Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Pervaiz Akhtar vs The Station House Officer And OtherK.L.R. 2002 Criminal Cases 403 · Lahore High Court · 2001-12-13Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar vs Station House Officer, Police Station Gowalmandi, Lahore and 3 others2002 PLD Lahore 157 · Lahore High Court · 2001-12-13Read full judgment →
• Perma Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive vs Oberoi2002 YLR 2687 · Lahore High Court · 2001-11-07Read full judgment →
• Perma Construction (Pvt.) Limited Through Chief Executive vs Habib2002 P.C.T.L.R. 448 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Perma Construct (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive vs Habib Jute2002 CLD 166 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-16Read full judgment →
• Peer Films (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore and another vs Tourism Development2002 YLR 3382 · Lahore High Court · 2002-01-30Read full judgment →
• Peer Bakhsh vs Nabi Bakhsh and others2002 YLR 1624 · Lahore High Court · 2002-01-29Read full judgment →
• Peer Bakhsh and others vs Nabi Bakhsh and others2002 YLR 1630 · Lahore High Court · 2002-06-22
  civil revisiondeclaratory suitadditional evidenceOrder XLI Rule 27 CPCmutation challengerevisional jurisdictionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a suit for declaration challenging specific revenue record entries and mutations made in favour of the defendants. Both the trial court and the appellate court concurrently dismissed the petitioners' suit on merits, finding that a valid sale had occurred, entries were long-standing, the petitioners were out of possession, and the suit for pure declaration was not maintainable, in addition to being time-barred under Article 14 of the Limitation Act. The main question before the High Court was whether the appellate court's failure to explicitly decide a separate application under Order XLI Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for additional evidence (comparison of thumb-impressions) vitiated the judgment and required a remand. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision, holding that because the request for additional evidence was already incorporated in the memorandum of appeal, filing a separate application was superfluous. The appellate court had consciously considered the entire case. The High Court held that failure to pass a separate order on a superfluous application implicitly dealt with does not invalidate proceedings unless material irregularity or perversity is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of an appellate court to pass an explicit order on a superfluous application for additional evidence invalidates its final judgment?
  • Can a suit for declaration simpliciter be maintained by a plaintiff who is found to be out of possession of the suit land?
  • Under what circumstances may a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Water and Power Development Authroity vs Kot Addu Power2002 MLD 829 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. through Company Secretary vs Secretary, Local Government, Punjab and 3 others2002 YLR 1469 · Lahore High Court · 2002-03-20Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Railways and anothers vs Messrs Rajastan Alloy and Steel (Pvt.) Limited2002 CLD 61 · Lahore High Court · 2001-08-10
  arbitration awardcommercial contracttime of the essencebank guarantee encashmentarbitrator misconductrule of courtinterest on award
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a trial court order making an arbitration award a rule of court. The dispute arose from a contract for the supply of Elastic Rail Clips, where the appellant (Pakistan Railways) encashed a bank guarantee due to the respondent's failure to adhere to the delivery schedule. The arbitrator had ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that time was not of the essence and that the contract terms were ambiguous. Upon review, the High Court held that the arbitrator misconstrued the contract, specifically clause (5), which clearly stipulated the delivery timeline. The Court affirmed that in commercial contracts, time is prima facie of the essence. Furthermore, the arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding interest for a period prior to the award, which is legally impermissible. The Court held that the trial court failed in its duty under the Arbitration Act, 1940 to scrutinize the award for legal invalidity, acting mechanically rather than exercising its judicial discretion. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's order and the arbitration award itself.

  Questions settled

  • Is time considered of the essence in commercial contracts for the supply of goods?
  • Does a court have the power to set aside an arbitration award suo motu under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can an arbitrator legally award interest for a period prior to the date of the award?
  • Does the court have the authority to examine the reasoning of an arbitrator to determine if an award is legally invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Services (Pvt.) Ltd., Owner of Pearl Continental Hotel, Lahore vs Federation of Pakistan, through The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others2002 YLR 2697 · Lahore High Court · 2001-11-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways through Divisional Superintendent, Lahore Division, Lahore vs Wafaqi Mohtasib Ombudsman's Secretariat, Zero Point, Islamabad and another2002 YLR 1458 · Lahore High Court · 2002-02-18Read full judgment →
• Pakcom Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue And Others2002 P.C.T.L.R. 275 · Lahore High Court · 2001-01-31Read full judgment →
• Pakcom Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9, Companies Zone II, Lahore2002 P.C.T.L.R. 273 · Lahore High Court · 2001-07-25Read full judgment →
• Padshahi Alias Pat Shahi vs Lal DinK.L.R. 2002 Civil Cases 132 · Lahore High Court · 2001-01-15Read full judgment →
• Pacific Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan an another2002 YLR 3125 · Lahore High Court · 2001-04-19Read full judgment →
• Owais Ahmad vs Chief Election Commissioner and 23 others2002 YLR 1048 · Lahore High Court · 2001-12-05Read full judgment →
• Orix Leasing Pakistan Ltd. vs Sunshine Cloth Mills Ltd.2002 P.C.T.L.R. 839 · Lahore High Court · 2001-11-14Read full judgment →
• Orix Leasing Pakistan Ltd. vs Sunshine Cloth Ltd.2002 P.C.T.L.R. 387 · Lahore High Court · 2001-05-28Read full judgment →
• Orient Laboratories (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, Ministry2002 PTD 1530 · Lahore High Court · 2002-02-28Read full judgment →
• Olympia Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs Assistant Collector, Central2002 PTD 776 · Lahore High Court · 2001-11-30
  Sales Tax Actwholesaler definitionmanufacturer registrationstatutory interpretationwholesale businesssupply of goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central, which compulsorily registered the petitioner, a manufacturer of synthetic carpets, as a wholesaler under the Sales Tax Act. The core legal question was whether a manufacturer who distributes its own goods from a godown falls within the statutory definition of a "wholesaler" under section 2(31-A) of the Sales Tax Act. The respondent argued that the removal of goods from the manufacturing premises to a storage point constituted a "supply," thereby triggering the wholesaler registration requirement. The Court held that the definition of "wholesaler" requires the business of buying and selling goods, or supplying/distributing goods by wholesale. It reasoned that a manufacturer selling its own products does not engage in "wholesale" as it does not buy the goods it sells. The Court emphasized that the legislature consciously used the term "by wholesale" in the definition, which implies a commercial transaction distinct from a manufacturer's direct sale. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, declaring it to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does a manufacturer selling its own manufactured goods fall within the definition of a "wholesaler" under the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  • Does the removal of goods from a manufacturing premise to a storage point owned by the manufacturer constitute "wholesale" business?
  • Is the buying of goods an essential element of the definition of "wholesaler" under section 2(31-A) of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
  Read full judgment →
• Olympia Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Assistant Collector, Central2002 P.C.T.L.R. 408 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• N/A vs N/A2002 C.L.R. 464 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Nylex (Private) Ltd. vs D.C., Income-Tax2002 PTD 275 · Lahore High Court · 2001-07-09Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Ali Shah vs Pervaiz Akhtar2002 MLD 956 · Lahore High Court · 2001-11-06Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Ali Anjum vs Small Business Finance Corporation, Rahim Yar2002 CLD 116 · Lahore High Court · 2001-05-21
  financial assistancemark-up recoverycontractual liabilityarrears of land revenueSmall Business Finance Corporationwrit jurisdictionIslamic injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated writ petitions involve customers of the Small Business Finance Corporation (SBFC) challenging the recovery of interest and mark-up on financial assistance facilities. The petitioners argued that, pursuant to rulings by the Federal Shariat Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, they were not liable to pay interest as it was declared against the Injunctions of Islam. The core legal question was whether these declarations absolved borrowers of their contractual obligations to pay mark-up on loans. The Court held that while interest has been declared un-Islamic, its recovery has not been disallowed by the cited precedents. The Court ruled that the petitioners are contractually bound by their agreements to repay the principal along with the stipulated mark-up. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the SBFC possesses the statutory authority under the Small Business Finance Corporation Act, 1972 to recover outstanding sums as arrears of land revenue. The Court directed the parties to reconcile accounts and mandated that recovery proceedings must proceed in accordance with the law, while granting temporary relief against coercive measures due to market hardships.

  Questions settled

  • Are borrowers liable to pay interest or mark-up on loans despite judicial declarations that interest is against the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Does the Small Business Finance Corporation have the statutory authority to recover outstanding loan amounts as arrears of land revenue?
  • Can a borrower challenge the recovery of mark-up on financial assistance by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Ali Anjum vs Small Business Finance Corporation, Rahim Yar2002 P.C.T.L.R. 191 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State2002 PLD Lahore 183 · Lahore High Court · 2002-02-08
  quashment of proceedingsfalse informationcognizance of offencepublic servantwritten complaintsection 561-A Cr.P.C.section 182 P.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of proceedings initiated against the petitioner under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved the legality of criminal proceedings initiated under section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the direction of a Judicial Magistrate rather than upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant as mandated by law. The Lahore High Court held that the entire proceedings were tainted with prejudice, bias, and were initiated by the Judicial Magistrate himself without lawful authority, as the Magistrate was not the aggrieved public servant contemplated under section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that cognizance of an offence under section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, cannot be taken except upon the written complaint of the public servant concerned or their subordinate, and proceedings initiated otherwise without lawful foundation are a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Judicial Magistrate can direct the initiation of proceedings under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a written complaint from the concerned public servant?
  • Can criminal proceedings initiated through a Qalandra at the instance of a Magistrate's improper direction be sustained in law?
  • Does a Judicial Magistrate act without lawful authority when taking cognizance of an offence under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 contrary to section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Punjab Sectt., Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 2002 Labour & Service Cases 28 · Lahore High Court
  constitutional petitionservice appealappellate authorityjurisdictionefficiency and discipline rulesadministrative orderscompulsory retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges orders of compulsory retirement from service and subsequent appellate and revisional decisions concerning a municipal employee. The core legal question was whether the Government or its Secretary could administratively transfer a statutory service appeal to an authority other than the one nominated under the Punjab Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1981, and whether participation in proceedings before such a transferee authority could cure the jurisdictional defect. The Lahore High Court held that administrative orders cannot substitute for statutory rules or amendments, which require formal notification, and that consent or participation cannot confer jurisdiction where none is provided by law. The court declared the appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner without lawful authority and directed that the appeal be decided afresh by the competent authority designated under the rules. The key principle laid down is that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or participation, and administrative transfers of statutory appeals without formal rule amendments are void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an administrative transfer of a statutory appeal to an officer not nominated under the relevant rules is valid?
  • Can consent or participation of a party confer legal jurisdiction on an authority not appointed by law?
  • Do administrative orders issued by a government functionary carry the status of statutory rules or amendments without formal gazette notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Secretary to the Government of the Punjab2002 PLC (C.S.) 1476 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-10
  compulsory retirementappellate authorityjurisdictionadministrative ordersstatutory rulescoram non judiceservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the compulsory retirement of the petitioner and the subsequent appellate proceedings. The core legal question was whether the Government could administratively transfer an appeal to an officer not designated as the appellate authority under the Punjab Local Council Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1981, and whether the petitioner’s participation in such proceedings conferred jurisdiction upon that officer. The Court held that the transfer of the appeal to the Deputy Commissioner was illegal, as the Deputy Commissioner was not the designated appellate authority under the Rules. The Court ruled that administrative orders issued by the Government cannot supersede or amend statutory Rules, which require a formal process of proclamation and publication in the Gazette to be valid. Furthermore, the Court established that consent or participation by a party cannot confer jurisdiction upon an authority not vested with it by law. Consequently, the appellate order was declared without lawful authority, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative order of the government amend or supersede statutory rules regarding the designation of an appellate authority?
  • Does the participation of a party in proceedings before an unauthorized forum confer jurisdiction upon that forum?
  • Can the government transfer an appeal to an officer not specified as the appellate authority under the Punjab Local Council Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1981?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Abdul Ghani2002 CLC 88 · Lahore High Court · 2001-05-28
  joint possessionpart performanceagreement to sellregistered sale deedmutationburden of proofattesting witnessTransfer of Property Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal challenged the judgment of the District Judge, which had reversed a trial court decree in a suit for joint possession of land. The core legal questions concerned the validity of an alleged sale of land and the applicability of the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court held that the respondent failed to prove the execution of the agreement to sell, as the testimony of the attesting witness was denied, rendering the document unreliable. The Court emphasized that under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any sale of immovable property exceeding Rs. 100 must be executed via a registered sale deed. Consequently, the respondent could not claim protection under Section 53-A, as such protection is strictly contingent upon the existence of a valid, proved agreement to sell. The Court further clarified that a mutation entry is not an instrument of title and cannot validate a transaction that violates mandatory statutory requirements regarding registration. The appeal was accepted, and the trial court's decree was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, if the underlying agreement to sell is not proved?
  • Does a mutation entry in revenue records serve as an instrument of title for the sale of immovable property?
  • Is a sale of immovable property exceeding Rs. 100 valid without a registered sale deed?
  • Does the denial of execution by an attesting witness render a document unreliable even if another witness affirms it?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and 5 others vs Additional District Judge, Ferozewala and 2 others2002 YLR 3744 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-25Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan vs Khan Muhammad2002 CLC 402 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-08
  pre-emptionpre-emption moneyextension of timediscretionary powerdeposit of moneylapse of decreewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the orders of the Senior Civil Judge and the District Judge, which refused the petitioner's request to deposit pre-emption money after the time fixed by the trial court had expired and subsequent appellate remedies were exhausted. The core legal question is whether a pre-emptor, having failed to deposit the pre-emption money within the time prescribed by the trial court and having unsuccessfully challenged the decree through appellate and revisional forums, retains a right to deposit the money after the decree has effectively lapsed. The court held that the trial court's decree, which mandated the deposit of pre-emption money by a specific date, was no longer in force once that date passed without compliance. The court emphasized that while courts possess discretion under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend time, such discretion is judicial and cannot be exercised to revive a dead decree. The principle laid down is that the extension of time for depositing pre-emption money is not an absolute right but a discretionary power that courts may refuse to exercise, especially where the pre-emptor has failed to provide valid grounds for the delay.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court extend the time for depositing pre-emption money if the original decree has already lapsed due to non-compliance?
  • Is the grant of extension of time for depositing pre-emption money under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a matter of right or judicial discretion?
  • Does an appellate court have the authority to refuse the extension of time for depositing pre-emption money in exceptional cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan vs Khan Muhammad and others2002 C.L.R. 726 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-08Read full judgment →
• Noor Hussain Shah and 2 others vs The State2002 P Cr. L J 711 · Lahore High Court · 2001-06-21
  murderdeath sentence confirmationplea of alibiocular testimonymedical corroborationcommutation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing them to death, alongside an appeal against an acquittal. The core legal question involved the assessment of ocular testimony, medical evidence, plea of alibi, and the appropriate quantum of sentence in a double murder case. The Lahore High Court held that the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence, firmly established the guilt of the appellants for murder, while rejecting the defense's plea of alibi and theories of alternative causation. However, the court distinguished the case of one appellant whose specific firearm injury was not fatal, commuting his death sentence to imprisonment for life, while confirming the death sentences of the other two appellants. The key principle laid down is that where medical evidence corroborates the ocular testimony regarding the specific roles and weapons used by accused persons, conviction is sustainable, and mitigating circumstances regarding individual attribution of fatal injuries warrant a commutation of the death penalty to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Does a general statement in support of a plea of alibi suffice to disprove the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime?
  • Whether the absence of blackening, burning, or scorching around a firearm injury necessarily implies it was caused by a stray pellet?
  • Is a distinction in the quantum of sentence warranted when an appellant's assigned injury is not declared fatal to life?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs The State and others2002 MLD 1489 · Lahore High Court · 2001-08-13
  bail cancellationprohibitory clauseabductioncriminal procedurepost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Special Court Anti-Terrorism, Faisalabad, in respect of a case registered under sections 365, 392, 337 (iii), 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the bail granted by the lower court was contrary to law, considering the allegations of abduction and injuries, and whether the case fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the offences charged entailed a maximum sentence of seven years and that the lower court correctly found that the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that bail will not be interfered with when the lower court's exercise of discretion in granting bail for offences outside the prohibitory clause is in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be cancelled when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the grant of bail for offences carrying a maximum sentence of seven years warrant interference by the High Court if the lower court's view is not contrary to law?
  Read full judgment →
• Noman Hafeez and others vs Manager Small Business Finance2002 MLD 1122 · Lahore High Court · 2001-07-16
  contempt of courtrendition of accountsnon-compliancecoercive measureswrit petitionwillful disobedience
  Summary & questions settled

  This contempt petition arose from a previous order of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 716 of 2001, which had directed the respondents to settle accounts with the petitioner in accordance with the principles established by the Supreme Court in Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. Syed Muhammad Hashmi and 2 others (PLD 2000 SC 225). The petitioner alleged non-compliance with this directive. In response, the respondents filed comments asserting that they had refrained from taking coercive measures against the petitioner and that the petitioner had failed to approach them within the stipulated timeframe to facilitate the rendition of accounts. Furthermore, the respondents expressed their continued readiness to settle the accounts. The Court evaluated the explanation provided by the respondents and found it satisfactory, concluding that there was no willful violation of its previous order. Consequently, the Court determined that proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act were unwarranted. The petition was dismissed as misconceived, and the previously issued notice to the respondent was discharged.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to approach the respondent for the rendition of accounts within a stipulated period constitute a violation of a court order?
  • Is the initiation of contempt proceedings justified when the respondent demonstrates a willingness to comply with the court's prior directions?
  • What constitutes a sufficient explanation to avoid contempt proceedings for alleged non-compliance with a court's directive?
  Read full judgment →
• Noble Petroleum Company (Pvt.) Limited, Lahore vs Income-2002 PTD 1468 · Lahore High Court · 2002-02-06Read full judgment →
• Nishat (Chunian) Ltd. And Other vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 2002 Tax & Corporate Cases 192 · Lahore High Court · 2001-12-12Read full judgment →
• Nishat (Chunian) Limited through its Assistant Manager Commercial and others vs Federation of Pakistan2002 CLD 515 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nisar-Ul-Haq vs Tehsil Municipal Administrator CITYthrough Nazim and 2 others2002 PLD Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 2002-02-21
  writ petitionmunicipal leasespublic auctionrepresentative capacitypolicy mattersclean hands
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging the auction notice and lease conditions issued by the respondents for municipal collection rights, alleging violations of the Punjab Local Council (Lease) Rules, 1990, particularly regarding lease duration and bundling contracts to a single person. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a writ petition filed in a representative capacity without complying with procedural rules, and whether administrative stipulations in public auctions for municipal leases violate statutory lease rules. The Lahore High Court held that the petition was not maintainable as it was filed in a representative capacity in violation of Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, that courts cannot interfere with policy matters framed in the public interest, and that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition filed in a representative capacity without complying with Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable?
  • Can the High Court interfere with administrative policy decisions regarding municipal lease durations and auction conditions framed in the public interest?
  • Does the imposition of a condition requiring municipal leases from serial numbers 1 to 7 to be given to a single person violate the Punjab Local Council (Lease) Rules, 1990?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs The State2002 YLR 384 · Lahore High Court · 2002-01-24
  criminal appealidentification paradedelayed arrestmurder convictionappreciation of evidencereasonable doubthouse trespass
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Nisar Ahmad, who was found guilty by the trial court under Section 458 and Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for house trespass and murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the identity of the accused and the reliability of the evidence, given that the appellant was arrested nearly three years after the occurrence and identified via a belated identification parade. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses highly suspect, noting their unnatural conduct during the incident, the lack of description of the accused in the initial FIR, and the implausibility of identifying an assailant after a nearly three-year gap. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was deemed unreliable due to the interested nature of the recovery witness. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that identification parades conducted after inordinate delays without corroboration are insufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on an identification parade held nearly three years after the occurrence?
  • Does the failure to provide a description of the accused in the FIR undermine the reliability of subsequent identification?
  • Is the testimony of eyewitnesses credible when their conduct during the commission of the crime is deemed unnatural?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad and 2 others vs The State2002 YLR 740 · Lahore High Court · 2001-11-29
  murderocular evidencemedical evidenceGhairatmitigation of sentencecompensationcriminal appealdeath sentence commutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded for murder and related offenses. The core legal questions were whether the ocular evidence was reliable despite discrepancies in medical reports regarding the placement of injuries, and whether the motive of 'Ghairat' (family honor) warranted the mitigation of the death sentence. The Court upheld the convictions, finding that minor discrepancies in the description of injury seats by eye-witnesses did not discredit their testimony, as they were independent and natural witnesses. However, the Court commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment, holding that the motive of 'Ghairat' arising from the deceased's illicit intimacy with the accused's relative constituted a mitigating circumstance. Additionally, the Court enhanced the compensation payable to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment establishes that while ocular testimony remains primary, minor inconsistencies regarding injury locations do not invalidate the testimony, and crimes committed under the influence of 'Ghairat' may justify a lesser sentence than death.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the seat of injury necessarily discredit the eye-witnesses?
  • Can the motive of 'Ghairat' (family honor) serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is a complainant entitled to seek enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad and 2 others vs Madan Lal and 6 others2002 MLD 901 · Lahore High Court · 2001-11-15Read full judgment →
• Nighat Parveen and another vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Sargodha and 2 others2002 MLD 787 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-24Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ullah vs The State2002 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-30
  superdariinterim custody of vehiclecontrol of narcotic substancespre-trial custodyinnocent ownercriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arises from an order passed by the Special Court (CNS), Rawalpindi, refusing the interim custody (Superdari) of a vehicle seized as case property under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the innocent owner of a vehicle, who is not an accused in the narcotics case and whose driver was allegedly transporting the contraband, can be deprived of the pre-trial custody of the vehicle under section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Lahore High Court held that the prohibition against granting pre-trial custody under section 74 applies to the accused, his associates, relatives, or connected private individuals, but does not extend to a bona fide owner who is entirely unconnected with the crime and found innocent by the investigating agency. The Court laid down the principle that a strict interpretation of the forbidding clause in section 74 cannot be used to inflict unjust results on an innocent vehicle owner, and thus such an owner is entitled to the Superdari of the vehicle pending trial upon furnishing adequate sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an innocent owner of a vehicle used in a narcotics crime can be granted Superdari during the pendency of the trial?
  • Does the prohibition under section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 against pre-trial custody of a conveyance extend to an owner who is not an accused in the case?
  • How should the term 'private individual' in section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be interpreted in relation to an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz alias Nazoo and another vs The State2002 MLD 1077 · Lahore High Court · 2001-06-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed statementpolice investigationabsence of recoverycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Niaz alias Nazoo and Jamal seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 117 of 2000 registered under sections 302, 109, 148, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Sahooka, District Vehari. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail when their names are absent from the F.I.R. and initial statements, a delay of over a month occurred before a witness implicated them with a general allegation while admitting she did not witness the occurrence, no recoveries were made from them, and police investigation found them innocent. The court held that the allegations against the petitioners require further inquiry and their case falls within the purview of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail is warranted where the incriminating material is weak, delayed, uncorroborated by recoveries, contradicted by police investigation, and raises sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused whose name is missing from the F.I.R. and initial statements is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does a delayed statement implicating the accused after a lapse of one and a half months justify further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the effect of a police investigation finding the accused innocent when considering a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamat Masih vs District Judge, Okara/Election Tribunal, District2002 YLR 4024 · Lahore High Court · 2002-06-18Read full judgment →
• Niamat Ali vs Mst. Aisha Bibi and others2002 C.L.R. 988 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-12Read full judgment →
• Niamat Ali vs Ghulam Abbas and others2002 P Cr. L J 1037 · Lahore High Court · 2001-11-21
  criminal appealmurderacquittalprivate complaintocular accountbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby respondents were acquitted of charges under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a private complaint concerning a murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, notwithstanding previous enmity and the absence of weapon recoveries. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal on merits, holding that the occurrence was unwitnessed, the eyewitnesses were interested and inimical, and the findings of the trial court acquitting the accused were justified upon reappraisal of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that where ocular accounts lack independent corroboration in the face of previous enmity and successive investigations declaring the accused innocent, an acquittal by the trial court calls for no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal judgment can be interfered with when the ocular account lacks independent corroboration and the witnesses are inimical?
  • Does the absence of weapon recovery and declarations of innocence in police investigations strengthen the case for acquittal?
  • Whether interested witnesses related to the deceased require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamat Ali through Attorney vs Mst. Aisha Bibi and 7 others2002 MLD 406 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-12Read full judgment →
• Nestle Milk Pack (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Vice Commissioner PESSI And OtherK.L.R. 2002 Labour & Service Cases 116 · Lahore High Court · 2002-05-10
  social security contributionconstruction contractorprincipal obligantguarantor liabilityWest Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinanceemployer liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the order of the Social Security Court, which held the appellant company liable as a principal debtor for social security contributions regarding workers employed by a construction contractor at the appellant's premises. The core legal question was whether an employer, under the West Pakistan Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, acts as a principal obligant or merely a guarantor for contributions related to construction work. The Court held that construction contractors constitute a distinct category under Section 20(8) of the Ordinance. Consequently, the owner of the premises is only liable in a secondary capacity as a guarantor, while the construction contractor bears the primary obligation for payment. The Court distinguished this from precedents involving general contractors, noting that the specific language of Section 20(8) limits the owner's liability to that of a guarantor. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Social Security Institution must provide the contractor an opportunity to be heard before initiating recovery. The principle established is that for construction work, the owner's liability for social security contributions is strictly that of a guarantor, not a principal debtor.

  Questions settled

  • Is the owner of an establishment a principal obligant or a guarantor for social security contributions regarding workers employed by a construction contractor?
  • Does the liability of an employer for social security contributions differ between general contractors and construction contractors?
  • Can a social security institution recover contributions from a construction contractor without first providing the contractor an opportunity to be heard?
  Read full judgment →
• Neimat Ullah Khan vs The State2002 P Cr. L J 1972 · Lahore High Court · 2002-03-19
  murderocular evidencemitigation of sentencejuvenile offendercompensationcriminal appealmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, armed with a pistol, shot the deceased following a prior quarrel. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relying on ocular testimony and recovery evidence. The appellant contended that the occurrence was unwitnessed and that he was falsely implicated due to family enmity. Upon review, the High Court found the ocular evidence credible, noting the natural presence of witnesses and the prompt lodging of the F.I.R. However, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive. Furthermore, considering the appellant's age (approximately 17 years and 4 months) at the time of the offense, the Court deemed a death sentence inappropriate. Consequently, the conviction was maintained, but the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. The Court also corrected the trial court's erroneous sentencing regarding default in compensation payment, limiting it to six months as per statutory requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence of death be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused was a teenager at the time of the offense?
  • What is the maximum period of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to prove the motive for a crime necessarily invalidate a conviction based on credible ocular evidence?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a sentence of life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Nadeem vs The State2002 P Cr. L J 160 · Lahore High Court · 2001-08-17
  post-arrest baildacoitybenefit of doubtheinous offencesubmission of challan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Nazir Nadeem, who was implicated in case F.I.R. No. 6 registered under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Toba Tek Singh. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of recovery of looted property, the doubtful nature of his alleged extra-judicial confession, and the fact that the challan had already been submitted with the trial pending. The court held that the petitioner's involvement was prima facie doubtful, that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment, and that submission of a challan does not bar the grant of bail. The key principles laid down are that the benefit of doubt must be extended to an accused at any stage, that bail is not to be refused merely on the ground of a heinous offence when the prosecution fails to connect the accused with the crime through solid evidence, and that detention cannot be indefinite.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the submission of a challan in court acts as a bar to the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be withheld as a punishment merely on the ground that the accused is charged with a heinous offence?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession without the recovery of looted property sufficient to deny bail to an accused?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused person at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain vs Station House Officer of Police Station Cantt., Sargodha and 4 others2002 YLR 3829 · Lahore High Court · 2002-06-25
  habeas corpusillegal detentioncustodial torturewrongful confinementpolice excessbailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition regarding the alleged illegal detention and torture of five individuals by police officials at Police Station Cantt, Sargodha. A court-appointed bailiff recovered the detenus from the police lock-up, where they reported being subjected to physical abuse and wrongful confinement. The investigation revealed that some detenus were detained without any registered case against them, while others were held based on informal requests from another police station, with no corresponding entries in the daily diary register. The court addressed the legality of this detention and the allegations of custodial torture. Holding that the detention was unauthorized and lacked legal justification, the court ordered the immediate release of those not involved in any criminal case. Regarding those allegedly involved in a bailable offense, the court granted bail upon furnishing personal bonds. The court further directed a medical examination of all detenus to verify the torture allegations and ordered the appearance of the supervising police officer to facilitate further inquiry into the conduct of the police officials involved.

  Questions settled

  • Can police legally detain individuals in a lock-up based solely on an informal written request from another police station without a registered case?
  • Is a police officer authorized to detain persons in a lock-up without making an entry in the daily diary register?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to grant bail to detenus in a habeas corpus petition if they are allegedly involved in a bailable offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Rai Walayat Khan vs Muhammad Aslam2002 CLC 714 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-29Read full judgment →
• Nazir Cotton Mills Limited through Chief Executive and 6 others vs Islamic Investment Bank Limited through Messrs Saqib Ahmed Khan (Branch Manager) and Rashid Hafeez Malik, its duly constituted Attorneys2002 CLD 612 · Lahore High Court · 2001-12-12Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State2002 MLD 1143 · Lahore High Court · 2001-03-01
  post-arrest bailabetmentfurther inquirymurderdelay in trialcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a bail application filed by Nazir Ahmad seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 492 dated 5-12-1998 registered under sections 302/109/34, Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Saddar, Hasilpur. The core legal question is whether an accused charged with abetment under section 109, Pakistan Penal Code, who was not present at the scene of the crime and from whom nothing was recovered, is entitled to post-arrest bail when incarcerated for over two years with trial yet to conclude. The Lahore High Court held that since the only evidence against the petitioner was regarding abetment, he was not present at the occurrence, no recovery was made, and he had been behind bars for more than two years without conclusion of the trial, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court laid down the principle that an accused charged solely with abetment whose presence at the crime scene is absent and whose trial is delayed may be granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused charged with abetment entitled to post-arrest bail when not present at the scene of the crime?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without commencement or conclusion of trial constitute grounds for grant of bail?
  • Whether a case of abetment without recovery and absence from the crime scene falls within the ambit of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Allah Ditta alias Bagha Khan2002 CLC 967 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-26Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and 8 others vs Mst. Majeeda Begum and 12 others2002 CLC 1862 · Lahore High Court · 2002-02-25Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and 5 others vs Muhammad Saleem and 3 others2002 YLR 1531 · Lahore High Court · 2002-01-09Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad alias Jeera alias King vs The State2002 YLR 2944 · Lahore High Court · 2002-03-13
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencehostile witnessbenefit of doubtmurder referencerecovery of weaponextra-judicial confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gojra, which convicted the appellants for the murder of Imtiaz Tariq. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the theory of 'last seen,' alleged extra-judicial confessions, and the recovery of incriminating articles. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through this circumstantial evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Key witnesses of the 'last seen' evidence and extra-judicial confessions were declared hostile, and the alleged recoveries of the murder weapon and other items were found to be unreliable, as they were made from open, accessible areas or lacked forensic corroboration. The Court reaffirmed the principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete and wholly incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Furthermore, it held that one weak piece of evidence cannot corroborate another, and consequently, the appellants were acquitted, and the death sentence was not confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is incomplete?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon from an open, accessible place without forensic matching provide sufficient corroboration?
  • Can one weak piece of evidence be used to corroborate another weak piece of evidence in a criminal case?
  • What is the legal requirement for circumstantial evidence to support a conviction in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazim Khan and 3 others vs Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad and others2002 MLD 1433 · Lahore High Court · 2000-09-20Read full judgment →
• Nazik Hussain vs The State2002 YLR 860 · Lahore High Court · 2001-06-30
  pre-arrest bailmala fideulterior motivecriminal intimidationoutraging modestyfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused in an F.I.R. registered under sections 354 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of mala fide intent and the existence of prior civil and criminal litigation between the parties. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought, confirming the pre-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the finding that the F.I.R. appeared to be a retaliatory measure stemming from strained family relations and previous litigation, rather than a genuine criminal complaint. The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is a protective mechanism for citizens against false involvement in criminal cases motivated by malice. It established that where there is prima facie evidence of mala fide intent and the ingredients of the alleged offences are not clearly established, the accused is entitled to confirmation of bail to prevent irreparable harm to their reputation.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the F.I.R. appears to be lodged with mala fide intent due to prior litigation?
  • Does the existence of prior civil and criminal disputes between the parties constitute a ground for considering mala fide intent in a criminal case?
  • Is pre-arrest bail a valid remedy to protect an accused from irreparable damage to reputation caused by false criminal charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmad alias Najja vs The State2002 MLD 1015 · Lahore High Court · 2001-06-06
  post-arrest bailnon-nomination in FIRtest identification paradecomplainant affidavitprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Nazeer Ahmad alias Najja seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 178 registered at Police Station Farid Nagar, District Pakpattan Sharif, under sections 382, 392, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given his non-nomination in the F.I.R., the absence of a test identification parade, an affidavit by the complainant exonerating him, and the nature of the recovery made. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R., no test identification parade was conducted, the complainant swore an affidavit exonerating him, and the recovery only attracted Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 which falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petition ought to be allowed. The court laid down the principle that bail is to be granted when the incriminating material against the accused does not fall within the prohibitory clause and involves circumstances weakening the prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not nominated in the F.I.R. and against whom no test identification parade has been conducted is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does an affidavit by the complainant exonerating the accused constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
  • Does an offence under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State2002 P Cr. L J 2063 · Lahore High Court · 2002-07-15
  surety bond forfeitureabatement of criminal caseproclaimed offendercriminal revisionbail bondpenalty imposition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, which imposed a full penalty on the petitioner for the forfeiture of a surety bond. The petitioner had stood surety for an accused person who subsequently absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender. The core legal question was whether the petitioner remained liable for the forfeiture of the surety bond after the death of the accused, which led to the abatement of the main criminal case. The Court held that the death of the accused and the consequent abatement of the criminal proceedings must legally benefit the surety. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order of forfeiture. The judgment establishes the principle that standing surety is an act of benevolence, and unless it is proven that the surety acted with ulterior motives, they should not be treated harshly or punished severely with full forfeiture of the bond, especially when the underlying criminal case has abated due to the death of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of an accused and the subsequent abatement of the criminal case provide a legal basis to set aside the forfeiture of a surety bond?
  • Should a surety be treated harshly or punished with full forfeiture of a bond in the absence of evidence of ulterior motives?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs Muhammad Nawaz And OtherK.L.R. 2002 Revenue Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 2001-05-22Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad Chohan vs Muhammad Ajmal Shah and another2002 YLR 1647 · Lahore High Court · 2002-04-10
  easement rightsevacuee propertymandatory injunctioncivil revisionlight and airencumbrancedominant tenement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for a permanent mandatory injunction filed by the petitioner, alleging that the respondents obstructed established easement rights of light, air, and water flow by constructing a shop in a joint street. The petitioner claimed these rights had existed for over 100 years. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court dismissed it, erroneously holding that easement rights attached to evacuee property are extinguished upon government acquisition. The High Court held that the appellate court misread the evidence and misapplied the law regarding evacuee property. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that easement rights are not extinguished by the acquisition of evacuee property, as the term 'encumbrance' does not encompass such rights vested in adjacent property owners. Furthermore, the Court found that the evidence, including inspection notes and the respondents' own admissions, confirmed the existence of the easement. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree, upholding the petitioner's established rights.

  Questions settled

  • Are easement rights attached to evacuee property extinguished upon the acquisition of such property by the Federal Government?
  • Does the term 'encumbrance' include rights of easement vested in owners of adjacent property?
  • Can an easement right exist where the dominant and subservient tenements are owned by the same person?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Mahmood vs The State2002 P Cr. L J 237 · Lahore High Court · 2001-08-21
  suspension of sentenceanti-terrorismcriminal appealshort-term sentencebail pending appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under section 37 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No. II, Multan. Along with the appeal, a civil miscellaneous application for the suspension of sentence was filed. The core legal question revolved around whether the sentence of a short-term imprisonment awarded under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 can be suspended pending the decision of the appeal, notwithstanding the bar under subsection (8) of section 25 of the said Act. The court held that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, keeping the petitioner behind bars for the total period of the substantive sentence would render the appeal infructuous and defeat the entire appellate process. Consequently, the court suspended the sentence and granted bail to the petitioner, laying down the principle that the appellate court can suspend a short-term sentence to preserve the efficacy of the right of appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of a short-term imprisonment can be suspended pending the decision of an appeal under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can bail be granted under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the face of restrictions contained in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does the continuation of incarceration for the entire duration of a short sentence frustrate the right of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Javed Durrani vs Election Tribunal/District and Sessions2002 YLR 3011 · Lahore High Court · 2001-12-28Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain vs The State2002 P Cr. L J 440 · Lahore High Court · 2002-01-07
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesrecovery of contrabandoverriding effect of special lawchemical examiner reportstatutory presumptionprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 200 grams of Charas from the petitioner. The core legal questions concern the applicability of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to narcotic cases, the validity of an investigation where the complainant and investigating officer are the same person, the competence of a police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector to conduct searches under Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 versus Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 contains its own overriding bail provisions under Section 51. The Court established that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is a special law with overriding effect, and procedural irregularities in search or investigation do not vitiate the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 have an overriding effect over the bail provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a police officer who acts as the complainant also serve as the investigating officer in a narcotics case?
  • Does the absence of a chemical examiner's report at the time of a bail application entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Abbas vs Nazoo and others2002 P Cr. L J 582 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-24
  cancellation of bailpre-arrest bailprohibitory clauseShajjah-e-Mudihahcross-versioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent, Munir Ahmad, by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving charges under Section 337-A(ii)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the respondent's pre-arrest bail should be cancelled given the specific allegations of a head injury attributed to him and the medical evidence supporting the FIR. The Court observed that the respondent had joined the investigation and a weapon (Sota) had been recovered. Crucially, the Court noted that the injuries sustained by the complainant's side were not the only relevant factor, as there was a significant cross-version involving injuries to three women that were not mentioned in the FIR. The Court held that the offence under Section 337-A(ii) does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing the principle that bail should not be cancelled on technical grounds when the offence is non-prohibitory and the accused has joined the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should pre-arrest bail be cancelled on technical grounds when the accused has joined the investigation and the offence is non-prohibitory?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Abbas and others vs The State2002 YLR 3620 · Lahore High Court · 2002-05-16
  sectarian violencemurderattempted murderhostile witnesseyewitness credibilitydelayed FIRcriminal appealbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder and attempted murder arising from a sectarian-motivated shooting incident inside a mosque during Taravi prayers, which resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, delayed reporting by witnesses, the evidentiary value of injured witnesses who turned hostile out of fear, and the corroboration of ocular accounts. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against one of the appellants due to delayed disclosure, lack of identification parades, and unreliable testimony, leading to his acquittal. However, the convictions of the other two appellants were upheld based on straightforward, consistent eyewitness testimony that was corroborated by medical evidence and crime scene recoveries. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies in an otherwise truthful and natural eyewitness account subjected to extensive cross-examination should be ignored, and the reluctance of witnesses to come forward due to fear of sectarian violence is a contextual reality that must be evaluated carefully.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated and belated statements of chance witnesses recorded months after the incident can form the basis of a murder conviction?
  • Does the failure of injured witnesses to identify the accused at trial due to fear warrant the total rejection of the prosecution case against other identified culprits?
  • How should minor discrepancies arising from an extraordinarily lengthy cross-examination of a truthful eyewitness be treated by the court?
  • Whether a conviction under section 324/34 can be sustained regarding injured victims who were never produced to give evidence during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawaz alias Batta and another vs The State2002 MLD 625 · Lahore High Court · 2001-09-24
  post-arrest bailconflicting statementsabductionfree-will marriageZina-bil-Jabrfurther inquiryCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the petitioners seeking after-arrest bail in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance and the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given conflicting statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the alleged abductee, who initially stated she contracted a free-will marriage and later alleged Zina-bil-Jabr. The Lahore High Court held that the truth and reliability of the conflicting statements will be tested during trial upon cross-examination, and since the case calls for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have made out a case for bail. The key principle laid down is that where contradictory statements by an alleged abductee create a doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution's allegations at the bail stage, the case falls within the purview of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictory statements of an alleged abductee recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure make a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497?
  • Does the existence of conflicting statements regarding free-will marriage versus abduction entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • How should the reliability of subsequent inconsistent statements of a witness be evaluated at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Masroor Ali Khan vs Said Akbar and another2002 YLR 3496 · Lahore High Court · 2002-04-23Read full judgment →
• Nawab alias Babu through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Rafique through Legal Heirs2002 MLD 965 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-12Read full judgment →
• Nausher vs The StateK.L.R. 2001, Criminal Cases 28 · Lahore High Court · 2001-06-21
  murderocular testimonyrelated witnessesquantum of sentencedeath penalty commutationmedical complicationssepticemia and gangreneacquittal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge at Jhang convicting the appellant Nausher under Section 302 PPC for the murder of Allah Ditta and sentencing him to death as Qisas, alongside compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C., while acquitting co-accused Bashir Ahmad and Dost Muhammad. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular testimony from related witnesses where co-accused were acquitted, and the determination of the appropriate quantum of sentence where death ensues months later following surgical complications, septicemia, and gangrene. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the eyewitness accounts natural, consistent, and fully reliable. However, regarding the sentence, the Court held that because death occurred approximately two months after the incident due to intervening medical complications, peritonitis, and septicemia—potentially aggravated by medical shortcomings—the extreme penalty of death was unwarranted. Consequently, the High Court modified the sentence from death to imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) PPC, while dismissing the complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused. The key principle laid down is that where death is not the direct and immediate result of the firearm injuries alone but is significantly intervened by post-surgical infections, gangrene, and septicaemia developing over months, such medical complications warrant leniency in the quantum of sentence, making the death penalty inappropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether related eyewitness testimony can form the basis of a murder conviction when co-accused have been acquitted on the same evidence?
  • Does the development of fatal septicemia, gangrene, and peritonitis months after a firearm injury, linked to surgical intervention, justify commuting a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the High Court will interfere with an order of acquittal in the absence of compelling and strong grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Naubahar Bottling Co Ltd vs Customs, Excise and Sales Tax2002 MLD 1658 · Lahore High Court · 2002-04-15Read full judgment →
• National Sugar Industries Ltd. through Malik Aziz ul Haq, Member vs Messer M.S. Construction Company Ltd. through Chief Executive and another2002 YLR 3151 · Lahore High Court · 2002-05-23Read full judgment →
• National Development Finance Corporation vs Spinning Machinery2002 CLD 53 · Lahore High Court · 2001-07-23
  banking companyrecovery of loansleave to defendimplied repealstatutory interpretationlimitation periodliquidated damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for the recovery of credit facilities filed by the National Development Finance Corporation against a defendant-company. The core legal questions were whether the Corporation qualifies as a 'Banking Company' under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, despite contrary provisions in the National Development Finance Corporation Act, 1973, and whether the suit was barred by limitation under section 8 of the 1997 Act. The Court held that the Corporation qualifies as a 'Banking Company' under the 1997 Act, as the provisions of the 1997 Act impliedly repealed the earlier restrictive provisions of the 1973 Act, following the principle that later laws inconsistent with earlier laws prevail. Furthermore, the Court rejected the limitation argument, noting that section 8 of the 1997 Act was inapplicable to the facts. Consequently, the Court dismissed the defendant's application for leave to defend the suit, as no bona fide dispute was raised, and decreed the suit in favor of the Corporation, granting recovery of the principal amount and markup, while rejecting the claim for liquidated damages.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Development Finance Corporation qualify as a 'Banking Company' under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997?
  • Do the provisions of a later statute impliedly repeal inconsistent provisions of an earlier statute?
  • Is the limitation period prescribed in section 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 applicable to all recovery suits?
  • Can a court award liquidated damages in a recovery suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• National Development Finance Corporation vs Sheikhoo Cooking Oil2002 CLD 341 · Lahore High Court · 2001-07-17
  ex parte decreebanking courtsetting aside decreespecial lawnon-appearancebanking recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and sections 10 and 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997, seeking to set aside an ex parte decree passed against the applicants/defendants. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside an ex parte decree in light of the special remedies provided under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997, as well as whether sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance. The Lahore High Court held that the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. is not maintainable because the special law provides specific remedies under section 12 and section 21, and invoking Order IX, Rule 13 would run counter to the intendment and object of the special enactment. Furthermore, the court held that ongoing negotiations and the mere taking away of the brief from counsel do not constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 lie for setting aside an ex parte decree passed by a Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997?
  • Is the taking away of a brief by parties from their counsel for the purpose of settlement negotiations considered a sufficient cause for non-appearance in court?
  • What is the competent remedy under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 to challenge an ex parte decree if section 12 is not applicable?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Riaz Ahmad & Sons (Regd.)2002 CLD 787 · Lahore High Court · 2002-01-23Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain and others vs A.C. and others2002 YLR 3484 · Lahore High Court · 2001-07-31Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Muslim Corporation, Okara2002 CLD 1099 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Hashmi Sons and 16 others2002 CLD 770 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-11Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Asghar Enterprises and 2 others2002 CLD 1097 · Lahore High Court · 2002-03-13Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs First Tawakal Modaraba through Tawakkal Management (Pvt.) Ltd. and 5 others2002 CLD 1018 · Lahore High Court
  recovery suitleave to defendBanking Court jurisdictionModaraba businessliquidated damagespersonal liability of directorsFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001
  Summary & questions settled

  The National Bank of Pakistan filed a suit for the recovery of outstanding export bill proceeds against a Modaraba company and its directors. The core legal questions concerned the mandatory nature of filing an amended application for leave to defend under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and whether the Banking Court possessed jurisdiction over a transaction involving a Modaraba entity. The Court held that the provisions of Section 10(12) of the 2001 Ordinance are mandatory; the defendants’ failure to file an amended application for leave to defend within the prescribed period necessitated the rejection of their application and the automatic admission of the plaint’s allegations. Furthermore, the Court determined that the transaction did not qualify as "Modaraba business" under the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980, confirming the Banking Court's jurisdiction. It was also established that directors who are beneficiaries and guarantors are personally liable. Finally, the Court ruled that liquidated damages are not recoverable in such recovery suits, reducing the claim accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Section 10(12) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, regarding the filing of an amended application for leave to defend, mandatory or directory?
  • Does a Banking Court have jurisdiction over a transaction involving a Modaraba company if the transaction does not constitute 'Modaraba business' under the Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980?
  • Are liquidated damages recoverable in a suit for the recovery of finances under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can directors of a company be held personally liable in a recovery suit if they are identified as beneficiaries and have executed personal guarantees?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through Zonal Head, City Zone, Lahore vs Messrs Life Paper Store through Partners and 7 others2002 CLD 1004 · Lahore High Court · 2002-03-12Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through VicePresident, Zonal Chief, Multan vs Effef Indsutries Limited and 11 others2002 CLD 1431 · Lahore High Court · 2002-02-27
  recovery of financeleave to defendpersonal guaranteeliquidated damagesbanking courtco-extensive liabilityex parte order
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for recovery of Rs. 53.639 million was initiated by the National Bank of Pakistan against Effef Industries Limited and several guarantors for unpaid financial facilities. The core legal questions concerned the defendants' entitlement to leave to defend the suit, the validity of an ex parte order, and the consequences of failing to comply with the procedural requirements under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The court held that the defendants failed to raise substantial questions of law or fact and neglected to file compliant amended applications for leave to defend within the statutory period. Consequently, the court dismissed the applications for leave to defend, deeming the plaint's allegations admitted. The court further ruled that the plaintiff-bank was not entitled to recover liquidated damages. The key principles laid down are that the requirements for leave to defend under the 2001 Ordinance are mandatory, non-compliance results in summary rejection, and the liabilities of principal debtors and guarantors are co-extensive under the Contract Act, 1872.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, regarding the filing of amended applications for leave to defend, mandatory?
  • Can a banking court set aside an ex parte order under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, where the Act is silent on the procedure?
  • Is a financial institution entitled to recover liquidated damages in a suit for recovery of finances?
  • Does the resignation of a director from a company discharge their personal guarantee executed for the company's financial facilities?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through Senior Vice President vs Messrs2002 CLD 1306 · Lahore High Court · 2002-05-13Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan through Attorney vs Haji Faqir Muhammad2002 CLD 1001 · Lahore High Court · 2002-03-12Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan vs The State2002 YLR 3626 · Lahore High Court · 2002-05-29
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencemitigating circumstancesdeath sentence commutationlife imprisonmentcompensation
  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 for the murder of the deceased. The appellant contended that the occurrence was an accident involving a struggle over a pistol, alleging a dishonest investigation and an un-witnessed event. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account, the admissibility of documentary evidence regarding age, and whether the circumstances warranted the capital punishment. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's ocular evidence credible and rejecting the defense's version of events. However, the Court held that because the alleged motive remained shrouded in mystery and the appellant did not repeat the shot, these factors constituted mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The principle established is that uncertainty regarding the motive and the absence of repeated firing can serve as valid grounds for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Is a birth certificate admissible in evidence if the author of the document is not produced to prove its contents?
  • Does the failure to recover a crime empty from the crime scene render the recovery of the weapon insignificant?
  • Can the uncertainty of the motive and the fact that only a single shot was fired constitute mitigating circumstances for commuting a death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Bibi and anothers vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Jhall Chakian, District Sargodha and others2002 YLR 1108 · Lahore High Court · 2001-12-11Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Asad Hayat, Lahore vs The C.I.T. Central Zone, Lahore2002 P.C.T.L.R. 203 · Lahore High Court · 2001-01-18Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Asad Hayat vs C.I.T., Central Zone, Lahore2002 PTD 2703 · Lahore High Court · 2001-01-18Read full judgment →
• Nasir Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan and 3 others2002 YLR 1339 · Lahore High Court · 2002-02-27Read full judgment →
• Nasir Hussain vs The State2002 YLR 1927 · Lahore High Court · 2002-09-18
  jail appealmurdercommon intentionextra-judicial confessionidentification paradebenefit of doubtocular accountacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (Anti-Terrorism), Multan, convicting the appellant Nasir alias Nasiri under section 302(b) read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, and the legal proof required to establish common intention in a sudden incident. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness accounts were unreliable due to darkness, contradictions regarding torches, and suppression of facts regarding prior identification, that the extra-judicial confessions lacked credibility, and that no common intention could be inferred against the appellant. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, laying down the principle that conviction for murder through common intention requires solid, unimpeachable evidence of pre-concert or shared design in sudden occurrences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession made to witnesses who failed to apprehend the accused or inform the police promptly can form the basis of a conviction?
  • Can a conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of evidence proving pre-planning or a shared common intention during a sudden occurrence?
  • Does a material contradiction between eyewitnesses regarding the availability of light and identification sources render the ocular account untrustworthy?
  • Whether failure to confront an accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with the circumstance of common intention vitiates a conviction based thereon?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseem Abbas vs The State2002 YLR 3609 · Lahore High Court · 2002-02-21
  Anti-Terrorism Actcheatingdishonest inducementcriminal appealjurisdiction of special courtssentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 7(iii) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for the theft of a vehicle. The appellant had deceived the complainant by taking his car for a test drive and failing to return, leading to his arrest and subsequent trial in an Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether the appellant's actions constituted an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or a different offense under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was inapplicable to the facts of the case, as the incident involved cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver property rather than acts of terrorism. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and converted it to a conviction under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The principle laid down is that acts of simple cheating or theft, lacking the essential elements of terrorism, do not fall within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Courts and should be prosecuted under the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Does the act of deceiving a person to obtain a vehicle for a test drive and failing to return it constitute an offense under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can an appellate court convert a conviction from the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, if the facts do not support the terrorism charge?
  • What are the essential elements required to establish an offense under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Najam-Ul-Hassan vs The State2002 MLD 477 · Lahore High Court · 2001-08-07
  criminal revisioncross-examinationright to counselre-calling witnessesfair trialprosecution witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Special Judge (Central) Multan, which dismissed an application to recall two prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. The applicant, facing trial for various offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had his evidence recorded in the absence of legal counsel, and the trial court subsequently denied his request to recall these witnesses. The core legal question was whether an accused, who was unrepresented at the time of evidence recording, should be granted the right to recall witnesses for cross-examination by counsel. The High Court held that cross-examination is a fundamental and valuable right of an accused, serving as the primary mechanism to test the veracity of testimony, and that requiring an accused to cross-examine witnesses personally is contrary to the interests of justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the recall of the witnesses, subject to the condition that no further adjournments would be granted if the cross-examination is not completed on the scheduled date.

  Questions settled

  • Is the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses a fundamental right of an accused in a criminal trial?
  • Can a trial court compel an unrepresented accused to cross-examine witnesses personally without providing an opportunity for legal counsel?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to recall witnesses for cross-examination under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →