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.

• Abdul Wahid and others vs Sardar Ali and others2000 C.L.R. 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and 8 otherss vs Sardar Ali and 2 others2000 PLD Lahore 190 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-04
  Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991Zar-i-Soemdeposit of sale priceprobable valuemutation of exchangepre-emption suitinflated price
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition before the Lahore High Court challenged an interlocutory order of the Trial Judge directing the petitioners/pre-emptors to deposit one-third of the property value (Zar-i-Soem) mentioned in a mutation within one month under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991. The petitioners contended that the mutation price was inflated and the trial court was required to fix a probable value under the second proviso to Section 24. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where the transaction is evidenced by an official document such as a sale deed or mutation, which carries a presumption of correctness, the court is bound to direct deposit of one-third of the mentioned price. The process of approximation to determine probable value arises only when no price is stated or when it genuinely appears to the court that the price is inflated. The Court clarified that the initial deposit under Section 24(1) is tentative, and final determination of market value remains subject to full trial under Sections 27 and 28.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances is the trial court required to determine the probable value of property rather than relying on the price mentioned in the sale deed or mutation under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
  • Does a mutation authenticated by public functionaries carry a presumption of correctness for the purpose of fixing the one-third cash deposit under Section 24(1) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
  • Whether the determination of sale price for the purpose of the one-third cash deposit under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 is final or subject to trial on market value under Sections 27 and 28?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs The State2000 YLR 837 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-13
  murderocular and medical evidencecontradictionrelated witnessesprompt FIRlife imprisonmentappraisement of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased following a verbal altercation. A connected criminal revision petition was filed seeking enhancement of the sentence to capital punishment. The core legal questions involved whether minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence regarding the entry wound and the weapon used were sufficient to discredit eyewitness testimony, and whether the evidence of related witnesses warranted corroboration. The Lahore High Court held that minor discrepancies in the locale of the injury and the description of the weapon do not vitiate credible eyewitness accounts, particularly when prompt lodging of the F.I.R. and natural presence of witnesses are established. The Court laid down that minor contradictions between medical and ocular evidence must be resolved through careful analysis by sifting truth from falsehood, and that the testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely on account of relationship if their presence is natural and unimpeached.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the locale of a fire-arm injury are sufficient to discard eyewitness testimony?
  • Does a discrepancy in the description of the weapon used in the crime render the prosecution case untrustworthy?
  • Can the testimony of related witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration if their presence at the scene is natural?
  • Whether prompt lodging of the first information report rules out the possibility of false involvement of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Khan vs The State and anothers2000 P Cr. L J 272 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-04
  quashing of FIRmala fide investigationre-investigationcorruption casepreliminary inquiryabuse of processcriminal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the registration of an FIR and a subsequent order for re-investigation in a corruption case against public servants. The core legal question was whether the initiation of criminal proceedings and the order for re-investigation were mala fide and without lawful authority. The High Court held that the proceedings were indeed mala fide, initiated under political pressure, and lacked evidentiary support, as multiple investigating officers had previously found the accused innocent. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and the impugned re-investigation order. The judgment establishes that the system of re-investigation should not be abused to harass citizens or serve ulterior motives. Furthermore, it affirms that preliminary inquiries under the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, must be conducted fairly, with the association of the accused, to ensure the genuineness of complaints. Where proceedings are shown to be a tool for harassment rather than justice, the court possesses the authority to quash them to prevent abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court quash an FIR and subsequent investigation proceedings if they are found to be mala fide and without lawful authority?
  • Is the system of re-investigation in criminal cases permissible when it is used to harass parties or serve ulterior motives?
  • What is the legal purpose of a preliminary inquiry under the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985?
  • Are investigating officers required to associate the accused during a preliminary inquiry to ensure the genuineness of a complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed and others vs Muhammad Anwar Khan and others2000 C.L.R. 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed and anothers vs The State and 3 others2000 P Cr. L J 1103 · Lahore High Court · 2000-02-15
  quashment of proceedingsinordinate delayabuse of processexpeditious trialcriminal trialadjournment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition sought the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Judicial Magistrate in Faisalabad, arising from an F.I.R. registered in 1990 under sections 337-A, 452, 440, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners contended that despite the passage of nine years, the trial had made no progress, with not a single prosecution witness examined. While the complainant alleged that the petitioners were responsible for the delay, a review of the interim orders demonstrated that numerous adjournments were granted to the prosecution to procure witness attendance, often unsuccessfully, despite the issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants. The Court held that while delays in trial are often attributable to case backlogs, a balance must be maintained between the accusation and the duration of the proceedings. Finding that the inordinate delay constituted an abuse of the process of the Court and that the petitioners had endured the agony of a protracted trial, the Court quashed the proceedings, emphasizing the fundamental right to an expeditious trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay in the conclusion of a criminal trial constitute an abuse of the process of the Court?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed where the prosecution fails to produce witnesses despite the issuance of warrants over a long period?
  • Is the right to an expeditious trial a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings under the inherent powers of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 533 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-16
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionprohibition lawfurther inquirytrial delaypersonal search
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 370 of 1998, registered under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following his apprehension by police. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the duration of his incarceration and the nature of the evidence against him. The petitioner had been in custody for over six months without the trial concluding. While the prosecution alleged possession of narcotics and liquor, the petitioner argued that the bulk of the recovered liquor belonged to his son and that he was only personally found with two small bottles of liquor, which were not proven to be for sale. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting the delay in the trial process and that the ownership of the bulk recovery remained a matter for further inquiry. The Court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention without trial progress justifies the grant of bail, provided the accused furnishes the required security.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prolonged detention of an accused without the conclusion of trial constitute valid grounds for the grant of bail?
  • Is the ownership of recovered contraband a matter of further inquiry when disputed by the accused in a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs Printing Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. And OtherK.L.R. 2000 Labour & Service Cases 75 · Lahore High Court
  quo-warrantopublic officebiasservice tribunal jurisdictioninitial appointmentgovernment corporationqualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition in the nature of quo-warranto challenging the appointment and confirmation of respondent No. 6 as Secretary (BPS-19) of the Printing Corporation of Pakistan. The core legal questions relate to whether a writ of quo-warranto is maintainable against an appointment in a government-controlled corporation, whether such proceedings are barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan due to the Service Tribunals Act, and whether the appointment was vitiated by lack of requisite qualifications, absence of advertisement, and conflict of interest/bias due to the appointee's presence during the board deliberations. The Lahore High Court held that the Printing Corporation of Pakistan is a government corporation whose offices involve public duties amenable to quo-warranto, that Article 212 does not bar a quo-warranto petition challenging an unlawful initial appointment, and that the appointment was illegal and biased since the respondent lacked the requisite qualifications, the post was not advertised, and he participated in the board meeting confirming his appointment. The court accepted the petition and declared that the respondent holds the office without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ of quo-warranto maintainable against the holder of a public office in a government-controlled corporation?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar a petition for quo-warranto challenging an unlawful initial appointment to a public office?
  • Does the presence and participation of a candidate in a board meeting considering his own appointment vitiate the proceedings on the ground of bias?
  • Can a person be appointed to the post of Secretary of the Printing Corporation of Pakistan without possessing the prescribed qualifications and without advertisement of the post?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor and another vs Dr. Wali Muhammad and another2000 C.L.R. 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor and 6 others vs Station House Officer, Police Station2000 YLR 2995 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue,1 Punjab, Lahore and 2 others2000 CLC 1030 · Lahore High Court · 2000-02-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Ali Sher and others2000 P Cr. L J 33 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-20
  bail cancellationsodomypolice opinionchemical examiner reportdelay in FIROffence of Zina Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 258 dated 14-8-1998 registered under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Sadar, Sadiqabad. The core legal questions relate to whether bail was properly granted based on delay in lodging the F.I.R., police opinions of innocence, age of the victim, and a negative Chemical Examiner report. The Lahore High Court held that delay per se, police findings of innocence, or a negative Chemical Examiner report do not constitute valid grounds for granting bail where direct and specific allegations are supported by the victim and eye-witnesses without any background of prior enmity. The court set aside the impugned bail orders as patently illegal and perverse, ordering the immediate rearrest of the respondents, and laid down the principle that police opinions are not binding on courts and negative chemical reports are not fatal to sodomy cases under specific circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay per se in lodging an F.I.R. is a sufficient ground for granting bail to an accused?
  • Is the opinion of an Investigating Officer declaring an accused innocent binding on the court at the bail stage?
  • Whether a negative report from the Chemical Examiner is a sine qua non for the success of a prosecution case under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court set aside a bail order granted by a lower court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and another vs Ateh Muhammad and others2000 YLR 2949 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and 3 others vs Municipal Committee, Shujabad through its Chairman and 3 others2000 MLD 906 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State2000 YLR 215 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-30
  post-arrest bailLalkaravicarious liabilitycommon objectfurther probemurder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Abdul Razzaq, who was implicated in a triple-murder case registered via F.I.R. No. 204 of 1996. The petitioner was charged under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 148 and 149, for his alleged involvement in an occurrence where three individuals were killed. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose specific role was limited to raising a 'Lalkara' (incitement) and carrying a firearm without discharging it, was entitled to bail despite the severity of the offense. The Court held that since the petitioner did not fire any shots and his involvement was limited to the Lalkara, his vicarious liability under sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required further probe at the trial stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that mere attribution of a Lalkara, without evidence of active participation or firing, warrants further inquiry into the applicability of common object or unlawful assembly provisions for the purpose of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere attribution of a Lalkara in an F.I.R. justify the denial of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the application of sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 subject to further probe when the accused is only alleged to have raised a Lalkara?
  • Can bail be granted in a murder case where the accused is alleged to have been armed but did not fire any shots?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Director-General and others2000 PLC (C.S.) 918 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18
  withheld salarywrit jurisdictionservice mattersproper channelpublic functionariesArticle 212Article 4substantive justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of his salary, which had been withheld for five months. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 read with Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, arguing that the petitioner was voluntarily absent and failed to submit his grievance through the proper channel. The Court rejected the objection regarding maintainability, holding that Article 212 does not divest the High Court of its power under Article 4 of the Constitution to direct public functionaries to act in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that technicalities, such as the failure to route an application through the 'proper channel,' should not impede the administration of justice, especially when the petitioner had formally submitted his grievance. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's application on its merits within one month, affirming the principle that public functionaries are legally obligated to address grievances within a reasonable time and that courts must prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from directing public functionaries to act in accordance with law under Article 4?
  • Can a public functionary refuse to address a grievance solely on the ground that it was not submitted through the 'proper channel'?
  • Is it the duty of the Court to decide cases on merits rather than technicalities following the insertion of Article 2A into the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Federation of Pakistan And Others(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 690) · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Federation of Pakistan and another2000 MLD 462 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Akhtar Ali and 6 others2000 C.L.R. 1186 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State2000 MLD 518 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-28
  murdercircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencerecovery of weaponbenefit of doubtchance witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of a fifteen-year-old boy, alongside a related revision petition for enhancement of the sentence. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, namely last-seen testimony, recovery of an incriminating chadar, and recovery of a blood-stained weapon and clothes. Upon evaluating the evidence, the Lahore High Court found the last-seen witnesses to be unnatural and contradictory chance witnesses, noted significant violations of mandatory search and seizure provisions under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rejected the disputed recoveries due to delayed dispatch and interested witnesses, and held that medical evidence only corroborates ocular or direct proof and cannot by itself substitute for substantive evidence. Concluding that the circumstantial chain was incomplete and failed to exclude the hypothesis of innocence, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of last-seen circumstantial evidence without reliable corroborative links?
  • Does the failure to comply with mandatory search and seizure provisions vitiate the recovery of incriminating articles?
  • What is the evidentiary value of medical testimony in establishing the identity of an assailant in a case lacking direct eyewitnesses?
  • Whether solitary statements of chance witnesses can form a safe basis for maintaining a murder conviction under criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Arshad Ali and 2 others2000 YLR 2619 · Lahore High Court · 2000-05-31
  Superdaricustody of vehicleinherent powerscriminal revisionfraudulent registrationlimitation periodSection 561-A Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the Superdari (custodial possession) of a motor vehicle involved in a criminal case under Section 379 and Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had set aside a Magistrate’s order granting him Superdari and instead awarded custody to the respondent. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against a revisional order, the limitation period for criminal revisions, and the criteria for granting Superdari. The High Court held that a petition under Section 561-A is maintainable against a revisional order of a Court of Session. It affirmed that no limitation period exists for criminal revisions. Crucially, the Court held that while the petitioner was rightly denied Superdari due to fraudulent registration, the Additional Sessions Judge erred in granting Superdari to the respondent without evaluating the merits of their claim or receiving a formal application. Consequently, the Court set aside the grant of Superdari to the respondent, directing the police to retain custody pending a proper application.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 maintainable against a revisional order passed by a Court of Session?
  • Does the law prescribe a limitation period for filing a revision petition in a criminal case?
  • Can a court grant Superdari of a vehicle to a party who has not formally applied for it and whose claim has not been evaluated on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and another vs Suleman and others2000 C.L.R. 1338 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs Haji Muhammad Ismail2000 MLD 382 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Khan And Another vs Mst. Anwar BegumK.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 532 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Awan vs Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income(2000 P.C.T.L.R. 1046) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and others vs Warts Ali and another2000 C.L.R. 504 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and another vs The State2000 YLR 1939 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-05
  post-arrest bailsupplementary statementdelay in FIRfurther inquirycriminal procedurehabeas corpus
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Abdul Majid and Bashir Ahmad in connection with F.I.R. No. 246 of 1999 registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem under sections 448, 511, 395, 427, 380, and 337-H(ii), read with sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given their delayed nomination in a supplementary statement after nine months without an identification parade, and allegations of illegal detention. The Lahore High Court held that the delayed naming of the petitioners in the supplementary statement without disclosing the source of knowledge, coupled with the circumstances surrounding their detention, brings their case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that an unexplained and delayed supplementary statement implicating accused persons, when viewed alongside potential illegal detention, warrants the grant of post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delayed supplementary statement recorded months after the FIR without disclosing the source of knowledge justify granting post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the lack of an identification parade for unnamed accused subsequently brought via a supplementary statement makes a case for further inquiry?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the circumstances of the accused's detention point towards further inquiry into their culpability?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State2000 YLR 418 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-14
  post-conviction bailDiyatsubstantive sentencedefault of paymentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition for bail filed by the petitioner, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment along with the payment of Diyat. The core legal question before the Court was whether a convict who has served their substantive sentence of imprisonment but remains incarcerated due to the non-payment of Diyat is entitled to be released on bail under the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court observed that the Superintendent of the New Central Jail, Multan, confirmed the petitioner had completed his substantive sentence but remained in custody solely due to the default in paying the Diyat amount of Rs. 56,970. Relying on the provisions of Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to release. Consequently, the Court granted the bail application, directing the petitioner's release subject to the furnishing of security equivalent to the Diyat amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convict entitled to release on bail if they have served their substantive sentence but remain in jail due to non-payment of Diyat?
  • Does Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 provide a mechanism for the release of a prisoner who has defaulted on Diyat payment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The Shops Railway, Multan2000 YLR 2171 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed through Legal Heirs vs Ghulam Shabbir and 4 others2000 CLC 643 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed alias Bhola vs The State2000 YLR 1368 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-03
  post-arrest bailindiscriminate firingvicarious liabilitystatutory delayfurther inquiryPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324, 436, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein he was accused alongside co-accused persons of forcibly entering the complainant's house, firing indiscriminately, injuring a person, and setting the house on fire. The legal issue before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail in light of general allegations and prolonged incarceration without conclusion of the trial. The High Court observed that a perusal of the FIR revealed no specific role attributed to the petitioner beyond a general allegation of indiscriminate firing jointly with co-accused. Additionally, the petitioner had been incarcerated since September 1997 while the trial remained pending. Consequently, the High Court admitted the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds with sureties. The court established that lack of a specific overt role and delayed conclusion of trial during prolonged custody justify the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when only a general allegation of indiscriminate firing is attributed without specifying an overt role?
  • Does prolonged custody without the conclusion of trial constitute a valid ground for admitting an accused to bail in an offense involving unlawful assembly?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Additional District Judge_ Election Tribunal_M.C., Arifwala and others2000 YLR 946 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and another vs Arshad Hussain Shah and 4 others2000 YLR 1822 · Lahore High Court · 2000-05-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs The State2000 YLR 3001 · Lahore High Court · 2000-02-24
  post-arrest bailoffence of zinaabductionextrajudicial confessionfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following allegations of abduction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the duration of his incarceration. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail, observing that while the petitioner was named in the First Information Report, there was no direct evidence of abduction or Zina against him. The Court noted that the only incriminating evidence presented was an alleged extrajudicial confession, which it characterized as a weak form of evidence. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioner had been in custody for over two months, was no longer required for investigation, and the abductee's statement had not yet been recorded. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extrajudicial confession considered sufficient evidence to deny bail in an abduction case?
  • Does the absence of direct evidence of abduction or Zina entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • When can a case be considered one of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Muhammad Hussain2000 CLC 439 · Lahore High Court · 1999-10-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Nazir Ahmad2000 C.L.R. 850 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State2000 YLR 143 · Lahore High Court · 2000-02-01
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausedelay in F.I.R.criminal assaulthouse trespassbail bonds
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with an F.I.R. registered under sections 337-F(iii), 337-F(i), 337-L(ii), and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of house trespass and assault. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the alleged offences and the circumstances of the case. The petitioner argued that there was an unexplained five-day delay in lodging the F.I.R. and that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute. The Court, without expressing a final opinion on the merits of the case, held that the petitioner was entitled to bail because the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Is a five-day delay in lodging an F.I.R. a relevant factor for consideration in a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haseeb vs Chairman, Arbitration Council and others2000 CLC 202 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-22
  Arbitration CouncilMuslim Family Laws Ordinancedelegated divorceTalaqjurisdiction of Arbitration CouncilNikahnamareconciliation proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Chairman, Arbitration Council, under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The petitioner contested the validity of a divorce notice issued by his wife (respondent No. 3), alleging that the right of divorce was never delegated to her and that the relevant entries in the Nikahnama were forged. The Chairman, Arbitration Council, conducted an inquiry into these allegations and ruled that the delegation of the right of divorce was valid and the Nikahnama was authentic. The core legal question was whether the Chairman, Arbitration Council, possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, specifically regarding the validity of a Nikahnama and the delegation of the right of divorce. The Court held that the Chairman lacks such jurisdiction. The ratio is that the Arbitration Council’s mandate under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, is limited to facilitating reconciliation; it cannot record binding determinations on disputed factual matters or the validity of marriage documents. Consequently, the impugned order was declared without lawful authority and set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chairman of an Arbitration Council have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of a Nikahnama?
  • Can the Chairman of an Arbitration Council record a binding determination on disputed questions of fact regarding the delegation of the right of divorce?
  • Is the scope of the Arbitration Council under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, limited to reconciliation proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq and 2 others vs The Resident Magistrate, Uch Sharif, Tehsil2000 PLD Lahore 101 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-06
  intra-court appealforcible dispossessiondue process of lawlandlord and tenantconstitutional jurisdictionalternative adequate remedyspecific relief actmunicipal committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 challenges the dismissal of a Constitution Petition in limine, which had sought to nullify the forcible dispossession of the appellants from certain shops owned by the Municipal Committee, Ahmedpur East. The core legal questions involve whether tenants can be evicted without due process of law through executive high-handedness, whether an alternative remedy under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act bars constitutional jurisdiction, and whether the impugned action was appealable under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Lahore High Court held that the appellants were tenants entitled to remain in possession until ejected in due course of law by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that the summary use of police force by municipal and magistrate authorities without an eviction order was wholly without lawful authority. Furthermore, the court held that the remedy under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was not speedy or efficacious enough to bar writ jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, and restitution of possession was ordered, leaving the municipal committee and purchasers to pursue proper legal remedies for eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant be dispossessed from a tenement by executive authorities without obtaining an eviction order from a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does the availability of a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act constitute an adequate alternative remedy barring the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether forcible eviction of tenants through police assistance by municipal functionaries without lawful authority can be sustained under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
  • Is an intra-court appeal barred under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 when the challenged administrative action is not appealable under section 166 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamm, etc. vs Ilam Din, etc.2000 C.L.R. 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid and another vs Ilam Din and another2000 CLC 290 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State2000 YLR 692 · Lahore High Court · 2000-01-13
  surety liabilitybail bond forfeiturepre-arrest bailrevision petitionpenalty for non-appearance
  Summary & questions settled

  The present criminal revision petition arose from an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, whereby a penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed upon the petitioner under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the forfeiture of the bail bond furnished for an accused person in a case under section 458 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a surety's liability is restricted only to the specific date mentioned in the bail bond or extends to subsequent dates of hearing until the final decision of the matter. The Lahore High Court held that a surety undertakes to produce the accused not only on the first date but also on every subsequent date of hearing until the decision of the case, as per the explicit wording of the standard bail bond. The Court laid down that fresh bail bonds are not required for every adjourned date of hearing in pre-arrest bail matters, and dismissed the revision petition in limine, finding no jurisdictional infirmity or illegality in the imposition of the penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does a surety's liability to produce an accused person extend beyond the initial date of hearing to all subsequent dates until the final decision of the case?
  • Is a fresh bail bond required for every adjourned date of hearing in a pre-arrest bail matter?
  • Whether the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked against an order imposing a penalty under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without showing any jurisdictional infirmity or illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Shariq Mehmood and others2000 C.L.R. 1758 · Lahore High Court · 2000-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Muhammad Tamar Hayat Gondal and anothers2000 P Cr. L J 31 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-19
  writ petitioncancellation of FIRnecessary partydischarge orderprivate complaintadministrative orderjudicial mind
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order dated 14-12-1996 passed by a Magistrate, which directed the cancellation of a criminal case registered via F.I.R. No. 288 of 1996 under sections 382, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate acted mechanically without applying an independent judicial mind. Upon review, the Lahore High Court observed that the accused persons, who were the direct beneficiaries of the impugned discharge order, were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition. The Court held that the accused are necessary parties, and proceeding in their absence would be improper as it could adversely affect their accrued rights. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order. It clarified that while an order of discharge is administrative and not amenable to appeal or revision, the complainant retains the right to file a private complaint on the same facts before a court of competent jurisdiction, which must then be decided within six months.

  Questions settled

  • Are the accused persons necessary parties in a writ petition challenging a Magistrate's order for the cancellation of an FIR?
  • Is an order of discharge passed by a Magistrate amenable to appeal or revision?
  • Can a complainant file a private complaint on the same facts after a case has been discharged by a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Muhammad Latif2000 PLD Lahore 428 · Lahore High Court · 2000-04-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State2000 PLD Lahore 59 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayhardened criminalcriminal antecedentsbail refusalCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking post-arrest bail by petitioners accused of offences under sections 302/34 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners sought bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of their trial, noting that the challan was submitted nearly two years after the registration of the FIR. The complainant opposed the bail applications, invoking the fourth proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that the petitioners are hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals based on their extensive criminal history, despite previous acquittals or discharges in some cases. The Court held that the fourth proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not limited to previous convictions but extends to any accused who, in the Court's opinion, is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. Finding that the petitioners' history of involvement in multiple criminal cases justified this classification, the Court dismissed the bail petitions, while directing the trial court to ensure the proceedings conclude expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fourth proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply only to previous convictions?
  • Can an accused person be classified as a hardened or desperate criminal for the purpose of bail refusal if they have been acquitted or discharged in previous cases?
  • Is statutory delay in the conclusion of a trial an absolute ground for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Shaheen vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary2000 PLC (C.S.) 19 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19
  date of birth correctioncivil revisioneducational certificatesservice recordburden of proofmisreading of evidencedeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment which set aside a trial court decree in favor of the petitioner, Abdul Ghafoor Shaheen. The petitioner had sought a declaration and mandatory injunction to correct his date of birth from 21-8-1935 to 21-8-1938 in his educational certificates and service records. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had sufficiently proven that his longstanding recorded date of birth was incorrect. The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the testimony of the petitioner's witness was unreliable due to memory lapses regarding family history. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had consistently declared his date of birth as 1935 in multiple Matriculation examinations and throughout his service career. The Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving the inaccuracy of these entries, particularly given that his father was literate and the petitioner himself had provided the information. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition in limine, upholding the appellate court's decision to dismiss the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff successfully seek a declaration to change a date of birth in educational and service records after consistently declaring the original date for decades?
  • Is the testimony of a witness regarding a family member's birth date considered trustworthy if the witness cannot recall the birth dates of their own children or other close relatives?
  • Does the burden of proof lie with the plaintiff to demonstrate that longstanding entries in official educational and service records are incorrect?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Shaheen vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary2000 C.L.R. 1432 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State2000 MLD 936 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26
  murderhostile witnessbenefit of doubtcapital chargeappellate reviewcorroborationrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant, Abdul Ghaffar, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murders of two brothers and sentencing him to death. The case was previously remanded by the Supreme Court for a re-examination of the evidence on merits. The core legal question involves the reliability of prosecution evidence where key eyewitnesses, being close relatives, were declared hostile and the sole uncorroborated testimony of another related witness contradicted the initial FIR. The Lahore High Court held that while the testimony of a hostile witness is not to be discarded entirely, it must be examined with utmost caution and requires corroboration from independent sources. Finding material contradictions regarding the manner of occurrence, conflicting accounts of the weapon's recovery, and a lack of reliable independent corroboration, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. Consequently, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the murder reference was answered in the negative, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Is it safe to base a capital conviction solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a related witness who contradicts the initial police report?
  • How should the evidence of a witness who speaks in different voices be evaluated by a criminal court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State2000 YLR 1503 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05
  post-arrest bailblind murderlast seen evidencecriminal procedureprolonged incarcerationnon-prohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Abdul Aziz, who is accused in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the murder of a minor. The petitioner contended that he was maliciously implicated in a blind murder case, arguing that the evidence of the deceased being 'last seen' with him was unreliable due to the delayed reporting by witnesses who were relatives of the deceased. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted the absence of any incriminating recovery, the lack of an alleged motive, and the fact that he had already served eight months in custody with the trial not yet commenced. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, reiterating the prosecution's narrative. Upon consideration, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court's decision was predicated on the absence of sufficient incriminating material at the pre-trial stage, the prolonged incarceration of the accused, and the uncertainty regarding the commencement of the trial, thereby satisfying the requirements for the grant of bail in a non-prohibitory clause offense.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the delay in reporting 'last seen' evidence by witnesses who are relatives of the deceased undermines the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the absence of incriminating recoveries and motive justify the grant of bail in a murder case?
  • Can prolonged pre-trial incarceration without the commencement of trial be a ground for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Nasir Iqbal and others2000 YLR 195 · Lahore High Court · 1999-12-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aleem Ansari vs Mst, Zubaida Shaheen and another2000 CLC 1873 · Lahore High Court · 2000-05-15Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali vs The State and anothers2000 YLR 1591 · Lahore High Court · 2000-05-09Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali vs Ijaz Hussain and another2000 C.L.R, 88 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali and another vs The State2000 YLR 740 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-09
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysubsequent police investigationsinnocence in investigationsupplementary statementmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition involves an application for post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 324/34 and subsequently 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were not named in the initial First Information Report but were later implicated through a supplementary statement and subsequently found innocent in three successive police investigations conducted by senior officers, with other individuals being challaned instead. The core legal question concerns whether bail should be granted on the ground of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when multiple police investigations declare the accused innocent. The Lahore High Court held that where successive investigations by police officers record the innocence of the accused, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2). The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of the record showing findings of innocence in multiple investigations satisfies the prerequisite for releasing an accused on bail on the ground that there are no reasonable grounds for believing they committed the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not named in the initial FIR but declared innocent in multiple subsequent police investigations is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What constitutes the necessary prerequisite for releasing an accused on bail on the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can findings of innocence by successive police officers form the basis for a tentative assessment warranting bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Ali vs Federal Public Services Commission2000 C.L.R. 17 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-30Read full judgment →
• Aamir Ali vs Federal Public Service Comm Ission2000 YLR 573 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-30Read full judgment →
• A. Razzaq & Co. vs Government of Pakistan, Etc.2000 P.C.T.L.R. 309 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-21Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Pakistan Engineering Congress (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Special Officer of2000 P.C.T.L.R. 337 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-20
  wealth taxcharitable institutionconstitutional petitionalternate remedytax exemptionmemorandum of association
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a registered society challenging wealth tax assessment orders passed against its building. The core legal question was whether the petitioner society was entitled to statutory exemption from wealth tax as a charitable institution holding property for a public purpose, and whether constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked bypassing the alternate statutory remedy of appeal. The Lahore High Court held that the Memorandum of Association alone is not the sole test to determine the charitable or commercial nature of property use, and that whether the rented building is held under a legal obligation for a public purpose is a question of fact requiring evidence to be determined by appellate authorities. The Court laid down that where factual controversies regarding tax exemptions exist and adequate alternate statutory remedies under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 are available, the constitutional petition is premature and not maintainable, as bypassing the statutory appellate forum without establishing jurisdictional error, mala fides, or lack of jurisdiction is impermissible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Memorandum of Association of a society is the sole test for determining the charitable nature of its property for wealth tax exemption?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a tax assessment order when an adequate statutory remedy of appeal is available under the Wealth Tax Act?
  • Whether the High Court can determine questions of fact regarding whether a property is held under a trust for a public charitable purpose in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Numan Adnan Industries vs Chairman C.B.R.2000 P.C.T.L.R. 331 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-15Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Zahida Begum and another vs Saeed Yousaf Sheikh and another2000 C.L.R. 875 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-24Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Rashida Begum vs Mian Muhammad AnwarK.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-14Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Humaira Sarwar Khan vs Muhammad Humayun Mirza And AnotherK.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 24 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-01
  criminal appealprivate complaintsecond marriageMuslim Family Laws Ordinancedissolution of marriagemaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the order of the Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, dismissing the appellant's private complaint under Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, regarding the contracting of a second marriage without consent during the subsistence of a previous marriage. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of a criminal appeal against the dismissal of a private complaint and whether the respondent contracted a second marriage without permission during the subsistence of the marriage. The court held that the appeal was not maintainable as the proper remedy was a petition for leave to appeal, and further found on merits that the respondent had divorced the appellant prior to the second marriage and that the complaint was filed with mala fide intent to wreak vengeance. The key principle laid down is that an appeal against the acquittal or dismissal of a private complaint is not maintainable as a direct criminal appeal and requires a petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal appeal maintainable against an order of a Magistrate dismissing a private complaint?
  • What is the correct remedy against an order dismissing a private complaint under Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  • Whether a husband is liable under Section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 if he contracts a second marriage after divorcing his previous wife?
  Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Dilshad vs Ghulam MustafaK.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 2 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-25Read full judgment →
• Zummurrad Abbas And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 710 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-03Read full judgment →
• Zulifqar Alias Namna vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 566 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-11Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Aslam Cheema vs Addl. Deputy Commissioner (G) Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 12 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-23Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar and 2 others vs Mst. Niaz Bibi with her Legal heirs and 3 others1999 YLR 631 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-04Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Election Tribunal/Civil Judge 1ST Class, Khanpur and 51999 YLR 355 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Ch. Munir Ahmed And Another1999 CLC 731 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25
  constitutional jurisdictioninterlocutory ordersecondary evidencedower remissionfair trialwrit petitionfamily court
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an interlocutory order passed by a Family Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the production of secondary evidence—specifically, a petition-writer's register—to prove the execution of a dower remission deed. The core legal question was whether the court erred in refusing the petitioner the opportunity to prove the execution of the alleged remission deed through secondary evidence and expert analysis of thumb impressions, thereby denying a fair trial. The High Court held that the trial court's refusal to allow the production of the register and the associated expert evidence was improper, as it effectively denied the petitioner a fair opportunity to present his case. The Court ruled that an interlocutory order that effectively decides the merits of a case or causes serious prejudice is amenable to constitutional jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that courts must ensure parties are provided a fair opportunity to produce evidence, even if it involves secondary evidence, provided a reasonable explanation for the non-availability of primary evidence is offered, and that such procedural refusals should not be used to suppress the cause of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is an interlocutory order that effectively decides the merits of a case amenable to constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can a party be denied the right to produce secondary evidence when the primary evidence is unavailable?
  • Does the refusal to allow a party to produce expert evidence regarding disputed thumb impressions constitute a denial of a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali alias Zulfa vs The State1999 MLD 1090 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Zubair Khan And Other vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 548 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
• Zubair Aziz Durrani vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Mandi Baha1999 CLC 1615 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
• Ziledar Alias Noor Muhammad vs Town Committee, Farooqa Through Administrator And 4 Other1999 CLC 834 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-04Read full judgment →
• Zameerulhassan and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 546 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Zameer Khan vs The State1999 MLD 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-16Read full judgment →
• Zaka Ullah Khan vs Zila Council, Kasur Through Administrator And 31999 CLC 1098 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
• Zahooruddin Arshad vs The State1999 MLD 3356 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Khan vs Rehmat Khan and 7 others1999 MLD 3395 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Akram vs State1999 YLR 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-22Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed vs Mst. Rukhsana Kausar and 4 others1999 MLD 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 1466 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad and others vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others1999 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-30
  foreign currency accountsbanking regulationstate bank of pakistanwrit jurisdictionproperty rightsproclamation of emergencycredit control
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of writ petitions challenging Circular No. 23, dated 2-7-1998, issued by the State Bank of Pakistan. The circular directed banks and non-banking financial institutions to remove liens or encumbrances on foreign currency deposits used as security for loans, requiring borrowers to either provide alternative security or allow the liquidation of liabilities through a set-off against these deposits. The petitioners argued that this action constituted illegal expropriation of property, violated the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992, and infringed upon fundamental rights protected under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the State Bank of Pakistan acted within its regulatory authority under the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962. The Court determined that the circular was a valid policy measure intended to protect the banking system and depositors' interests, rather than a confiscatory act. It affirmed that the State Bank possesses the statutory power to regulate credit and security, and the impugned measure did not violate the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992 or constitutional property rights, as the deposits remained the property of the account holders, subject only to the requirement of providing adequate security for existing loans.

  Questions settled

  • Does the State Bank of Pakistan have the statutory authority under the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 to issue directions requiring the removal of liens on foreign currency deposits?
  • Can the State Bank of Pakistan mandate the set-off or liquidation of loan liabilities against foreign currency deposits used as security?
  • Does a circular issued by the State Bank of Pakistan in the interest of banking policy violate the Protection of Economic Reforms Act 1992?
  • Is the State Bank of Pakistan amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahida Khatoon vs Joint Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs, Islamabad and 13 others1999 YLR 2564 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zahid Parvez vs Special Judge, Special Court No.1 for Antiterrorism, Bahawalpur and another1999 YLR 1716 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-09
  Anti-Terrorism Courtjurisdictionchild molestationpenal statute interpretationscheduled offencesconstitutional petitionlegislative omission
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition called in question the validity of an order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, whereby the trial court assumed jurisdiction to try the petitioner for child molestation under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the Anti-Terrorism Court possessed jurisdiction to try offences relating to child molestation when the specific penal provisions were not included in the Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The Lahore High Court held that penal statutes must be construed strictly and courts cannot supply legislative omissions or read unlisted provisions into a statute's schedule. The Court ruled that since sections 364-A and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 were omitted from the Schedule, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction. The constitutional petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Sessions Judge for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 has jurisdiction to try an offence not included in the Schedule to the Act?
  • Can courts supply legislative omissions or read unlisted penal provisions into the schedule of a penal statute?
  • Does child molestation fall within the trial jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court if the relevant penal sections are omitted from the Schedule?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Iqbal alias Zahid Khan vs The State1999 YLR 1579 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
• Zaheer-Ud-Din Azhar vs Additional CommissionerK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 486 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zaheer Ud Din Azhar vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue)1999 CLC 325 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad Qureshi (Deceased) And Another vs (Syed) IftikharK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 310 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zafar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 663 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-02
  post-arrest bailcounter-versionfurther inquiryself-defensecriminal procedurebail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Zafar Iqbal, who was charged under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including Section 302, following an incident resulting in the death of the complainant's brother. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused were the aggressors who entered the complainant's house and opened fire. Conversely, the petitioner presented a counter-version, supported by a statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alleging that the complainant party were the initial aggressors who attacked the petitioner's family, prompting the petitioner to act in self-defense. The core legal question was whether the existence of a credible counter-version warrants the grant of bail pending trial. The Court held that where two conflicting versions of the same incident exist, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, establishing that determining the veracity of competing versions is a function reserved for the trial court, not the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a counter-version in a criminal case entitle an accused to bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Is the determination of which version of an occurrence is correct a matter to be decided at the bail stage or by the trial court?
  • Does the summoning of the complainant party by a Magistrate in a private complaint constitute a ground for granting bail to the accused in the main case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 342 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-05Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs The Government of Punjab and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 167 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad through Administrator_Mayor Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 1427 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-06Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Islamabad and 3 others1999 PLD Lahore 440 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali and 4 others vs The State1999 MLD 2248 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-06Read full judgment →
• Zabih Ullah vs S.H.O.1999 MLD 399 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-25Read full judgment →
• Yummy Milk Products (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Managing Director vs Government of Punjab And 4 Other1999 CLC 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-07
  constitutional petitionpure food lawsadulterationmisbrandingexecutive instructionsultra viresice cream definition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an administrative letter dated 17-9-1992 issued by the Government of Punjab, permitting the manufacture and sale of ice cream containing vegetable fat under the label 'non-dairy ice cream' as an interim measure. The core legal question was whether products not conforming to the statutory definition of ice cream—which mandates milk fat under the Punjab Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 and Pure Food Rules, 1965—could be legally manufactured, marketed, and sold as ice cream through executive instructions. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned letter was ultra vires the Ordinance and Rules, null and void, and that departmental instructions cannot amend statutory rules. The Court ruled that products containing vegetable fat do not meet the definition of ice cream and selling them as such constitutes adulteration and misbranding under the Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that executive authorities cannot alter or supplement statutory provisions through administrative memos, and products must be strictly labelled to prevent public deception, especially where consumers are children.

  Questions settled

  • Can administrative instructions or letters amend, modify, or supplement statutory rules framed under an Ordinance?
  • Does ice cream manufactured with vegetable fat instead of milk fat conform to the definition provided under the Pure Food Rules, 1965?
  • Is the sale of a food product under a designation that does not match its prescribed statutory recipe considered adulteration or misbranding under the Punjab Pure Food Ordinance, 1960?
  • Whether an interim administrative policy permitting the sale of non-conforming food products can protect manufacturers from statutory prohibitions.
  Read full judgment →
• Yousuf Gill and another vs The State1999 YLR 487 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Ali vs Inayat AliK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 501 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →