is essential for the just decision of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Matloob Hussain vs State and 2 othersPLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 774 · Lahore High Court · 2008-04-28
  prosecution witnesscomplainantgiving up witnessFIRcriminal revisiondiscretion of prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, the complainant in a murder case, challenged a trial court order allowing the prosecution to give him up as a witness. The petitioner had lodged the FIR but later allegedly favored the accused, who were his relatives, while the mother of the deceased (the petitioner's wife) sought their prosecution. The core legal question was whether the prosecution is bound to produce the complainant as a witness, and whether the trial court could permit the prosecution to abandon him if his testimony was deemed prejudicial to the prosecution's case. The High Court held that the prosecution has the discretion to determine which evidence is necessary to support its case. The court ruled that the complainant is not an inevitable witness, especially when he acts contrary to the prosecution's interest. The principle laid down is that the prosecution is not obliged to produce a complainant as a witness if it believes he has been won over or is acting prejudicially; however, the trial court retains the inherent power to summon the complainant later if his testimony becomes essential for a just decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is the prosecution bound to produce the complainant as a witness in a criminal trial?
  • Can the prosecution be permitted to give up a complainant as a witness if he is acting against the prosecution's interest?
  • Does the trial court have the power to summon a complainant as a witness even after the prosecution has been permitted to give him up?
  • Is an FIR a substantive piece of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Khurram Shah vs Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, Etc.K.L.R. 2008 Civil Cases 315 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Khurram Shah vs Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif and 4 others2008 PLD Lahore 432 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Khurram Shah vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz: Sharif And 4 OtherK.L.R. 2008 Civil Cases 330 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Iftikhar Hussain Bukhari and 2 others vs Malik Muhammad Sharif2008 YLR 927 · Lahore High Court · 2003-06-11
  civil revisionrejection of plaintcause of actionamenity ploturban planningvested righttemporary injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the trial court and the lower appellate court, which rejected the petitioners' plaint for failing to disclose a cause of action and dismissed their application for a temporary injunction. The petitioners, owners of shops in the Allama Iqbal Town scheme, sought to prevent the Lahore Development Authority from converting an amenity plot into a petrol pump, asserting a vested right in the scheme's original sanctioned layout. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' claim regarding the preservation of amenity plots constituted a valid cause of action. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in their assessment. The Court ruled that as property owners within the scheme, the petitioners possess a right to the amenities provided in the sanctioned plan. Consequently, if the allegations in the plaint are proven through evidence, they could establish a legal right to maintain the amenity plots for their intended purpose. The principle established is that a plaint discloses a cause of action if, assuming the facts pleaded are true, the plaintiff could potentially establish a legal right to the relief sought.

  Questions settled

  • Does a property owner in a sanctioned development scheme have a cause of action to challenge the conversion of an amenity plot?
  • What is the correct legal test for determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action?
  • Can a court reject a plaint on the ground of no cause of action if the plaintiff asserts a right to the preservation of amenities in a sanctioned scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Gulfam Ali Shah vs The State and another2008 YLR 1772 · Lahore High Court · 2008-02-20
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirypolice investigationcommon intentionfirearm injurybail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving an FIR registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was nominated in the FIR as the head of the family but shown empty-handed without any weapon or specific injury attributed to him, and who was declared innocent during police investigation, makes out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court held that since the fatal shot was attributed to a co-accused, the occurrence was unwitnessed by the cited witnesses, the petitioner was empty-handed, and the police found him innocent during the investigation, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that while police findings of innocence are not strictly binding on the court, they cannot be discarded without examination when supported by circumstances indicating the possibility of false implication or lack of overt acts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner nominated in the FIR as head of the family without any overt act or injury attributed to him is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a police report declaring an accused innocent during the consideration of a bail petition?
  • Does the absence of eyewitnesses to the actual crime and the presence of only circumstantial or hearsay knowledge warrant the grant of bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Gulfam Ali Shah vs State and anotherPLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 977 · Lahore High Court · 2008-02-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Hassan vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 1510 · Lahore High Court · 2007-04-25
  post-arrest bailcustoms smugglingcase propertychemical examinerfurther inquiryrecovery of liquor
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Customs Act, 1969, following the alleged recovery of foreign liquor, mobile cards, and cloth from his luggage at the Lahore International Airport. The core legal question was whether the belated and unauthorized drawing of samples from the seized case property after the submission of the challan created reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. The Lahore High Court held that since the case property was in the custody of the trial Court and samples were drawn without the Court's permission long after the challan was submitted, this irregularity cast doubt on the prosecution's case, entitling the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that unauthorized tampering or extraction of samples from case property already submitted to the trial Court creates a shadow of doubt on the prosecution story, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the drawing of samples from case property without the court's permission after submission of the challan entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether recovery of foreign liquor without timely chemical examination constitutes a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
  • Can case property in the custody of the trial Court be interfered with by the prosecution without prior judicial permission?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Hassan vs StatePLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 676 · Lahore High Court · 2007-04-25
  post-arrest bailcustoms smugglingcase propertyprocedural irregularityfurther inquirychemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged smuggling of liquor and other goods, registered under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the prosecution's failure to follow proper procedure regarding the handling of case property—specifically, the delayed sampling of seized liquor after the submission of the challan without judicial permission—entitled the accused to bail. The Court held that the prosecution's unexplained, belated action of taking samples from the case property without the trial court's permission cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court determined that the matter required further inquiry to ascertain whether the recovered items constituted smuggled goods under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1969. The principle laid down is that procedural irregularities by the prosecution in handling case property, particularly when such property is under the court's custody, create sufficient doubt to entitle an accused to the concession of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to obtain court permission before sampling seized case property after the submission of a challan entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can the prosecution rely on evidence obtained through procedural irregularities in the handling of case property?
  • Does the recovery of items without proper sampling procedures constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Asif Akhtar Hashmi vs Malik Muhammad Riaz and 3 others2008 C.L.R. 993 · Lahore High Court · 2008-02-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Arif Hussain Shah vs The State2008 MLD 483 · Lahore High Court · 2007-06-18
  post-arrest bailcounterfeit currency notesprohibitory clauserule of consistencyfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 405 registered under sections 489-B and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shahpur Saddar, Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the offense allegedly fell under a section not attracting the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and in view of the rule of consistency as a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The Court held that at the bail stage, the case pertained to the recovery of counterfeit currency notes attracting section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the petitioner was entitled to bail under the rule of consistency since a co-accused was already on bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when a co-accused has already been granted bail?
  • Does the tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage permit converting the consideration from section 489-B to section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Hussain Jafri vs Kasb Bank Ltd through Manager and 82008 CLD 823 · Lahore High Court · 2008-03-24
  execution proceedingsauction salebanking courtjudgment-debtorauction-purchasercompensationmarket value
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an execution proceeding in a banking suit where the Banking Court set aside an auction sale of the judgment-debtor's property on the grounds that the sale price was significantly below the market value. Despite setting aside the auction, the Banking Court ordered the judgment-debtor to pay the auction-purchaser 5% of the purchase price as compensation under Order XXI, Rule 89, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alongside a 5% per annum mark-up for the period the funds remained blocked. The judgment-debtor challenged these impositions. The Lahore High Court held that the imposition of penalties was unwarranted because the auction was set aside due to the inadequate price fetched, not due to any fault of the judgment-debtor. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the provision for 5% compensation under Order XXI, Rule 89, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is restricted to the decree-holder, not the auction-purchaser. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order requiring the judgment-debtor to pay the 5% compensation and the additional mark-up, ruling that the auction-purchaser was not entitled to these payments.

  Questions settled

  • Is an auction-purchaser entitled to 5% compensation under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an auction is set aside?
  • Can a court impose a mark-up on a judgment-debtor for the period an auction-purchaser's funds remained blocked when the auction sale is set aside due to inadequate price?
  • Does the provision for 5% compensation under Order XXI, Rule 89-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to an auction-purchaser?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Amir Hussain Shah and another vs Syed Faheem Abbas and another2008 YLR 270 · Lahore High Court · 2007-10-11
  civil revisionpleadingsgift deedburden of proofadmission in written statementpreliminary decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for a declaration and partition regarding a residential house, initially filed by the respondent-plaintiff claiming ownership of a half share through a gift by the last male owner to his pre-deceased father. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the gift had not been proved, although it also found that the defendants failed to prove their alternative plea that they had purchased the father's share. On appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed the judgment and passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff. The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision in limine, holding that where the foundational gift was not denied in the written statement and a distinct plea of purchase of the share was taken instead, the issue of proving the gift did not arise from the pleadings. The court affirmed that since the defendants failed to establish their plea of purchase, the plaintiff's admitted pedigree and undisputed initial entitlement entitled him to the decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an issue regarding a fact admitted in the written statement arises for determination?
  • Can a defendant succeed on a plea not established by evidence when the foundational relationship is admitted?
  • Whether the appellate court is justified in reversing a dismissal where the trial court misdirected itself on the burden of proof regarding uncontroverted facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Akbar Ali Shah Naqvi vs Station House Officer/InchargePLJ 2008 Tax Cases (Lah.) 69 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Ahmed vs Syed Muzaffar Hussain (deceased) through his Legal2008 PLJ Lahore 912 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain Shah vs Federal Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2008 PTD 1547 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-20
  tax exemptionultra viresdelegated legislationFederal Board of Revenuewrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationfiscal statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of a Notification issued by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) regarding tax exemptions. The core legal questions were whether the provisions of section 153(6A) and (6B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, are mutually inclusive and whether the FBR acted within its lawful jurisdiction when issuing S.R.O. 847(I)/2007. The petitioners contended that the Notification, by amending the scope of exemptions, effectively usurped legislative powers. The Court, relying on its reasoning in a connected matter, held that the Notification was ultra vires the powers of the FBR. It determined that the FBR, under the guise of amending the Second Schedule, had improperly altered the extent of exemptions provided under section 153(6A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, thereby exercising authority reserved exclusively for the legislature. Consequently, the Court declared the Notification void and of no legal effect, allowing the petitions and affirming that administrative bodies cannot expand their delegated powers to encroach upon legislative functions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Board of Revenue have the authority to amend the extent of tax exemptions provided under section 153(6A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Is a Notification issued by the Federal Board of Revenue that alters the scope of statutory exemptions ultra vires if it encroaches upon legislative power?
  • Can the Federal Board of Revenue, through an S.R.O., effectively modify the application of section 153(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain Shah vs Federal Government Of Pakistan Islamabad2008 P.C.T.L.R. 1215 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain Shah vs Federal Government of Pakistan Islamabad2008 PLJ Lahore 1045 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain Shah vs Federal Government of Pakistan and 2 othersPTCL 2008 CL. 484 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-20Read full judgment →
• Sultan and 6 others vs The State2008 YLR 1167 · Lahore High Court · 2004-02-24
  criminal appealmurderland disputesudden fightcapital punishment reductionlife imprisonmentfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a fatal land dispute resulting in one death and injuries to prosecution witnesses. The core legal question concerns the determination of culpability and appropriate sentencing where both parties engaged in a violent confrontation over disputed land possession and conflicting claims of aggression. The Lahore High Court held that although the involvement of the appellants in the occurrence is established, the incident arose from a sudden struggle over land possession where passions prevailed, rendering it distinct from a cold-blooded murder. Consequently, the court upheld the convictions but commuted the death sentences of the appellants to imprisonment for life, while disposing of the connected murder reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that where a homicide occurs during a sudden mutual combat or armed struggle over land possession involving provocation and disputed pre-existing possession, the capital sentence may be withheld in favor of imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a death sentence can be commuted to imprisonment for life when a murder arises from a sudden armed struggle over land possession?
  • Does the interchangeability of firearm nomenclature by rustic witnesses vitiate ocular testimony?
  • Whether mitigating circumstances such as a pre-existing land dispute and lack of premeditation warrant leniency in sentencing under section 302 Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad through General Attorney vs Muhammad Nawaz and another2008 YLR 135 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Suleman vs The State2008 YLR 2722 · Lahore High Court · 2008-08-04
  post-arrest bailunnatural offencesodomymedical evidencefurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly committing an unnatural offence with the minor daughter of the complainant. The core legal question was whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner was guilty, specifically concerning whether the medical evidence established penetration as required for the offence. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of any swelling, tear, or laceration in the medical report rendered the occurrence of penetration doubtful, and the eyewitness account appeared unnatural. Consequently, the court decided that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of further inquiry and admitted him to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where medical evidence fails to support the element of penetration in an unnatural offence charge, and eyewitness testimony appears doubtful, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of physical signs of penetration in the medical report constitutes grounds for further inquiry under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does an unbelievable eyewitness account in a criminal case warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether a delay in medical examination and chemical analysis impacts the establishment of penetration in sodomy cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs StatePLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1215 · Lahore High Court · 2008-08-04
  post-arrest bailsodomymedical evidencepenetrationfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly committing sodomy with a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the essential ingredients of the offense, particularly penetration, were prima facie established through the medical evidence and whether the case warranted further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of swelling, tears, or lacerations in the medical report indicated that no penetration had taken place, thereby failing to constitute the charged offense. Furthermore, the eyewitness account appeared unnatural and doubtful. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where medical evidence contradicts the occurrence of penetration in an unnatural offense charge, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of physical signs of penetration in a medical report makes the offense under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 open to further inquiry?
  • Does an unnatural eyewitness account regarding a heinous crime warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether delay in sending medical swabs for chemical examination affects the determination of bail when medical findings are otherwise inconclusive regarding penetration?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman Daud vs Lahore Development Authority through its Director2008 PLJ Lahore 1039 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Suleman Daud vs Lahore Development Authority through its Director2008 C.L.R. 1348 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Suleman Daud vs Lahore Development Authority through Director2008 CLC 1251 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →