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. 79,400 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Mazhar vs The State2007 P Cr. L J 1540 · Lahore High Court · 2007-04-26
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offenderOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) OrdinanceJuvenile Justice System Ordinanceprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of an offence under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question is whether an accused person who is a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence is entitled to the concession of bail when his case does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the trial has not commenced. The court decided to admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner's age as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, places him outside the adult definitions of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and that keeping an accused incarcerated indefinitely without trial amounts to pre-trial punishment. The key principle laid down is that for juvenile offenders whose offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and where trial is not likely to commence soon, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Is a juvenile accused entitled to bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 when the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  • Whether an accused can be kept behind bars for an indefinite period without the commencement of a trial?
  • Does the definition of an adult under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 apply to a child under the age of 18 years?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Khan vs Additional District Judge, Mailsi and others s2007 MLD 1580 · Lahore High Court · 2007-05-23Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain vs The State2007 YLR 57 · Lahore High Court · 2006-05-02
  capital punishmentmurderinjured eyewitnessballistic corroborationnight occurrencemotivedeath reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shorkot, convicting the appellant Mazhar Hussain under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder and sentencing him to death on two counts. The core legal questions involve the assessment of ocular testimony of related and injured eyewitnesses, the presence of a source of light during a night occurrence, the corroborative value of ballistic matching, and the sufficiency of the motive for capital punishment. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through prompt FIR lodging, natural and injured eyewitnesses whose presence was stamped with injuries, supportive medical evidence, and matching crime empties. The court modified the conviction from section 302(a) to section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while upholding the death sentences. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of natural and injured eyewitnesses, when consistent and corroborated by medical evidence, prompt FIR, and forensic matching of crime empties, is sufficient to sustain a capital conviction even in night occurrences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and injured eyewitnesses is sufficient to maintain a capital conviction in a night occurrence?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon and positive matching of crime empties provide reliable corroboration to ocular testimony?
  • Can a conviction under section 302(a) be modified to section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the facts of the case?
  • Whether prompt lodging of the FIR and medical evidence can dispel doubts regarding the visibility and source of light during a night incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain and another vs Zarai Tariqati Bank Limited (ADBP)2007 CLD 710 · Lahore High Court · 2007-01-25
  execution proceedingsbanking courtmortgage deedrecovery suitexecuting court jurisdictionres judicataliability of guarantors
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order of the Banking Court dismissing an application filed by the appellants under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellants, impleaded as guarantors and mortgagors in a recovery suit filed by the respondent-Bank, failed to appear or contest the suit, which was subsequently decreed against them. During execution proceedings, the appellants sought to limit their liability to a specific sum based on their interpretation of the mortgage deed. The core legal question was whether an executing court possesses the jurisdiction to re-examine the merits of a decree or interpret underlying documents to alter the liability established by that decree. The High Court held that the executing court cannot travel behind the decree to adjudicate upon issues that should have been raised during the original suit proceedings. The Court affirmed that permitting such arguments at the execution stage would effectively amount to a retrial, which is impermissible. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, establishing the principle that an executing court cannot sit in appeal against the decree it is tasked to execute.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executing court travel behind the decree to re-examine the merits of the original suit?
  • Is it permissible for an executing court to interpret underlying documents to alter the liability established by a final decree?
  • Does an executing court have the authority to sit in appeal against the decree it is executing?
  Read full judgment →
• Mayo Khan vs Bashir Ahmad2007 MLD 588 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-22Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Hanif vs The State2007 YLR 388 · Lahore High Court · 2004-10-26
  post-arrest bailzina-bil-jabrfurther inquiryaffidavits of innocencebusiness rivalryhudood ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition is filed by Maulvi Hanif seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 496 dated 2-9-2004 registered under Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Baghbanpura, District Gujranwala. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of affidavits sworn by the complainant and eyewitnesses stating the petitioner's innocence and business rivalry. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that the affidavits sworn by the complainant and eyewitnesses retracting or disclaiming their ocular observation, combined with the petitioner's elderly age and lack of criminal record, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making his culpability a matter for determination at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether affidavits sworn by the complainant and eyewitnesses stating the innocence of the accused constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted in a case under Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 when the culpability of the accused requires determination at trial?
  • Does business rivalry coupled with affidavits from prosecution witnesses make a criminal case one of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Mauj Ali vs Ghulam Sarwar and another2007 CLC 1565 · Lahore High Court · 2007-04-16Read full judgment →
• Matloob Hussain alias Baggan and another vs The State2007 P Cr. L J 1699 · Lahore High Court · 2007-06-19
  self-defenceprivate defenceexceeded right of private defencemurderabscondereyewitness credibilitycounter-versionbenefit of doubtfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court arises from a criminal appeal against convictions under sections 302/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, a murder reference, and connected matters. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with co-accused, fatally shot the deceased over a previous enmity. The appellants pleaded false implication, and appellant Matloob Hussain specifically raised a plea of self-defence, stating the deceased—a dangerous criminal and proclaimed offender in a prior murder case involving the appellants' brother—had attacked their house. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of recoveries, and the applicability of the right of private defence. The Court held that the eyewitnesses were not present at the time of the occurrence and the prosecution case was fraught with serious doubts. Accepting that the deceased was an absconder present near the appellants' house under suspicious circumstances, the Court held that appellant Matloob Hussain had exceeded his right of private defence. Consequently, the Court acquitted one appellant, altered the conviction of Matloob Hussain from section 302(b) to section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code, reduced his sentence, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • How should a court evaluate a case involving conflicting prosecution and defence versions?
  • Does exceeding the right of private defence warrant a reduction of conviction from premeditated murder to a lesser category?
  • Can recovery evidence be relied upon when weapon and empty cartridges are kept at the police station for unexplained periods prior to forensic analysis?
  • What is the legal effect on a prosecution case when eyewitnesses are found to be chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene is unnatural and unproven?
  Read full judgment →
• Matloob Ahmad vs Additional District Judge,Sheikhupura and 2 others2007 CLC 1578 · Lahore High Court · 2007-06-13
  guardian and wardscustody of minorwelfare of minorconstitutional petitionmaintenance allowancefather's right of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition assailed the concurrent judgments of the Guardian Judge and the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby the petitioner's application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for the custody of his minor daughter was dismissed. The core legal question concerned whether the father was entitled to the custody of the minor daughter despite having contracted multiple marriages, remaining frequently transferred due to his military service, and failing to provide maintenance for years, or whether the welfare of the minor dictated custody with the real mother. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the right of a father to claim custody is not absolute, and the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor. The Court laid down that a father who neglects his minor child, fails to pay maintenance, contracts multiple marriages, and lacks a stable home environment with his real mother is not entitled to custody, as handing the growing girl over to step-mothers would be prejudicial to her welfare.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right of a father to claim the custody of his minor child an absolute right under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  • Does the failure of a father to provide maintenance for a minor child disentitle him from claiming custody?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against concurrent findings of lower courts in matters concerning the custody of a minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Master Muhammad Ashiq vs The State2007 P Cr. L J 1802 · Lahore High Court · 2007-08-07
  pre-arrest bailabductionfree-will marriagefurther inquiryalibimala fidesstatement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of an application for pre-arrest bail in a case registered under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ahmad Nagar, District Gujranwala, concerning the alleged abduction of the complainant's daughter. The core legal question is whether the petitioner has made out a case for pre-arrest bail based on mala fides, a conflicting initial statement by the alleged abductee, and a plea of alibi supported by a school attendance certificate. The Lahore High Court held that where the alleged abductee initially stated before the police that she was sui juris and had contracted a free-will marriage, and later changed her stance only after refusing a medical examination and subsequent judicial proceedings, further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt is warranted. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down that contradictions arising from tainted subsequent statements and documented alibis indicating false implication by the police and complainant justify granting pre-arrest relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the alleged abductee's initial statement supports the accused and subsequent conflicting statements indicate mala fides?
  • Does an official attendance certificate establishing a plea of alibi at the time of the alleged occurrence make the case one of further inquiry under criminal law?
  • Whether the refusal of an alleged abductee to undergo a medical examination affects the credibility of subsequent allegations against the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Masroor-Ud-Din and another vs The State2007 YLR 2823 · Lahore High Court · 2006-09-11
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationexemption from appearancecriminal procedurenotice to accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail after the trial court cancelled the petitioners' bail and dismissed their exemption application. The core legal question concerns the validity of bail cancellation and whether the trial court ought to have issued a notice to the accused instead of straightaway cancelling their bail when they failed to appear under a genuine impression that their exemption application would be allowed. The court held that the trial court erred in cancelling the bail without issuing a notice, especially since the petitioners were under a bona fide impression regarding their exemption application and the complainant raised no objection to the restoration of bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused fails to appear due to a genuine misunderstanding regarding an exemption application, the trial court should issue a notice for appearance rather than hastily cancelling bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court should issue a notice for appearance before cancelling bail when an accused fails to attend due to a pending exemption application?
  • Can bail be restored if the complainant has no objection subject to the accused's undertaking to appear on all future dates of hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Masood Salahuddin vs Punjab Co-Operatives Board for Liquidation, Lahore through Its Chairman and 15 others2007 PLJ Lahore 262 · Lahore High Court · 2006-07-24Read full judgment →
• Masood Salahuddin Qureshi vs Punjab Cooperatives Board for Liquidation, Lahore through its Chairman and 15 others2007 C.L.R. 404 · Lahore High Court · 2006-07-24Read full judgment →
• Masood Salahuddin Qureshi vs Punjab Cooperatives Board for Liquidation, Lahore through Chairman and 15 others2007 CLC 60 · Lahore High Court · 2006-07-24
  limitation periodcondonation of delayspecial enactmentcooperative societiesawardjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 to challenge an award issued by the Judicial Officer PCBL against both managements. The petition was filed after four months from the date of the impugned order, accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The core legal question was whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to proceedings under the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 to condone delay beyond the prescribed sixty-day limitation period. The court held that since the special enactment does not contain an express provision extending the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay cannot be condoned. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay and the main petition were dismissed as barred by time. The key principle laid down is that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply automatically to special enactments unless its application is expressly extended by the statute governing the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies automatically to special enactments without an express provision?
  • What is the limitation period for filing a petition under section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993?
  • Can a Cooperative Judge entertain an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act when the governing statute lacks an enabling provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Mashreq Bank PSC, 48 Shahrah-E-Quaid-E-Azam, Lahore, Through Zafar H.(2007 P.C.T.L.R. 321) · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mashreq Bank PSC through Constituted Attorney vs Farooq Habib Textile2007 CLD 320 · Lahore High Court · 2006-07-27
  banking recoveryred clause letter of creditpledge of stockstatement of accountpersonal guaranteeburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Lahore High Court addresses a suit filed by Mashreq Bank PSC against Farooq Habib Textile Mills and others for the recovery of an outstanding amount allegedly advanced as finance against the pledge of stocks under letters of credit. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff bank had established a valid loan facility and whether the defendants were liable as borrowers and guarantors. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of any loan facility, noting the absence of crucial foundational documents such as loan applications, sanction letters, finance agreements, and proper statements of account showing debit and credit entries. The court clarified that the transaction was based on 'red clause' letters of credit where the defendant was a beneficiary rather than a direct borrower, and that letters of pledge and personal guarantees were tied to unproduced underlying agreements. Consequently, the suit was dismissed, establishing the principle that a financial recovery suit is not maintainable or sustainable without a proper statement of account and proof of the underlying finance agreements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a banking suit for recovery of finance is maintainable without a proper statement of account showing debit and credit entries?
  • What is the legal effect of a beneficiary receiving funds under a red clause letter of credit regarding personal liability?
  • Can a guarantor be held liable when the underlying finance agreement and primary debt are not proved by cogent evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Sadiq vs The StateK.L.R. 2007 Criminal Cases 204 · Lahore High Court · 2005-01-20
  price controlprofiteeringsentencing discretioncriminal revisionhoardingregulatory offense
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, for failing to display a price list. The petitioner was initially convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to 90 days of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 70,000, which was upheld on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the sentence imposed was proportionate given that it was the petitioner's first offense and there was no evidence of actual sales exceeding the controlled price. Upon review, the Court upheld the conviction but exercised its discretion to modify the sentence. The Court reduced the imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner and significantly reduced the fine from Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 7,000. The principle established is that while a conviction for a regulatory offense under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 remains valid, the sentencing should be proportionate to the nature of the offense, particularly for first-time offenders where no actual profiteering is proven.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone for a first-time offense under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act 1977?
  • Is a conviction under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act 1977 sustainable where there is no evidence of actual sales above the controlled price?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Arif vs The State2007 YLR 351 · Lahore High Court · 2006-09-19
  pre-arrest bailattempted murderrobberyvital part of bodymedico-legal reportmala fide investigationconcealment of factsprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition before the Lahore High Court sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, armed with a 12-bore gun, snatched jewellery alongside co-accused and fired a shot hitting the victim on the forehead, a vital part of the body. The petitioner argued that he was declared innocent by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, lacked intention to commit murder, and had no recoveries effected from him. The High Court rejected these contentions, observing that the petitioner was specifically nominated in a promptly lodged FIR, his role was corroborated by the medico-legal report and four eyewitness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and he was a previous record holder. Additionally, the initial favorable investigation was deemed mala fide by the Superintendent of Police (Investigation), and the petitioner had concealed previous dismissals of his bail petitions. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted where an accused is specifically nominated in a promptly lodged FIR with a specific role of firing at a vital part of the body supported by medical evidence?
  • Does an investigation declaring an accused innocent entitle him to pre-arrest bail when a higher police authority finds that investigation to be mala fide and initiates proceedings against the investigating officer?
  • Whether the concealment of previous dismissals of bail applications for non-appearance disentitles a petitioner from the equitable relief of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood alias Soodi and another. vs The State2007 P Cr. L J 1967 · Lahore High Court · 2007-09-28
  criminal appealmurderfirearm injuryinjured witnessocular accountmedical corroborationacquittalcompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and section 337-L(2)/34, P.P.C. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through the ocular and medical evidence, and whether the testimony of related and injured witnesses could be relied upon. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution proved its case against appellant Maqsood alias Soodi beyond any shadow of doubt, noting that the ocular account was duly corroborated by medical evidence and the testimony of the injured witness. Consequently, the appeal regarding Maqsood was dismissed with a modification regarding the nature of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., while the appeal regarding appellant Hameed—who was only attributed a Lalkara—was allowed, resulting in his acquittal. The key principles laid down include that mere relationship of witnesses does not discredit their testimony in the absence of prior enmity, and that apparent discrepancies in distance stated by medical and ocular witnesses must be evaluated in light of the weapon's dimensions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured witness and related witnesses can be relied upon to sustain a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a minor discrepancy between the distance of firing stated by ocular witnesses and medical evidence vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Whether the attribution of a mere Lalkara without further overt acts is sufficient to maintain a conviction for murder?
  • Can a monetary penalty imposed under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be legally characterized as compensation rather than fine?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs The State2007 P Cr. L J 401 · Lahore High Court · 2006-12-06
  post-arrest bailemigrationdelay in FIRfurther inquirydelayed challan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner applied for post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, alleging that he received money and a passport from the complainant to send him abroad for employment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry due to an unexplained delay of one and a half years in lodging the F.I.R., discrepancies regarding the amount paid, and the failure of the prosecution to submit the challan in court despite the petitioner's prolonged incarceration. The court laid down the principle that unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., coupled with delayed submission of the challan and a case fitting further inquiry, entitles an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. makes out a case for further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail?
  • Does the failure to submit a challan in court within a reasonable time entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Can bail be granted when there are material discrepancies in the amount allegedly paid to the accused as stated in the F.I.R. and before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs StatePLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 312 · Lahore High Court · 2006-12-06
  post-arrest bailEmigration Ordinance 1979further inquirydelay in FIRsubmission of challanSection 173 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for post-arrest bail brought by the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 at Police Station FIA (PC) Gujranwala. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner fraudulently received money and a passport from the complainant to secure employment abroad in Saudi Arabia, from where the complainant returned after three months. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delay in lodging the FIR, discrepancies in prosecution statements, and non-submission of the police report. The High Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that an unexplained 1.5-year delay in lodging the FIR, a discrepancy between the FIR and complainant's oral statement regarding the amount paid, and prolonged detention in judicial lock-up without submission of the challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. rendered the case one of further inquiry. The Court established that unexplained delay in registration of FIR and failure to submit the challan within statutory timeframes entitle an accused to bail under the doctrine of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained long delay in lodging an FIR brings the case of an accused within the ambit of further inquiry for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does a contradiction between the amount alleged in the FIR and the complainant's statement in court justify the grant of bail on grounds of further inquiry?
  • Whether prolonged custody in judicial lock-up without the submission of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain vs Anjuman Masjid Al-Badr Ahl-E-Hadith and 32007 YLR 1479 · Lahore High Court · 2006-10-30
  suit for possessionlocal commissioner reportobjections to reportappellate jurisdictionmiscellaneous applicationsremandcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, Okara, which affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's suit for possession of a plot. The petitioner, claiming ownership via a registered sale deed, sought recovery of possession after the respondent obtained it through a decree in a separate suit for specific performance. During the appellate proceedings, the petitioner filed objections to the report of a Local Commissioner appointed by the court. The core legal question was whether the appellate court could pass a final judgment without first adjudicating upon the pending objections filed against the Local Commissioner's report. The High Court held that the failure to decide these objections constituted a patent illegality, as all miscellaneous applications must be decided independently before the final judgment is rendered. Consequently, the court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the matter to the Additional District Judge, directing that the objections be decided first, followed by a fresh decision on the appeal on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Must a court decide objections filed against a Local Commissioner's report before passing a final judgment?
  • Does the failure to adjudicate upon pending miscellaneous applications before a final judgment constitute a legal error?
  • Can an appellate court proceed to decide an appeal on merits without first disposing of pending objections to a local commissioner's report?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain Asif and 8 others vs Secretary, Local Government &2007 PLJ Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court
  service lawlocal governmentstatutory rulesexecutive circularpromotionUnion Nazimcompetent authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, originally appointed as Naib Qasids in the Zila Council, were promoted to the position of Secretary, Union Council, following the promulgation of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. They challenged orders issued by the respondent authorities, which directed the review of these promotions and the recovery of emoluments paid. The core legal question was whether an executive circular could override statutory rules regarding the authority competent to make appointments and promotions within the local government setup. The court held that the promotions were validly made by the Union Nazim in accordance with the Punjab Local Councils Servants (Service) Rules, 1997, as amended. The court ruled that the impugned orders were without lawful authority, as executive instructions or circulars cannot supersede statutory rules framed under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. The key principle established is that statutory rules framed by a competent authority in exercise of powers conferred by a statute hold supremacy over administrative circulars, and the executive cannot set aside such statutory provisions through mere departmental instructions.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive circular override statutory rules framed under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001?
  • Who is the competent authority for the appointment and promotion of servants of the Union Administration under the Punjab Local Councils Servants (Service) Rules, 1997?
  • Does the Union Nazim have the authority to promote employees to the post of Secretary, Union Council?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain alias Jamala Dogar etc. vs StatePLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1203 · Lahore High Court · 2006-06-13
  murderunlawful assemblycommon objectprivate defenceappellate convictionreduction of sentenceeyewitness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting multiple appellants for the murders of five persons under Sections 302 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the establishment of common object within an unlawful assembly, and the viability of the plea of private defence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the main appellant through consistent eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and a clear motive, while finding co-appellants liable for participating as members of an unlawful assembly with fire-arms. The court maintained the conviction of the primary assailant but altered the death sentences of the co-appellants to imprisonment for life, while dismissing the appeal with modifications. The key principles laid down include the standard of proof required in multi-accused murder trials involving unlawful assembly and the assessment of ocular testimony corroborated by medical and recovery evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the un-shattered testimony of inimical eyewitnesses can form the basis of a murder conviction when corroborated by medical and recovery evidence?
  • Can co-accused who are armed and present at the crime scene sharing a common object be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 even if no specific fatal injury is attributed to them?
  • Does a plea of private defence raised by an accused suffice for acquittal when unsupported by credible defence evidence and contradicted by prosecution proof?
  • Whether appellate courts can alter a sentence of death to imprisonment for life for co-appellants where specific fatal attribution is lacking?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs The State and anothers2007 MLD 436 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-20
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilityidentification paradedacoitymurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused in a case involving dacoity and murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the First Information Report and was implicated solely based on a co-accused's statement, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The reasoning was based on several factors: the petitioner was not named in the FIR, no identification parade was conducted to establish his identity, and the recovery of the vehicle allegedly used in the crime was not in his exclusive possession. Furthermore, the complainant had filed a separate petition under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, claiming different individuals were the actual culprits, which cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The Court established the principle that where the prosecution's case against an accused rests on weak evidence, such as a co-accused's statement and disputed recovery, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the implication of an accused solely on the statement of a co-accused constitute sufficient grounds for denying bail?
  • Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the complainant files a separate petition claiming different persons were the actual culprits?
  • Does the absence of an identification parade for an accused not named in the FIR entitle the accused to bail?
  • Can an accused who is alleged to have only driven the vehicle used in a crime claim that their vicarious liability requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs State & anotherPLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 128 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-20
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirystatement of co-accusedidentification paradedacoity and murdervicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 396 and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a dacoity and murder incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail when he was not named in the First Information Report, was implicated solely on a co-accused's statement without an identification parade, and where contradictory stances were taken regarding the crime vehicle and the real culprits by the complainant in a Section 22-A petition. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's involvement warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the lack of identification, reliance on a co-accused's statement, questionable recovery, and the complainant's attempts to set up a new case. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that implication based on a co-accused's statement in a night-time occurrence without identification, coupled with material contradictions regarding the crime vehicle and the identity of culprits, brings the case within the scope of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when not named in the F.I.R. and implicated solely on the statement of a co-accused?
  • Does the absence of an identification parade in a night-time occurrence make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the effect of contradictory stances taken by the complainant in a petition under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the identity of the culprits on a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad and 2 others vs The State2007 YLR 3280 · Lahore High Court · 2005-09-07
  post-arrest bailfirearm injurygrievous hurtfurther inquirycriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by three petitioners facing charges under Sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), and 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Basti Malook. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries and the evidence presented. The Court held that while the case against petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 warranted bail, the case against petitioner No. 3 did not. The Court observed that the injuries attributed to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were simple in nature and the offenses were punishable by less than ten years imprisonment, making bail appropriate. Conversely, petitioner No. 3 was alleged to have caused firearm injuries resulting in prolonged hospitalization and disability, demonstrating a clear intent to cause grievous hurt. Consequently, the Court granted bail to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 subject to surety bonds, while dismissing the bail application for petitioner No. 3, emphasizing the severity of the firearm injury and the prima facie evidence of intent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged with an offense punishable by less than ten years is entitled to bail as a rule?
  • Does the use of a firearm with intent to cause grievous hurt preclude the grant of bail?
  • Can bail be granted to some co-accused while being denied to others based on the specific nature of their individual acts?
  Read full judgment →
• Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited, Lahore through its General Manager2007 C.L.R. 1008 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited, Lahore Through Its General ManagerK.L.R. 2007 Revenue Cases 201 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs S.H.O. Police Station, City Dunyanpur, District2007 YLR 1350 · Lahore High Court · 2007-01-18Read full judgment →
• Manzoor alias Bhoola vs The State2007 MLD 1904 · Lahore High Court · 2005-12-23
  post-arrest baildelay in F.I.R.rule of consistencyprolonged incarcerationabductionsodomy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Manzoor alias Bhoola, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 163 of 2001 registered under sections 363 and 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Liaqatabad, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., the grant of bail to co-accused, the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner without commencement of prosecution evidence, and the delay in trial attributable to a co-accused. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that where an accused person has suffered a sufficiently long period of incarceration without material progress in the trial due to the absence of a co-accused, coupled with an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the release of co-accused on bail, further detention becomes unjustified, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. entitles an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the prolonged incarceration of an accused without examination of prosecution witnesses form a fit ground for granting bail?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the rule of consistency when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed vs Tahir Mahmood and another2007 YLR 252 · Lahore High Court · 2006-07-14
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationdelay in FIRmala fide implicationattempted offencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner argued that sufficient incriminating material existed to establish the respondent's involvement. The Lahore High Court observed that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged with an unexplained delay of over two months, the complainant failed to join the investigation, and the alleged victim's statement was recorded only after four and a half months. Furthermore, the petitioner had a prior criminal case registered against him by the accused party, pointing to potential mala fide implication. Noting that the offence was merely an attempt, no recovery was required, the respondent had joined the investigation, and a challan had been submitted, the Court held that the considerations for granting bail differ from those for its cancellation. Finding no misuse of the bail concession, the Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and a delay in recording the victim's statement can justify the grant or retention of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of prior litigation or a criminal case registered by the accused party against the complainant support an assertion of mala fide implication for the purposes of bail?
  • Are the legal considerations for the grant of bail different from those governing the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed and others vs Rao Maqsood Ali Khan2007 MLD 1468 · Lahore High Court · 2007-05-29Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs The State2007 YLR 1777 · Lahore High Court · 2006-08-22
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausevicarious liabilitymedical evidencemala fidedelay in F.I.R.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i)/34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Nowshera Virkan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the presence of prior civil litigation, and the nature of the alleged offences. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the ad interim bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the findings that the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the investigation was complete with no requirement for further recovery. The key principle laid down is that in cases not punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or ten years, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, as established in the Supreme Court's dictum in Tariq Bashir's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of bail become the rule in cases where the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the accused is not required for further recovery of weapons?
  • Is the question of vicarious liability a matter to be determined at the trial stage rather than at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs D.I.-G. and others2007 P Cr. L J 1312 · Lahore High Court · 2007-04-23
  Intra-Court Appealregistration of criminal caseconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionpolitical rivalrymala fidecognizable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance is directed against the dismissal of a writ petition by the learned Single Judge in Chambers, which sought a direction for the registration of a criminal case regarding the theft of an electric motor. The core legal question involves whether a constitutional petition for the registration of a criminal case can be maintained based merely on political rivalry and unsubstantiated apprehensions of abetment against specific respondents, without prima facie cogent evidence. The Lahore High Court held that mere apprehension and political enmity do not constitute sufficient grounds to warrant a direction for the registration of a criminal case or interference in constitutional jurisdiction, especially when the allegations appear mala fide and alternate remedies exist. The court laid down the principle that constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to encourage litigation based on suspicion and surmises devoid of prima facie evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition can be maintained for the registration of a criminal case based solely on apprehension and political rivalry?
  • Does a mere apprehension in the mind of a petitioner make a person liable for a cognizable offence without prima facie cogent evidence?
  • Whether the High Court will interfere in Intra-Court Appeals against the dismissal of a writ petition seeking police action where allegations appear mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Land vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police, D.G.2007 P Cr. L J 1469 · Lahore High Court · 2007-04-23
  Intra-Court Appealregistration of criminal casecognizable offenceconstitutional jurisdictionpolitical rivalrymal fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 seeks to set aside an order of the learned Single Judge in Chambers dismissing a writ petition filed for the registration of a criminal case regarding the theft of an electric motor. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition can be maintained for the issuance of a direction to police to register a criminal case based on mere apprehension and political rivalry without prima facie cogent evidence. The Lahore High Court held that mere apprehension and political rivalry, absent cogent evidence connecting the respondents to the alleged crime, do not warrant the issuance of a direction for the registration of a criminal case, and the constitutional jurisdiction of the court should not be invoked for mala fide or unsubstantiated litigation. The court laid down the principle that mere suspicion or apprehension in the mind of a complainant, unsupported by prima facie evidence, does not establish liability for a cognizable offence nor justify interference by constitutional courts in matters of police registration of cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition can be maintained for the registration of a criminal case based on mere apprehension?
  • Does political rivalry alone constitute sufficient ground to direct the police to register a criminal case?
  • Can the High Court interfere in the refusal to direct registration of a criminal case where no prima facie evidence links the accused to the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and others vs Muhammad Ramzan and others2007 C.L.R. 1367 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-18Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and another vs Election Tribunal and 8 otherss2007 MLD 929 · Lahore High Court · 2007-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mansib Ali vs The State2007 YLR 1440 · Lahore High Court · 2007-01-23
  benefit of the doubtchance witnessesocular accountmedical evidencemotiveabscondencemurder referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of chance witnesses, the reliability of medical evidence, and the corroborative value of motive, abscondence, and weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene due to material contradictions, lack of corroboration by medical evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the first information report, and unreliable recovery and abscondence evidence. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitted him of all charges, and answered the murder reference in the negative. The key legal principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is riddled with contradictions, uncorroborated by medical evidence, and accompanied by suspicious circumstances surrounding the registration of the first information report, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the presence of chance witnesses can be established when their testimony is contradicted by medical evidence and material contradictions exist regarding their route?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of abscondence alone when it is not proved in accordance with judicial standards and substantive evidence is unreliable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a first information report recorded hours after the incident at a place away from the police station without proper explanation?
  • Does uncorroborated recovery of a weapon from an open place after a long delay provide sufficient corroboration to sustain a capital conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansab Ali vs Asghar Ali Faheem Bhatti, Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib and 3 others2007 PLD Lahore 176 · Lahore High Court · 2006-10-30
  exhumationdisintermentcause of deathjudicial orderrevision petitioncriminal proceduresuspicion of murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders passed by the lower judicial forums regarding the exhumation of the body of the petitioner's deceased wife. The core legal questions involved whether an order passed by a Magistrate under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is of an executive or judicial nature, whether a revision petition against such an order is competent before the Sessions Court, and whether legal heirs have the right to seek disinterment based on suspicion. The Lahore High Court held that an order passed under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a judicial order and therefore amenable to revision before the Sessions Court. The Court further laid down that close relatives possess the inherent right to know the true cause of death of a deceased person, that an application for exhumation can be maintained even on mere suspicion without any prescribed statutory time limit in Pakistan, and that exhumation is permissible in the interest of justice to ascertain whether the death was unnatural.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a Magistrate under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is judicial or executive in nature?
  • Is a revision petition competent against an order passed under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the Sessions Court?
  • Does Pakistani law prescribe any time limit for the exhumation and disinterment of a dead body?
  • Can an application for the exhumation of a dead body be entertained on the ground of mere suspicion regarding the cause of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Mandiali Paper Mills Itd., Lahore vs Collector, C.E. And S.T., Lahore And 22007 P.C.T.L.R. 471 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Managing Director PRTC and 8 others vs Mehmood Ahmad2007 PLC 534 · Lahore High Court · 2006-07-13
  service lawpromotioneligibility criterialabour lawgrievance petitionprecedentstatutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Labour Court order that granted a grievance petition filed by an employee seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Works Manager (AWM). The respondent, a Foreman, claimed entitlement to promotion despite lacking the mandatory matriculation qualification required by the Staff Promotion Rules, 1976. The respondent argued that because junior, non-matriculate employees had been promoted, he was entitled to similar treatment. The core legal question was whether an employee ineligible under statutory rules could compel promotion based on the illegal promotion of juniors, and whether logic could override explicit eligibility criteria. The High Court held that appointments must strictly adhere to prevalent rules and regulations. Relying on the principle that "two wrongs do not make a right," the Court ruled that an illegal order passed in favor of others cannot be used as a precedent to compel the repetition of such illegality. Consequently, the Court set aside the Labour Court's decision, holding that the respondent’s lack of required qualifications rendered him ineligible for promotion, regardless of the treatment afforded to his juniors.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee be promoted to a post for which they do not possess the prescribed educational qualifications?
  • Does the promotion of ineligible junior employees create a legal right for a senior employee to claim a similar promotion?
  • Can an illegal or unwarranted order passed in favor of one person be used as a basis to claim similar relief by another?
  Read full judgment →
• Mamoona Saeed vs Government of Punjab through Secretary,Home2007 PLD Lahore 128 · Lahore High Court · 2006-08-28
  preventive detentionhabeas corpusvague grounds of detentionsubjective satisfactionmaintenance of public orderfundamental rightsconstitutional jurisdictionalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the vires of an order passed by the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Home Department, detaining the petitioner's husband under preventive detention laws on grounds alleging potential disruption of public peace and violation of prohibitory orders. The core legal questions concerned whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was based on sufficient material, whether the grounds of detention were vague, and whether failing to exhaust a departmental representation barred the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that preventive detention orders passed on vague allegations without supporting evidence or objective material are illegal, void ab initio, and violative of fundamental rights. The ratio laid down is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be grounded in tangible evidence, and if any single ground of detention is vague or non-existent, the entire detention order is vitiated. Furthermore, a departmental representation against an executive detention order does not constitute an adequate alternate remedy barring a writ petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a preventive detention order can be sustained when its grounds are vague, speculative, and unsupported by tangible material or evidence?
  • Does the existence of a departmental representation remedy against a detention order bar the invocation of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether the invalidity of even a single ground of detention renders the entire detention order legally unsustainable?
  • What is the extent of judicial review permissible over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in preventive detention cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Mamoona Saeed vs Government Of Punjab Through Secretary, HomeK.L.R. 2007 Criminal Cases 154 · Lahore High Court · 2006-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mamoona Saeed vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Home2007 PLJ Lahore 62 · Lahore High Court · 2006-08-28Read full judgment →
• Mamoona Saeed vs Government of Punjab and others2007 P Cr. L J 268 · Lahore High Court · 2006-10-17
  habeas corpuspreventive detentiondetention ordergrounds of detentionfundamental rightsvague groundsconstitutional safeguard
  Summary & questions settled

  This habeas corpus petition challenged the legality of a preventive detention order issued by the Home Department, Government of the Punjab, against the detenu for sixty days. The core legal question was whether the failure of the detaining authority to supply the detention order and the grounds of detention to the detenu, alongside the inclusion of vague grounds, rendered the detention unlawful under constitutional and statutory safeguards. The Court held that the detention order was illegal and unsustainable. The ratio of the decision is that the detaining authority has a mandatory legal duty to communicate the detention order and the specific grounds for such detention to the detenu. The Court emphasized that the constitutional right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental safeguard. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that if any ground of detention is found to be vague, the entire detention order becomes unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the immediate release of the detenu, provided he was not required in any other case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to supply a detention order and its grounds to the detenu render the detention illegal?
  • Is a detention order sustainable if the grounds provided for the detention are vague?
  • What is the maximum time limit for communicating the grounds of detention under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the duty to supply grounds of detention under the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 require simultaneous communication with the detention order?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Zubair Altaf vs The State2007 YLR 2899 · Lahore High Court · 2007-03-22
  Drug Courtjudicial custodybail before arrestnon-bailable warrantsprocedural irregularitycriminal revisionbond for appearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three criminal revision petitions challenging the order of the Drug Court, Multan, which committed the petitioners to judicial custody despite their appearance in court. The core legal question was whether the Drug Court acted lawfully in ordering the immediate detention of the accused without considering their bail applications and without adhering to the procedural requirements for securing attendance. The Court found that the Drug Court’s assertion that no bail application had been filed was factually incorrect and contrary to the record. Furthermore, the Court held that the Drug Court acted in violation of established legal procedure by failing to offer the accused an opportunity to furnish a bond for their appearance. The key principle laid down is that in a complaint case, a court cannot summarily commit an accused to custody without first attempting to secure their attendance through a bond with or without sureties, as mandated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioners were admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court commit an accused to custody in a complaint case without first offering the opportunity to furnish a bond for appearance?
  • Is a court empowered to commit an accused to custody under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the accused is willing to provide security for attendance?
  • Does a finding by a trial court that no bail application was filed, when the record indicates otherwise, constitute a valid ground for detention?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Zamurrad Hussain vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Local2007 CLC 1553 · Lahore High Court · 2007-03-27Read full judgment →
• Malik Zamurrad Hussain vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Local2007 C.L.R. 1531 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Zahoor Ahmed vs Divisional Canal Officer, Division Bahawalpijr2007 MLD 1309 · Lahore High Court · 2005-05-30Read full judgment →
• Malik Mushahid Ali vs Bahauddin Zakariya University through Vice-2007 MLD 1898 · Lahore High Court · 2007-04-10Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Razzaq vs Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan, Islamabad and 7 others2007 C.L.R. 1120 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-14Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Razaq vs Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan, Islamabad and 7 others2007 PLJ Lahore 244 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-14Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State2007 YLR 277 · Lahore High Court · 2006-10-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryunwitnessed occurrencesuspicion-based FIRmurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications filed by petitioners accused of murder in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence presented in the First Information Report (F.I.R.). The court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged regarding an unwitnessed occurrence, relying entirely on suspicion rather than direct evidence or eyewitness accounts. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigating officers had consistently opined that the petitioners were innocent. Holding that the case against the petitioners fell within the scope of further inquiry, the court allowed the bail applications. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal case is based solely on suspicion without any supporting material or eyewitness testimony, and the investigation consistently points toward the innocence of the accused, the case qualifies for the grant of post-arrest bail under the principle of further inquiry, as the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case at the pre-trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the F.I.R. is based solely on suspicion and lacks eyewitness testimony?
  • Does an investigating officer's opinion regarding the innocence of an accused constitute a valid ground for granting bail?
  • When does a criminal case qualify for the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad FAISALand another vs State Life Insuracne2007 PLD Lahore 453 · Lahore High Court · 2007-02-28
  life insuranceuberrimae fideimisrepresentation of agerepudiation of claimschool recordnational identity cardrecovery suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of a recovery suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the legal heirs of a deceased policyholder against the State Life Insurance Corporation. The deceased had obtained a life insurance policy and, upon his death, the insurer initially issued cheques for the claim amount but subsequently stopped payment upon discovering that the deceased had misrepresented his age. The core legal question was whether the deliberate misstatement of age in the proposal form constituted a material misrepresentation that invalidated the insurance contract, and whether the date of birth in school records prevails over that in a National Identity Card. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that contracts of insurance are contracts of utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei) requiring full disclosure of material facts. The Court ruled that the earliest recorded date of birth in school/board records carries greater evidentiary value than a subsequent National Identity Card, and that deliberate concealment of the correct age vitiates the policy, justifying the insurer's repudiation of the claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deliberate misstatement of age in an insurance proposal form entitle the insurer to repudiate liability under the policy?
  • Which document takes evidentiary precedence regarding a person's correct date of birth when there is a conflict between school/board records and a National Identity Card?
  • Can an insurer stop payment on cheques issued for an insurance claim if fraud and misrepresentation are discovered after the claim has been processed?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Faisal And Another vs State Life Insurance Corporation2007 P.C.T.L.R. 738 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Faisal and another vs State Life Insurance2007 CLD 943 · Lahore High Court · 2007-02-28
  insurance policymisrepresentationmaterial factsuberrima fidesdate of birthrepudiation of liabilitycontract of insuranceNational Identity Card
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of a suit for the recovery of insurance proceeds amounting to Rs. 1,400,000. The appellants, successors of the deceased policyholder, sought payment after the insurer stopped payment upon discovering that the deceased had misrepresented his age in the proposal form. The core legal question was whether the suppression of material facts, specifically the date of birth, rendered the insurance contract void, and whether school records could supersede the date of birth stated in a National Identity Card. The Lahore High Court held that the insurance contract, being one of uberrima fides (utmost good faith), was vitiated by the deliberate misrepresentation of age. The Court affirmed that school records, being the earliest documentary evidence of birth, were more reliable than the National Identity Card. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the suit, establishing that the insurer is entitled to repudiate liability where material facts are suppressed during the proposal stage, regardless of subsequent issuance of the policy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of material facts in an insurance proposal form render the insurance contract void?
  • Can an insurer repudiate liability under an insurance policy if the insured misstated their age?
  • Is the date of birth recorded in school records superior to the date of birth in a National Identity Card for determining age in insurance contracts?
  • Does the duty to disclose material facts in an insurance contract continue until the conclusion of the contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ehsan and another vs Malik Muhammad Surkhuro and 7 others2007 YLR 2610 · Lahore High Court · 2007-05-31Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ashraf vs The State2007 YLR 68 · Lahore High Court · 2006-05-25
  triple murdercapital punishmentocular accountrelated witnessesforensic ballisticsmotivemitigating circumstanceold age
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Malik Muhammad Ashraf, for the triple murder of his wife, grandson, and a maidservant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the credibility of closely related eye-witnesses, the establishment of motive, the corroborative value of weapon recovery matched by the Forensic Science Laboratory, and whether the appellant's old age constituted a mitigating circumstance warranting commutation of the death sentence. The Lahore High Court held that the natural presence of the primary eye-witness inside the house, supported by consistent testimony, corroborated motive, and positive forensic ballistics evidence, firmly established the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court ruled that brutality and savagery in committing multiple murders negate leniency and that mere old age, by itself, is not a valid mitigating factor for withholding the death penalty. Consequently, the conviction and death sentences were upheld, dismissing the appeal and answering the murder reference in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses can be relied upon when their presence at the scene of the crime is natural and plausible?
  • Does the mere old age of a proven murderer serve as a valid mitigating circumstance for withholding the sentence of death?
  • Whether a positive report from the Forensic Science Laboratory matching crime empties with a recovered weapon provides sufficient corroboration to the ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Hamid Zaman vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 42007 MLD 848 · Lahore High Court · 2006-02-01
  Res judicataRejection of plaintPaternityMaintenance allowanceCivil revisionFraming of issuesCode of Civil Procedure 1908
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the lower courts rejecting the petitioner's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a subsequent suit for declaration of non-paternity is barred by the principle of res judicata when the issue of paternity was raised in a prior maintenance suit but never framed or adjudicated upon by the court. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the rejection of the plaint. The Court held that since the previous maintenance suit was decided on technical grounds without framing or deciding the issue of paternity, the bar of res judicata was not applicable. The key principle laid down is that for the doctrine of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to apply, the matter must have been directly and substantially in issue and actually heard and finally decided in the former suit; mere raising of a plea in the pleadings without adjudication does not constitute a bar.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of res judicata apply when a matter was raised in pleadings but no issue was framed or decided by the court?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of res judicata if the previous suit was decided solely on technical grounds?
  • Is a suit for declaration of non-paternity barred by a previous maintenance decree where the issue of paternity was not adjudicated?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Hamid Zaman vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 4 others2007 C.L.R. 579 · Lahore High Court · 2006-02-01Read full judgment →
• Malik Hamid Zaman vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha And 4 OtherK.L.R. 2007 Civil Cases 267 · Lahore High Court · 2006-02-01Read full judgment →
• Malik Ghulam Shabbir vs United Bank Limited through Manager and 52007 CLD 625 · Lahore High Court · 2006-10-05Read full judgment →
• Malik Asmatullah vs Muhammad Latif through Legal Heirs2007 MLD 517 · Lahore High Court · 2006-12-12Read full judgment →
• Malik Anwarul Haq vs Evacuee Trust'property Board and others2007 PLC (C.S.) 792 · Lahore High Court · 2007-02-06
  provisional promotionlocus poenitentiaelegitimate expectationservice regulationsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed against the withdrawal of the petitioner's provisional promotion to the post of Assistant Administrator/Superintendent by the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The core legal question involves whether a provisional promotion made contrary to service regulations can be arbitrarily withdrawn after being acted upon for several years, and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae applies. The Lahore High Court held that while quota reservations in service regulations merit compliance, the fact that the provisional promotion order was acted upon for over four years and the petitioner performed satisfactorily created legal consequences and a legitimate expectation. Taking note of a departmental assurance that the petitioner's case would be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) within eight weeks, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's promotion on merits within the stipulated timeframe. The key principle laid down is that arbitrary withdrawal of a promotion order acted upon for years must be weighed against principles of locus poenitentiae and legitimate expectation, and departmental authorities must properly consider eligible employees rather than arbitrarily rescind past orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can a provisional promotion order be arbitrarily withdrawn after being acted upon for several years?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to the withdrawal of a provisional promotion order issued by a competent authority?
  • Whether employees of the Evacuee Trust Property Board are considered civil servants for the purpose of approaching the Federal Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Wahid, ExSenator, Senate of Pakistan through Muhammad2007 CLC 1700 · Lahore High Court · 2007-06-22
  specific performancemovable propertybreach of contractcompensation in moneysale of goodsrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a dispute regarding the cancellation of a contract for the sale of movable property, specifically shop refuse and ashes from Pakistan Railways workshops. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and specific performance of the contract after the respondents cancelled the agreement and issued refund cheques for unlifted material. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, but the lower appellate court partly accepted the respondents' appeal, declining specific performance and instead awarding an alternative decree for the recovery of money. The core legal question was whether specific performance could be granted for a contract involving movable property when the breach could be relieved by monetary compensation. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, specific performance of a contract to transfer movable property is rightly refused where the breach can be adequately relieved by compensation in money, and that the appropriate remedy for wrongful non-delivery of goods lies in a suit for damages under Section 57 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can specific performance of a contract be granted for the transfer of movable property when the breach can be relieved by compensation in money?
  • What is the statutory presumption under the Specific Relief Act, 1877 regarding the adequacy of monetary compensation for breaches of contracts concerning movable versus immovable property?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a buyer when a seller wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver goods under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?
  • Does a revisional court interfere with appellate judgments where no error of law or jurisdictional defect is made out under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Muhammad Mukhtar, Member Provincial Assembly, Punjab vs Province of Punjab2007 PLD Lahore 61 · Lahore High Court · 2006-09-26
  writ jurisdictiondevelopment schemelegitimate expectationpromissory estoppelgood governanceAnnual Development Programmeadministrative approval
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by a Member of the Provincial Assembly of Punjab challenging the government's decision to drop or substitute a previously approved development scheme for road widening and provincialization. The core legal question was whether the provincial government, having formally approved a development scheme, included it in the Annual Development Programme, and allocated budgetary funds, could subsequently cancel or substitute it at an advanced stage of implementation. The Court held that once a development scheme has received high-level administrative approval, been incorporated into the Annual Development Programme, and reached the execution stage, it cannot be arbitrarily cancelled or substituted. The Court emphasized that such actions violate principles of good governance and fairness. Applying the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, the Court ruled that the state cannot act in a manner that frustrates the reasonable expectations created by its own formal commitments. Consequently, the Court directed the implementation of the original scheme, while clarifying that the government remains free to launch additional development projects.

  Questions settled

  • Can a provincial government cancel or substitute a development scheme after it has been formally approved and included in the Annual Development Programme?
  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1857 permit the cancellation of an approved development scheme after decisive steps have been taken?
  • Does the doctrine of legitimate expectation prevent a public authority from abandoning a development scheme that has created reasonable expectations of implementation?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Muhammad Mukhtar vs Province of Punjab, through the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, Punjab, C.M. Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others2007 C.L.R. 447 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Makhdoom Ali vs Mst. Razia Sultana and otherss2007 MLD 41 · Lahore High Court · 2006-02-24
  interim maintenancefamily courtquantum of maintenancehearsay evidencetentative assessmentconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant constitutional petition arises out of proceedings under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, where the Family Court awarded interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000 per month to the respondent for an unmarried daughter under Section 17-A of the said Act. The petitioner challenged the quantum of interim maintenance, contending that it was exorbitant and based solely on unverified hearsay evidence regarding his business and rental income, while the property in question was subject to litigation and shared among multiple legal heirs. The core legal question concerned the appropriate basis and quantum for fixing interim maintenance when definitive proof of income is lacking at a tentative stage. The Lahore High Court held that interim maintenance is a tentative amount that must be fixed upon careful examination of available evidence without being exorbitant, as non-compliance carries penal consequences. The Court modified the impugned order by reducing the interim maintenance allowance from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000 per month, laying down the principle that tentative interim maintenance must reflect the apparent circumstances and material on record rather than uncorroborated assertions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interim maintenance allowance can be fixed on the basis of uncorroborated oral assertions or hearsay evidence regarding a person's income?
  • What are the principles for determining the quantum of interim maintenance under Section 17-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Can an exorbitant amount of interim maintenance be sustained when the underlying source of income is disputed and subject to pending litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Ahmad vs Abdul Hameed and 2 othersPLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1102 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-26
  cross versionschallan and complaint casesimultaneous decisionmurder trialacquittalremandcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning cross-versions of a murder incident—one presented through a police challan and the other through a private complaint. The core legal question revolved around the proper procedure for conducting trials involving cross-cases arising from the same incident, specifically whether both cases must be decided simultaneously by the trial court. The High Court held that where two conflicting versions of the same occurrence are tried by the same court, it is imperative for the safe administration of criminal justice that evidence be recorded in both matters and that both cases be decided concurrently, rather than acquitting an accused in one case prematurely without completing the trial of the other. The court established that deciding one case ahead of the other prejudices the remaining case and creates an apprehension of bias. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned acquittal, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter back for completion of evidence in the challan case and simultaneous decision of both cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether cross-cases or cross-versions arising from the same occurrence must be decided simultaneously by the trial court?
  • Does the premature acquittal of an accused in a private complaint case before the conclusion of the challan case prejudice the administration of criminal justice?
  • Can a trial court deviate from the established rule of simultaneous adjudication of cross-cases without exceptional circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Makarwal Collieries Ltd. through Chairman vs Government of Punjab2007 PLD Lahore 374 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Major (R) Shakiluddin Ahmed vs Additional District Judge, Islamabad2007 CLC 601 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-28
  Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001striking off defencedeposit of rentejectmentdismissal in limineappellate authoritydefault in rent depositconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged the order of the Rent Controller striking off the tenant's defence under Section 17(9) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001 for non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order under Section 17(8), as well as the Additional District Judge's order dismissing the rent appeal in limine under Section 21(7). The core legal issues concerned whether the Appellate Authority possessed the jurisdiction to dismiss a rent appeal in limine without summoning the trial record, and whether the tenant's defence was rightly struck off. The High Court held that unlike general appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Section 21(7) of the Ordinance does not make calling for the record mandatory where facts are simple, undisputed, or the appeal is frivolous on its face. Because the tenant admitted the tenancy and sought time extensions rather than depositing the rent, he was estopped from disputing rent liability. Consequently, striking off the defence and dismissing the appeal in limine were lawful.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Appellate Authority dismiss a rent appeal in limine under Section 21(7) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001 without summoning the trial record?
  • Does a tenant's failure to deposit tentative rent under Section 17(8) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001 mandate the striking off of their defence under Section 17(9)?
  • Is a tenant estopped from disputing rent liability after applying for an extension of time to comply with a tentative rent deposit order?
  Read full judgment →
• Major (R) Shakil-ud-Din Ahmed . vs Additional District Judge, Islamabad2007 C.L.R. 1087 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-28Read full judgment →
• Major (R) Ijaz Azizi vs Muhammad Shahzad Hanif and anothers2007 MLD 542 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-22
  ejectment petitiontentative rentdefault in payment of rentrent controllerCantonments Rent Restriction Actvacant possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an order of the Additional Rent Controller, Walton Cantt, Lahore, directing the appellant to vacate a shop due to non-compliance with a tentative rent order. The respondent filed an ejectment petition alleging default in rent payment, claiming the monthly rent was Rs. 40,000. The appellant contested this, asserting the agreed rent was Rs. 8,000. The Rent Controller, acting under section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, directed the appellant to deposit arrears and future rent at Rs. 35,000 per month. Upon the appellant's failure to comply, an ejectment order was passed. The High Court examined the evidence, including subsequent lease agreements and bank records indicating payments of Rs. 40,000, and found the Rent Controller's tentative rent fixation was neither arbitrary nor perverse. The Court held that the appellant was legally bound to comply with the tentative rent order, and failure to do so justified the ejectment order. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Rent Controller's decision as lawful and within jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller pass an ejectment order against a tenant for failure to comply with a tentative rent order?
  • Is a tentative rent order under section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, subject to interference if based on evidence of subsequent rent modifications?
  • Does the failure to comply with a tentative rent order mandate the ejectment of the tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mairaj and another vs The State2007 YLR 2081 · Lahore High Court · 2007-05-07
  post-arrest bailmurder casealibidirect implicationabscondencepolice reporteye-witness accountpost-mortem reportbail denial
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by Mairaj and Shahbaz, who were nominated in an FIR for offences under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, related to a murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite direct implication in the FIR and specific roles attributed to them in causing fatal injuries. The court dismissed the petition, denying post-arrest bail. The decision was based on the petitioners' direct nomination in the FIR, the specific roles of causing serious injuries to the deceased, consistency between the attributed injuries and the post-mortem report, and corroborating statements from eye-witnesses under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court held that while the Investigating Officer placed the petitioners in Column No. 2 of the report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, due to a plea of alibi, the ipsi dixit of the police is not binding on the court. Furthermore, pleas of alibi in murder cases are generally not entertained at the bail stage unless they are 'absolutely beyond question'. The petitioners' six-month abscondence also weighed against them.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi raised by the Investigating Officer be binding on the court at the bail stage?
  • Under what circumstances are courts generally reluctant to entertain a plea of alibi in murder cases for granting bail?
  • Do direct nomination in an FIR, specific roles in causing injuries, and abscondence weigh against the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the ipsi dixit of the police regarding an accused's involvement binding on the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Alam and another vs Mian Farooq Ahmad and 5 others2007 C.L.R. 62 · Lahore High Court · 2006-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmed and another vs Province of Punjab through Divisional2007 YLR 1388 · Lahore High Court · 2006-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad and 3 others vs The State2007 MLD 1825 · Lahore High Court · 2007-09-13
  pre-arrest bailmedico-legal reportfalse implicationdelay in F.I.R.criminal procedureprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 269 of 2007, registered under sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of armed assault. The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail, arguing that the F.I.R. was lodged with an unexplained delay, that they were falsely implicated due to existing litigation, and that the prosecution's medical evidence was fundamentally flawed. Specifically, the medico-legal report on the police file pertained to an individual named Muhammad Arshad, who was neither the complainant nor mentioned in the F.I.R., rather than the complainant himself. The Deputy Prosecutor-General conceded this discrepancy. The Court held that the unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. cast doubt on the prosecution's case, and the absence of a valid medico-legal report for the complainant, coupled with the reliance on an irrelevant report, supported the petitioners' claim of false implication. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that significant discrepancies in medical evidence and unexplained procedural delays are valid grounds for granting pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. create sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a petition for pre-arrest bail be allowed when the prosecution relies on a medico-legal report of an individual not named in the F.I.R.?
  • Is the absence of a valid medico-legal report for the complainant a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Alam vs Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore2007 C.L.R. 1477 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mahboob Alam and 2 otherss vs Province of the Punjab, through Secretary, Education, Lahore2007 MLD 1496 · Lahore High Court · 2007-04-11Read full judgment →
• M.L. Traders through Proprietor and others vs Judge Banking Court2007 CLD 634 · Lahore High Court · 2007-01-19
  constitutional petitionconsolidation of suitsbanking courtletter of creditcross-suitsconflict of judgments
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Banking Court dismissing the petitioners' application for the consolidation of two cross-suits arising from a letter of credit transaction. The core legal question was whether two suits involving the same parties, overlapping transactions, and common questions of law and fact ought to be tried together to prevent conflicting judgments. The Lahore High Court held that the trial of cross-suits through consolidated proceedings is expedient in the interest of justice and necessary to avoid conflicting decisions. The key principle laid down is that where cross-suits between the same parties arise from the same transaction and require similar evidence, the trial court should order their consolidation and frame consolidated issues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether two suits between the same parties arising from the same transaction should be consolidated?
  • Does the refusal to consolidate suits where common evidence is required lead to conflicting judgments?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an order of the Banking Court refusing consolidation of suits?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Yousaf vs M. Shahbaz and anotherPLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1139 · Lahore High Court · 2007-04-27
  cancellation of bailjuvenile offenderheinous offenseappreciation of evidencebail proceedingsmurderjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition sought the cancellation of bail granted to a respondent accused of murder. The core legal question was whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in granting bail to a juvenile accused of a heinous offense by prematurely appreciating evidence and misapplying the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. The High Court held that the trial court’s order was illegal and unjustified. The Court determined that the trial judge improperly delved into the merits of the case, effectively pre-empting the trial, and failed to correctly apply the proviso to Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, which permits the refusal of bail for juveniles involved in heinous, gruesome, or brutal offenses. Furthermore, the Court noted the lack of medical evidence to substantiate the respondent's minority. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition, recalled the bail order, and ordered the respondent to be taken into custody. The judgment establishes that courts must not engage in deep appreciation of evidence during bail proceedings and that bail for juveniles can be denied for heinous crimes, provided there is credible evidence of age.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant bail to a juvenile accused of a heinous or brutal offense?
  • Is it permissible for a trial court to engage in a deep appreciation of evidence during bail proceedings?
  • Must a trial court rely on medical evidence to determine the age of a juvenile accused?
  • Can a bail order be cancelled if the trial court prematurely decides the merits of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Ramzan vs The State2007 YLR 1743 · Lahore High Court · 2006-06-12
  post-arrest bailZina-bil-JabarOffence of Zina Ordinanceold age bailfurther inquirycriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on behalf of Muhammad Ramzan, who was accused in an F.I.R. registered under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for committing Zina-bil-Jabar with an 8-year-old minor girl. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of old age, infirmity, and further inquiry, despite prompt lodging of the F.I.R., corroborative medical and chemical examiner reports, and advanced stage of the trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that sufficient evidence prima facie connected the petitioner to the grave crime and that he was not entitled to bail merely due to old age when facing allegations of sexual assault against a minor.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged with Zina-bil-Jabar with a minor is entitled to post-arrest bail solely on the ground of old age?
  • Does the presence of a fresh torn hymen and semen-stained vaginal swabs constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to decline bail?
  • Can a bail petition be dismissed when the challan has been submitted, charge framed, and trial is at an advanced stage?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Manzoor Ahmad Paracha and 5 others vs Habib Bank Ltd. through President and 2 others2007 CLD 571 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-29
  Banking Court jurisdictionmalicious prosecutionreturn of plaintcustomer definitionfinance facilityFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the Banking Court, which returned the appellants' plaint for lack of jurisdiction under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellants, legal heirs of a deceased individual, filed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution against the respondent-Bank, arising from an earlier recovery suit instituted by the bank against the deceased. The core legal question was whether a Banking Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for malicious prosecution filed by persons who are not 'customers' and have not availed any 'finance facility' from the financial institution. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 9(1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, only a customer or a financial institution can institute proceedings before a Banking Court regarding a finance. Since the appellants did not fall within the definition of 'customer' under Section 2(c) and had not been extended any finance under Section 2(d) of the Ordinance, the Banking Court lacked jurisdiction. The appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the return of the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Banking Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages for malicious prosecution filed by non-customers?
  • Whether legal heirs who have not availed any finance facility qualify as 'customers' under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001?
  • When is a Banking Court justified in returning a plaint under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Khurram Muggo vs Mst. Perveen Hameed Muggo and 3 others2007 PLD Lahore 518 · Lahore High Court · 2007-04-10
  rejection of plaintcause of actionspecific relieflimitationinheritanceshareholdingrendition of accountscivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning shareholding rights in a denationalized company. The appellant, an heir of a deceased shareholder, claimed entitlement to shares and rendition of accounts, alleging unlawful exclusion by his mother and sister. The Lahore High Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding the plaint failed to disclose a valid cause of action. The Court held that the shareholding in question was not part of the deceased's estate, and the appellant, having failed to exercise his option to purchase shares or challenge the 1992 transfer agreement, possessed no legal right to the assets. The Court emphasized that a "cause of action" requires the existence of essential facts which, if proven, entitle the plaintiff to relief. Furthermore, the Court ruled the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1908, as the cause of action accrued in 1992. The judgment reaffirms that a plaint must be rejected when it lacks a foundation of facts establishing the defendant's liability.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to exercise an option to purchase shares in a denationalized company preclude an heir from claiming those shares as part of the deceased's estate?
  • Can a court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the plaintiff fails to establish the defendant as an 'accounting party'?
  • Is a suit for declaration and rendition of accounts barred by limitation if the underlying cause of action accrued more than six years prior to filing?
  • Does the mere allegation of a fiduciary relationship without supporting facts constitute a sufficient cause of action for a suit for rendition of accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Hussain Chaudhry vs Government of the Punjab through Home2007 MLD 146 · Lahore High Court · 2006-10-12Read full judgment →
• M. Bilal and others vs The State2007 YLR 1888 · Lahore High Court · 2006-06-05
  pre-arrest bailmala fidecriminal theftcivil disputeinvestigationbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in relation to an FIR registered under Sections 457 and 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for alleged theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail based on their contention that the criminal case was initiated with mala fide intent due to a pre-existing civil property dispute. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect innocent citizens from false implication. The Court found no evidence of mala fide intent on the part of the complainant. It further reasoned that the petitioners' arguments regarding the civil litigation and possession of the property touched upon the deeper merits of the case, which could not be adjudicated at the bail stage. Additionally, the Court noted that the recovery of stolen items was still pending, and granting bail would likely impede the investigation. Thus, the Court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish a case for pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is a pre-existing civil dispute sufficient grounds to establish mala fide intent for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Should a court consider the deeper merits of a case during the adjudication of a pre-arrest bail petition?
  • Does the pendency of recovery of stolen property constitute a valid ground for refusing pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Ashraf vs The State2007 P Cr. L J 1453 · Lahore High Court · 2007-03-22
  post-arrest bailmurderrule of consistencydesperadoprohibitory clausecriminal history
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Muhammad Ashraf seeking post-arrest bail in respect of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Saddar, District Vehari. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on merits and on the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from that of the co-accused as he was a hardened criminal and a desperado with a history of numerous criminal cases, whereas the co-accused was a woman and had been granted bail prior to the commencement of the trial. The court established the key principles that the rule of consistency does not apply where the roles and circumstances of the accused persons differ, that a bail application may be refused to a hardened offender whose case falls within the prohibitory clause, and that every criminal case must be decided on its own merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person with a history of multiple criminal cases can claim bail on the rule of consistency when a co-accused has been granted bail?
  • Does the grant of bail to a female co-accused on the ground of her gender create a binding precedent for granting bail to a male co-accused?
  • Is a petitioner with a chequered criminal record and involvement in numerous cases entitled to post-arrest bail for an offence falling within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Akram vs Abdul Majeed and anothers2007 MLD 660 · Lahore High Court · 2006-02-02
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationtentative assessmentmini-trialjudicial discretioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge exercised judicial discretion correctly in granting pre-arrest bail. The High Court held that the Sessions Judge erred by conducting a mini-trial and drawing definitive conclusions regarding the merits of the case, which is impermissible at the bail stage. The Court observed that the Sessions Judge ignored the medico-legal reports and the prima facie consistency between the FIR and the statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and recalled the bail order. The key principle laid down is that while considering pre-arrest bail, a court must restrict itself to a tentative assessment of the material on record and avoid making definitive findings that resemble a final judgment, as doing so stifles the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court conduct a mini-trial while deciding an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Is it permissible for a court to make definitive findings on the merits of a case during the bail stage?
  • Does the grant of pre-arrest bail based on an improper assessment of medico-legal evidence warrant cancellation?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Akhtar Cheema vs Additional District Judge and otherss2007 MLD 153 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-18Read full judgment →
• Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Najam Hameed vs The State and another2007 YLR 2126 · Lahore High Court · 2007-05-08
  quashing of criminal proceedingsSection 561-A Cr.P.C.defamationsummoning orderpreliminary inquiryprima facie caseprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated via a private complaint for defamation under Sections 499, 501, 502, and 502-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the trial court's summoning order, contending it was based solely on the complainant's statement and was motivated by a pending civil dispute. The core legal question was whether a trial court can issue a summoning order based on the complainant's statement alone during a preliminary inquiry. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court had applied its independent judicial mind and reviewed the provided incriminating material. The Court affirmed that Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not mandate a specific number of witnesses for a preliminary inquiry; if the court is satisfied that a prima facie case exists, it may summon the accused. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not a substitute for ordinary criminal procedure, and factual disputes should be resolved before the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court issue a summoning order based solely on the statement of the complainant during a preliminary inquiry?
  • Does Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require a specific number of witnesses to be produced during a preliminary inquiry?
  • Is the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 an alternative remedy to the ordinary course of criminal procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (Retd.) Najam Hameed vs State and anotherPLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1048 · Lahore High Court · 2007-05-08
  quashing of proceedingsinherent jurisdictiondefamationprivate complaintsummoning orderpreliminary inquiryprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner through a private complaint for defamation under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502, and 502-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the trial court's order summoning him, arguing that the court relied solely on the complainant's statement without examining other witnesses and that the criminal action was a pressure tactic regarding a pending civil dispute. The core legal question was whether the trial court could lawfully summon an accused based solely on the preliminary statement of the complainant and the accompanying documentary evidence. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court had applied its judicial mind to the material on record. The court affirmed that Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not mandate a specific number of witnesses for a preliminary inquiry, and the court's satisfaction based on the complainant's statement alone is sufficient to issue summons. Furthermore, the court emphasized that inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should not be used to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure or resolve disputed questions of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court summon an accused based solely on the preliminary statement of the complainant?
  • Does Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require a specific number of witnesses to be examined during a preliminary inquiry?
  • Is the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 an appropriate remedy to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal proceedings?
  • Can an accused raise pleas regarding the lack of a prima facie case under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after appearing before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• lqbal Ahrnad Sabri vs . Fayyaz Ahmad and another2007 C.L.R. 1124 · Lahore High Court · 2007-01-18Read full judgment →
• Louise Anne Fairley vs Sajjad Ahmed Rana2007 PLD Lahore 300 · Lahore High Court · 2006-11-29
  child custodyhabitual residencejudicial comityabductionwrit jurisdictionhabeas corpusforeign court orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the custody of a minor child, Misbah Ahmed Rana, who was removed from Scotland to Pakistan by her father (respondent No. 1) in violation of existing interdict and residence orders issued by the Court of Sessions in Scotland. The petitioner (the mother) sought the return of the child, alleging illegal abduction. The core legal question was whether the Pakistani court should exercise jurisdiction over the custody of a minor who is a habitual resident of Scotland, particularly when the respondent had previously submitted to the jurisdiction of the Scottish court and breached its orders. The Court held that the minor is a habitual resident of Scotland and that the respondent’s removal of the child was a deceitful act intended to circumvent foreign judicial orders. The Court applied the principle of judicial comity, emphasizing that Pakistani courts should respect foreign judicial decisions when they are passed in the proper exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to return the minor to the custody of the petitioner via the British High Commission.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Pakistani court should exercise jurisdiction over the custody of a minor who is a habitual resident of a foreign jurisdiction?
  • Does the principle of judicial comity require Pakistani courts to respect and enforce custody orders passed by a foreign court?
  • Can a parent’s removal of a child in violation of a foreign court order constitute 'unlawful' or 'improper' custody under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a minor's stated preference to live with a parent sufficient to override the legal consequences of a deceitful removal from a foreign jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The State2007 P Cr. L J 746 · Lahore High Court · 2007-12-07
  murder referencedeath sentenceocular evidenceminority pleacriminal appealmotiveappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Liaquat Ali, for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, motivated by a desire to marry the deceased's wife, Mst. Aasia, shot and killed the deceased. The defense contended that the motive was unproven, the eyewitness testimony was unreliable due to the age and relationship of the witnesses, and that the appellant was a minor at the time of the occurrence. The Court examined the ocular evidence provided by the complainant and eyewitnesses, finding it consistent and credible. It held that the motive, while contested, did not undermine the strength of the direct evidence. Regarding the appellant's age, the Court ruled that a mere statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without supporting documentation like a birth or school certificate, is insufficient to establish minority. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, maintained the conviction and death sentence, and confirmed the murder reference, emphasizing the necessity for trial courts to strictly record an accused's age during proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a statement of age made by an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to establish minority without supporting documentary evidence?
  • Does the failure to prove motive necessarily lead to the acquittal of an accused where ocular evidence is otherwise credible?
  • Can a conviction be maintained solely on the basis of ocular testimony if the forensic evidence is excluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali and 2 others vs Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No. 1, Gujranwala and 3 others2007 YLR 1222 · Lahore High Court · 2005-10-05Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Alt and another vs StatePLJ 2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 78 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-03
  post-arrest bailabductionZinaunexplained delay in FIRincomplete investigationjactitation of marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by two brothers accused of abduction for the purpose of Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the evidentiary gaps and procedural delays. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting a significant, unexplained four-month delay in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, the Court observed that the alleged abductee had not corroborated the prosecution's version, having instead initiated legal proceedings for jactitation of marriage against the complainant's son. The Court also highlighted that the investigation was incomplete, with key witnesses and the Nikah Khawan not interrogated, and that the petitioners had been incarcerated for five months without the trial commencing. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioners were admitted to bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the prosecution's case lacks corroboration from the alleged victim and suffers from unexplained delays and incomplete investigation, continued incarceration is unjustified.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Is the lack of corroboration by the alleged abductee a relevant factor in determining bail in abduction cases?
  • Should bail be granted when the investigation is incomplete and the trial is unlikely to commence in the near future?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs The State2007 P Cr. L J 582 · Lahore High Court · 2005-03-09
  post-arrest baillalkarafurther inquiryvicarious liabilitymurdercriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by Liaqat Ali in respect of case F.I.R. No. 447 registered under sections 324, 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether a petitioner assigned the role of raising a lalkara (exhortation) without direct involvement in the motive or fatal assault is entitled to further probe regarding his liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thus making a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was an elderly man whose sons were the ones involved in the prior altercation and actual firing, and the true import of the lalkara required further trial assessment, the petitioner's liability needed further probe. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down that an accused assigned a marginal role of exhortation where motive is attributable to co-accused requires further inquiry regarding vicarious liability under section 34.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused assigned the role of raising a lalkara without a direct role in the assault is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further probe?
  • Does a liability involving section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the motive is attributed to co-accused rather than the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs State2007 Cr.C. (Lahore) 63 · Lahore High Court · 2005-09-05
  post-arrest bailZina-bil-jabrOffence of Zina Ordinanceprohibitory clauseheinous crime
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Liaqat Ali sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 10(3) and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The prosecution alleged that the complainant was abducted and subjected to Zina-bil-jabr by the main accused and subsequently by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the accusations and his nomination in the crime. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was attributed a specific role of committing Zina, was linked to similar criminal allegations according to the police record, and was involved in a heinous crime falling within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition at this early stage, laying down the principle that accused persons nominated for heinous offences involving specific roles of Zina and supported by police records of similar involvement are not entitled to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused person specifically nominated for committing Zina-bil-jabr entitled to post-arrest bail at an early stage of the trial?
  • Does involvement in similar criminal cases as per police records affect the grant of bail in heinous offences?
  • Whether delay in lodging the FIR and allegations of false implication due to party faction warrant the concession of bail in offences under the Hudood Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Sabri vs Mst. Rasheed Toosy through General Attorney and 22007 MLD 1972 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →