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 Iqbal and others vs State1998 MLD 201 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 3 others vs Mst. Rehmat Bibi through Legal Heirs1998 CLC 11 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-17
  rejection of plaintpre-emption suitpersonal lawmixed questions of law and factinterregnum periodcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a trial court's rejection of a plaint in a pre-emption suit concerning land sold in 1988, filed during a period when no statutory pre-emption law was in force. The core legal question was whether the plaint could be summarily rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, based on grounds not raised in the written statement, and whether the suit, filed during the interregnum between the repeal of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 and the promulgation of the 1990 Ordinance, was governed by Personal Law. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint on grounds not pleaded in the written statement and that issues regarding the maintainability of the suit, the necessity of demands (Talabs), and the heritability of the right of pre-emption were mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence. The Court affirmed the remand order, emphasizing that such matters cannot be decided summarily without framing issues and recording evidence. The principle laid down is that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on grounds not agitated in the written statement, especially when the issues involved are mixed questions of law and fact.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on grounds not raised in the written statement?
  • Are suits for pre-emption filed during the period between the repeal of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 and the promulgation of the 1990 Ordinance governed by Personal Law?
  • Should issues concerning the maintainability of a suit, the necessity of demands, and the heritability of the right of pre-emption be decided as preliminary issues or through evidence?
  • Does the decision of a District or Additional District Judge have binding precedent value for a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inayat And Other vs Muhammad Aslam And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inayat and 7 others vs Muhammad Aslam and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 344 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas, Deputy Superintendent, Reliefdepartment Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore vs Secretary to Govt. of Punjab S&Ga Department Lahore,EtcK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 64 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Secrltary to Government, Punjab, S&Ga1998 PLC (C.S.) 36 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas and 4 others vs Muhammad and another1998 MLD 1600 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iltaf vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 444 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs Khan Muhammad and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 938 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain alias Tedi vs State1998 MLD 1640 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain alias Kali vs State1998 MLD 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez vs The Zila Council Gujranwala through ItsK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 154 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habib vs Muhammad Siddique and 16 others1998 CLC 417 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Eisa vs Musa and 6 others1998 PLD Lahore 326 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal and 3 otherss vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1998 CLC 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 897 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Province of Punjab and others1998 PLD Lahore 263 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Basharat vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 216 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1896 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh, Etc. vs Mehar Aziz Ullah, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 309 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim vs District Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1123 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 175 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azad Khan vs Talib Hussain1998 MLD 1077 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayyub vs The State and others1998 P Cr. L J 1972 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asmatullah vs D.C., Sargodha and others1998 MLD 1977 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asmat vs (Mst.) Surriya Kausar And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 593 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asmat Ullah alias Muhammad Asmat vs Mst. Suraya Kausar1998 CLC 295 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam. Etc. vs (Mst.) Fazal Bibi. Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 318 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Zafar Hussain, Judicial Magistrate, PattokiK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 210 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Zafar Hussain Judicial Magistrate And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 439 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 522 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Ghulam Hussain and others1998 PLD Lahore 488 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Assistant Commissioner_Collector, Khanpur, District Rahimyarkhan and 4 others1998 CLC 1596 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12
  revenue mutationdelivery of possessioncivil suit pendencyjurisdiction of revenue authoritiestemporary injunctionconstitutional petitionland revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Khanpur, directing the delivery of possession of agricultural land to the respondents, Mst. Salima Bibi and her son, based on revenue mutations, despite a pending civil suit between the parties regarding the title and possession of the same land. The core legal question was whether a Revenue Officer possesses the lawful authority to order the dispossession of a party and transfer possession to another based solely on mutation entries while a civil suit concerning the title and possession is actively pending. The Court held that the impugned order was patently illegal. It established the principle that Revenue Authorities lack the jurisdiction to independently order the delivery of possession of land to a party merely on the basis of mutation entries. Such authorities may only act to deliver possession in execution of a decree or order passed by a competent court. Consequently, the Court set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and directed the restoration of the status quo ante regarding possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Revenue Officer or Collector order the delivery of possession of land to a party based solely on mutation entries while a civil suit regarding the title is pending?
  • Do Revenue Authorities have the independent power to execute possession of land without a decree or order from a competent court?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an illegal order of a Revenue Officer even if an alternate remedy might exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Cheema vs University of the Punjab, through ViceK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 109 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs Municipal Committee and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 93 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and another vs Muhammad Hayat1998 PLD Lahore 165 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The StateK.L.R. 1998.Criminal Cases 135 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 322 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq and others vs Tauqir Shahid and others1998 PLD Lahore 444 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaque vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1843 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq-Ur-Rehman vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 35) · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asam Cheema vs University of the Punjab through Vice-1998 CLC 5 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-01
  grace marksexamination in partsUniversity of the Punjab Regulationsproviso interpretationstatutory interpretationwrit petitionsupplementary examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of five writ petitions filed by LL.B/FEL candidates of the University of the Punjab seeking directions for the grant of grace marks under Regulation 4 to make up deficiencies in aggregate marks. The matter was placed before the Division Bench due to conflicting Single Bench decisions on the applicability of grace marks. The core legal question was whether a candidate who appears in an examination in parts or in supplementary chances is entitled to the award of grace marks under the amended Regulation 4. The High Court analyzed the statutory regulation as amended on 12-3-1975, focusing on its third proviso, which explicitly prohibits the award of grace marks to candidates who appear in examinations in parts. The Court held that a proviso functions as a mandatory limitation or exception to the enacting provision, and the word 'any' expands its scope. Since all petitioners had appeared in supplementary attempts (in parts), their claims were barred by the third proviso. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether candidates who appear in university examinations in parts are entitled to the award of grace marks under Regulation 4 of the University of the Punjab Regulations?
  • What is the statutory scope and function of a proviso appended to a legislative enactment or regulation?
  • Does the third proviso to Regulation 4 of the University of the Punjab Regulations bar the grant of grace marks to candidates appearing in supplementary attempts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asad Ullah vs Vice Chancellor, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 CivU Cases 170 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 317 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs State1998 MLD 1648 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Javaid vs Deputy Commissioner Faisalabad, And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 61 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif alias Appo vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 271 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State-d1998 P Cr. L J 304 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Zubair Asif and 4 others1998 MLD 617 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Dr. Ghulam Murtaza and 5 others1998 PLD Lahore 223 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1998 MLD 978 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 675 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 285 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Raheem Bakhsh And Other(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 37) · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Raheem Bakhsh and 7 others1998 MLD 413 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Pakistan Railways and others1998 PLC 76 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameer vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 33 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameer and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1960 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen vs The AteK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 115 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 508 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 822 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram, A.S.I. and others vs Ahmad Mubarak Ahmad, Superintendent of Police, Layyah and others1998 PLD Lahore 211 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 451 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1693 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12
  criminal appealmurdercommon intentionidentification paradesecondary evidenceballistic reportbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Punjab Special Court convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a jail superintendent. The core legal questions involve the reliability of an identification parade conducted without the original report, the admissibility of secondary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence such as weapon recovery and ballistic reports. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural flaws regarding the identification parade, failure to produce the original report under Article 76(c) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and unproven weapon recoveries. The court laid down that secondary evidence of an identification parade is inadmissible without satisfying statutory prerequisites for the loss of the original document, and that procedural lapses in handling crime empties and failure to produce serologist reports benefit the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether secondary evidence of an identification parade report is admissible when the original is not produced and no foundation is laid under Article 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when eyewitnesses did not know the accused prior to the incident and identification proceedings are legally flawed?
  • Does the failure to produce a serologist report regarding blood-stained earth weaken the prosecution case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the weapon is not attributed to the accused as the actual murder weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar alias Goo Pehlwan and another vs The State1998 MLD 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Muhammad CharaghK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 114 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 371 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad and otherss vs Associate Engineering Concern1998 CLC 426 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-30
  winding upcompanies ordinanceshare registerlocus standicoercion and duresssummary proceedingsfamily dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, claiming to be contributors and shareholders of a family-owned private company, sought its winding up under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, alleging that the management had been forcibly taken over by respondent No.2 through coercion, duress, and extortion, and that the substratum of the company had gone. The respondents contested the petition, asserting that the petitioners had voluntarily resigned and transferred their shareholdings pursuant to a family settlement, and thus lacked locus standi as their names no longer appeared on the company's share register. The Lahore High Court addressed the core questions of whether a person whose name does not appear on the company's register can maintain a winding-up petition, and whether complex factual questions regarding coercion and duress can be determined in summary company proceedings. The Court held that title to shares is prima facie based on entries in the company's share register, and since the petitioners' names were removed, they could not maintain the winding-up petition until their title was restored. Furthermore, allegations of coercion and duress involve complex questions of fact and law requiring elaborate inquiry and evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, but must be pursued in a court of plenary civil jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a shareholder whose name does not appear on the register of the company can maintain a petition for winding up?
  • Can complex questions of fact and law regarding coercion and duress in the transfer of shares be determined in summary proceedings under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Is a share certificate conclusive evidence of title to shares at a later date when the share register reflects a transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Province of Punjab and others1998 MLD 628 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan vs Muhammad Zahoor1998 CLC 1935 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 64 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah and others vs S.H.O., Police Station Jalla Arain, District Lodhran and others1998 MLD 1633 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Adeel Akhtar and others1998 MLD 2030 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas and another vs The State1998 MLD 1215 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhamad Nawaz And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 352 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-13Read full judgment →
• Muh Ammad Aram vs Zafar Hussain, Judicial Magistrate, Pattoki, District Kasur and 5 others1998 PLD Lahore 228 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mufti-Ul-Qamar Shahzad and another vs Government of Punjab1998 PLC (C.S.) 592 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Ahmad Alias Mubashri vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 206 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muazzam Nazir Chanda vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1998 CLC 627 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-01Read full judgment →
• Mst.. Manzooran Bibi vs Khan Muhammad and 2 others1998 CLC 1929 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26
  dissolution of marriageKhula'hateful unionfamily courtreconciliationmatrimonial disputefixed aversionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the District Court, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner sought dissolution on various grounds, including Khula', but the lower courts denied the relief because she failed to substantiate allegations regarding misappropriation of dowry and the respondent's character. The core legal question was whether a wife's failure to prove specific grounds for divorce precludes her from obtaining a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula'. The High Court held that the right to Khula' is an independent right. It established that a wife is not required to provide objective reasons for her aversion if she is adamant that reconciliation is impossible and that the parties cannot live within the limits prescribed by Allah. The Court ruled that forcing a wife to remain in a marriage where she has a fixed aversion constitutes a hateful union. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the marriage was dissolved on the basis of Khula' due to the irremediable rift between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a wife's failure to prove specific allegations of cruelty or misappropriation of property disentitle her to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula'?
  • Is the right of a wife to seek dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula' an independent right?
  • Must a wife provide objective, logical reasons for seeking dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula'?
  • Can a court refuse a decree for Khula' when evidence indicates that the parties cannot live together within the limits prescribed by Allah?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeenat Bibi and anothers vs Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur1998 CLC 47 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Begum and another vs Saeed Yousaf Sheikh and another1998 CLC 55 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-23
  specific performanceconditional decreeequitable jurisdictionrescission of contractreadiness and willingnessdiscretionary reliefCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a conditional decree for the specific performance of a sale agreement concerning a residential property. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the authority to impose a condition in a decree for specific performance, stipulating that the suit shall stand dismissed if the balance sale price is not deposited by a specified date. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court acted within its legal competence. The Court affirmed that while Order 20, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not strictly govern specific performance decrees, courts exercising equitable jurisdiction may impose conditions to safeguard a vendor's interest. It was held that a court may validly stipulate that a contract stands rescinded and the suit dismissed upon failure to deposit the balance price by the appointed date, constituting a formal rescission under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The judgment emphasizes that the discretionary nature of specific performance requires plaintiffs to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness, and persistent failure to deposit funds justifies dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court impose a condition in a decree for specific performance that the suit shall stand dismissed if the balance sale price is not deposited by a specified date?
  • Does the failure to deposit the balance sale price by the date fixed in a conditional decree for specific performance result in the rescission of the contract?
  • Is a court empowered to dismiss a suit for specific performance if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their obligations?
  • Does Order 20, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to decrees for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Umri vs Ghulam Rasool and 2 others1998 CLC 291 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taj Mai alias Tajo vs The State1998 MLD 2017 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taj Begum vs The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Local1998 PLC (C.S.) 480 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Khatoon vs S.H.O., Factory Area, Sargodha1998 P Cr. L J 1029 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughran and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Bano vs Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Education and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 337 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shameema Khatoon and 8 otherss - vs Haji Murad Ali and 10 others1998 CLC 653 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaheena Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control (Interior Division), Islamabad and 12 others1998 PLD Lahore 266 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabana Hussain vs Shafaqat Hussain and others1998 MLD 365 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 819 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Parveen vs Ashiq Ali and 3 others1998 PLD Lahore 3 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-19
  bail cancellationgang rapefurther inquiryconflicting police investigationsOffence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the complainant, Mst. Sajida Parveen, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons (Ashiq Ali, Muhammad Afzal, Arif Ali, and Muhammad Khaliq) charged under sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether bail was rightly granted to the accused based on conflicting police investigation reports and a purported oath taken by the accused. The Lahore High Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in granting and refusing to cancel the bail based on faulty reasoning, noting that conflicting police opinions or reliance on extra-judicial oaths do not constitute valid grounds for further inquiry under section 497, Cr.P.C., especially given the heinous nature of the gang rape alleged and recent statutory amendments carrying the death penalty for such acts. The petitions were accepted and the bails granted to the respondents were cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conflicting investigation reports by police officers constitute a sufficient ground for further inquiry to grant bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an Investigating Officer legally decide the fate of a criminal case on the basis of an oath or Nian taken by the accused?
  • Whether bail once granted to accused persons in a heinous offence like gang rape can be cancelled when the trial court's reasoning for granting bail is faulty?
  • Does the commission of Zina-bil-Jabr liable to Ta'zir by two or more persons in furtherance of common intention attract capital punishment following statutory amendments?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadiqa Shafi vs SQN. LDR. (Retd.) Naveed Najum Aud OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 347 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadiqa Shafi vs Sqn. Ldr. (Retd.) Naveed Najum and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 1106 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →