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.

• Noor Muhammad Qureshi vs Ms. Benazir Bhutto And Other1997 CLC 1913 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-31Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad And Another vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Manorities Affairs Division, Islamabad And Another1997 MLD 416 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-07Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad alias Noora vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 843 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
• Nishat Group of Industries And Another vs Chairman, N.I.R.C. And Another1997 PLC 622 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07
  unfair labour practiceNIRC jurisdictionworkman definitioninterim injunctionconstitutional petitionmaster and servantreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition was filed by a group of industries and its Director Administration challenging an interim order passed by the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) suspending the termination and transfer orders of the second respondent, who served as a Deputy Manager (Administration). The core legal question was whether an employee holding a managerial post and drawing a high salary, who was not a worker or workman and against whom no allegation of unfair labour practice qua the employer existed, could maintain a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether interim reinstatement could be ordered prior to a finding of guilt. The Lahore High Court held that the proceedings before the N.I.R.C. were coram non judice and without jurisdiction, as unfair labour practice must be qua the worker and the employee's own pleadings showed he was an administrative officer dealing with labour unions rather than a workman, and further held that an interim order of reinstatement cannot be granted before a final determination of guilt. The petition was accepted with costs, setting aside the impugned interim order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee serving as a Deputy Manager (Administration) falls within the definition of a workman or worker under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can the National Industrial Relations Commission grant an interim order of reinstatement under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, prior to a final finding of guilt?
  • Does a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, lie in the absence of any allegation of unfair labour practice against an employee?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained directly against an interim order of the National Industrial Relations Commission when the proceedings are coram non judice and without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad And Others vs The State1997 MLD 2575 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Nighat Sultana vs Nasir Aziz1997 MLD 2403 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-28Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad vs Mst. Noori1997 MLD 406 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-07
  res judicatacivil revisionabuse of processdiscretionary reliefmala fidesecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a judgment and decree dated 14-1-1980 passed by the District Judge, Kasur, which had set aside the dismissal of the respondent's suit for declaration regarding a disputed mutation. The core legal question centered on whether the revision petition was barred by the principle of res judicata and amounted to an abuse of the court's process, given that a prior Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A. No.341 of 1980) filed by the same petitioner had been dismissed and attained finality, and whether discretionary relief could be granted to a party acting with mala fides. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's conduct was mala fide, fraudulent, and aimed at prolonging proceedings, and that the principles underlying res judicata and the prevention of abuse of process applied to bar the re-litigation. The Court laid down the principle that the remedy of revision is a discretionary relief which will be denied to a litigant who approaches the court with unclean hands and attempts multiple, overlapping proceedings to vex the opposite party.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a prior regular second appeal operate to bar a subsequent civil revision petition on the same matter between the same parties?
  • Is a civil revision petition maintainable when filed by a petitioner who has already pursued alternative remedies up to the Supreme Court with mala fide intent?
  • Can discretionary relief in revision be refused to a party who approaches the court with unclean hands?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali vs Secretary Industries And Other1997 MLD 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-02Read full judgment →
• Nek Muhammad vs Judicial Magistrate Section 30, P.S. Saddar, Lodhran And Another1997 MLD 1325 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-17Read full judgment →
• Nazir Masih vs The State1997 MLD 48 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Shahid And 3 Other1997 MLD 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-08Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Khalid Pervaiz And 4 Other1997 MLD 2077 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-28Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 538 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• Nawaz And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1519 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-04Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Afzal Khan vs The State1997 MLD 2145 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-01Read full judgment →
• Nasir vs Superintendent, District Jail, Kasur and others1997 P Cr. L J 2020 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-03Read full judgment →
• Nasir Khan vs The State1997 MLD 1473 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-24Read full judgment →
• Nasir Khan vs Mushtaq Khan1997 P Cr. L J 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ashfaq & Co. vs Government of the Punjab And 3 Other1997 CLC 69 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad Rana vs Dr. Bashir Ahmad Rana, Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 125 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-24Read full judgment →
• Naeem Jaffar vs Senior Superintendent of Police And 2 Other1997 MLD 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-15
  quashment of FIRconstitutional petitionpolice investigationtrial court jurisdictionalternate remedyabuse of process of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 seeking the quashment of a first information report registered under sections 399, 401, and 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction or inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash a criminal case where a challan has already been submitted and the matter is ripe for trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that once a police investigation is complete and a challan is submitted, it is the exclusive domain of the trial court to evaluate evidence and determine guilt or innocence, and the constitutional jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass regular trial procedures or alternate remedies such as acquittal under section 249-A or section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not prematurely interfere with criminal proceedings or usurp the functions of the trial court through constitutional petitions when adequate statutory remedies exist within the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a first information report be quashed through a constitutional petition when the challan has been submitted and the case is ripe for trial?
  • Whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can be used as an alternate remedy to bypass regular trial proceedings?
  • What is the scope of section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in preventing the abuse of the process of the court?
  • At what stage can Magistrates and Sessions Courts acquit an accused person under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if no case is made out?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Hayat Khan and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2034 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-04Read full judgment →
• Nadar Ali vs Mst. Hussain Bibi And 5 Other1997 CLC 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bakhsh vs The State1997 MLD 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Nabeela Anjum vs Rana Muhammad Azam and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
• M/s. Prime Commercial Bank and others vs Assistant Commissioner of1997 PTD 605 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-13
  withholding taxcall deposit receiptsincome taxstatutory interpretationtaxing statutebanking companieswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of writ petitions filed by banking companies challenging notices issued by respondents requiring them to deduct withholding tax on call deposit receipts issued by them under section 50(2-B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether section 50(2-B) authorized the deduction of withholding tax on call deposit receipts prior to the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 1996. The Lahore High Court held that section 50(2-B) applied strictly to instruments involving a transfer of money from one person to another, and did not cover call deposit receipts issued without such transfer during the relevant period. The court laid down the principle that taxing provisions must be interpreted strictly, and where two interpretations are possible, the one favorable to the subject must be adopted. Furthermore, subsequent substantive amendments expanding the scope of a charging provision are presumed to alter the law rather than merely clarify it unless expressly given retrospective effect. Consequently, the petitions were allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 50(2-B) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 apply to call deposit receipts issued without a transfer of money from one person to another?
  • Whether subsequent amendments to a fiscal statute can be construed as retrospective and clarificatory without explicit legislative intent?
  • Which interpretation is to be adopted when a taxing provision is susceptible to two plausible constructions?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Nasir Metal Crafts (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Chief Executive vs Zasha1997 MLD 1910 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-24Read full judgment →
• M/s. Flying Board & Paper Products, Lahore vs Central Board Of Revenue,PTCL 1997 CL. 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muzaffar Khan vs Station House Officer, Police Station Kala Bagh, Tehsil Esa Khel, District Mianwali and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mustafa vs The State1997 MLD 2443 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Staff Union of Pakistan (C.B.A.) Through Authorised Representative vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad1997 PLC 771 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Staff Union of Pakistan (C.B.A.) through Authorised Representative vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and another1997 PLC 771 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 others1997 PTD 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-15Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Pakistan Cricket Board And 2 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 921 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-12
  master and servanttermination simpliciterconstitutional petitionnatural justicereinstatementstatutory corporationwrongful termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two Constitutional petitions challenging the termination of services of employees by the Pakistan Cricket Board. The core legal question was whether the termination of services, effected without prior notice in an employment relationship governed by the law of master and servant, was legally sustainable and whether such employees could invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for reinstatement. The Court held that since the petitioners' employment was not governed by statutory rules, the relationship was strictly one of master and servant. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners could not seek reinstatement through Constitutional petitions, as their only available remedy for wrongful termination was a suit for damages in a Civil Court. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that in cases of 'termination simpliciter'—where services are dispensed with without casting any stigma on the employee's conduct, integrity, or efficiency—the requirement of prior notice or hearing is not attracted, particularly when the termination aligns with the terms of the appointment letter.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee whose services are governed by the law of master and servant seek reinstatement through a Constitutional petition?
  • Is the rule of prior notice or hearing applicable in cases of termination simpliciter where no stigma is cast upon the employee?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for an employee whose services have been terminated in violation of the terms of employment in a master-servant relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Mst. Zarina and others1997 P Cr. L J 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Mailsi, District Vehari1997 MLD 428 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Murtaza vs The State1997 MLD 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
• Mureed Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
• Munshi vs The State1997 MLD 2553 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-10Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1521 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Haider vs Government of Pakistan And 4 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 739 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-13Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz alias Naza vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1624 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs S.P., District Mandi Bahauddin And Another1997 MLD 1754 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Hussain And 5 Others vs Fateh Bevi1997 CLC 1622 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs The Principal, Hailey College of Commerce, University of the Punjab1997 MLD 946 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq vs Deputy District Education Officer, Tehsil1997 PLC (C. S.) 927 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar Iqbal vs The State and others1097 P Cr. L J 959 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi1997 PLC (C.S.) 852 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-28
  constitutional jurisdictionmaintainabilityactive servicecivilian employeesmilitary organizationservice conditionsPakistan Army Actouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civilian employee of the Special Communication Organisation, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction to the respondents to clarify the service rules applicable to civilian employees and to decide on his pending representation. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. The Court examined whether it possessed jurisdiction over the matter given the petitioner's employment status. The Court held that because the petitioner was a civilian on 'active service' within a military organization, he was subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. Consequently, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition due to the express bar contained in Article 199(3) of the Constitution, which prohibits the High Court from issuing orders regarding the terms and conditions of service for persons subject to laws relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to adjudicate service matters of civilian employees subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  • Are civilian employees of the Special Communication Organisation considered persons subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 while on active service?
  • What is the effect of Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 on petitions filed by persons subject to laws relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Iqbal and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 2085 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Inspectorgeneral of Police and 4 others1997 PLD Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-23
  first information reportpolice investigationextra-judicial killingconstitutional jurisdictionfundamental rightsdistrict magistratepolice rulesmalafide investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Yousaf concerning the alleged lackadaisical investigation by police into the murder of his son. The core legal questions involve the statutory and constitutional obligations of police and administrative authorities regarding crime registration, investigation standards, prevention of extra-judicial abuses, and the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that the police are under a mandatory statutory obligation to register cognizable offenses without preliminary inquiries, and that superior courts possess the constitutional authority under Article 199 to intervene where police investigations are mala fide, without jurisdiction, or violate fundamental rights. The court emphasized that the District Magistrate exercises general control over the local criminal administration and that police must adhere strictly to statutory duties, respect civil liberties, and avoid extra-judicial actions. The petition was disposed of with directions to local authorities to ensure a faithful investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police officer under a statutory obligation to register a first information report upon receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence without conducting a preliminary inquiry?
  • What are the supervisory and administrative powers of a District Magistrate over the local police force under the Police Rules, 1934?
  • When can the High Court interfere in police investigation proceedings under its constitutional jurisdiction conferred by Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the police have the authority to conduct re-investigations or resort to extra-judicial measures during criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1997 CLC 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The Board of Intermediate & Secondary1997 CLC 587 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-17
  bogus certificatematriculation examinationconcurrent findingsrevision petitioneducational malpracticeshow-cause noticeresult gazette
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a suit for declaration asserting that he had passed his Matriculation Examination and obtained a valid certificate from the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan. Upon verification by the petitioner's employer, the Board declared the certificate bogus, leading to the petitioner's dismissal. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently dismissed the petitioner's suit, finding the certificate to be fraudulent based on official result gazettes and statements. In this revision petition, the petitioner argued that the Board could not quash the result after four years under Regulation No. 18 and that a show-cause notice was required. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the Board never actually cancelled a valid result but rather identified a forged document. The Court held that since the certificate was never genuinely issued, the procedural requirements for cancellation of a valid result were inapplicable. The revision petition was dismissed, and the Court directed the Board to conduct an inquiry into how the bogus certificate was issued.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement for a show-cause notice apply when an educational board identifies a certificate as bogus rather than cancelling a previously valid result?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be challenged in a revision petition absent misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Is a result gazette and statement of failure considered conclusive proof of a candidate's failure in an examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs S.H.O., P.S. Cantt., Multan1997 MLD 1483 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Muhammad Hanif and others1997 P Cr. L J 1626 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03
  acquittalsection 249-A Cr.P.C.competency of appealdelay in prosecutionlimitation periodcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the complainant under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the order of the Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Jaranwala, passed under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 419, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 due to non-production of evidence by the prosecution. The core legal questions involved the competency of an appeal under section 417 against an acquittal under section 249-A, the distinction between acquittals under section 245 and section 249-A, and the issue of limitation. The Lahore High Court held that an acquittal under section 249-A, passed without recording evidence, cannot be challenged via an appeal under section 417 because the appellate court cannot convert such an acquittal into a conviction, and that the proper remedy is a revision petition. The Court laid down the principle that orders under section 249-A are aimed at expediting trials and relieving under-trial prisoners from prolonged agony caused by prosecutorial delays, and appeals against them are not maintainable when the statutory limitation has expired and material facts have been suppressed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 competent against an order of acquittal passed under section 249-A without recording evidence?
  • What is the distinction between an order of acquittal passed under section 245 and one passed under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the appropriate remedy to challenge an order of acquittal passed under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a belated criminal appeal be maintained when the appellant has suppressed the material fact of previously filing a dismissal revision petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs District Magistrate, Kasur And Another1997 MLD 2211 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The State through Advocate-General1997 P Cr. L J 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs S.H.O., And Other1997 MLD 2097 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-28
  quashment of FIRabuse of process of lawcivil litigationagreement to sellforgerybar of cognizancemala fide registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed for the quashment of F.I.R. No. 666 of 1994 registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Factory Area, Sheikhupura. The core legal question was whether a criminal case and F.I.R. can be registered and investigated regarding a document (an agreement to sell) that has already been produced as evidence in pending civil litigation between the parties, in light of the bar contained in section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that where a document in question is already sub judice before a civil court in related litigation, taking cognizance or registering an F.I.R. regarding its alleged forgery without a written complaint from the concerned court violates the mandatory provisions of section 195(1)(c) and section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the key principle that initiating criminal proceedings over a matter already pending in a civil court constitutes an abuse of the process of law and mala fide, warranting quashment under the High Court's constitutional and inherent powers.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be registered for forgery of a document that has already been produced as evidence in a pending civil suit?
  • Does section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the police from investigating a document produced in court without a written complaint from that court?
  • Is the registration of a criminal case on the same subject matter as an ongoing civil suit considered an abuse of the process of law?
  • Does the High Court have the power to quash criminal proceedings launched with mala fide intentions while civil litigation is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1979 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-20
  Qatl-e-Khatacelebratory firingsifting grain from chaffinherent jurisdictionfraud vitiates proceedingsDiyatcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Ghulam Haider. On appeal, the Court examined whether the incident was intentional murder or accidental death resulting from celebratory firing. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove intent, instead finding the death was an accidental consequence of the appellant's firing during a Kabaddi match. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was set aside, and the appellant was convicted under Section 319, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-e-Khata. The Court sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and ordered payment of Diyat to the legal heirs who had not forgiven him. Additionally, the Court affirmed its inherent power to recall an acquittal order obtained through fraud, specifically the suppression of a legal heir during a compromise. The Court emphasized the duty to 'sift the grain from the chaff' in witness testimony, rejecting the application of the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.

  Questions settled

  • Does the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' apply to witness testimony in Pakistani courts?
  • Does a court have the inherent jurisdiction to recall an acquittal order obtained through the fraudulent suppression of a legal heir?
  • Can a death caused by celebratory firing be classified as Qatl-e-Khata under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waryam vs S.H.O. and others1997 P Cr. L J 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waryam And Others vs Superintending Canal Officer1997 MLD 403 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Mst. Fareelat alias Fareelat Bibi1997 PLD Lahore 728 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Mahmood and others vs Station House Officer, Police Station Millat Park, Lahore1997 P Cr. L J 758 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-20
  NikahWalisui jurisfreedom of choicemarriage validityF.I.R. quashmentwomen's rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the validity of an F.I.R. registered against them under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging that their marriage was invalid due to the lack of parental consent. The core legal question was whether an adult, sui juris woman can validly contract a marriage without the permission or presence of a Wali (guardian) under Islamic law and the Constitution of Pakistan. The Court held that the marriage was valid, emphasizing that Islam confers equal rights on women and that an adult woman is competent to choose her husband without a Wali's consent. The Court declared the F.I.R. to be without lawful authority, as no cognizable offence had been committed. The key principle laid down is that a sane, adult woman possesses the legal capacity to enter into a marriage contract of her own free will, and such a marriage is legally binding regardless of the absence of parental or guardian approval.

  Questions settled

  • Can an adult woman validly contract a marriage without the consent of her Wali?
  • Is a marriage performed by an adult woman of her own free will a cognizable offence under the law?
  • Does the Constitution of Pakistan prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex regarding the right to marry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir And 3 Others vs Ch. Nazir Ahmad1997 MLD 71 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tabarak vs Muhammad Asghar And 3 Other1997 MLD 1172 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The Additional District Judge, Kasur And 21997 MLD 556 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Tariq Mahmood Alam Khan and 3 others1997 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Mansha and others1997 PLD Lahore 428 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Government of Punjab, Agriculture1997 PLC (C.S.) 268 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs District Magistrate, Lahore And 3 Other1997 MLD 588 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Abdul Wakeel And Another1997 MLD 2070 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The Superintendent of District Jail, Multan And 31997 MLD 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1997 MLD 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Station House Officer, Police Station, City, Hafizabad and anothers1997 PLD Lahore 692 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-30
  quashment of F.I.R.anti-corruption establishmentjurisdiction of local policescheduled offencespublic servantcriminal misconductPunjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions were filed for the quashment of two First Information Reports (F.I.Rs.) registered against the petitioner, a Head Constable, at local police stations under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, along with section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code in one of the cases. The core legal question was whether local police under the administrative control of the District Superintendent of Police have the jurisdiction to register and investigate corruption cases against public servants, or if such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Anti-Corruption Establishment under special legislation. The Lahore High Court held that the registration and investigation of scheduled anti-corruption offences against public servants must be conducted exclusively by the Anti-Corruption Establishment pursuant to the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 and the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, rather than by the local police. The court laid down the principle that where special laws and rules prescribe a specific manner and procedure for handling corruption offences involving public servants, local police have no jurisdiction to register or investigate such cases, and any such proceedings initiated by them are without lawful authority and liable to be quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether local police under the administrative control of a District Superintendent of Police are competent to register and investigate corruption cases against public servants?
  • Do the provisions of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 supersede general police procedures regarding the registration of scheduled anti-corruption offences?
  • Can an F.I.R. for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 be validly registered at a local police station instead of an Anti-Corruption Establishment police station?
  • Whether prior preliminary inquiry and written orders by the designated officers of the Anti-Corruption Establishment are mandatory before registering a criminal case against a public servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammd Yousaf And Other1997 CLC 883 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham vs The State1997 MLD 1413 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham vs Muhammad Sarwar And Other1997 CLC 1231 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-14
  specific performancelimitation periodbona fide purchaseragreement to sellnotice of refusalrevisional jurisdictionproprietary rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner-plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 27-5-1960 regarding a property for which he had paid the full consideration and obtained possession. The vendors subsequently sold the property to a third party (respondent No. 3) after obtaining proprietary rights. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit, citing limitation and the bona fide purchaser status of the subsequent vendee. The High Court, in revision, reversed these findings. The Court held that where an agreement to sell does not specify a fixed date for performance—contingent instead on the issuance of proprietary rights—the limitation period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, runs from the date the plaintiff has notice of the refusal of performance, not from the date the proprietary rights were issued. Furthermore, the Court established that a subsequent vendee claiming the protection of Section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, must prove they acted in good faith, had no notice of the prior contract, and exercised reasonable care, including inquiry into possession, which the respondent failed to do.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for specific performance run from the date of the issuance of proprietary rights or from the date of refusal to perform the contract when no specific date for performance is fixed?
  • What is the burden of proof on a subsequent vendee claiming protection as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction if the lower courts' judgments suffer from material irregularity or illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel vs Muhammad Ibrahim1997 MLD 2598 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah And Others vs Inayatullah And Other1997 CLC 884 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State1997 MLD 1463 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Director Education (SE), Sargodha Division1997 PLC (C. S.) 199 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs S.H.O., Police Station City Lodhran1997 MLD 1161 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirypolice investigationinnocencemurdercommon intentionnon-vital part injury
  Summary & questions settled

  Muhammad Shabbir petitioned the Lahore High Court for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 21 of 1996, registered at Police Station Dera Raheem, District Sahiwal under sections 337-F(i)(ii), 379/34, and subsequently section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the death of Asghar Ali. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when no fatal injury was attributed to him, injuries caused to witnesses were on non-vital parts, and successive police investigations declared him innocent. The court held that since the petitioner's guilt fell within the scope of further inquiry and two successive police investigations had found him innocent, placing him in column No. 2 of the challan, his case squarely fell within subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that while courts are not strictly bound by police opinions, substantial weight must be attached to police findings of innocence when considering bail applications, making such cases subject to further inquiry under section 497(2).

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person not attributed any fatal injury on the deceased is entitled to post-arrest bail when found innocent in successive police investigations?
  • What weight should be attached to the police opinion and investigation report placing an accused in column No. 2 of the challan during bail proceedings?
  • Does a case fall under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when injuries attributed to the accused are on non-vital parts and his guilt requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir And Another vs Anwar Hussain And Another1997 MLD 708 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1997 MLD 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salffm Khan vs Zameer Ahmad Khokhar And Another1997 CLC 1531 · Lahore High Court · -
  ejectment petitiondefault in payment of rentbona fide personal uselandlord-tenant relationshipappellate authorityrent restrictionwilful default
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondents against the appellant-tenant under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, seeking eviction on grounds of default and bona fide personal use. The Rent Controller dismissed the default claim but ordered eviction based on personal use. The appellate authority reversed the finding on personal use, dismissing the petition, but held the tenant to be a defaulter. The core legal question was whether the tenant was a willful defaulter and whether the landlord's claim for personal use was bona fide. The High Court held that the appellate authority erred in reversing the findings on default, noting that the landlords had previously denied the tenancy and refused rent, and that the tenant had deposited the rent prior to the filing of the second ejectment petition. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the lack of bona fide personal need, citing the landlords' failure to occupy other vacated shops in the same market. The principle laid down is that a landlord cannot claim default where they have previously denied the tenancy and refused to accept rent, and that a claim for personal use is undermined by the landlord's conduct in renting out other similar premises.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord claim default in payment of rent when they have previously denied the existence of a tenancy relationship?
  • Is a landlord's claim of bona fide personal use negated by the fact that they rented out other similar premises in the same market?
  • Does the deposit of rent by a tenant before the filing of an ejectment petition negate a claim of willful default?
  • Can an appellate authority reverse a finding of fact regarding personal need without considering the landlord's failure to occupy other available premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Alias Seema And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1619 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1997 MLD 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1997 MLD 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs District Collector, Okara and 3 others1997 PLD Lahore 680 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 991 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1846 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid And 3 Others vs Murad Khan Through Legal Heirs1997 C L C1763 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1997 MLD 1541 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs District Council, Bahawalpur Through Its1997 CLC 683 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Alias Jani vs The State1997 MLD 1598 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Judge, Family Court, Okara And Other1997 CLC 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Fateh Muhammad And 3 Other1997 CLC 1528 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique And Others vs Member, Federal Land Commission1997 MLD 2543 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →