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.

• Muhammad Yaqub and another vs Mahboob Ali Qureshi1998 PLC (C.S.) 11 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-02
  section 12(2) CPCfraud and misrepresentationcollusive compromiselis pendensassignment of rightsvendee pendente litepre-emptionsuspension of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil miscellaneous applications were filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by a third-party purchaser seeking to set aside compromise decrees passed by the High Court in regular second appeals. The applicant alleged that the pre-emptor/respondent, who had obtained favorable pre-emption decrees in lower courts, assigned his rights in the suit property for valuable consideration during pendency of the second appeals and executed an irrevocable power of attorney. Subsequently, the pre-emptor and the appellants colluded to enter into a secret compromise without notice to the assignee/purchaser, obtaining orders setting aside the lower court decrees and dismissing the pre-emption suits. The High Court considered whether a vendee pendente lite or assignee could challenge a compromise decree under Section 12(2) where the assignor and appellants suppressed the assignment from the court. The High Court held that the suspension of a decree via interim order does not extinguish rights in present, and an assignor cannot act against the assignee's interest without leave under Order XXII Rule 10. The court found active concealment, fraud, and collusion, recalling the compromise decrees.

  Questions settled

  • Does interim suspension of a decree by an appellate court extinguish the decree-holder's present assignable rights in the suit property?
  • Can a decree obtained by fraudulent collusion between an assignor and an appellant be set aside under Section 12(2) CPC at the instance of an assignee pendente lite?
  • Is an assignor entitled to compromise an appeal to the detriment of his assignee without obtaining leave under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 113 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Baqar and 2 others1998 CLC 456 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-29
  civil procedureamendment of judgmentclerical mistakeaccidental slippre-emptioninherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a civil application filed under sections 151, 152, and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the petitioner/vendee seeking correction of an alleged clerical mistake or accidental slip in the narration part of a previous High Court judgment dated 2-3-1993, which had remanded a pre-emption suit to the first appellate court for decision afresh after disposing of an application for additional evidence. The petitioner sought the deletion of a specific qualification of the pre-emptors mentioned in the narration part of the judgment. The core legal question was whether sections 151, 152, and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit the court to amend or alter the narration of a judgment to the extent requested, and whether such an alteration amounts to a mere clerical error or an act requiring the substantive application of judicial mind. The court held that section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 only permits the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, and does not authorize supplementing judgments or taking away accrued rights. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 authorize a court to correct or alter the narration portion of a judgment where substantive rights are affected?
  • Can sections 151, 152, and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked to amend a judgment to reflect an alleged accidental omission?
  • Whether an application for amendment of a judgment to delete a stated qualification of a party is maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur and 4 others1998 PLD Lahore 260 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Khan vs Mst. Sahib Khatoon and others1998 CLC 1576 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-10
  lis pendenspendente lite purchasernecessary and proper partytemporary injunctionimpleadment of partiescivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for declaration, possession, and mesne profits concerning land measuring 780 Kanals, wherein the trial court had issued a temporary injunction restraining the parties from transferring or changing ownership and possession. During the pendency of the suit and the currency of the injunction, respondents Nos. 9 to 11 purchased a portion of the disputed land from one of the defendants via an oral sale. The trial court allowed their application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be impleaded as defendants. The core legal question was whether a pendente lite purchaser of property subject to a pending suit and injunction is a necessary or proper party to be impleaded in the suit. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and set aside the trial court's order, holding that under the doctrine of lis pendens enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, a subsequent purchaser acquiring an interest during the pendency of a suit does so at their own risk and is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit is a necessary or proper party to be impleaded as a defendant under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 prohibit the acquisition of interest in property during ongoing litigation without court permission?
  • Can a subsequent vendee acquiring land during the pendency of a suit and currency of a temporary injunction be allowed to be brought on record as a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waryam vs Mahmood alias Mooda and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 370 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-23
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionfurther inquiryfalse implicationcriminal recordbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, originally filed regarding the alleged illegal confinement of Muhammad Usman, was treated by the Lahore High Court as a bail application. The accused was charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 2 kilograms of Charas from his possession while traveling on a bus. The accused denied the allegations, claiming he was falsely implicated and that the narcotics belonged to another passenger whom the police had released. The Court observed that the accused was a young individual with no prior criminal record. Finding that the circumstances of the case presented sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused, the Court exercised its discretion to grant bail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the accused was admitted to bail subject to furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial).

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a previous criminal record and the youth of an accused constitute grounds for further inquiry in narcotics cases?
  • Can a petition regarding illegal confinement be treated as a bail application by the High Court?
  • What is the standard for granting bail when the accused claims false implication in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Ghani Khatri, Chairman, Ittehad Cmemicals, Lahore1998 MLD 605 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Muhammad YousafK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 684 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Mst. Sardar Bibi and 2 others1998 CLC 1969 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-05
  civil revisionjudgment in the eye of lawappellate court judgmentremandsuit for possessionnon-reading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for possession filed by the respondents against the petitioner, which was decreed by the trial court, remanded multiple times on appeal, and ultimately dismissed by the first appellate court. The core legal question was whether the judgment rendered by the first appellate court met the legal requirements of a proper judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned appellate judgment, which merely upheld the trial court's findings in a summary manner without discussing the points urged by the appellant or evaluating the evidence on record, did not constitute a judgment in the eye of law. The Court established the principle that an appellate court must independently consider the arguments, address the points raised, and discuss the evidence before rendering a decision. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the appeal was remanded to the District Judge for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate judgment that fails to discuss the points urged by the appellant and the evidence on record constitutes a judgment in the eye of law?
  • What are the mandatory requirements of a valid appellate judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • How should an appellate court dispose of an appeal when the first appellate judgment is found to be legally deficient?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Abdul Aziz through Legal Heirs1998 PLD Lahore 137 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-30
  sale-deed cancellationfraud and misrepresentationregistered document presumptiononus of proofmarginal witnessesforgerycriminal complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for the cancellation of a sale-deed dated 15-8-1974, which the respondent challenged as fraudulent and void. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision and decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, while also directing the filing of a criminal complaint for forgery. The core legal question centered on whether the petitioner successfully proved the genuine execution of the disputed, registered sale-deed despite the respondent's denial and clear evidence of material alterations and forgery. The Lahore High Court held that the rebuttable presumption of a registered document under section 60 of the Registration Act 1908 is displaced when the alleged executant denies execution on oath, shifting the onus onto the beneficiary to affirmatively prove execution, which the petitioner failed to do by withholding marginal witnesses and producing a visibly forged deed with unauthorized insertions. The court laid down the principle that registration presumptions do not dispense with proof of valid execution against an outright denial, and appellate courts possess the lawful authority to direct criminal prosecution upon uncovering forgery and false statements in judicial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory presumption attached to a registered document under section 60 of the Registration Act 1908 dispense with the necessity of proving actual execution when the alleged executant denies the transaction on oath?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to produce the marginal witnesses of a disputed sale-deed?
  • Can an appellate court validly direct the filing of a criminal complaint for forgery upon concluding that a document was materially altered during trial?
  • How does a certified copy of a document from the Sub-Registrar's record help establish unauthorized insertions in the original deed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Abdul Aziz And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail alias Yaseen vs D.S.P., Pattoki and others1998 P Cr. L J 1521 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sudheer vs The State1998 MLD 1994 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siqlain vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 308 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The StateK.L.R 1998 Criminal Cases 31 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Rashid Ahmad CH. and another1998 MLD 686 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-19
  Constitutional petitionRegistration of FIRCivil disputeGeneral power of attorneyLand saleCriminal proceedingsSub judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed to restrain the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 463, 471, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a land sale transaction. The petitioner, acting as a general attorney, sold land to the respondent, who subsequently alleged fraud, claiming the property had been previously sold. The core legal question was whether a criminal case could be registered while a civil suit concerning the title and validity of the same transaction remained sub judice. The Court held that as the ownership of the principal was not denied and the matter of the alleged fraudulent sale was inextricably linked to the pending civil litigation, the police could not register a criminal case at this stage. The Court emphasized that the Civil Court, upon final adjudication of the suit, would be the appropriate forum to determine if criminal proceedings under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were warranted. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the police were directed to refrain from registering the case until the civil suit's final decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can the police register a criminal case for alleged fraud regarding a land transaction while a civil suit concerning the same property is pending?
  • Is the Sub-Registrar competent to order the registration of a criminal case based on allegations of a forged power of attorney?
  • Under what circumstances should a court invoke Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the pendency of a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq and another vs The State1998 MLD 403 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib vs Abu Bakar and another1998 PLD Lahore 125 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Wali MuhammadK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 693 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 34 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State and others1998 MLD 1577 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Judge Family Court and others1998 MLD 1873 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs State1998 MLD 1638 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 453 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif alias Kali and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1120 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq-Ur-Rehman vs D.L.R, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 131 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Syed Irshad Hussain Abdi and others1998 CLC 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mst. Nazir Begum and another1998 CLC 649 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Abdul Hamid1998 MLD 1595 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Gujar vs The Superintending Engineer1998 PLC (C.S.) 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafeeq vs Government of the Punjab, Lahore, Finance1998 PLC (C.S.) 1225 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 736 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Muhammad Ilyas and others1998 P Cr. L J 1850 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Deputy Inspector-General Police, Bahawalpur1998 MLD 1561 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Altaf HussainK.L.R 1998 Civil Cases 571 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad Alias Toni vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 48) · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safian vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 82 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Waseer vs D.F.C., Sialkot and others1998 P Cr. L J 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-27
  unsoundness of mindincapacity to stand trialpreliminary inquirymandatory proceduremedical evidencerevision petitioncriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, which summarily determined that the petitioner was of sound mind and fit to stand trial, despite conflicting medical reports regarding his capacity. The core legal question was whether a trial court can summarily decide an accused's unsoundness of mind without conducting a formal inquiry as mandated by law. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the petitioner's mental state. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to hold a formal inquiry, which must include the examination of the medical professionals who authored the conflicting reports and provide both the prosecution and the defense an opportunity to present evidence. The key principle laid down is that the provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are mandatory; a trial court is legally obligated to try the fact of an accused's unsoundness of mind and incapacity to make a defense as a preliminary step before proceeding with the main trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to hold a formal inquiry into an accused's unsoundness of mind before proceeding with the trial?
  • Does the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Can a trial court determine an accused's capacity to stand trial based solely on written medical reports without examining the medical experts in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Kashif Khan and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 891 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Allah Ditta1998 CLC 323 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Mst. Noor-Ul-Islam and 2 others1998 CLC 1036 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Ghulam Abbask.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 270 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs District Collector, Okara And Other(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 25) · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza Baqir vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Commerce, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 565 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Shafi vs Managing Director and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 848 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Iqbal, Sub-Inspector Police, District Kehari Mitroo and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 828 · Lahore High Court
  quashing of FIRnarcotics controlinvestigation irregularityjurisdiction of police officerdirectory provisionswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from an F.I.R. registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where 30 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the petitioner by a Sub-Inspector of Police. The core legal question was whether a raid and investigation conducted by a police officer not specially authorized by notification under the Act vitiates the proceedings and warrants the quashing of the F.I.R. The Lahore High Court held that while section 21(1) of the Act requires a competent officer to initiate proceedings, the absence of explicit penal consequences for unauthorized investigation renders these provisions directory rather than mandatory. Applying the principle of legislation by reference through section 47 of the Act and section 156(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court concluded that irregularities or illegalities during an investigation or by an unauthorized officer do not vitiate the trial or provide grounds to quash an F.I.R. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 regarding the authorization of police officers are mandatory or directory?
  • Does an investigation conducted by a police officer not duly authorized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vitiate the proceedings?
  • Can the High Court quash an F.I.R. on the ground of an irregularity or illegality committed during the police investigation?
  • Are the provisions of section 156(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applicable to proceedings under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Khalil AhmadK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 315 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs (Mst.) Amanat BibiK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 54 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan alias Jana vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 210 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Abdul Qadir Shah and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 932 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Tarrar vs Justice Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, Acting Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan, BLOCK's, Secretariat, IslamabadK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 648 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and another vs Mst. Bashiran Bibi and 5 others1998 CLC 265 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-21
  specific performanceimmovable propertytime is of the essenceabandonment of contractwaiverearnest moneylimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The trial court had dismissed the suit, concluding that the appellants failed to perform their contractual obligations by not appearing before the Sub-Registrar to execute the sale deed. The core legal questions were whether time was of the essence in the contract and whether the appellants had abandoned their rights due to delay in filing the suit. The High Court held that in contracts for the sale of immovable property, time is not of the essence unless explicitly stipulated, and the respondent failed to prove abandonment or waiver. The Court found that the appellants had paid a substantial portion of the consideration, and the respondent failed to demonstrate prejudice from the delay. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment, ruling that mere delay, short of the statutory limitation period, does not disentitle a plaintiff to specific performance. The key principle laid down is that specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property can be granted even after the expiry of the period fixed in the contract, provided the delay does not infer abandonment or waiver.

  Questions settled

  • Is time considered of the essence in contracts for the sale of immovable property in the absence of an express stipulation?
  • Does delay in filing a suit for specific performance, if within the limitation period, automatically constitute abandonment of the contract?
  • Can a court grant specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property after the expiry of the period fixed in the contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique alias Laddu vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1425 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Alias Laddu Versus vs The State1998 KLR Criminal cases 124 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 934 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Ghulam Murtaza1998 MLD 292 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-18
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadstatutory noticeco-sharerrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner claiming a right of pre-emption regarding the sale of agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit upon finding that the petitioner failed to duly establish the requisite Talb-i-Muwathibat (immediate demand), and the lower appellate court affirmed this decision. The core legal questions before the Lahore High Court were whether the petitioner successfully proved the making of Talb-i-Muwathibat in the requisite sitting or meeting (Majlis) and whether Talb-i-Ishhad was legally established without proving the receipt of the statutory notice by the vendee. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove both Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad, noting that the oral testimony regarding the immediate demand was an afterthought and that the mere issuance of a notice without proving its delivery or postal receipt did not satisfy the legal requirements. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that the failure to fulfill these mandatory statutory demands extinguishes the right of pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to establish Talb-i-Muwathibat extinguishes the right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
  • Is the mere production of a statutory notice for Talb-i-Ishhad sufficient without proving its receipt by the vendee?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be maintained without fulfilling the mandatory requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Tarrar vs Justice Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, Acting Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan and 6 others1998 PLD Lahore 461 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-09
  presidential electionnomination papersjudicial reviewdisqualificationlegislation by referenceconstitutional interpretationreturning officerouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional matter concerns the rejection of nomination papers for the Office of the President of Pakistan by the Acting Chief Election Commissioner. The core legal questions were whether the Returning Officer could apply disqualification criteria under Article 63 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to a presidential candidate, and whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to review this decision. The Court held that the Returning Officer acted in excess of jurisdiction. It established that Article 63 is inapplicable to presidential candidates, as Article 41(2) only incorporates qualifications under Article 62. The Court further ruled that under the principle of "legislation by reference," subsequent amendments to Article 63 cannot be retroactively applied to Article 41(2). Additionally, the Court affirmed that its power of judicial review under Article 199 remains exercisable against orders that are void, without jurisdiction, or mala fide, notwithstanding constitutional ouster clauses. Consequently, the Court declared the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers to be without lawful authority and confirmed his eligibility.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Returning Officer apply disqualification criteria under Article 63 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to a candidate for the Office of the President?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction under Article 199 to review an order of the Returning Officer regarding the rejection of nomination papers for the presidential election?
  • Are the concepts of qualification and disqualification interchangeable under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the principle of legislation by reference mean that subsequent amendments to a referred statute do not apply to the referring statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Tarar vs Mr. Justice Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, Acting Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan. Islamabad and 6 others1998 PLD Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12
  Presidential electionnomination papersdisqualificationjudicial reviewjurisdictional errorinterim reliefconstitutional petitionReturning Officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for the office of the President of Pakistan by the Returning Officer/Chief Election Commissioner, who cited disqualification under Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions concern whether the Returning Officer correctly applied disqualification criteria to a Presidential candidate and whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to intervene in the election process despite the bar in Article 41(6) of the Constitution. The Court confirmed the interim order allowing the petitioner to participate in the election, holding that while Article 41(6) generally bars questioning election validity, the Court retains jurisdiction to intervene if an action is patently illegal, void, or suffers from jurisdictional error. The Court observed that qualifications under Article 62 and disqualifications under Article 63 are distinct concepts, and the Returning Officer likely erred in applying the latter to the nomination. Consequently, the Court permitted the petitioner to participate in the election, declining to restrain the notification of results, as the election process must proceed within the constitutionally mandated timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review an election-related order if the action is alleged to be patently illegal or without jurisdiction?
  • Are the qualifications for a Presidential candidate and the disqualifications of a Member of Parliament distinct legal concepts?
  • Can a Returning Officer reject a Presidential nomination based on disqualification criteria applicable to Members of Parliament?
  • Should a court restrain the notification of election results while a challenge to a candidate's nomination is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq alias Kukoo and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 299 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs Divisional Engineer Phone, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 166 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kahuta, District Rawalpindi and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kahuta, District Rawalpindi And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 192 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others vs State1998 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-07
  criminal appealcompounding of offencecompromiselegal heirsacquittalhomicideforgiveness
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant, Muhammad Nawaz Shah, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of two individuals, Syed Nau Bahar Shah and Waryam, alongside convictions for causing injuries to others. The core legal question was whether the court could accept a compromise (compounding of the offence) reached between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased, given that the heirs had forgiven the accused in the name of Allah and submitted verified affidavits to that effect. The Court, upon verifying the presence and statements of the legal heirs and the injured witnesses, accepted the compromise. The ratio of the decision is that where legal heirs of the deceased have voluntarily forgiven the accused and confirmed this before the Court, the conviction may be set aside. The key principle laid down is that the compounding of offences, particularly in homicide cases, is permissible upon the valid and verified consent of the legal heirs of the deceased, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be set aside based on a compromise reached with the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • Is the verification of affidavits by legal heirs in open court sufficient to establish a valid compromise for the purpose of acquittal?
  • Does the forgiveness of the accused by the legal heirs of the deceased warrant the immediate release of the convict?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and another vs The State1998 MLD 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and another vs S.H.O., Police Station Garh1998 P Cr. L J 1512 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 4 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir Khan vs The District and Sessions Judge, Khanewal1998 PLC (C.S.) 254 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 292 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Khan and another vs Mst. Amir Begum1998 MLD 57 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadir Khan vs S.H.O. Police Station Chunian District, Kasur, EtcK.L.R. 1998 Criminal. Cases 163 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs The State1998 MLD 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19
  rash and negligent drivingbailQatl-bis-Sababdriving licenseprohibitory clausepenal interpretationprolonged detention
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought bail in a case registered under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a fatal road accident. The prosecution contended that the petitioner was driving without a license and that the offence constituted Qatl-bis-Sabab under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thus opposing bail. The Lahore High Court held that the case prima facie fell under Section 320, which is a bailable offence. The Court clarified that the absence of a driving license does not convert an offence of rash and negligent driving into a more serious charge, as the gravamen of the offence is the negligent act itself, not the possession of a license. Furthermore, the Court observed that even if Section 322 were applicable, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making bail the rule rather than the exception. Given the petitioner’s prolonged detention exceeding one year without trial conclusion, the Court admitted him to bail, emphasizing that penal statutes should be interpreted in favour of the accused in cases of ambiguity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a driving license convert an offence of rash and negligent driving into a more serious charge?
  • Is an offence under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable?
  • Does an offence punishable only by Diyat fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does prolonged detention without the conclusion of a trial entitle an accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs The State, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 479 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad N'Azir and 4 otherss vs Ali Sher and 4 others1998 CLC 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mirza Khan Talpur vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 22 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansoor vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 636 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2017 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha vs Muhammad Abdur RazzaqK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 186 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha Saleemi vs Administrator, Zila Council/Deputy1998 CLC 670 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Luqman Hashmi vs Secretary, Government of the Punjab.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 158 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Director, Health Services, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 230 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and others vs S.H.O. and others1998 MLD 2050 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khurram Ijaz vs Punjab University1998 CLC 327 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khawar vs Chairman, Pakistan Railway1998 MLD 1579 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Mst. Rasool Bibi1998 MLD 1591 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kabir and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jawwad Ali vs Vice-Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 549 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs S.H.O. and others1998 P Cr. L J 1718 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel Qureshi vs DIG, Multan And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 277 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs District Education Officer, Lodhran and 4 others1998 CLC 1529 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque alias Baig vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1110 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-13
  grave and sudden provocationghairatfamily honourmurderreduction of sentenceillicit relationscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Ishaq alias Baig, who was tried and convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Yousaf by the Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur, and sentenced to life imprisonment along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case was that the appellant stabbed the deceased multiple times with a Chhuri due to a suspicion that the deceased was having illicit relations with the appellant's sister, Mst. Nargis. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were justified or whether a lesser penalty was warranted given that the appellant acted under 'Ghairat' (grave and sudden provocation relating to family honour). The High Court held that the appellant indeed acted under 'Ghairat' and altered the conviction from section 302(b) to section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence of life imprisonment to five years' rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the compensation order with a modification regarding default imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that offences committed under the influence of 'Ghairat' or grave and sudden provocation concerning family honour and chastity are to be dealt with leniently, warranting a substantially reduced sentence compared to ordinary premeditated murders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who commits murder under the influence of 'Ghairat' due to suspected illicit relations involving a family member is entitled to a reduced sentence?
  • Can a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to section 302(c) in cases involving grave and sudden provocation?
  • Whether compensation awarded under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be maintained while reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Mst. Bashiran Bibi and 2 others1998 MLD 272 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 494 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →