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.

• Sher Baz Khan and 73 others vs Mst. Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana and 21996 PLD Lahore 483 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-13
  minoritynatural guardianalienation of immovable propertymutation of salevoid transactionburden of prooflimitationpower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two regular first appeals arising from a consolidated decree of the trial court that decreed two identical suits filed by respondent No. 1 challenging two oral sales and subsequent mutations of agricultural land executed during her minority. The core legal questions involved the validity of property alienations made by a natural guardian and alleged general attorneys of a minor, the applicability of limitation under the Limitation Act, and the burden of proof regarding consideration and the minor's welfare. The Lahore High Court held that contracts entered into during minority are void ab initio, that a natural guardian's power to alienate immovable property of a minor is strictly restricted to specific exceptional cases under Muhammadan Law, and that the defendants failed to establish valid authority, consideration, or that the sales were for the minor's benefit. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the suits were within time under section 6 of the Limitation Act 1908 and that the unauthorized transactions were void and inoperative against the plaintiff's ownership rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an oral sale and mutation of a minor's immovable property executed by a natural guardian or alleged attorneys is valid without proof of legal necessity and the minor's welfare?
  • Does a general power of attorney inherently include the implied authority to alienate or dispose of the principal's property without a clear, separate clause to that effect?
  • Whether a suit challenging alienations made during minority, filed after attaining majority, is within time when computed with the benefit of legal disability provisions?
  • Can the principle of estoppel be invoked against a minor who was not a party to void transactions executed during minority?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Ahmad and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1896 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rashid Ahmed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 370 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-03
  bail applicationjudicial proprietyforum shoppingconflicting judgmentswithdrawal of bail petitionbinding precedentDivision Bench competency
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a preliminary objection regarding the competency of the current Division Bench to hear several bail applications, given that previous bail applications in the same cases had been dismissed as withdrawn by a different Division Bench of the same High Court. The core legal question was whether the principle established in the Supreme Court case 'The State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others' (PLD 1986 SC 173)—which mandates that subsequent bail applications must be heard by the same Judge or Bench that decided the earlier one—applies to cases where the previous application was dismissed as withdrawn, and whether it applies to Division Benches as well as Single Judges. The Court held that the ratio of the Zubair case is binding and applies to all bail applications, regardless of whether the previous order was a dismissal on merits or a dismissal as withdrawn, and regardless of whether the previous Bench was a Single Judge or a Division Bench. The Court affirmed that this rule of propriety and judicial harmony is a binding principle of law under Article 189 of the Constitution, aimed at preventing conflicting orders and forum shopping.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle in 'The State v. Zubair' requiring subsequent bail applications to be heard by the same Bench apply when the previous application was dismissed as withdrawn?
  • Is the rule requiring subsequent bail applications to be heard by the same Judge or Bench applicable to Division Benches of the High Court?
  • Does the dismissal of a bail application as withdrawn constitute a disposal of the matter sufficient to trigger the requirement that subsequent applications be heard by the same Bench?
  • Is the principle of judicial propriety regarding the assignment of bail applications a binding principle of law under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Mukhtar Ahmad vs Muhammad Sadiq and 2 others1996 PLD Lahore 340 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Hussain Qureshi vs The State1996 MLD 1051 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Shehnaz Bibi vs Muhammad Ikhlaq Khan1996 MLD 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Shehnaz Bib1 vs Muhammad Ikhlaq Khan1996 MLD 1060 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Shehla Rubab vs Mst. Nighat Saifullah Khan and anothers1996 MLD 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Shehla Rubab vs Mst. Nighat Saifullah Khan And Another1996 MLD 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Shaukat vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 986 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Shatab Khan and anothers vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 600 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-29
  surety bondsforfeiture of bail bondscriminal revisionproclaimed offenderfugitive from lawsurety penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arises out of orders passed by the lower courts forfeiting the surety bonds of the petitioners amounting to Rs. 30,000 each after the accused for whom they stood surety failed to appear in court and became a fugitive from law in a separate murder case. The core legal question is whether surety bonds can be justly forfeited when the accused has absconded and been declared a proclaimed offender, and the sureties are poor, illiterate individuals who acted purely out of humanitarian considerations. The Lahore High Court held that since the accused became a fugitive and even the State failed to apprehend him, it was humanly impossible for the simple, impoverished petitioners to produce him, rendering the forfeiture of their bonds oppressive and unjust. The court laid down the principle that where an accused absconds in circumstances beyond the control of sureties who acted without monetary gain, enforcing the full penalty of surety bonds is unjust, warranting the setting aside of forfeiture orders under revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the forfeiture of surety bonds is justified when the accused becomes a fugitive from law and is declared a proclaimed offender?
  • Can poor and illiterate sureties be penalized for failing to produce an accused who has absconded in a separate criminal case?
  • Does the inability of the State to apprehend an absconding accused affect the liability of his sureties to pay the penalty on forfeited bonds?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharifan Bibi vs Muhammad Latif and 4 others1996 P Cr. L J 1720 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
• Shamsul Haq and 3 others vs Muhammad Jamil1996 PLD Lahore 235 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin vs Muhammad Sharif1996 MLD 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Shams Ud Din vs Muhammad Sharif1996 MLD 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Shamman vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1876 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
• Shamir Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1781 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Shamasuddin vs Muhammad Sharif1996 PLD Lahore 210 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22
  Specific performanceOrder 17 Rule 3 CPCExpeditious disposalReasonable opportunity of hearingRemand of caseClosing of evidenceCivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the trial court's judgment dismissing a suit for specific performance of a contract for want of evidence. The trial court had invoked Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to close the plaintiff's evidence and dismiss the suit, citing the plaintiff's failure to produce evidence within the time frame directed by the District Judge. The High Court found that the plaintiff had acted diligently in summoning witnesses, but the evidence could not be recorded due to the absence of necessary documents held by the police, not due to the plaintiff's negligence. The Court held that while directions for expeditious disposal are important, they are directory in nature and must not supersede the fundamental right of a party to a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Penal provisions for closing evidence should not be applied where the party is not at fault. Consequently, the High Court set aside the dismissal and remanded the case for trial on its merits, emphasizing that justice must not be sacrificed for the sake of speed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court invoke Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to close evidence when the delay is not caused by the party's contumacious negligence?
  • Are directions from superior courts for the expeditious disposal of cases mandatory or directory in nature?
  • Does the requirement for expeditious disposal of cases justify depriving a party of a reasonable opportunity to present evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamas Iqbal vs The State1996 MLD 759 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Shaman vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 638 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-08Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 318 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad, Constable C-1821 vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Sialkot and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 933 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Nadeem Younas, Chief Executive, Noble Textile Mills, Pattoki, District Kasur vs WAPDA through Chairman WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore and 4 others1996 CLC 1090 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-16
  electricity tariffWAPDAsurchargejudicial reviewpublic utilityconstitutional petitionprice fixation
  Summary & questions settled

  The consolidated writ petitions challenged the imposition of surcharge and additional surcharge on electricity tariffs by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The core legal questions were whether WAPDA possessed the statutory authority to unilaterally impose these levies, whether such levies constituted a tax, and whether the tariff fixation was subject to judicial review. The Court held that WAPDA, as a licensee under the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, is empowered to fix and revise tariffs, including surcharges, which are appendages to the tariff rather than independent taxes. Consequently, the Court declined to strike down the levies, finding them within the scope of Section 25 of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The key principles laid down are that surcharges on electricity tariffs are not taxes; WAPDA has the statutory power to fix tariffs unilaterally without prior notice to consumers; and judicial review is limited to cases of arbitrary or unreasonable tariff fixation, rather than merely high rates, as price fixation is primarily an executive function.

  Questions settled

  • Does WAPDA have the statutory authority to unilaterally fix or revise electricity tariffs?
  • Are surcharges and additional surcharges on electricity bills considered taxes or appendages to the tariff?
  • Is the fixation of electricity tariff subject to judicial review by the High Court?
  • Does the imposition of electricity surcharges require prior notice to consumers?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mumtaz and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1722 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
• Shahid Islam vs N.I.R.C. and others1996 PLD Lahore 615 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-22Read full judgment →
• Shahgofta Parveen And Other vs Chairman Board of Education(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 73) · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
• Shahamand vs Javaid Hassan1996 MLD 952 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
• Shahab Ud Din vs The State1996 MLD 624 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1931 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs The Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, and others1996 MLD 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs The Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, And Other1996 MLD 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
• Shah Behram And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 594 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
• Shagofta Parveen and others vs Chairman, Board of Education, Multan and others1996 CLC 536 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
• Shafaqat Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1495 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
• Shafaqat Ali Alias Fatta vs The State1996 MLD 909 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
• Shad Gul vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 452 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
• Shabid Islam vs NIRC No. 1(K.L.R. 1996 Labour and Service Cases 158) · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-22Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed, Etc , vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 437 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-19Read full judgment →
• SH. Umar Draz Versus The State SH. Umar Draz vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 622 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
• Sh. Rashid Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 465 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
• Seven Up Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Federation Of Pakistan Etc.(PTCL 1996 CL. 325) · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-07Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 192 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz And 2 Other vs Mian Sikandar Hayat, Judge Special Court, Suppression of Terrorists Activities, Lahore, Division, Lahore And The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 620 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardara vs The State1996 MLD 1880 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
• Sardar Shah vs Riaz Hussain Shah1996 MLD 863 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Tariq and another vs Special Judge of the Court1996 P Cr. L J 58 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad and 21 others vs Faqir Muhammad and 4 others1996 CLC 916 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-27
  Revision petitionRes judicataConstructive res judicataMuslim WillWill validityInheritanceRehabilitation Settlement SchemeConstitutional jurisdictionProperty acquired after WillTestamentary disposition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the dismissal of a suit seeking a declaration of ownership based on a registered Will. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, particularly constructive res judicata, given prior proceedings before the High Court and Supreme Court concerning inheritance under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, and whether a Muslim Will relating to property not in existence at the time of its execution but acquired before the testator's death was valid. The High Court held that the claim based on the Will was neither actually nor constructively in issue in the previous constitutional and Supreme Court proceedings, as such complex questions of title are not typically adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction. Therefore, the principle of res judicata was inapplicable. The Court further held that a Muslim Will is valid even if the property is acquired after the Will's execution but before the testator's death, provided it does not exceed one-third of the estate. The revision petition was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' findings and decreeing the petitioners' suit for 1/3rd share of the land under the Will.

  Questions settled

  • Can a claim based on a Will be barred by constructive res judicata if it was not explicitly raised or decided in prior constitutional or Supreme Court proceedings?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to complex questions of title that are not typically adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a Muslim Will valid for property that was not in existence at the time of its execution but was acquired by the testator before their death?
  • What is the maximum share of an estate that can be bequeathed under Muslim Law?
  • Can a Will be made in favour of legal heirs without the consent of other legal heirs under Muslim Law?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Legari vs Province of Punjab and others1996 CLC 1954 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs Judge Special Court, Multan and anothers1996 MLD 460 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs Judge Special Court, Multan And Another1996 MLD 460 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Sarbland and 19 others vs Ghulam Fatima and 6 others1996 MLD 948 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• Sarbland And 19 Others vs Ghulam Fatima And 6 Other1996 MLD 948 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• Samual and others vs Piara Masih and others1996 CLC 562 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• Salma and anothers vs Manzoor Hussain and another1996 CLC 623 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadcivil revisionsuperior pre-emptive rightpersonal demandPunjab Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for pre-emption filed by two female plaintiffs seeking possession of land sold to the respondents. The trial court initially decreed the suit, finding the plaintiffs had established their superior right of pre-emption and performed the necessary Talbs. However, the lower appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the essential Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad were not legally established. The core legal question was whether a husband or relative could validly perform Talb-i-Muwathibat on behalf of female pre-emptors. The High Court upheld the appellate court's dismissal, holding that under Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, Talb-i-Muwathibat constitutes an immediate demand that must be made personally by the pre-emptor in the meeting where they learn of the sale. The Court ruled that the Act makes no distinction between genders and provides no provision allowing a third party to perform this demand on behalf of a pre-emptor. Consequently, the failure of the plaintiffs to personally perform the Talb extinguished their right of pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Can a husband or relative validly perform Talb-i-Muwathibat on behalf of a female pre-emptor?
  • Is the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat a personal requirement for a pre-emptor under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  • Does the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 allow for gender-based distinctions in the exercise of pre-emption rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Salehoon vs Nazir Ahmad1996 MLD 1922 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
• Salamat vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 316 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
• Salamat Ali vs Chairman Municipal Committee EtcK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 47 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-02
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsprohibitioninvestigating officer as complainantfurther inquiryheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by Sajjad Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 7/96 registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the arresting officer, who was also the complainant and recovery witness, proceeded to conduct the investigation himself without proper authorization, causing potential prejudice to the case. The Lahore High Court held that since the Investigating Officer was also the complainant and recovery witness, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the law. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that the combination of complainant, recovery witness, and investigating officer in a single police official without proper authorization brings the prosecution's case within the ambit of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted when the complainant is also the investigating officer and recovery witness?
  • Does the investigation of a case by a C.I.A. staff member without proper entrustment by the District Superintendent of Police prejudice the prosecution case?
  • Is a case open to further inquiry when all prosecution witnesses are police officials and the investigator is also the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain Alias Poni vs The State1996 MLD 643 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-29Read full judgment →
• Sajjad alias. Sajju vs The State1996 MLD 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Alias Sajju vs The State1996 MLD 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
• Sajid Kareem vs Government of Punjab and others1996 PLD Lahore 575 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah and anothers vs Muhammad Riaz and 18 others1996 MLD 536 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah And Another vs Muhammad Riaz And 18 Other1996 MLD 536 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
• Saif Shah and 2 others vs Gulnaz Bokhari and anothers1996 MLD 186 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
• Saif Shah And 2 Others vs Gulnaz Bokhari And Another1996 MLD 186 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad vs Abdur Rehman1996 MLD 60 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02
  specific performancetime is the essencereciprocal promisesagreement to sellimperfect titleearnest moneysecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, which decreed the respondent's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 29-1-1976 regarding land temporarily allotted to the appellant as a refugee. The trial court had initially dismissed the suit, holding that time was the essence of the contract and the respondent failed to pay the balance amount by 1-5-1976. The core legal questions involved whether time was of the essence of the contract and whether the vendee was under a legal obligation to pay the balance price when the vendor's title to the property was still imperfect. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that time was not the essence of the contract, and that under Section 51 of the Contract Act 1872, a promisee is not bound to perform his reciprocal promise unless the promisor is ready and willing to perform theirs. The key principle laid down is that where a vendor has not perfected his title to the property by the stipulated date, the vendee's failure to pay the balance consideration on that date does not constitute a breach of contract.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere fixation of a date for the payment of the balance amount makes time the essence of the contract in a non-commercial agreement to sell?
  • Is a vendee under a legal obligation to pay the balance consideration when the vendor has not yet perfected his title to the disputed property?
  • Does a vendee's failure to pay the balance amount on a stipulated date constitute a breach of contract if the vendor is not in a position to transfer the property on that date?
  • When does the period of limitation start for instituting a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell where title is perfected subsequently?
  Read full judgment →
• Safia Bibi vs The Superintendent of Camp_Central Jail, Lahore and another1996 P Cr. L J 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-21
  habeas corpusjudicial remandillegal detentionSection 491 Cr.P.C.procedural irregularitycognizance of offenceunder-trial prisoner
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the release of the petitioner's son, an under-trial prisoner, on the grounds that his detention was illegal due to procedural lapses in obtaining judicial remand. The core legal question was whether a prior illegal or irregular remand order could be cured by a subsequent valid remand order, thereby rendering a habeas corpus petition infructuous. The Court held that the scope of Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is limited to determining the legality of detention at the time of the court's order. If a valid remand order exists at the time of the hearing, the court cannot order release based on prior procedural irregularities. The ratio established is that a subsequent valid judicial remand order, passed after the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case, cures earlier defects in remand procedures. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the detent was currently in legal custody. The Court also issued directives to police authorities regarding the mandatory compliance with investigation timelines under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the production of prisoners in court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court order the release of a detainee under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if a valid remand order exists at the time of the court's decision?
  • Does a subsequent valid judicial remand order cure prior procedural irregularities in the detention of an accused?
  • Is a trial Magistrate competent to remand an accused to judicial custody under Section 344, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without first taking cognizance of the case?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the legality of detention?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Hussain vs The State1996 MLD 757 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-07Read full judgment →
• Safair vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-06Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-29
  grave and sudden provocationculpable homicidesentence reductionconfessional statementcriminal appealIslamic principles of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Saeed Ahmad, was convicted under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife, Mst. Naseem Mai, and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution failed to prove its case through eyewitness testimony, which the trial court rejected. However, the appellant, in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, admitted to the killing, claiming he acted under grave and sudden provocation after finding his wife in a compromising position with another man. The trial court accepted this statement in its entirety, convicting him under Section 304, Part I. On appeal, the appellant challenged the severity of the sentence. The High Court, noting the cordial relationship between the couple and the absence of prior animosity, accepted the plea of grave and sudden provocation. Applying the Islamic principle of justice with mercy, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, finding the original sentence excessive.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court accept an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in toto to establish a plea of grave and sudden provocation?
  • Is a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment excessive for a conviction under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the offence was committed under grave and sudden provocation?
  • Does the principle of 'Adal bil Ehsan' (justice with mercy) allow for the reduction of a sentence to the period already undergone in cases of provocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1606 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-05Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 2050 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali vs Maroofan Bibi and others1996 P Cr. L J 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
• Saadullah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1505 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-05Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 603 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-14Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 43 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 501 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali and 5 others vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 122 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
• Raza Hussain vs Haji Qaisar Iqbal and 7 others1996 MLD 55 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
• Raza Hussain vs Haji Qaisar Iqbal And 7 Other1996 MLD 55 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bakhsh vs The State and 2 others1996 P Cr. L J 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-09Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 741 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs Ibrahim and another1996 P Cr. L J 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29
  recall of witnessSection 540 Cr.P.C.filling lacunacross-examinationcriminal revisionwitness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge allowing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought to recall a prosecution witness, who had already been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, for further questioning regarding discrepancies between his trial testimony and his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the court could exercise its discretionary power under Section 540 to recall a witness simply because counsel failed to confront the witness with a prior statement during the initial cross-examination. The Lahore High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that Section 540 cannot be invoked to fill lacunas in the prosecution's case or to allow a party to re-examine a witness merely because of an oversight in cross-examination. The Court established that allowing such a practice would undermine the finality of witness testimony and could be misused to favor one party, emphasizing that the power to recall witnesses must be exercised in accordance with established principles of criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Can Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to recall a witness to fill lacunas in the evidence?
  • Is it permissible to recall a witness for further cross-examination solely because counsel failed to confront the witness with a prior statement during the initial cross-examination?
  • Does the power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the indefinite recall of witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 314 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1497 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmed Alias Papu Master vs The State1996 MLD 777 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Rao. Muhammad Jameel Khan vs The State1996 MLD 1368 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Jamil Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 423 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Jameel Khan vs The State1996 MLD 1368 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Rana Vakil Ahmad vs Government of Punjab through the Secretary1996 PLC 382 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
• Rana Tahir vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1755 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-02Read full judgment →
• Rana Naveed vs Special Judge, under Suppression of Terrorist1996 P Cr. L J 1068 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Sohail vs Government of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary, Sga&I Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 4 others1996 MLD 123 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-13Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Sohail vs Government of the Punjab Through Additional Chief Secretary, Sga&I Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore And 4 Other1996 MLD 123 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-13Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Shaft and anothers vs A.C., Pattoki and 7 others1996 MLD 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Shaft And Another vs A.C., Pattoki And 7 Other1996 MLD 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Asif vs The Secretary to Government of Punjab(K.L.R. 1996 Labour & Service Cases 148) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →