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.

• Mangta Khan vs Mst. Azeeb Akhtar and others1991 MLD 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Manak vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2388 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-29Read full judgment →
• Malik Zafar Hussain vs Abdul Rashid and others1991 MLD 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Malik Siddiq Ahmad and 11 others vs WAPDA through Chairman and 21991 MLD 1044 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-12Read full judgment →
• Malik Paiker Maqsood and 106 others vs Sh. Muhammad Amin and 6371991 M LD 106 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Syed Ali Raza Asad Abidi vs Ghulam Ishaq1991 PLD Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court
  quo warrantoelection of the Presidentconstitutional interpretationharmonious constructionlachesvacancy in office of President
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 sought a writ of quo warranto to restrain respondent No. 1 from functioning as the President of Pakistan, to declare his election and orders null and void, and to direct fresh presidential elections. The core legal question revolved around the interpretation of Articles 41(3), 41(5), 41(7), and 49 of the Constitution, specifically whether the presidential election held on 12 December 1988 was premature based on the contention that the tenure of the preceding President extended until 20 March 1990. The Lahore High Court held that Article 41(7) was a particularized provision applicable exclusively to late President General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq and became inoperative upon his demise, necessitating an election within thirty days of the conclusion of the general elections under Article 41(5) and Article 49. The Court ruled that the election of respondent No. 1 was valid, the petition was barred by laches due to unexplained delay, and dismissed the petition accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Article 41(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is a particularized provision that lost its utility and efficacy upon the demise of President General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq?
  • Does laches apply to a constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto when the petitioner exhibits inordinate delay and questionable bona fides?
  • Whether an election to fill the vacancy in the Office of the President must be held within thirty days of the general elections to the National Assembly when the Assembly stood dissolved at the time of the vacancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Munawar Man vs Election Tribunal District Judge, Lahore and 8 others1991 CLC 180 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-26
  election petitionconstitutional petitionelection tribunalrecount of votestampering of election recordForm XIIZila Council election
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order by the Election Tribunal declaring the petitioner’s election as a Zila Council member void and declaring the respondent the winner. The core legal question concerns whether an Election Tribunal can rely on unsealed and tampered election records to conduct a recount and overturn an election result. The High Court held that the Election Tribunal committed a grave illegality by basing its decision on records that were neither properly maintained nor sealed, as required by Rule 43 of the Election Rules. The Court observed that the ballot envelopes were open and empty, indicating tampering. Consequently, the Court ruled that such compromised records cannot form the basis for declaring an election void. Instead, the initial count prepared by the Presiding Officer at the conclusion of the polls, as reflected in Form XII, must prevail. The impugned order was declared to have been passed without lawful authority and was quashed, effectively restoring the petitioner as the returned candidate.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Election Tribunal rely on unsealed and tampered election records to conduct a recount and overturn an election result?
  • Does the initial count prepared by the Presiding Officer at the conclusion of the polls prevail when subsequent election records are found to be tampered with?
  • Is an Election Tribunal required to follow the sealing procedures prescribed by the Election Rules for election records?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Hanif, Assistant Food Controller vs Government of Punjab through1991 PLC (C.S.) 1104 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-22Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Bashir vs Mahmoodulhassan1991 CLC 1678 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 94 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Malik Manzoor Ahmad vs Sardar Muhammad1991 CLC 877 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16
  constitutional petitionstriking off defencerent depositchallan formwillful defaulttenant evictionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 was filed against the order of the District Judge, Gujranwala, which affirmed the Rent Controller's order striking off the petitioner's defence under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question was whether a tenant's failure to state the landlord's name in column No. 2 of the rent deposit challan forms—instead entering his own name—constituted a willful default justifying defence striking off, despite citing the case title in column No. 3. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that omitting the landlord's name for whose benefit the rent was deposited rendered the deposit unlawful and invalid tender under Section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The Court established that depositing rent without identifying the landlord in the appropriate challan column is deliberate default rather than a mere technical error, and concurrent factual findings of willful non-compliance by lower courts cannot be re-examined under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does omitting the landlord's name in the rent deposit challan form constitute a willful violation under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can a defect in entering the landlord's name in column No. 2 of a rent challan form be cured by mentioning the case title in column No. 3?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding a tenant's willful non-compliance subject to interference under Article 199 constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Lal Khan vs District and Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi1991 PLC (C.S.) 109 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-15
  civil servantefficiency and disciplinedismissal from serviceillegal gratificationinquiry officerauthorised officermandatory procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a copy clerk from service by the District and Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, on charges of corruption under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The core legal question revolves around whether the mandatory procedural requirements regarding the separation of functions between the 'Authority' and the 'Authorised Officer' under the rules were violated, and whether the evidence sufficed to establish the charge. The Lahore High Court held that the District and Sessions Judge illegally combined the roles of the Authority and the Authorised Officer without proper empowerment, completely ignoring imperative procedural safeguards, which severely prejudiced the appellant. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution evidence was contradictory and failed to establish the charge of illegal gratification on merits. The appeal was accepted, the impugned dismissal order was set aside, and the appellant was reinstated with back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Authority under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 combine in itself the role of an Authorised Officer without explicit authorization?
  • Does the failure to route an inquiry through an Authorised Officer vitiate disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  • Whether conflict between the charge-sheet and prosecution evidence is fatal to a disciplinary charge of corruption?
  • Are the procedural provisions regarding departmental inquiries mandatory for ensuring a fair probe into charges against a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Iftikhar Ahmad vs Inayat Ali and others1991 CLC 978 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
• Malik Aftab Aslam vs Mian Altaf Ahmad and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 214 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
• Maj. Pervez Shakoor and 4 others vs Muhammad Usman1991 MLD 536 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-02Read full judgment →
• Maj. (Retd.) Khaliq-Uz-Zaman vs Chairman, Board of Directors, Ghee1991 PLC (C.S.) 519 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodul Hassan vs Town Committee, Sialkot and others1991 CLC 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodul Hassan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Mahmooda Begum vs District Magistrate, Sialkot and 2 others1991 PLD Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-06
  cinema license suspensionMotion Pictures Ordinance 1979Punjab Cinematograph Rules 1984Licensing Authorityobscenitydepartmental actionultra vireswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order by the District Magistrate, Sialkot, suspending a cinema license for two months following the exhibition of obscene films. The petitioner contended that the raid and subsequent suspension were illegal, arguing that the District Magistrate lacked authority under the Motion Pictures Ordinance 1979 and that the relevant Punjab Cinematograph Rules 1984 were ultra vires. The Court held that the District Magistrate, having been designated as the Licensing Authority, possesses the inherent power to suspend or cancel a license for breach of conditions or rules, independent of criminal proceedings. It determined that Rule 80, authorizing inspection of premises, and Rule 109, governing suspension, are intra vires the Ordinance. The Court clarified that departmental action under Rule 109 is distinct from criminal penalties under Section 18 of the Ordinance and does not require a prior criminal conviction. Finding that the petitioner was afforded due process and that the allegations of mala fides were unsubstantiated, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the authority's power to regulate cinema exhibitions to prevent obscenity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the District Magistrate, as the Licensing Authority, have the power to suspend a cinema license for breach of rules independent of a criminal conviction?
  • Are Rule 80 and Rule 109 of the Punjab Cinematograph Rules 1984 ultra vires the Motion Pictures Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the power to grant a license under the Motion Pictures Ordinance 1979 imply the power to suspend or cancel it for violations?
  • Is departmental action for license suspension under the Punjab Cinematograph Rules 1984 contingent upon a prior criminal conviction under the Motion Pictures Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Khan and 242 others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Railways Islamabad and 5 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 415 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-05
  Pakistan Railwayscivil servantssupervisory staffjurisdiction barFederal Service Tribunallocus poenitentiaepiece work allowanceworkmen definitionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple connected constitutional petitions filed by supervisory staff of Pakistan Railways (Sub-Engineers, Chargemen, and Foremen in BPS-11 to 16) challenging a Railway Administration recommendation and notification that modified and altered their entitlement to consolidated piece-work profit/allowance. The petitioners argued that piece-work profits granted via prior notifications created a vested right under the principle of locus poenitentiae that could not be rescinded. The respondents raised preliminary objections asserting that the petitioners were civil servants whose terms and conditions were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal, thereby barring High Court jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Lahore High Court examined Articles 212, 240, and 260 of the Constitution alongside Section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act 1973, Section 2(h) of the Factories Act 1934, and Section 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. The Court held that supervisory staff are neither 'workers' nor 'workmen' under the statutory exceptions, but are civil servants in the Service of Pakistan. Consequently, the High Court held that the petitions were incompetent and barred by Article 212 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Are supervisory staff of Pakistan Railways in Grades 11 to 16 classified as civil servants under Section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain service disputes of Railway supervisory staff in light of the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether supervisory Railway staff performing administrative or supervisory duties fall under the statutory exceptions of 'worker' or 'workman' under the Factories Act 1934 or Workmen's Compensation Act 1923?
  Read full judgment →
• Mah Mood Ahmad Etc vs Ghulam Rasool EtcK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 66 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24Read full judgment →
• Madrassa Darul Aloom Albaqiatulsalihat vs Additional,District1991 CLC 882 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
• Madad Ali Shah vs Revenue Minister and others1991 MLD 2394 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
• M.D. Tahir, Advocate vs The Managing Director, Pakistan Television1991 P Cr. L J 1674 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• M. Muzaffar Ali vs Chairman, N.I.R.C. and others1991 PLC 876 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-02
  unfair labour practiceN.I.R.C. jurisdictionwrit petitiondepartmental inquirylawful discharge of dutyindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated writ petitions challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) regarding complaints of unfair labour practices filed against employees of Pakistan International Airlines. The petitioners, including a Security Officer, a District Manager, and Inquiry Officers, were summoned by the N.I.R.C. following the dismissal of certain staff members. The core legal question was whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted as true, constituted an 'unfair labour practice' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Upon reviewing the complaint, the Lahore High Court held that the actions taken by the petitioners—namely, submitting reports and conducting departmental inquiries—were performed in the lawful discharge of their official duties and did not fall within the ambit of unfair labour practices defined under Section 15 of the Ordinance. Consequently, the Court ruled that the N.I.R.C. acted in excess of its lawful authority. The impugned notices were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, establishing that jurisdiction cannot be assumed where the alleged conduct fails to meet the statutory criteria for unfair labour practices.

  Questions settled

  • Does the performance of official duties, such as reporting misconduct or conducting departmental inquiries, constitute an unfair labour practice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can the National Industrial Relations Commission assume jurisdiction over a complaint that fails to allege facts constituting an unfair labour practice?
  • Are notices issued by the National Industrial Relations Commission without a valid basis in law liable to be set aside in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Iqbal Shahid vs Mst. Zohra Khatoon and others1991 CLC 861 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
• M. Iqbal And Others vs S.H.O. and others-1991 P Cr. L J 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• M. Ashraf Etc. vs Member Board of Revenue Etc.K.L.R. 1991 CivU Cases 107 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-08Read full judgment →
• M. Anwar And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1700 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• M. Akmal Beg Mirza vs Tahawwar Ali Khan and another1991 CLC 304 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
• Lyallpur Cotton Mills vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1991 PLC 32 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-04
  grievance petitionlimitation periodretrenchmentemployer discretionmemorandum of appealtechnical irregularitiesindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had ruled in favor of an employee whose services were retrenched due to the closure of a weaving section. The core legal questions concerned whether the employee's grievance petition was time-barred, whether the failure to sign the memorandum of appeal rendered it incompetent, and whether the Labour Court could interfere with an employer's business decision to close a department. The Court held that the grievance petition was time-barred, as Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 was inapplicable to a voluntarily withdrawn petition, and the employee failed to justify the delay. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the signing of a memorandum of appeal by a counsel is sufficient, and technical irregularities in pleadings are curable. Finally, the Court held that it is the exclusive discretion of an employer to manage business operations, including the closure of a department. The impugned orders were set aside, and the employee's grievance petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a grievance petition allow for the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is a memorandum of appeal filed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 incompetent if signed by the counsel rather than the appellant?
  • Can a Labour Court interfere with an employer's decision to close a specific department of their business?
  • Does the definition of 'employer' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 require the naming of specific managers in a grievance petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt.Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Anwar Khan vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Lahore and 3 others1991 CLC 1805 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
• Liaquat vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Liaqat vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2097 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs Muhammad Saleem, A.S.I.1991 P Cr. L J 1322 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 436 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-11Read full judgment →
• Lala Niaz Ahmad vs Malik Ishtiaq Ahmad and others1991 MLD 1655 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1661 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Lal Din vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1559 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Lal Deeno And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2000 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Lahore Improvement Trust through Chairman vs Messrs Alazam Limited1991 CLC 1307 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority through its Director-General vs Muhammad Mushtaq and 5 others1991 MLD 47 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-07Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority through its Director General vs Mst. Rubi1991 CLC 302 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-18Read full judgment →
• Lahore Cantt. Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Punjab1991 CLC 1740 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Laher Khan and anothers vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands)1991 CLC 1561 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Khushnood Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1920 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07
  smugglingnarcoticscustoms offencecriminal appealsentence reductionfirst offenderrecovery evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge Customs, Lahore, under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969. The appellant was convicted for attempting to smuggle 2,750 grams of heroin, discovered in a false bottom of his luggage at the Lahore Railway Station. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the appellant's intent to smuggle the contraband out of Pakistan and the reliability of the recovery evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the case through consistent testimony of Customs officials and documentary evidence, including the appellant's passport bearing an emigration clearance seal for India. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the appellant's defense—that he was merely a bystander—unsubstantiated. However, considering the appellant was a first-time offender and had been incarcerated since his arrest, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence from ten years to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a passport with emigration clearance in a Customs Zone sufficiently establish an intent to smuggle contraband out of Pakistan?
  • Can a conviction under the Customs Act 1969 be sustained based on the testimony of Customs officials regarding the recovery of narcotics?
  • Is a first-time offender entitled to a reduction in sentence for a conviction under the Customs Act 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1787 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad Alias Munshi And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh Khan vs Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur and others1991 MLD 2020 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 586 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Khial Din vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1660 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
• Khanoo vs District Judge, Gujrat and others1991 MLD 2333 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
• Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 433 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-28Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 508 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-03Read full judgment →
• Khan Agha vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Khalifa Muhammad Yaqub vs Muhammad Siddique and 3 others1991 MLD 532 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-16Read full judgment →
• Khalid Pervez vs Muhammad Hanif Kiani1991 MLD 2711 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-16Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mumtaz vs Hamid Ali Khan1991 MLD 2064 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-10Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 994 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javed Virk vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
• Khalid And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1633 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Khalid Akhtar vs Mst. Robina and others1991 MLD 2349 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-08
  dissolution of marriagefamily courtright to produce evidenceconstitutional petitionremand of casearbitrary exercise of power
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenges a judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Lahore, which dissolved the marriage of the respondent after closing the petitioner's evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted arbitrarily and without lawful authority by refusing to record the statements of the petitioner and his father, who were present in court, despite the petitioner's counsel being unable to appear due to illness. The High Court held that the trial court's failure to record the statements of the petitioner and his father, who was listed as a witness, was unjustified and rendered the judgment without lawful authority. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned decree and remanded the case for a fresh decision, granting the petitioner one final opportunity to produce his witnesses. The key principle laid down is that a court must record the testimony of witnesses present in court, even if it denies a request for further adjournment, to ensure a fair trial and avoid arbitrary disposal of cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Family Court acts without lawful authority by refusing to record the statements of witnesses present in court?
  • Can a trial court close evidence and decree a suit when the party and their witnesses are present in court?
  • Is a judgment rendered without lawful authority if the court fails to record available evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim vs The State1991 MLD 2080 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
• Khadim vs Judge, Family Court, Samundari District Faislaabad and another1991 MLD 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27
  Khuladissolution of marriageOaths Actprocedural irregularityfailure of justiceMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceFamily Court decreenotice of Talaq
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges a judgment and decree of the Family Court, Samundari, which dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 via Khula upon payment of Rs. 5,000. The petitioner raised two primary legal questions: first, whether the failure to administer oaths to witnesses in accordance with the Oaths Act, 1873, renders the decree void; and second, whether a decree for dissolution of marriage by a Family Court requires a separate notice of Talaq by the husband to the Chairman under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to become effective. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that a mere irregularity in the administration of oaths does not invalidate proceedings absent demonstrated prejudice or failure of justice. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 21(2) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the Family Court is statutorily obligated to send a certified copy of the dissolution decree to the Chairman, which serves as a substitute for the notice of Talaq. The principle established is that procedural irregularities not causing a failure of justice do not vitiate a decree, and a judicial decree of dissolution is self-executing regarding the notice requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to administer an oath to witnesses as per the Oaths Act 1873 automatically render a Family Court decree void?
  • Is a separate notice of Talaq required from the husband when a marriage is dissolved by a decree of the Family Court?
  • What is the legal effect of a Family Court's failure to strictly comply with procedural requirements regarding the administration of oaths?
  • Does the Family Court have a statutory duty to notify the Chairman regarding a decree of dissolution of marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1296 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain And 3 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2323 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21
  murdervicarious liabilitychance encounterminor discrepanciesinjured eye-witnesscommon intentionbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, convicting four appellants for murder and murderous assault. The core legal questions involve the credibility of injured eye-witnesses in the presence of minor discrepancies and the application of vicarious criminal liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 during a sudden chance encounter arising from prior enmity. The Lahore High Court held that minor discrepancies in the testimony of injured witnesses do not discredit their presence and core narrative, but where an occurrence is sudden and stems from a chance encounter, the principle of vicarious liability does not apply, and each accused is responsible solely for their individual acts. The court laid down that in sudden chance encounters without pre-planning, constructive liability under section 34 is excluded, requiring direct proof linking an individual accused to the fatal blow, resulting in the acquittal of three appellants and the upholding of the murder conviction for the specific assailant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies in the statements of injured eye-witnesses are sufficient to discard their otherwise reliable testimony?
  • Does the principle of vicarious criminal liability apply to a sudden occurrence arising from a chance encounter between parties?
  • Can a conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the evidence shows individual acts without a pre-arranged plan during a sudden fight?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain Alias Khadu vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 183 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-02Read full judgment →
• Kh. Zubair Ahmad and others vs Directorgeneral, L.D A. and others1991 CLC 1812 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Kh. Zahid Hussain vs Judge, Family Court and others1991 CLC 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Kh. Shamshad Ahmad vs Gul Muhammad and others1991 CLC 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Kh. Ashraf Ahmad and others vs Ashiq Hussain Bhatti and others1991 CLC 1664 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
• Kazi Samuel Shad vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs The State1991 CLC 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Karam Hussain Shah Etc vs Hasil Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 82) · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-07Read full judgment →
• Karam Hussain Shah and others vs Hasil and others1991 MLD 2275 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
• Karam Din vs Mst. Zohra Begum1991 CLC 298 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-23Read full judgment →
• Kamal Gul vs Muhammad Zaheer1991 MLD 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
• Kala Khan And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1668 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Kaka and others vs Muhammad Sharif and others1991 CLC 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Kabir Khan and others vs Mst. Raj Bibi and others1991 CLC 858 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Kabir Hussain and 3 others vs Iqbal Bibi and 2 others1991 MLD 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 999 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Juma And 5 Others vs The State1991 P. Cr. L J 2328 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-19Read full judgment →
• Jeeta Masih and others vs Province of Punjab and others1991 CLC 843 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Jayed Mehmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 145 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-28Read full judgment →
• Jayed Alias Kakkar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 140 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
• Javediobal vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• Javed Mahmood vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 138 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-28Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2429 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 355 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 723 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal And 3 Others vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 40 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Alias Billa And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1582 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
• Javed alias Jaidi vs The State1991 MLD 1433 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
• Javaid Akhtar Bhatti vs Deputy Commissioner and others1991 MLD 1498 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Javaid Ahmad vs The State EtcK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 498 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Jan M U Ham Mad vs Khurshid and others1991 MLD 920 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-22Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Azam vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2382 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-25Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Ali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1889 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →