Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Muhammad Riaz alias Kala vs The State1993 MLD 1391 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz , vs District Judge, Sialkot and 5 others1993 PLD Lahore 452 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Syed Muhammad Aqil and others1993 MLD 492 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Aamar Khaliq and another1993 P Cr. L J 2311 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs District Judge, Okara and others1993 PLD Lahore 421 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1589 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2636 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan & Etc vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 320 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1993 MLD 2230 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2466 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs S.H.O., Factory Area, Tehsil Ferozewala and another1993 P Cr. L J 2199 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Mst. Zubaida Bibi1993 CLC 704 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Mian Abdul Hamid1993 CLC 602 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Mahmud Khalid and others1993 CLC 921 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Mahmud Khalid And OtherK.L.R 1993 Civil Cases 60 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Hassan Bakhsh and others1993 CLC 622 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16
  pre-emption suitZar-i-Soemdeposit of sale-priceextension of timefeeble rightcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from concurrent lower court judgments dismissing the petitioner's pre-emption suit for failing to deposit one-third of the sale-price (Zar-i-Soem) within the stipulated time. The petitioner had filed a pre-emption suit on 3-9-1991, and the trial court ordered the deposit of one-third of the purchase price by 28-9-1991. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount, offering an excuse of a theft at his house on the night of 27-9-1991 where the cash was allegedly stolen, and sought an extension of time. The lower courts dismissed both the application for extension and the suit. The Lahore High Court held that while the court has discretion to extend time up to the outer limit of thirty days under section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, such extension is not a matter of routine and requires sufficient cause. The court found the petitioner's excuse of theft incredible and contradictory, noting that pre-emption is a feeble right requiring meticulous compliance with statutory prerequisites. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emptor is entitled to an extension of time as a matter of right for depositing one-third of the sale-price under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  • Can a court grant an extension of time for depositing Zar-i-Soem beyond the statutory outer limit of thirty days from the filing of a pre-emption suit?
  • Is a trial court legally bound to hold a formal inquiry into every excuse offered by a pre-emptor for failing to deposit the sale-price in time?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and others vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 848 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 147 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 833 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1707 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi vs Atta Ullah Kausar and another1993 CLC 1364 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07
  constitutional petitiondissolution of marriageKhulaFamily Courtreconciliationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the Family Court on the ground of Khula. The core legal question was whether the Family Court's judgment dissolving the marriage on the basis of Khula, despite contentions regarding monetary disputes and failure of reconciliation, was sustainable in writ jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where parties have been living separately for a prolonged period, all reconciliation efforts have failed, and the wife demonstrates a fixed aversion making it impossible to live within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah, dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula is justified. The court laid down the principle that a constitutional petition cannot be used to reappraise evidence or act as an appellate forum against a Family Court's decree of dissolution of marriage, and an unwanted union cannot be forced upon unwilling spouses.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Family Court decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction where reconciliation efforts have failed?
  • Whether the High Court can reappraise evidence in a writ petition filed against a judgment of the Family Court?
  • Is a wife entitled to dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula when she satisfies the court that she cannot live with her husband within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi and others vs Muhammad Asiifaq, Civil Judge, Hasilpur1993 CLC 1903 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03
  execution proceedingsattachment of propertyconstitutional jurisdictionalternative remedynatural justicewrit petitionCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions arising from execution proceedings initiated by the respondent following decrees passed against the petitioners for non-payment of rent. The petitioners challenged the executing court's orders for attachment of property, arguing that the underlying appellate decrees were not final due to their counsel's lack of authority to withdraw a previous revision petition, and that the executing court violated natural justice by not granting them a hearing. The High Court examined the maintainability of these constitutional petitions in light of the available statutory remedies. The Court held that the petitioners had an adequate and efficacious remedy under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which empowers the executing court to investigate all claims and objections regarding attached property. Consequently, the Court ruled that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 cannot be invoked when such alternative statutory remedies exist. The petitions were dismissed, affirming that objections to execution proceedings must be adjudicated by the executing court itself.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when an adequate and efficacious remedy exists under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does an executing court have the authority to investigate claims and objections regarding the attachment of property under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Are interlocutory orders passed by an executing court subject to revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad R1az vs State1993 P Cr. L J 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs Abdul Karim and 8 others1993 MLD 1617 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs Abdul Karim And 8 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 298 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Pervez vs Mst. Aisha Bibi1993 CLC 2341 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Parvez vs The State1993 MLD 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 2462 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir and another vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 481 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 2531 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer and others vs Mst. Fatima Bibi and others1993 MLD 329 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 34 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1560 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The Additional District Judge, Jhang and 41993 MLD 2295 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Manzoor Hussain and 6 others1993 CLC 1324 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz through his Legal Heirs vs Allah Bakhsh and another1993 MLD 783 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and another vs Ghulam Farid and another1993 MLD 1521 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 243 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasim Khan and anothers vs Fida Muhammad Khan and another1993 P Cr. L J 1795 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-09
  quashment of proceedingscheatingforgerybreach of contractmatrimonial disputeabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant (respondent No. 1) alleged that the petitioner No. 1 failed to fulfill a pre-marital agreement to transfer four kanals of land to his wife, asserting that executing such an agreement without owning the land amounted to forgery and cheating. The High Court observed that the marriage contract was independent of the agreement and that the spouses had lived together for years before disputes arose. The Court held that a mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating under Section 415 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as there was no dishonest inducement to deliver property or practice deception at the time of the promise. Furthermore, since the execution of the agreement was admitted and genuine, it did not constitute a false document under Section 468. The Court concluded that the criminal prosecution was an abuse of process and quashed the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the subsequent non-fulfillment of a promise in a matrimonial agreement constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a genuinely executed agreement, the terms of which are admitted by both parties, be classified as a 'false document' to attract criminal liability for forgery under Section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a purely civil dispute regarding a breach of contract is given a criminal color?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadir vs The State1993 MLD 272 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2473 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 287 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzaffar Chughtai vs Habibullah and another1993 P Cr. L J 1326 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Musa vs Naheeda Mai and another1993 MLD 263 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz vs The State1993 MLD 1722 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1170 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtar vs The State1993 MLD 362 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mazhar vs Chairman, Federal Public Service Commission1993 CLC 81 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-20
  Constitutional petitionLegal practiceEnrolment CommitteeService matterWrit jurisdictionFederal Public Service CommissionAdvocate seniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the appointment of a Law Officer by the Federal Public Service Commission. The appellant contested the respondent’s eligibility, arguing that his prior service as a Legal Assistant in the Ministry of Law could not be counted toward the requisite years of legal practice. The core legal question was whether the Enrolment Committee of the Provincial Bar Council possessed the authority to count such service toward an advocate's practice and whether its certification was binding on the Commission. The Lahore High Court held that the Enrolment Committee, under the relevant statutory framework, holds exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters of seniority and practice periods for advocates. Consequently, the Commission was justified in relying on the Committee's certificate. The Court affirmed that the Committee’s decision was valid and declined to interfere in the exercise of its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction, noting that no injustice had been rendered to the appellant and that the appointment had already been acted upon.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Enrolment Committee of a Provincial Bar Council have the jurisdiction to determine whether service rendered in a government organization counts toward an advocate's legal practice?
  • Is a certificate issued by the Enrolment Committee regarding an advocate's practice period binding upon the Federal Public Service Commission during recruitment?
  • Can a disputed question of fact, such as the condonation of delay by a commission, be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Maqbool vs District Judge and 5 others1993 MLD 2155 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1786 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malik vs Muhammad Farooq and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07
  transfer of criminal casebiasfair trialapprehension of injusticecriminal procedureprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the transfer of a private complaint case titled 'Muhammad Malik v. Muhammad Farooq etc.' pending under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before the Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, Toba Tek Singh. The petitioner sought transfer on the grounds that he had lost faith in the trial court's impartiality due to certain observations made during proceedings and alleged that the respondents were influential, thereby creating an apprehension that a fair trial would not be possible. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's vague apprehensions of bias justified the transfer of the case. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioner failed to provide specific dates, times, or concrete material to substantiate the alleged bias. The Court affirmed the principle that while a case should be transferred if there are reasonable apprehensions of an unfair trial, such apprehensions must be based on objective material that would satisfy a reasonable person, rather than mere subjective perception.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard for determining whether a litigant's apprehension of an unfair trial is reasonable enough to warrant the transfer of a criminal case?
  • Does a mere subjective allegation of bias without specific supporting details constitute sufficient grounds for transferring a criminal case under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2419 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs S.H.O., Police Station Saddar, Dunyapur and 141993 P Cr. L J 1992 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-22
  constitutional petitionregistration of FIRsecond FIRcounter versioncognizable offenceprivate defenceinvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court seeking a direction to the Station House Officer to register a criminal case regarding the murder of Altaf Hussain and injuries sustained by the petitioner's party during a clash. An F.I.R. had already been registered by the opposite party concerning the same incident, wherein the police concluded that the petitioner's side was the aggressor and acted in self-defense. The core legal question was whether a second F.I.R. or counter-version of a cognizable offence can be ordered to be registered by the police when an initial F.I.R. has already been recorded by the rival party. The Court held that when a party presents a genuine counter-version involving cognizable offences, separate injuries, and a cross-casualty, the police are duty-bound to record the counter-version and investigate both aspects rather than preemptively declaring one side as aggressors without a full report. The key principle laid down is that subsequent information disclosing separate criminal activities or a distinct counter-version entitles the aggrieved party to the registration and investigation of their case, and counter-cases should be duly recorded to ensure an impartial conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second F.I.R. can be registered when it discloses a distinct counter-version and separate cognizable offences arising from the same incident?
  • Is the police justified in refusing to record a counter-version by declaring one party as the aggressor without investigating both sides?
  • Does an aggrieved party have the right under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to have their case registered when presenting a genuine grievance involving cross-injuries and casualties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others1993 MLD 1631 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2606 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalil vs State and another1993 P Cr. I. J 1663 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1215 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs Sharifan Bibi and 4 others1993 CLC 1325 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-02
  civil revisiondismissal for non-suitclosure of evidencebreach of promise to marryrecovery suitadjournments
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for the recovery of cash and valuables given in contemplation of a marriage that was subsequently called off by the defendants. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit for non-proof after closing his evidence under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, given that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence despite numerous opportunities. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted lawfully and properly in closing the evidence and dismissing the suit when the plaintiff failed to produce witnesses or attend the proceedings. The court laid down the principle that where a party repeatedly fails to produce evidence despite multiple adjournments, the trial court is fully justified in applying the penal provisions of Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to close the evidence and dismiss the suit for want of proof, thereby preventing the unnecessary prolongation of litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court dismiss a suit for non-proof after closing the plaintiff's evidence under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a trial court justified in closing the plaintiff's evidence when multiple opportunities have been squandered and no witnesses are in attendance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid and another vs The State1993 MLD 157 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed alias Javed Iqbal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2444 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid Akhtar vs S.P., Sialkot and others1993 P Cr. L J 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil Butt vs Rana Mansib Ali Khan and others1993 CLC 2190 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil and another vs The State1993 MLD 1372 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jahangir vs Secretary Education DepartmentK.L.K. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 255 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and another vs Bahadur and 2 others1993 CLC 1637 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-17
  civil revisionpre-emption suitadditional evidencemiscarriage of justiceremand of caseappellate court procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had decreed a pre-emption suit in favour of the respondents. The petitioners, who were the vendees, argued that the lower appellate court failed to adjudicate upon their application for additional evidence, which sought to establish that they also held ownership rights in the estate, potentially placing them on equal footing with the pre-emptors. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court erred in law by failing to decide the pending application for additional evidence before delivering its final judgment on the merits of the appeal. The High Court held that the lower appellate court was legally obligated to decide the application for additional evidence before disposing of the main appeal. By failing to do so, the court committed a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate decree and remanded the case to the District Judge with directions to decide the application for additional evidence first, followed by a fresh decision on the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appellate court legally required to decide an application for additional evidence before delivering a final judgment on the merits of an appeal?
  • Does the failure of an appellate court to adjudicate a pending application for additional evidence constitute a miscarriage of justice?
  • What is the appropriate remedy when an appellate court fails to decide a material application for additional evidence filed by a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam vs Muhammad SiddiqueK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Isiiaque and 2 others vs District Judge, Sargodha and 31993 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20
  pre-emptionrevival of suitZarooratZararplaint amendmentconstitutional jurisdictionPunjab Pre-emption Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the District Judge, Sargodha, which had revived a previously dismissed pre-emption suit. The original suit, filed in 1989, was dismissed on 31-7-1990 and attained finality. Respondents subsequently sought revival under Section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The High Court examined whether the suit qualified for revival under the 1991 Act, which requires that a pre-emption claim must be based on 'Zaroorat' (need) or avoidance of 'Zarar' (harm), as mandated by Section 6(2) of the Act. The Court observed that the original plaint lacked any averment regarding 'Zaroorat' or 'Zarar'. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that the absence of these mandatory pleadings is fatal to a pre-emption suit. It further determined that for the purpose of reviving a dismissed suit, the court must examine the existing plaint without allowing amendments to introduce new, essential material. Consequently, the High Court set aside the District Judge's order, restoring the trial court's dismissal of the revival application, as the plaint failed to meet the statutory requirements for revival.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to plead 'Zaroorat' or avoidance of 'Zarar' in a pre-emption plaint render the suit liable to dismissal under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991?
  • Can a dismissed pre-emption suit be revived under Section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 if the original plaint lacks the mandatory averments required by the new law?
  • Is a court permitted to allow an amendment to a plaint to introduce 'Zaroorat' or 'Zarar' for the purpose of reviving a previously dismissed pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishfaq vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1727 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs Mst. Hamida Begum1993 MLD 674 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq and another vs Mst. Ariba Musharraf1993 MLD 2144 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 820 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 354 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 40 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Kocub vs Judge Family Court, Lahore and another1993 CLC 699 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1811 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Alias Ballu vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 391 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iobal and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1192 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imtiaz and anothers vs Station House Officer, Police1993 P Cr. L J 2585 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas and another vs The State1993 MLD 1175 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas and another vs Beqar Hussain and 2 others1993 CLC 15 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 626 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas & Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 149 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iltaf vs Muhammad NawazK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 85 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1333 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14
  criminal appealculpable homicide not amounting to murderbenefit of the doubtright of private defencemedical evidencecontradictory ocular testimonyappellants acquitted
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction and sentence under section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellants challenged their conviction. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution established its version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the sequence of occurrences, the presence of eye-witnesses, the truthfulness of the alleged motive, and the applicability of the right of private defence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution version suffered from serious infirmities, inconsistencies, and contradictions, notably contradicted by medical evidence demonstrating that one of the accused was hospitalized at the alleged time of the second incident. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case honestly and that the accused were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence bristles with improbabilities and conflicts with medical testimony, and where the accused's version regarding self-defence and a sudden scuffle is more plausible, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical evidence takes precedence over ocular testimony when eye-witnesses' presence is doubtful?
  • Does an accused person acting to rescue an abducted relative and facing aggression acquire a right of private defence?
  • Is the prosecution obliged to present a consistent and honest version of events free from major infirmities to secure a conviction?
  • Whether discrepancies regarding the timing of incidents and hospital admissions entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs Atta Muhammad1993 CLC 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees Shah and 4 others vs District Judge, Jhelum and 21993 CLC 143 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Rashid Ahmad, D.S.P. and others1993 P Cr. L J 1755 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim Chowkidar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 89 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and 6 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2278 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 623 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06
  post-arrest bailcross-versionmutual injuriesfurther inquirycriminal procedureland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application by Muhammad Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 336, 337-A, and 337-F of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance for causing injuries during a dispute over Shamlat Deh. The core legal question is whether an accused person sustaining serious injuries in a cross-version case, where the complainant party's injuries are unexplained and the opposite side has already been granted bail, is entitled to further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that where both sides sustain injuries and a cross-case is registered, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, making the accused equally entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that in cross-version cases involving mutual injuries and challans against both parties, if one party is released on bail, the other party is similarly entitled to bail so they may pursue their defense, pending trial determination of who acted as the aggressor.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person sustaining injuries in a cross-version case is entitled to bail when the opposite party has already been released on bail?
  • Does a case fall under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when both the accused and the complainant party are seriously injured and registered cross-cases against each other?
  • Is the failure of the complainant to explain injuries on the person of the accused a relevant ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 194 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2347 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs S.H.O., P.S., Bikhi and others1993 MLD 2024 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Younas and 2 others1993 CLC 2407 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 366 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and others vs Mumtaz Ali and others1993 CLC 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and another vs The State1993 MLD 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-09Read full judgment →