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.

• Malik Muhammad Hanif Awan and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1859 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Farooq vs District Judge, Lahore and others1999 YLR 158 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ahsan Etc. vs Hameeda BegumK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 348 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ahsan and others vs Mst. Hameeda Begum1999 MLD 1941 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26
  civil revisiondismissal in defaultdismissal on meritsnon-prosecutionappellate court jurisdictionabsence of appellant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for possession through partition of a house, which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioners' subsequent appeal before the lower appellate court was dismissed on merits in the absence of the appellants and their counsel. The core legal question addressed by the court is whether an appellate court has the jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal on merits when the appellant fails to appear on the date of hearing, rather than dismissing it for non-prosecution under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that under Order XLI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, an appellate court lacks the jurisdiction to decide an appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant or their counsel, and its powers are limited to either dismissing the appeal for default of appearance or adjourning the hearing. The court laid down the principle that dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution preserves the appellant's right to seek re-admission upon showing sufficient cause, whereas deciding an appeal on merits without hearing the appellant violates principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant or their counsel?
  • What are the available courses of action for an appellate court under Order XLI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the appellant fails to appear on the date of hearing?
  • Can an appellate court render a decision on merits when neither the appellant nor their pleader is present at the hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Ijaz Hussain and 5 others vs Syed Muhammad Ashraf Shah and another1999 YLR 2156 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
• Malik Gulzar Ahmad vs District Magistrate1999 MLD 2516 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-07Read full judgment →
• Malik Allah Yar Khan vs Public Accounts Committee1999 MLD 2411 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Ahmad Khan vs Punjab Local Councils Election Authority and 31999 MLD 244 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-01Read full judgment →
• Malik Ahmad Khan vs Punjab Local Council Election Authority, Lahore1999 K.L.R. Civil Cases 24 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Abbas alias Muhammad Aslam vs The State1999 YLR 659 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
• Major (Retd.) Mir Mazhar Qayyum vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad1999 YLR 111 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-31
  Exit Control Listfreedom of movementfundamental rightsdepartmental proceedingsexecutive discretionconstitutional petitionpublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the placement of the petitioner's name on the Exit Control List (ECL) and the subsequent refusal to remove it. The core legal question was whether the executive can lawfully place a citizen's name on the ECL and curtail their freedom of movement based on vague or unsubstantiated recommendations, particularly when only a departmental inquiry—devoid of charges relating to financial embezzlement, espionage, or subversion—is pending. The Lahore High Court held that the curtailment of a citizen's liberty and right to travel cannot be justified at the whim of the State without disclosing reasonable grounds or prima facie evidence of pending investigations or proceedings. The Court ruled that the bald assertion of Ehtesab Bureau recommendations, unsupported by any record of pending inquiries, fails to satisfy the requirements of fairness, justice, and reasonableness. Consequently, the impugned orders placing and keeping the petitioner on the ECL were declared without lawful authority and set aside. The key principle laid down is that state functionaries must substantiate the exercise of discretionary executive powers affecting fundamental rights with tangible evidence of public interest or pending legal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government place a citizen's name on the Exit Control List without providing reasons or disclosing supporting evidence?
  • Whether the pendency of a departmental inquiry involving no charges of embezzlement or corruption justifies restricting a citizen's right to travel abroad?
  • Does an executive order placing a person on the Exit Control List prior to a proclamation of emergency receive protection under Article 233(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Are state functionaries obligated to act reasonably, fairly, and justly when exercising discretionary powers under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Khan alias Moonda vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 609 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Hassan Harvi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1999 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19
  Ordinance making powersuccessive Ordinancesre-promulgation of Ordinanceeffect of repealsaving clausepending prosecutionconstitutional petitionnarcotics cases
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional writ petitions were filed before the Lahore High Court challenging the validity and continuation of criminal prosecutions under successive Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinances. The petitioners contended that the re-promulgation of successive Ordinances by the President without immediate Parliamentary enactment was unconstitutional, and that upon the expiry or repeal of the preceding Ordinances, prosecutions initiated thereunder could not be lawfully continued without express saving clauses. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions in limine. The Court held that under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the President possesses co-extensive legislative power with Parliament to enact Ordinances during emergent situations when the National Assembly is not in session. The Court re-affirmed that the re-enactment or re-promulgation of successive Ordinances on the same subject-matter is constitutionally permissible. Furthermore, applying Article 264 of the Constitution and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897, the Court ruled that the repeal or expiration of an Ordinance does not affect pending investigations, legal proceedings, or accrued liabilities, permitting prosecutions to continue under the repealed Ordinances unless a contrary legislative intention explicitly appears.

  Questions settled

  • Is the President constitutionally competent to re-promulgate or enact successive Ordinances on the same subject-matter under Article 89 of the Constitution?
  • Does the repeal or expiration of an Ordinance affect the continuation of pending criminal proceedings instituted thereunder in the absence of a contrary legislative intention?
  • Are the principles of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 and Article 264 of the Constitution applicable to criminal proceedings instituted under repealed or expired Ordinances?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Alam alias Mithu vs The State1999 MLD 2282 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Akhtar vs The State1999 MLD 1206 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Akhtar vs Muhammad Zulfiqar Lone, Magistrate Section 30, Rawalpindi and 2 others1999 MLD 1852 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad Bhatti vs The State1999 YLR 821 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mahdi Hassan and another vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 499 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mahammad Ali vs Director, Staff Development Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Labour & Services Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
• Maham Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 611 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mahabat Khan And Other vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 235 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mahabat Khan and 5 others vs Senior Superintendent of Police and 51999 MLD 2243 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-03
  quashment of FIRforgerycivil litigationSection 195 CrPCspecific performancecriminal prosecutionadministration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought the quashment of an F.I.R. registered against them for offenses under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an agreement to sell that was also the subject of pending civil litigation. The core legal question was whether the pendency of a civil suit regarding a document bars criminal prosecution for forgery related to that same document under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the bar under Section 195(1)(c) does not apply when the alleged forgery was committed prior to the institution of the civil suit and the production of the document in court. Relying on the principle that the administration of justice is not sullied by the prosecution of a forgery committed before the commencement of judicial proceedings, the Court ruled that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not grant immunity to a forger. Consequently, the petition for quashment was dismissed, and the police were directed to conduct a fair investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding a document automatically bar criminal prosecution for forgery of that same document?
  • Does the bar under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to an alleged forgery committed before the document was produced in court?
  • Can a party use the production of a document in a civil suit to shield themselves from criminal prosecution for forgery committed prior to the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Madrassa Dar-Ul-Aloom Baqiat-Us-Salihat through Its Nazim-E-K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 78 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Madrassa Dar Ul Aloom, Baqiat Us Salihat Registered Through Nazim vs The Additional District and Sessionsjudge, Lahore And Another1999 CLC 181 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
• M.Saleem vs Muhammad Shafiq Deputy Director1999 P.C.T.L.R. 397 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• M.D.Tah Ir, Advocate vs Federal Government and others1999 MLD 2780 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-29Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs Government of the Punjab through Chief1999 PLC (C.S.) 1524 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs Government of the Punjab through Chief1999 MLD 2579 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs Federal Government and others1999 PLD Lahore 409 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-02
  Acting Chief Justiceconstitutional conventionPresidential discretionappointment of judgesfrivolous litigationlocus standijudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a constitutional petition filed by an Advocate of the Supreme Court challenging the Federal Government's notification appointing a junior judge as Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, seeking instead the appointment of the Senior Puisne Judge based on alleged constitutional conventions and precedents. The core legal question was whether the President's discretionary power under Article 196 of the Constitution to appoint an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court is fettered by any unwritten convention requiring the appointment of the next senior-most judge. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the President enjoys absolute discretion under Article 196 to appoint any High Court judge as Acting Chief Justice, and that any alleged convention in conflict with an express constitutional provision cannot be enforced. Furthermore, the court held that discretionary acts of the President under Article 48(2) are immune from judicial challenge, and strongly deprecated the filing of frivolous public interest litigation aimed at cheap publicity, imposing costs on the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an established constitutional convention can override an express provision of the Constitution regarding the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice?
  • Does the President have absolute discretion under Article 196 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in appointing an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court?
  • Can the discretionary acts of the President done under Article 48 of the Constitution be called in question before a court?
  • Whether a writ petition challenging the appointment of an Acting Chief Justice is maintainable against the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• M.A. Rashid Rana vs Chief Secretary1999 PLC (C.S.) 623 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-25
  constitutional petitionservice tribunalimplementation of judgmentdate of birthwrit petitionsuspension of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking a direction to the respondent to implement the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 6-12-1997, which had declared the petitioner's date of birth to be 13th of March, 1939, rather than 13th of March, 1937. The core legal question was whether the respondent was under a legal obligation to implement the Tribunal's judgment and whether the mere filing of an appeal operated as a suspension of that judgment. The Court held that the respondent is under a legal obligation to give effect to the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, as the filing of an appeal does not operate as an automatic suspension of the Tribunal's judgment. The key principle laid down is that authorities are bound to implement service tribunal judgments unless stayed by a superior court, and non-compliance permits aggrieved parties to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the filing of an appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal operates as an automatic suspension of the judgment?
  • Can an aggrieved party invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for the non-compliance of a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment?
  • Is a respondent under a legal obligation to give effect to the declaration of a service tribunal regarding a civil servant's date of birth?
  Read full judgment →
• M.A. Jabbar and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 5 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 686 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-28
  writ of quo warrantoinitial appointmentterms and conditions of servicebar of jurisdictionrelaxation of experiencelachesENERCONstatutory rules vs resolution
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Managing Director (BS-21) of the National Energy Conservation Centre (ENERCON). The petitioners contended that the appointment was illegal, made without advertisement, and in violation of rules requiring 20 years of management experience. The core legal questions were whether the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution applied to initial appointments, whether subordinate rules overrode the parent establishing Resolution conferring discretionary appointment power upon the Federal Government, and whether a writ of quo warranto lies when an appointee matures the requisite qualifications during petition pendency. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that challenges to initial appointments do not pertain to terms and conditions under Article 212, but the petitions were barred by laches. On the merits, the parent Resolution prevailed over subsequent rules, experience requirements were relaxable, and a writ of quo warranto cannot issue where the incumbent matures the required qualification/experience before final decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan apply to constitutional petitions challenging an initial appointment to a public office?
  • Can a writ of quo warranto be issued against an incumbent of a public office if he acquires the requisite qualifications and experience during the pendency of the writ petition?
  • Do subordinate rules framed under an administrative resolution prevail over the provisions and discretionary powers conferred by the parent resolution in case of a conflict?
  • Can unexplained delay in challenging an initial appointment to a public office render a constitutional petition unmaintainable on the ground of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Zafar Abbas vs Commissioner and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 931 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• M. Naeem Khan vs Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur and others1999 PLC 9 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
• M. Farrukh Iqbal vs Additional District Judge, Islamabad and anothers1999 MLD 1754 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
• M. Akhtar Ali Khan vs Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement1999 YLR 2427 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-29Read full judgment →
• Lutaf Ali vs Abdul Ghafoor and others1999 MLD 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Abbas Malik vs Malik Zafar Ali1999 YLR 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-03Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 530 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Baig And Other vs Allah Rakha Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 449 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and another vs The State1999 PLD Lahore 56 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22
  murderbenefit of doubtcross-versionburden of proofinterested witnessescriminal appealacquittalmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life sentences imposed on the appellants for the murder of Muhammad Rafiq. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the conflicting versions of the occurrence and the presence of significant injuries on one of the accused. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It observed that the eye-witnesses were interested and their presence was doubtful, while the prosecution's failure to produce an independent witness further weakened its case. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout and does not shift to the defense. Even if a defense plea is not fully established, it suffices if it creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive. Consequently, finding the defense version reasonably possible and the prosecution evidence insufficient, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and granted them the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to prove their defense plea reduce the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove an alleged motive beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of interested witnesses when their presence at the scene is doubtful?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when the defense version appears reasonably possible?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and 2 others vs Muhammad Akbar and another1999 YLR 2343 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-21Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali alias Kalu vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-31Read full judgment →
• Lal Zamurrad and 2 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 488 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Lal Din vs The State1999 MLD 1767 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
• Laina and another vs Mst. Zohran and 9 others1999 YLR 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-14Read full judgment →
• Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society Limited through Secretary vs Messrs Builders and Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. and anothers1999 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-09
  cooperative societies actcantonments actpublic roadeasement of necessityinjunctionpublic nuisanceright of accesscode of civil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Lahore, decreeing a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent-developer against the appellant housing society and the Cantonment Board. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for injunction filed by a non-member against a cooperative society is barred under section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 without notice, whether notice under section 273 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 is mandatory for an injunction suit, whether ownership of a public road vests in the Cantonment Board, and whether a suit concerning a blocked public road is barred under section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure without the Advocate-General's permission. The Lahore High Court held that section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act does not apply to disputes between a society and a third-party non-member not touching the society's business, that section 273 of the Cantonments Act does not apply to suits confined strictly to injunctions, that roads used by the public vest in the Cantonment Board by operation of law, and that an adjoining property owner possesses a distinct cause of action to challenge obstruction of a public thoroughfare without needing permission under section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit filed by a non-member against a cooperative society requires prior notice under section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
  • Does section 273 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 apply to a suit where the sole relief claimed is an injunction?
  • Does a road constructed and used by the general public within a cantonment area vest in the Cantonment Board by operation of law?
  • Can an owner of property adjacent to a public road maintain a suit for removal of an obstruction without obtaining permission from the Advocate-General under section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad vs Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan And 31999 CLC 694 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-05
  University examinationre-evaluation of answer scriptsmala fideadministrative discretionwrit jurisdictionbiaseducational law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the Bahauddin Zakariya University's refusal to re-evaluate his "Federal Taxes-II" paper for the Diploma in Taxation Laws examination, alleging mala fide and improper marking by an unqualified examiner. The core legal question was whether the University was obligated to re-evaluate the answer script upon specific, unrebutted allegations of bias and mala fide, and whether the examiner's appointment complied with University regulations. The Court held that the University’s failure to rebut the specific allegations of mala fide and bias, combined with the absence of the answer script, created a reasonable suspicion of unjust evaluation. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the University to have the paper re-evaluated by two qualified examiners who are teachers in the relevant subjects. The key principle established is that while University organs are entitled to discretion, they are bound by the rule of law. Where a candidate alleges specific mala fide, and authorities fail to rebut it, the Court may intervene to ensure justice, as the right to inspect an answer script is merely a preliminary step, and an effective remedy like re-evaluation must be available where there is a reasonable suspicion of unjust evaluation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order the re-evaluation of an examination paper when specific allegations of mala fide and bias are left unrebutted by the university?
  • Does the right to inspect an answer script constitute an effective remedy for a candidate alleging unjust evaluation?
  • Is a university authority bound by the rule of law when exercising discretion in academic matters?
  • Does the failure of university authorities to file counter-affidavits in response to specific allegations of bias justify judicial intervention?
  Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 331 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
• Khawja Muhammad Umar Farooq And Other vs Province of PunjabK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 59 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khawaja Salahuddin vs Malik Muhammad Nasim and another1999 YLR 396 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-30Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 662 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-15Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The State and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 400 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-15Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1999 YLR 221 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Latif Khan, Advocate vs Najam Ali1999 CLC 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
• Khalique Ahmad vs Tahir Saeed and Muhammad Saeed1999 NLR Civil 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-26Read full judgment →
• Khalil" Nawaz vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 391 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18
  narcotics recoverycompetency of police officerspecial oathillegal detentioncriminal appealsuspension of sentencebail
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Okara, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was legally competent and had the jurisdiction under sections 21 and 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995 to detain, search, and arrest the appellant and initiate proceedings for the recovery of narcotics. The court held that an officer below the rank specified by law lacks the substantive jurisdiction to set the law in motion, rendering the proceedings and conviction coram non judice and illegal. Additionally, the court ruled that criminal cases cannot be decided on special oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police is competent to detain, search, and arrest a person for offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995?
  • Can a criminal case be decided on the special oath of a complainant under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Whether the provisions of section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked for suspension of sentence in hardship cases?
  • What is the legal effect of proceedings initiated by a police officer lacking substantive jurisdiction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance 1995?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Saeed vs Haji Ghulam Rasul and others1999 YLR 2573 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-11Read full judgment →
• Khalid Pervaiz vs Water and Power Development Authority Through Chairman, WAPDA And Another1999 CLC 1591 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-02
  electricity theftdetection billWAPDAElectric Inspectormeter tamperingstatutory dutydue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of WAPDA's actions in disconnecting the petitioner's electricity supply and issuing a detection bill for alleged energy theft. The core legal question was whether the licensee (WAPDA) could unilaterally determine energy theft, disconnect supply, and issue a detection bill without following statutory procedures, particularly regarding the involvement of the Electric Inspector and the association of independent witnesses during inspection. The Court held that the impugned detection bill and the disconnection of electricity were illegal and without lawful authority. The ratio established that when a dispute arises regarding metering equipment or alleged tampering, the licensee cannot act as a judge in its own cause. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions, specifically those requiring the association of respectable local residents during inspections and the referral of metering disputes to the Electric Inspector, are mandatory. Consequently, the Court set aside the detection bill, ordered the restoration of electricity, and directed the parties to resolve the dispute before the Electric Inspector in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a licensee unilaterally issue a detection bill for alleged electricity theft without referring the metering dispute to the Electric Inspector?
  • Is the association of respectable local residents during the inspection of electricity premises a mandatory requirement under the Electricity Act 1910?
  • Does the licensee have the authority to disconnect electricity supply solely based on a detection bill without providing the consumer an opportunity to be heard?
  • When metering equipment is involved in a dispute, is the licensee permitted to assess the bill under Section 26-A of the Electricity Act 1910?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Nazir Rana vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1999 MLD 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-11Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood, Inspector Police No. R-227, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi vs Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 558 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08
  service matterwrit jurisdictionimplementation of tribunal orderconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of servicesenioritypolice service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former F.S.F. member absorbed into the Punjab Police, sought the implementation of a Punjab Service Tribunal order that directed his permanent absorption as a Sub-Inspector effective from 1-12-1977, along with associated seniority and promotion rights. The respondents resisted the petition, arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as the matter concerned terms and conditions of service, and further claimed the order had already been implemented. The Court held that while Article 212 bars jurisdiction regarding the determination of service terms and conditions, it does not preclude the High Court from entertaining a writ petition to compel the implementation of a final, unappealed decision of a Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that the respondents' failure to implement the Tribunal's order frustrated the constitutional mandate. Finding that the respondents' purported implementation was inconsistent with the Tribunal's specific directions, the Court accepted the petition and directed the immediate implementation of the Tribunal's order in its true letter and spirit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to direct the implementation of a final order passed by a Service Tribunal?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the sole purpose of enforcing a judgment of a Service Tribunal that has attained finality?
  • Does the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to petitions seeking the execution of a Service Tribunal's decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs The State1999 PLD Lahore 279 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmud and 6 others vs Maqbul Mahmood Bajwa, Additional1999 MLD 1607 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs Mst. Sultana Bano1999 MLD 3045 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs Collector of Customs1999 P.C.T.L.R. 171 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-07Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahm06 vs The State1999 YLR 2287 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Khalid alias Sooty vs The State1999 YLR 2400 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-15Read full judgment →
• Khair Din through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others1999 YLR 2589 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-01Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State1999 YLR 1817 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and others vs State1999 MLD 2389 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-17Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and another vs The State1999 YLR 619 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-13Read full judgment →
• Kazim Ali Shah vs The State1999 MLD 3435 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-24Read full judgment →
• Kawther Grain (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax/1999 PTD 4028 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-19
  constitutional petitionwithholding taxsupply of goodscapital assetsfiscal statute interpretationassessee in defaultalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the issuance of a notice and subsequent assessment order by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax holding the petitioner as an "assessee in default" for failing to deduct withholding tax under section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance on the purchase of factory land, building, and machinery. The core legal question was whether the sale of immovable property and fixed capital assets constitutes a "supply of goods" attracting advance tax deduction provisions under section 50(4). The Lahore High Court held that the transaction involved the transfer of capital assets and immovable property, which cannot by any imagination be treated as a supply of goods, rendering the assessment order and creation of demand entirely void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The court laid down the principle that fiscal statutes must be construed strictly according to the letter of the law, and words undefined in the statute must be assigned their ordinary dictionary meanings, making alternate remedies illusory where revenue authorities strictly follow binding departmental circulars contrary to law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sale of factory land, building, and fixed machinery constitute a "supply of goods" under section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an assessment order in fiscal matters where departmental circulars render any alternate statutory remedy illusory?
  • Are words undefined in a fiscal statute required to be construed according to their ordinary dictionary meanings?
  • Does the transfer of immovable property and fixed capital assets attract advance tax deduction obligations under the Income Tax Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashmir Chemical Industries, Ltd. vs National Bank of Pakistan, Etc.1999 P.C.T.L.R. 565 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-20Read full judgment →
• Kashif And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 27 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-22Read full judgment →
• Kashif alias Billoo vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh And 2 Others vs Qadrat Ali And 20 Other1999 CLC 967 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ali vs The State1999 YLR 493 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-01Read full judgment →
• Karam Ellahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 437 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
• Karam Elahi vs District Judge, Lodhran And 6 Other1999 CLC 1404 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-23Read full judgment →
• Karam Elahi and 2 others vs The State1999 YLR 130 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
• Kali Pehlwan (Muhammad Rafiq) vs Saifurrehman, Additional District1999 MLD 2920 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Kabir Ahmed alias Channi--!Appellant vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1328 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
• Jumma & 8 Other vs (Mst.) Zainab KhatoonK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 202 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Jehangir vs The State1999 YLR 1468 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
• Jeewan and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 910 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jawad Haider Khan vs The State1999 YLR 1100 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-11Read full judgment →
• Jawad Ali vs Election Commissioner1999 CLC 19 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-12Read full judgment →
• Javed Tariq Khan and another vs Ahmed Raza Khan and 4 others1999 MLD 3230 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-21Read full judgment →
• Javed Rasool vs Deputy Inspector-General, Police Establishment, Lahore and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 968 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 598 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Qureshi vs Local Government of Punjab1999 YLR 2414 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
• Javaid Iqbal and anothers vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary Communication and Works (Highway Department) and 5 others1999 YLR 2207 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-18Read full judgment →
• Javaid Iqbal and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1837 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Javad Masood vs Muhammad Sabir and others1999 YLR 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-12Read full judgment →
• Jan vs Judge Family Court, Layyah and 2 others1999 YLR 425 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-12Read full judgment →
• Jan Shafaq and 3 anothers vs Mst. Momina Khatoon and anothers1999 MLD 2195 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
• Jamia Masjid Mian Alam Khan, Bohar Bazar, Rawalpindi vs Malik1999 YLR 1218 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-17Read full judgment →
• James Masih vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-11Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmed and 3 others vs The Superintendent of Police, Range1999 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-17
  constitutional petitiondischarge of accusedre-investigationf.i.r.police investigationjudicial magistratemurder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioners challenging their repeated summoning and re-investigation by the police after they had been earlier found innocent during investigation and discharged by the Judicial Magistrate in a murder case registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the police can re-investigate an accused who has been discharged by a magistrate without first obtaining fresh material or getting the discharge order set aside by the court. The Lahore High Court held that while an order of discharge does not make the FIR cease to exist, if the magistrate has passed a well-reasoned speaking order applying conscious judicial mind, the police cannot re-investigate or re-arrest the accused without discovering new material, presenting it to the court, and having the prior discharge order recalled or set aside. The key principle laid down is that although a discharge order is executive or administrative in nature, it protects the accused from arbitrary re-investigation unless fresh evidence is placed before the discharging court to seek a recall of the order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the police can re-investigate an accused who has been discharged by a magistrate without getting the discharge order set aside?
  • Does an order of discharge passed by a Judicial Magistrate constitute a bar to subsequent police investigation without fresh material?
  • Is an order of discharge passed by a Magistrate on the application of the police considered an administrative order?
  Read full judgment →