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.

• Jam Munir Ahmad vs Incharge, Civil Prison, Sadiqabad, District1999 MLD 2924 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-04Read full judgment →
• Jalil vs The State1999 YLR 1493 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-11Read full judgment →
• Jalal Khan vs Mst. Parveen Akhtar Through Legal Representatives1999 CLC 873 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-01Read full judgment →
• Jalal and another vs The Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd.1999 YLR 2204 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-04Read full judgment →
• Jahangir vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 96 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-17Read full judgment →
• Jahangir Hayat vs The State1999 PLD Lahore 285 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-02
  post-arrest bailmurderbenefit of doubtmedical evidencechance witnessocular evidencedelayed dispatch of spent cartridges
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was brought by Jahangir against his conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, where he was sentenced to death for the murder of Parvez Akhtar. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot the deceased due to a motive involving a family divorce and a recent taunt. The High Court evaluated the evidence under a multi-factor weighing approach, examining the motive, ocular testimony, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon. The High Court found critical contradictions: the medical evidence belied the ocular account regarding the distance and number of shots fired, time of death, and stomach/bladder condition; the spent cartridges were dispatched to the expert late; and the witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was unconvincing. Consequently, the Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, set aside his conviction and death sentence, and acquitted him.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical evidence contradicting ocular testimony regarding range of firing and time of death creates reasonable doubt?
  • Does failure to dispatch recovered spent cartridges to the Forensic Science Laboratory prior to the recovery of the weapon vitiate the evidentiary value of the recovery report?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of chance witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • What impact does failure to prove the alleged motive have on the overall prosecution case in a homicide trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahangir and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-11Read full judgment →
• Jaafar and another vs The State1999 MLD 2223 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
• Ivtikhar Ahmed vs State1999 YLR 1841 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
• Ismat Ullah vs The State1999 YLR 153 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-01Read full judgment →
• Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and others vs Messrs Metropole Cinema Limited1999 MLD 3239 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Ishfaq Ahmad vs Minister for Education, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 224 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
• Irshad vs The State1999 YLR 956 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →
• Irfan Mahdi vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 289 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
• Irfan Jamil Khan vs University of Engineering, Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 375 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-18Read full judgment →
• Irfan Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director vs Deputy Superintendent1999 MLD 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-13Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ghouri vs Station House Officer, Police Station Chehyalak, Multan and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1846 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ghouri vs S.H.O., Police Station, Chehyalak, Multan and anothers1999 MLD 1353 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
• Iram Ghee Mills Ltd. vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Etc.1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
• Intizar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 71 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-08Read full judgment →
• Institution of Engineers vs Director-General, Excise and Taxation and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 402 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-03Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Shariat Cases 19 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-24Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Hussain vs The State and 2 others1999 MLD 2987 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-02Read full judgment →
• Imran Shahzad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 616 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-14Read full judgment →
• Imran Butt vs The State1999 YLR 366 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
• Imperil Construction Company, Sahiwal and 30 others vs Chief1999 YLR 1153 · Lahore High Court
  tender processlowest bidderlocus standiwrit jurisdictioncontractual rightsnatural justicerejection of bids
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenged the cancellation of tender bids by the Chief Engineer, Punjab Health Engineering Division, for drainage schemes. The core legal question was whether the lowest bidder in a tender process acquires a vested right or locus standi to challenge the rejection of their bid when the tender terms explicitly reserve the right to reject bids without assigning reasons. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners failed to prove their bids were ever formally accepted by the competent authority. The Court determined that the tender conditions empowered the Engineer-in-charge to reject any or all tenders without assigning reasons, and that the rejection was supported by official records. The key principle laid down is that a mere bid in a tender process does not create a contractual right or a binding promise until formally accepted. Consequently, a bidder lacks locus standi to challenge the rejection of their bid where the tender terms allow for rejection without cause, and principles of natural justice do not apply to the rejection of unaccepted bids.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of the lowest bid in a tender process create a vested right or contractual obligation?
  • Can a bidder challenge the rejection of a tender bid where the tender conditions reserve the right to reject bids without assigning reasons?
  • Does the principle of natural justice require notice and hearing before the rejection of an unaccepted tender bid?
  • Does a lowest bidder have locus standi to file a writ petition against the cancellation of a tender process?
  Read full judgment →
• Imdad Hussain And Others vs Member, Board of Revenue1999 CLC 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-30Read full judgment →
• Imdad Hussain and 9 others vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police1999 YLR 1694 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-24Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh vs The State1999 YLR 19 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Ilyas and 2 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1879 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
• Ilam Din And 4 Others vs Yousaf Ali And 12 Other1999 CLC 140 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-28Read full judgment →
• Ilam Din alias Jumma vs The State1999 YLR 929 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-17Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Mehmood vs Board of Intermediate and1999 CLC 984 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-17
  date of birth correctionrebuttable presumptionstatutory bodywrit of mandamusLocal Council recordseducational board regulationsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education to correct his date of birth based on a certificate from a Town Committee. The core legal question was whether such a municipal birth certificate is binding on the Board and whether the Board’s refusal to amend its records was lawful. The Court held that the Board acted within its legal authority and dismissed the petition. It established that entries in public registers maintained by Local Councils under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, carry only a rebuttable presumption of correctness and are not automatically binding on statutory bodies like the Board. The Board retains the discretion to verify the authenticity of such documents to prevent fraud. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that applicants must strictly comply with the Board’s regulations, which require the correction of school records as a prerequisite for amending Board records. The Board’s refusal was deemed logical and consistent with its regulatory framework, as the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions for such a correction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a birth certificate issued by a Local Council binding on an educational board for the purpose of correcting a student's date of birth?
  • Does the entry of a date of birth in a Local Council register carry a conclusive or a rebuttable presumption of correctness?
  • Can an educational board refuse to correct a student's date of birth if the student fails to comply with the board's specific regulatory requirements?
  • Is the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education authorized to scrutinize the genuineness of a birth certificate provided by a student?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Masih alias Damo vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 343 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-07
  post-arrest bailmurderJaphavicarious liabilityprinciple of consistencycommon intentionfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Ijaz Masih, who was charged in an F.I.R. under Sections 302/34 and 337-A(i)(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his alleged involvement in the murder of Bashir Masih. The prosecution alleged that while the co-accused Shahzad Masih inflicted the fatal knife blow, the petitioner facilitated the crime by holding the deceased in a 'Japha' (bear hug) from behind. The petitioner argued for bail based on the principle of consistency, noting that other co-accused had been granted bail. The Court rejected this argument, distinguishing the petitioner's role from that of the co-accused who were only attributed a 'Lalkara' or minor injuries. The Court held that the act of holding the deceased in a 'Japha' was a pivotal role that facilitated the fatal attack, rendering the petitioner vicariously liable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, affirming that such active participation in a murder case disentitles an accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of consistency apply when the role of the bail-seeking accused is distinguishable from the roles of co-accused already granted bail?
  • Is an accused who holds the deceased in a 'Japha' while a co-accused inflicts a fatal blow vicariously liable for the murder?
  • Does the act of holding a victim in a 'Japha' to facilitate a fatal attack constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain vs The Election Tribunal/Senior Civil Judge, Jhang and 21999 MLD 2164 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain vs S.H.O., P.S. Katha Sagral, Tehsil and District Khushab1999 MLD 2721 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain vs Election TribunalK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 288 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-02Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain and another vs S.H.O., Police Station Saddar, Bhakkar and others1999 P Cr. L J 954 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Ijaz and 2 others vs The State1999 YLR 468 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-02Read full judgment →
• Ihsanullah vs Collector of Customs, Custom House, Lahore and 41999 PLD Lahore 96 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
• Ihsanullah Bhatti vs Pakistan Foundation1999 PLC (C.S.) 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-20Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1239 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29
  quashing of criminal proceedingsforgerycheatingabuse of processjudicial complaintdischarge of accusedcognizance of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner regarding an alleged forgery of a No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) used in rent litigation. The core legal question was whether the police could register a case and proceed with an investigation for forgery and cheating when the document in question was allegedly used in judicial proceedings, and whether the police could continue investigation after a Magistrate had already discharged the accused. The Court held that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of law. It found that the ingredients for cheating under the Pakistan Penal Code were not met, and that the police lacked authority to register the case without a written complaint from the concerned Court, as required by law for documents produced in judicial proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the initial discharge order by the Magistrate had attained finality. Consequently, the Court quashed the F.I.R. and the subsequent criminal proceedings, establishing that police cannot bypass the statutory requirement for a judicial complaint when an alleged forgery occurs in relation to documents submitted in court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the police register a criminal case for forgery of a document produced in judicial proceedings without a written complaint from the concerned Court?
  • Does a Magistrate's order discharging an accused, if not challenged, attain finality preventing further police investigation?
  • Are the offences of forgery under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cognizable by the police without a Magistrate's permission?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs Station House Officer and others1999 P Cr. L J 1831 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-18Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs S.H.O, And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 27 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-18Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad alias Billu vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 976 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Idrees Anwar And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 504 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-12Read full judgment →
• Idoo vs Additional District Judge and 2 others1999 YLR 367 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-17Read full judgment →
• ICI Pakistan Limited, Lahore vs Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Ferozewala, Sheikhupura and another1999 PLC 13 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-03
  Labour Court jurisdictioninterim reliefgrievance petitionwrit jurisdictionexhaustion of remediesindustrial relationsancillary powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions filed by an industrial employer challenging an interim order of a Labour Court. The core legal question was whether a Labour Court possesses the jurisdiction to grant ad interim relief, specifically by suspending the termination of services, in proceedings initiated under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, given that Order XXXIX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not strictly applicable. The Lahore High Court held that while the Civil Procedure Code may not strictly apply, the power to grant interim relief is an ancillary and incidental power necessary for the Labour Court to effectively adjudicate the main petition and prevent proceedings from becoming infructuous. However, the Court dismissed the petitions in limine on the ground that they were premature. The key principle laid down is that a Labour Court, as a tribunal, inherently possesses the incidental power to issue interim orders to maintain the status quo during the pendency of a grievance petition, and parties must exhaust available statutory remedies, such as those under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before invoking the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Labour Court have the jurisdiction to grant interim relief in a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is the power to grant interim relief by a Labour Court considered an ancillary power to its main adjudicatory function?
  • Can a petitioner invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court without first exhausting the remedy of appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Icc Textiles Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 251 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-30
  Corporate Assets TaxFederal Legislative ListConstitutional interpretationVires of statuteGross assets vs net assetsReasonable classificationEconomic legislationTaxation powers
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the vires of Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1991, which imposed a Corporate Assets Tax on the assets of incorporated companies. The petitioners contended that under Item 50 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the legislature could only tax the net value of assets, not the gross value, and that the tax was discriminatory and confiscatory. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the term capital value of assets in the Constitution does not restrict the legislature to taxing only net assets. The Court affirmed that entries in the Federal Legislative List must be interpreted broadly, and the legislature possesses the authority to determine the mechanism of taxation, including the valuation method. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the tax classification—targeting corporations with assets exceeding Rs. 50 million—was based on an intelligent differentia and was neither discriminatory nor confiscatory. The judgment emphasizes that courts should exercise judicial restraint regarding economic legislation, prioritizing the preservation of laws over their invalidation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase capital value of assets in Item 50 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 limit the legislature to taxing only the net value of assets?
  • Can the legislature impose a tax on the gross value of corporate assets?
  • Is the classification of corporations based on an asset threshold of Rs. 50 million for tax purposes discriminatory under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Should economic legislation be interpreted with greater latitude than laws affecting civil rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Hussain Rizvi, Subinspector Police, Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore vs Ghazala Aziz and 4 others1999 PLD Lahore 521 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-02
  custodial killingsecond F.I.R.writ of mandamuspolice encounterconstitutional jurisdictioncognizable offenceregistration of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's order directing the police to record the complainant's statement and register a second First Information Report (F.I.R.) regarding the alleged custodial killing of her son, Tahir Nafees. The appellant, a police officer, contended that a prior F.I.R. regarding the incident had already been registered, precluding the registration of a second one. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, can order the registration of a second F.I.R. when a version of the incident is already on record. The Court held that while the general rule is to avoid multiple F.I.R.s for the same occurrence, this is not an absolute rule. Where the complainant's version is radically different from the initial police version—specifically alleging custodial assassination rather than a police encounter—and raises serious factual allegations, the Court is empowered to direct the registration of a second F.I.R. to secure the ends of justice. The Court affirmed that police agencies cannot engage in custodial killings, and such directions are consistent with the rule of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court order the registration of a second First Information Report if a previous one has already been recorded?
  • Is the duty of a Station House Officer to record a statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory?
  • Under what circumstances can a court depart from the general rule against registering multiple First Information Reports for the same occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-12Read full judgment →
• Hussain Saeed vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore1999 CLC 1315 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hussain Bakhsh Khan vs Deputy Commissioner, D.G. Khan And Other1999 CLC 88 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-17Read full judgment →
• Hurmat Khan vs Zahoor Khan and 2 others1999 YLR 10 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-23Read full judgment →
• Humayun Iftikhar Chishti vs Punjab Local Council Election Authority1999 CLC 79 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-16
  electoral rollvoter registrationelection schedulealternative remedywrit petitionnomination papers
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court aggrieved by the omission of his name from the formal electoral list, despite having been registered as a fresh voter by the Registering Officer prior to the announcement of the election schedule. The core legal question concerned whether a voter should be deprived of their right to be listed and to contest elections due to administrative delays in transmitting the registration. The Additional Advocate-General conceded that the name should have been included but raised an objection regarding the availability of an alternate remedy of revision before the Commissioner under the Electoral Rolls Act 1974. The Court held that given the urgency—where only hours remained for filing nomination papers—the rule of alternative remedy being a rule of convenience could be ignored. The Court allowed the petition, declaring the omission of the petitioner's name to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and directed that his name be included immediately in the voters' list.

  Questions settled

  • Can a citizen be deprived of their right to be listed in the electoral roll due to administrative delays in transmitting their pre-schedule registration?
  • Does the bar under section 20 of the Electoral Rolls Act 1974 prevent the inclusion of a voter whose registration was completed before the announcement of the election schedule?
  • Is the rule of alternative remedy considered a rule of convenience that can be bypassed when extreme urgency leaves virtually no time to pursue other forums?
  Read full judgment →
• Humayun Azam vs Ch. Sadiq, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Kunjah,1999 MLD 1676 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
• Hony.Captain (Retd.) Muhammad Jumma vs Muhammad Safdar1999 MLD 1723 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Bakiish alias Sanaullah vs The State1999 YLR 1747 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Bakhsh vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Rahimyar Khan1999 PLD Lahore 417 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-28
  FIR registrationcognizable offenseconstitutional petitionalternative remedydoctrine of exhaustionMagistrate investigationDistrict Complaint Committeespolice inactionwrit of mandamus
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by a larger Bench of the Lahore High Court addresses twenty-two consolidated Constitution Petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking writs of mandamus directing Station House Officers to record statements in First Information Reports (FIRs) and investigate cognizable offenses. The core legal questions involve the mandatory nature of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the adequacy and alternative nature of remedies under Sections 156(3), 200, and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the circumstances for invoking writ jurisdiction, and the legality of District Complaint Committees constituted by the Inspector-General of Police. The Court held that Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is preemptory and mandatory, obligating police officers to record statements disclosing cognizable offenses. However, the Court reaffirmed that litigants must exhaust alternative and efficacious remedies—specifically approaching the superior police hierarchy, District Complaint Committees under Standing Order No. 3 of 1993, and moving the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court also held that District Complaint Committees established under Section 12 of the Police Act 1861 are valid legal entities. The key principles laid down emphasize the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies in police inaction matters and the statutory duty of police officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory in nature, obligating a police officer to record the statement of an informant regarding a cognizable offense?
  • Are the remedies provided under Sections 156(3) and 200 to 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 effective and alternative remedies that must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the District Complaint Committees constituted by the Inspector-General of Police under Standing Order No. 3 of 1993 are lawful entities competent to redress citizens' grievances?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court issue a writ of mandamus against police authorities for failure to register an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Raza and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-25Read full judgment →
• Hassan Farooq vs Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore through Chairman and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1314 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hassan Bibi vs I.D.B.P.1999 CLC 975 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-26Read full judgment →
• Hassan Bakhsh and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 11 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
• Haris Abdullah vs The State1999 YLR 643 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-15Read full judgment →
• Haqiqatullah vs District Education Officer1999 MLD 151 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 339 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-24Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz and others vs Superintendent of Police and others1999 P Cr. L J 1144 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-06
  successive investigationre-investigationtransfer of investigationchallanpolice rulesconstitutional writ
  Summary & questions settled

  The present writ petition arises from the registration of an F.I.R. under sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to a fraudulent power of attorney over agricultural land. After police investigation, a challan was submitted and the trial commenced before a competent court. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred multiple times at the instance of the accused persons, culminating in an order transferring the case to a new investigating officer without any new evidence or fresh material. The core legal question concerns the legality of successive or reinvestigations after a challan has been submitted and trial commenced. The Lahore High Court held that while the law does not absolutely prohibit further investigation before judgment, police powers to reinvestigate are not unfettered and cannot be exercised arbitrarily, under political pressure, or without fresh material simply to harass parties or appease influential persons. The Court set aside the impugned transfer order, laying down that frequent and unprincipled successive investigations undermine the rule of law and the administration of justice once a matter is seized by a court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether subsequent or successive investigations are absolutely prohibited once a challan has been submitted and trial has commenced?
  • Does the police possess unfettered powers to transfer an investigation to a new officer without any fresh material or evidence?
  • Can an order transferring an investigation passed under political pressure or without independent application of mind be sustained by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamza Khel Alias Kalu And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 450 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
• Hameedullah and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1055 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-16Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ullah Khan Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 403 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Hakim Muhammad Ibrahim vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 4 others1999 MLD 1738 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Muhammad Saleem Safdar And Others vs Khurshid Ahmad And Other1999 CLC 74 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
• Haji Sobha vs The State1999 YLR 281 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Sardar Muhammad Amin and others vs Auqaf and others1999 MLD 3182 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Noor Muhammad vs Collector (Customs), Lahore and 6 others1999 P Cr. L J 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
• Haji Nazir Ahmad vs Habib and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 2094 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Sattar vs Haji Ahmed1999 MLD 3429 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Mehr Liaqat Ali and 2 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Khuda Bakhsh vs Muhammad Saleem Akbar Shah And Other1999 CLC 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07
  pre-emptionsuperior right of purchasepleadingsburden of proofmisreading of evidencepresumption of faithShia-Sunni law
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning land in Muzaffargarh. The appellant/plaintiff sought to pre-empt a sale on the grounds of being a collateral and a Khewat Dar, claiming a superior right of purchase. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, primarily relying on the assertion that the vendor and vendees were of the Shia faith, which would alter the pre-emption rights. The core legal question was whether a party can introduce a new case through evidence that was not pleaded in the written statement, and whether the appellate court misread the evidence regarding the religious faith of the parties. The High Court held that facts not stated in the pleadings cannot be proven in evidence, and that the appellate court erred by considering an unpleaded defense. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the legal presumption that Muslims in Pakistan are Sunnis unless proven otherwise. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment, restored the trial court's decree, and upheld the appellant's superior right of pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party lead evidence on a fact that was not specifically pleaded in the written statement?
  • Is there a legal presumption that Muslims in Pakistan are of the Sunni faith unless proven otherwise?
  • Does the appellate court have the authority to rely on evidence regarding a defense that was never raised in the pleadings or issues?
  • Can the testimony of a witness be rejected solely on the basis of their relationship to a party or receipt of a stipend?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Barkat Ali vs Tariq Mehmood Sajjid1999 CLC 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
• Haji Ata Muhammad vs Ch. Muhammad Akram Gujjar, A.C., Sheikhupura1999 MLD 1886 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmad and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Aziz vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 356 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Aziz and 2 others vs Haji Dost Muhammad and 5 others1999 P Cr. L J 31 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• Haider Ali vs The Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Mozang Road, Lahore, through Chairman and another1999 YLR 1243 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-23Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Siddiq vs Secretary (S & R)/Settlement Commissioner1999 MLD 3393 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-20Read full judgment →
• Habiburrehman and others vs The State1999 MLD 860 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-11
  re-investigationdischarge of accusedF.I.R. cancellationpolice powersconstitutional petitionadministrative order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of re-investigation by police after an initial discharge of the accused by a Magistrate. The petitioners argued that re-investigation without the Magistrate's prior permission rendered subsequent proceedings illegal. The core legal question was whether police require judicial permission to re-investigate a case where the accused was previously discharged but the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was not cancelled. The Court held that a discharge order is administrative in nature and does not extinguish the F.I.R. Consequently, the police retain the statutory power to conduct further investigation without seeking judicial permission, provided the F.I.R. remains intact. The Court distinguished between the cancellation of an F.I.R. (which terminates the case) and the discharge of an accused (which does not). The key principle laid down is that the police possess the inherent authority to re-investigate a criminal matter without judicial intervention or permission when the accused has been discharged, as such an order does not create a legal hurdle for the investigating agency.

  Questions settled

  • Does the discharge of an accused by a Magistrate prevent the police from re-investigating the case without judicial permission?
  • Is a Magistrate's order discharging an accused person considered a judicial or an administrative order?
  • Does the re-investigation of a case require the prior permission of a Magistrate if the F.I.R. has not been cancelled?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah vs Zila Council1999 YLR 2492 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-08Read full judgment →
• Habib Credit and Exchange Bank Ltd. vs Hamaliya Textile Mills (Pvt.)1999 PLD Lahore 127 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited, Zonal Office, Bahawalpur vs National Industrial1999 PLC 22 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Muhammad Ali and Brothers1999 MLD 3186 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Hab1burrehman alias Rehman alias Raja Bootal vs The State1999 YLR 2402 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-26Read full judgment →
• Gulshan Weaving Mills Ltd. vs The Secretary, Labour Department, Govt. of Punjab, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 135 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gull Muhammad vs Nisar Ahmad and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 483 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-09Read full judgment →
• Gulaba Jee and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
• Gulab Shah vs The State1999 MLD 659 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-29Read full judgment →
• Gul Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs Ibrahim and another1999 YLR 930 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sibtain Murtaza vs The State1999 YLR 762 · Lahore High Court · 1999-10-06Read full judgment →