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.

• Munazar alias Mazhari vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1923 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
• Munawar Khan, Sub-Inspector vs The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 122 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1203 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmed vs The State1996 MLD 1307 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Khan vs Muhammad Shujaat Khan and others1996 MLD 269 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-10Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Khan vs Muhammad Shujaat Khan And Other1996 MLD 269 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhxmmad Hanif vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 478 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-15
  abductionkidnappingbenefit of doubtsuspicion versus proofextra-judicial confessioncriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, convicting the appellant under Section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns whether the ingredients of abduction for murder were established when the trial court had acquitted the appellant of the main charge of murder under Section 302. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of kidnapping or abduction as defined under the law, since there was no evidence of force or deceitful inducement, and the sole witness's testimony lacked credibility. The court concluded that suspicion cannot take the place of proof and set aside the conviction and sentence, laying down the principle that failure to establish the foundational ingredients of an offence warrants an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the essential ingredients of abduction under Section 362 of the Pakistan Penal Code are established when a person is merely called out from a shop without force or deceitful means?
  • Can a conviction under Section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when the foundational elements of kidnapping or abduction are absent?
  • Does suspicion, however strong, take the place of legal proof in a criminal trial?
  • Whether an accused can be convicted of an offence when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammadyaseen vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1711 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Syed Zakir Hussain Shah and another1996 CLC 275 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-27
  joint propertyco-ownershiptemporary injunctionpartition of landstatus quocivil revisionunauthorized construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition concerns a dispute between joint owners of agricultural land in Attock, where the respondents, as co-owners, occupied a specific portion of the unpartitioned joint property and commenced construction. The petitioner, a fellow co-owner, sought a temporary injunction to restrain this construction, which was refused by both the trial court and the appellate court. Upon review, the Lahore High Court admitted the revision petition for regular hearing. The Court reaffirmed the settled legal principle that every co-owner possesses an interest in every inch of joint property, and consequently, no co-owner is entitled to take possession of a specific portion or alter the character of the land without first obtaining a formal partition. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that such unilateral action by a co-owner is impermissible. Consequently, the Court granted an interim order restraining the respondents from continuing construction and directed the parties to maintain the status quo pending the final adjudication of the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-owner of joint property take possession of a specific portion of land without formal partition?
  • Is a co-owner entitled to change the character of joint property without the consent of other co-owners?
  • Does a co-owner have an interest in every inch of joint property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair And Another vs The State1996 MLD 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq and others vs Government of Punjab and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 134 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-09
  quo warrantodeputation policyservice rulespromotion quotatransfer of civil servantsconstitutional petitionlocus standiterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition filed before the Lahore High Court challenged the appointment of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, serving as Assistant Engineers in the C&W Department, as Executive Engineers (XENs) on deputation in the Local Government and Rural Development Department (LG&RD), where posts were 100% reserved for promotion under service rules. The core legal questions involved whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable against such irregular appointments, whether the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution applies when terms and conditions are not directly agitated by aggrieved civil servants in service tribunals, and whether appointments made in violation of applicable service rules and deputation policies are void. The court held that since the petitioners sought a writ of quo warranto and had no remedy before the service tribunal, Article 212 was inapplicable, and that the impugned appointments made in flagrant violation of the Punjab Local Government and Rural Development Department Service Rules, 1981 and the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 were without lawful authority. The court laid down the principle that civil servants cannot bypass rules and senior qualified officers through political influence or arbitrary deputation transfers, and unauthorized appointees must disgorge all extra financial benefits drawn.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 read with Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974?
  • Can a civil servant be transferred on deputation to a post in another department that is exclusively reserved for promotion under the applicable service rules?
  • Does a civil servant possess the right to maintain a writ of quo warranto challenging the illegal appointment of another officer to a public office?
  • Whether appointments made in violation of the Punjab Local Government and Rural Development Department Service Rules, 1981 are void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 271 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1999 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Muhammad YounisK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 385 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf And Others vs Ahmad Ali Khan1996 MLD 1697 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 218 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin And Another vs The State1996 MLD 218 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 322 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaq00b vs Government of Punjab, Colonies Department, Lahore and 3 others1996 CLC 264 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1499 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs The State1996 MLD 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tanvir vs Abdul Majeed And 5 Other1996 MLD 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tan Vir vs Abdul Majeed and 5 others1996 MLD 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suba vs The State1996 MLD 1031 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Noor Muhammad and 2 others1996 CLC 695 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Ijaz Hussain and anothers1996 MLD 1851 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Ijaz Hussain And Another1996 MLD 1851 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Fazal Hussain Qureshi and 2 others1996 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-22
  Constitutional petitionPunjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinancerelationship of landlord and tenantdeposit of rentappellate authorityeviction orderstay of execution
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Additional District Judge directing the petitioner to deposit rent during the pendency of an appeal against an eviction order. The core legal question is whether an Appellate Authority, under Section 15(5) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, possesses the power to order the deposit of rent when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied by the appellant. The Court held that the Appellate Authority cannot order such a deposit under Section 15(5) while the existence of the tenancy remains in dispute, as an appeal is a continuation of the original cause, effectively reopening the entire matter. The Court reasoned that the power to order rent deposit is co-extensive with the Rent Controller, who cannot order deposits without first establishing the tenancy. Consequently, the impugned order was declared without lawful authority. The Court clarified that while Section 15(5) is inapplicable in such disputes, the Appellate Authority retains discretionary power under Section 15(4) to make the suspension of an eviction order conditional upon the deposit of rent.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Appellate Authority order the deposit of rent under Section 15(5) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied by the appellant?
  • Is an appeal considered a continuation of the original cause such that the finality of the Rent Controller's order is suspended?
  • Does the Appellate Authority have the power to make the suspension of an eviction order conditional upon the deposit of rent under Section 15(4) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs District Magistrate Lahore And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 552 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Assistant Commissioner Model Town, Lahore1996 CLC 718 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mst. Faji and others1996 CLC 883 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-13
  specific performancesale agreementtime is the essenceimmovable propertyearnest moneysecond appealbreach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal challenges the appellate judgment setting aside the trial court decree in favor of the appellant for specific performance of a sale agreement. The core legal question concerns whether time was of the essence in the agreement to sell immovable property and whether the appellant performed his part of the contract. The Lahore High Court held that the parties explicitly made time the essence of the contract through a penal clause providing for forfeiture of earnest money and rescission upon default, and that the appellant failed to prove his readiness and willingness or presence before the Registrar as claimed, whereas the respondents successfully established their bona fides. The court laid down the principle that whether time is of the essence in a contract for the sale of immovable property depends on the intention of the parties, the terms of the contract, their conduct, and the surrounding circumstances, and where a specific penal stipulation exists for default within a fixed period, time will be treated as essential.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time is of the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property?
  • Can a plaintiff seek specific performance of a contract without proving readiness and willingness to perform his part?
  • Does the inclusion of a penal clause for forfeiture of earnest money make time the essence of the contract?
  • Whether a finding on whether time is of the essence of a contract is a question of fact or law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Jamshed Ali and others1996 PLD Lahore 471 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-11
  acquittal under section 249-Aprocurement of witness attendancecondonation of delaylimitation actcriminal appealprocedural laxitygood faith
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an acquittal order passed by a Magistrate under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate can acquit an accused under Section 249-A solely due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses when the court failed to exercise its duty to secure their attendance through ordinary or coercive means. Additionally, the court addressed whether a delay in filing an appeal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be condoned due to the appellant's ignorance of a recent statutory amendment. The High Court held that the acquittal was illegal, as the trial court failed to perform its duty to procure witness attendance before invoking Section 249-A. The Court emphasized that Section 249-A requires a substantive finding that the charge is groundless or lacks probability of conviction, which was absent. Furthermore, the Court condoned the delay under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1908, recognizing the appellant's good faith reliance on previous procedural understanding. The case was remanded for a fresh trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses?
  • Is a court required to exhaust coercive methods to secure the attendance of prosecution witnesses before invoking Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the delay in filing an appeal be condoned under the Limitation Act 1908 when the delay arises from ignorance of a recent statutory amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Jamshad AliK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 429 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1996 CLC 859 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs Aamer Rehman and others1996 CLC 788 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Khan vs Secretary to the Government of Punjab1996 CLC 2045 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-08
  constitutional petitionpublic auctionexport tax leasepublic noticelocus standinational exchequertransparency
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging the grant of a lease for the collection of Goods Export Tax of the Zila Council, Kasur to respondent No. 2 for the year 1996-97. The petitioner contended that the lease was awarded in a non-transparent manner without proper public auction, and offered to pay Rs. 2 crores more than the accepted bid. The respondents argued that the auction was duly advertised in daily newspapers and that the petitioner lacked locus standi. The Lahore High Court observed that the advertisement was published only in the 'Dak' edition of a newspaper, which has limited circulation outside the main city, and was omitted from the local edition. The Court held that such limited publication does not satisfy the requirement of a 'public notice' under Rule 4 of the Punjab Local Council Lease Rules, 1990. Emphasizing that state functionaries must protect the national exchequer and ensure transparency, the Court accepted the petition, set aside the lease, and ordered a fresh auction with the petitioner's higher offer as the baseline.

  Questions settled

  • Does an advertisement published only in a limited 'Dak' edition of a newspaper satisfy the statutory requirement of a 'public notice' for a public auction?
  • Can an alternative remedy of appeal under the Punjab Zila Council Export Tax Rules 1990 bar a writ petition challenging auction proceedings conducted under the Punjab Local Council Lease Rules 1990?
  • Does a prospective bidder who was deprived of participating in an auction due to inadequate public notice have the locus standi to challenge the auction in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Munawar Hussain, Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 252 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Munawar Hussain and others1996 P Cr. L J 751 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Muhammad Younas and others1996 P Cr. L J 292 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner Sialkot(K.L.R. 1996 Revenue Cases 10) · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1905 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Sughran Bibi and 2 others1996 MLD 1057 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Sughran Bibi And 2 Other1996 MLD 1057 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Sana Ullah And Other1996 MLD 786 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Shad and another vs Punjab Small Industries1996 PLC (C.S.) 559 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Bhatti vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department and 4 others1996 CLC 1970 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Salamat Ali and others1996 P Cr. L J 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1996 MLD 395 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1996 MLD 395 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs District Judge, Multan and others1996 CLC 819 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Qadir vs The StateK.L.R 1996 Criminal Cases 148 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Qadir Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Ciminal Cases 97 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Qadir and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1942 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem alias Jani vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1960 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 815 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-26
  post-arrest bailcounterfeit currencypossession of forged notetrafficking of currencytentative assessmentcriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail petition filed by Muhammad Sajjad seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, stemming from the alleged recovery of a counterfeit currency note of Rs. 1,000 from his personal search. The core legal question is whether the mere possession of a counterfeit currency note constitutes an offense under section 489-B or section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the petitioner is entitled to bail. The Lahore High Court held that the mere possession of a counterfeit currency note falls under section 489-C rather than section 489-B, which requires elements of trafficking or using it as genuine. Since the offense under section 489-C does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the petitioner had no previous criminal record while investigation was complete, the court admitted the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that simple possession of a forged or counterfeit currency note without proof of sale, purchase, receipt, trafficking, or using as genuine does not attract section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of a counterfeit currency note constitute an offence under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the distinction between section 489-B and section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding counterfeit currency?
  • Is an accused person entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence prima facie falls under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar and 4 others vs The State and another1996 PLD Lahore 457 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19
  quashment of proceedingsorder of acquittalprivate complaintrevision petitioncompetency of revisionadditional sessions judgecode of criminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of proceedings and an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran, which had set aside the acquittal of the petitioners under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and remanded a private complaint case back to the trial court. The core legal question is whether a revision petition is competent before a Sessions Court against an order of acquittal passed in a private criminal complaint. The Court held that under section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the exclusive remedy against an order of acquittal in a private complaint is a petition for leave to appeal before the High Court, making a revision petition before the Sessions Court incompetent and without jurisdiction. The key legal principle laid down is that an order of acquittal passed under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a private complaint cannot be challenged through a revision petition before the Sessions Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a revision petition competent before a Sessions Court against an order of acquittal passed in a private complaint?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a complainant against an order of acquittal in a private complaint?
  • Does an Additional Sessions Judge have jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition challenging an acquittal under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed alias Sheeda an Lothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1440 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-20
  statutory baildelay in trialpost-arrest bailproviso to section 497criminal procedureright to bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, facing trial for murder and causing injuries, sought post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of their trial, having been incarcerated since June 14, 1993. The State and the complainant opposed the application, contending that the delay was attributable to the petitioners and their co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could be denied the statutory right to bail due to delays caused by co-accused or adjournments sought by defense counsel. The Lahore High Court held that the right to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a statutory right that cannot be denied through discretionary powers. The Court established that an accused cannot be held responsible for the conduct or delays caused by co-accused, nor can adjournments sought by defense counsel for professional engagements be used to deny this statutory benefit. Consequently, as the prosecution failed to prove the petitioners were responsible for the delay, the Court granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be denied statutory bail under Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to delays caused by co-accused?
  • Does an adjournment sought by defense counsel for professional engagements constitute a valid ground to deny statutory bail to an accused?
  • Is the right to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a mandatory statutory right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddval vs Aman Ullah1996 CLC 720 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 150 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-03
  murderdeath sentence confirmationbenefit of the doubtmedical evidence contradictioninterested witnessesocular accountcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal appeal and murder reference arising from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, whereby the appellant Muhammad Riaz was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the murder of Ahsan Ullah, while three co-accused were acquitted. The prosecution case was based on an ocular account by the father and brother of the deceased, supported by an alleged weapon recovery and medical evidence. The core legal questions before the Lahore High Court were whether the ocular account was natural and trustworthy despite deep-seated enmity and the acquittal of co-accused, and whether the medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness testimony regarding firing distances. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness testimony was unnatural, inconsistent with the background of hostility, and already disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused. Furthermore, the court held that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version regarding the presence of blackening at the given firing distance, and the weapon recovery was inconclusive. The court laid down the principle that uncorroborated, interested, and inimical eyewitness testimony, which has already been rejected regarding co-accused, cannot safely form the basis of a capital conviction. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interested and inimical eyewitness account can be relied upon against a surviving accused without strong independent corroboration when co-accused assigned specific roles have already been acquitted on the same evidence?
  • Does medical evidence regarding blackening and tattooing around fire-arm wounds contradict ocular testimony alleging firing from a distance of four to five feet?
  • Can a capital conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an improbable prosecution story where the alleged motive and the victim's conduct of traveling with his enemies are unnatural?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when no empty shell is secured from the crime spot and forensic analysis fails to determine when the weapon was last fired?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Mst. Asia ParveenK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 471 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1007 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Akhtar vs Subregistrar and 7 others1996 PLD Lahore 180 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and others vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 126 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-03
  attempt to commit murderineffective firingpolice witnessesnon-production of weaponmens rea and actus reuscriminal attemptappellant acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of a Judicial Magistrate convicting the appellants under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for making a murderous assault on an undertrial prisoner within a court compound. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence consisting solely of police officials, the effect of non-production of the weapons of offence, and the constituents of an attempt to commit Qatl-i-Amd. The Lahore High Court held that the offence under Section 324 is complete when there is a criminal intent (mens rea) followed by an overt act (actus reus) and failure to consummate the crime due to circumstances beyond the offender's control, and that non-production of the weapon of offence is not fatal where direct oral testimony is unimpeachable. The Court dismissed the appeal regarding the main appellant who fired the shot, maintaining his conviction and sentence, but acquitted the co-appellant whose participation was doubtful. The key legal principle established is that in cases of violent attempts on life, the combination of proven mens rea and actus reus supported by natural eye-witness testimony sustains a conviction even without public witnesses or production of the weapon.

  Questions settled

  • What elements constitute an attempt to commit Qatl-i-Amd under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the non-production of the weapon of offence during trial fatal to the prosecution's case in a charge of attempted murder?
  • Can a conviction under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials without public witnesses?
  • Does ineffective firing where the bullet misses the target still complete the offence of attempt to commit murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan alias Haji vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1502 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafuque vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1745 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and others vs The State and others1996 P Cr. L J 1093 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qurban vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Pervaiz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2046 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1100 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs SHO Police Station Qadirpur Rawan, Distric1996 MLD 2052 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs S.H.O., Police Station Qadirpur Rawan, District1996 MLD 2052 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Shah vs The State and 4 others1996 PLD Lahore 476 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasrullah vs Inspectorgeneral, Police, Punjab, Lahore1996 MLD 891 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs The State1996 MLD 189 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem Alias Noori vs The State1996 MLD 192 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1996 MLD 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murad vs Additional District Judge and others1996 CLC 1896 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz vs Muhammad Mukhtar1996 CLC 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1981 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-27
  post-arrest bailfurther enquiryvicarious liabilityunlawful assemblymurderinvestigation reports
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by two petitioners, Muhammad Mansha and Rab Nawaz, who were accused of murder and other offences under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the conflicting investigation reports regarding their presence and participation at the scene of the crime. The court observed that multiple investigating officers concluded the petitioners were unarmed and were not the primary assailants, noting that the fatal injury was caused by a co-accused. The court held that the petitioners' case fell within the scope of 'further enquiry' under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution failed to establish their active role or specific liability beyond mere presence. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioners, establishing the principle that where investigation reports consistently indicate the absence of weapons and specific overt acts by the accused, their culpability becomes a matter of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without evidence of weapon possession or specific overt acts, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • When investigation reports are conflicting or suggest a lack of active participation, does the case fall under the category of 'further enquiry' for the purpose of bail?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of being named in the F.I.R. when subsequent investigations consistently exonerate them of specific violent acts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and 2.others vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 196 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1767 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and anothers vs The State1996 PLD Lahore 360 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 7 others vs Muhammad Boota and anothers1996 MLD 562 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan And 7 Others vs Muhammad Boota And Another1996 MLD 562 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 3 others vs The State and anothers1996 MLD 881 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan And 3 Others vs The State And Another1996 MLD 881 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The Magistrate 1ST Class, Pakpattan Sharif1996 P Cr. L J 1031 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid and others vs A.T.M. Corporation Ltd. and others1996 CLC 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →