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.

• Aitebar Shah vs Amir Shah and 3 others1991 MLD 1784 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 369 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29
  criminal revisionconviction without chargecognate offencesappellate court powersdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from a trial where the petitioners were initially charged and convicted by a Magistrate under Section 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the petitioners of the original charges but convicted them under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can convict an accused for an offence for which they were not originally charged, particularly when the new offence is not cognate to the original charge. The Court held that the conviction was bad in law because the petitioners were not charged under Section 324, and the offence under Section 324 is not cognate to the offence under Section 148/149. The Court established the principle that an accused cannot be convicted of a major offence without a specific charge, especially when the new offence is not cognate to the original charge for which the accused was tried. Consequently, the revision was accepted, and the petitioners were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court convict an accused for an offence for which they were not originally charged?
  • Is an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cognate to an offence under Section 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the conviction of an accused for a major offence without a specific charge violate legal principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Tariq and others vs Muhammad Nazir Hasrat Sahrai and others1991 MLD 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sher And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1454 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1561 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nadeem vs Chairman, Arbitration Council and others1991 MLD 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-04
  talaqeffective divorcenotice of divorceMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceArbitration Councilconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the Arbitration Council declaring a pronouncement of talaq ineffective due to the absence of a separate formal notice under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The core legal question was whether a divorce deed itself could serve as a sufficient notice under Section 7 of the Ordinance, and whether the expiration of the 90-day period operates independently of the Arbitration Council's proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that since no specific form of notice is prescribed by the law, a divorce deed containing the requisite information communicated to the wife and Chairman constitutes substantial compliance with Section 7. The Court further ruled that talaq becomes effective ipso facto upon the expiry of 90 days from the date the notice is received by the Chairman, by efflux of time, without requiring any formal certificate from the Arbitration Council. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the impugned order was declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a divorce deed executed by a husband can be regarded as a sufficient notice under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • Does Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 prescribe any specific form for the notice of talaq?
  • Does a talaq become effective automatically upon the expiry of ninety days from the delivery of notice to the Chairman?
  • Does the filing of proceedings by the Chairman Arbitration Council before the expiry of the ninety-day period arrest the running of time for the effectiveness of talaq?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs The State1991 MLD 2421 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan Alias Ahmad and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 19 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hayat vs The State Respondent1991 P Cr. L J 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hassan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1810 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Faraz vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 407 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16
  contractual employmenttermination of servicecivil servantre-employment after retirementwrit petition maintainabilitypublic employmentnatural justicemaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by Ahmad Faraz, a well-known poet and literary figure, challenging the termination of his three-year contractual appointment as Chairman of the Pakistan Academy of Letters in Grade-21. The core legal question was whether the arbitrary termination of a contractual public employment, pursuant to a notice clause, was sustainable in law, whether the provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 applied to such contractual re-employment after retirement, and whether a writ petition was maintainable to enforce a contractual employment. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, being employed on a contract after retirement, did not fall within the definition of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and therefore statutory provisions such as sections 11 and 14 of the Act were inapplicable. The court ruled that contractual engagements are governed by the volition of the parties and the terms of the contract, and principles of natural justice or Quranic injunctions of Adal, Qist, and Ehsan do not override an expressly agreed termination clause. The court laid down the principle that a writ petition is not maintainable to enforce a contractual employment or to challenge its termination where the remedy lies in damages for breach.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person employed on a contract after superannuation falls within the definition of a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 be invoked to challenge the termination of a contractual re-employment?
  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable to enforce a contractual employment or challenge its termination?
  • Does the inclusion of a termination clause in a service contract override the principles of natural justice and Quranic injunctions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 318 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs The State1991 MLD 2086 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din And Another vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1813 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Arslan vs Additional District Judge and 4 others1991 MLD 1935 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Anwarul Azam vs Zawar Ahmad1991 CLC 1684 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Ahmad And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1811 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and others vs Nawab and others1991 MLD 2050 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Alias Ahmun And 3 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16
  murdercommon intentiondeath sentence confirmationpresidential amnestycommutation of sentenceconsecutive sentencesconcurrent sentenceseyewitness evidenceballistic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, who convicted four appellants under Sections 302/34, 449/34, and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the premeditated murder of nine persons and causing firearm injuries to two others. The motive stemmed from long-standing enmity over past abductions and refusal to exchange women. The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, recoveries of blood-stained daggers, and a positive ballistic report. The Lahore High Court evaluated the evidence, held that the presence of natural and injured eyewitnesses was established, and found the prompt FIR and corroborative recoveries reliable. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentences. It held that under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a death sentence passed by a trial court remains inchoate until confirmed by the High Court; thus, presidential general amnesty notifications commute death sentences only after final judicial confirmation. Furthermore, consecutive sentencing under Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is the general rule, while concurrent sentencing is an exception requiring reasoned judicial discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a presidential amnesty commuting death sentences apply to condemned prisoners whose death sentences have not yet been confirmed by the High Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether sentences of imprisonment for multiple offences tried at one trial must run consecutively under Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 unless explicit judicial reasons are given for running them concurrently?
  • Can capital punishment be awarded to multiple co-accused who act in furtherance of a common intention to commit multiple murders without extenuating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad & Three Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 565 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ahdur Rahman vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 263 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ahdul Ghaffar vs (Mst) Ghulam FatimaK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
• Ahbab Co-Operative Housing Socity Ltd vs The Commissioner Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 291 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-23Read full judgment →
• Afzaal Hussain Shah vs The State1991PCr.LJ 113 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Aftab vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1808(2) · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad Warsi vs Punjab Road Transport Corporation1991 PLC (C.S.) 484 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27
  deputationrepatriationwrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionservice lawborrowing departmentlending departmentautonomous body
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the unilateral repatriation of the petitioner, a WAPDA employee, from his deputation position at the Punjab Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) before the expiry of the agreed three-year term. The core legal questions were whether the respondent corporation was amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether a borrowing department possesses the authority to unilaterally terminate a deputation arrangement. The Court held that the PRTC, functioning as an agency or instrumentality of the State, is indeed subject to writ jurisdiction. Regarding the merits, the Court ruled that a deputation agreement is a binding arrangement between the lending and borrowing authorities. Consequently, a borrowing department cannot unilaterally repatriate a deputationist without the mutual consent of the parent department. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of specific rules permitting unilateral action, the premature termination of a deputation period requires the mutual consent of both involved authorities to ensure the protection of the employee's service rights and tenure.

  Questions settled

  • Is a corporation that functions as an agency or instrumentality of the State amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a borrowing department unilaterally terminate a deputation period before the expiry of the agreed term without the consent of the lending authority?
  • Does the lack of specific rules regarding premature repatriation authorize a borrowing department to unilaterally return a deputationist to their parent department?
  Read full judgment →
• Afraz Ahmed vs University of the Punjab through Controller1991 CLC 1283 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
• Abru through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Siddique1991 CLC 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
• Abid Rasool vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Zonal Chief, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Lahore1991 PLC 789 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-18Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Akram Khan and 3 others1991 MLD 1502 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1593 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq Alias Billu And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1886 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdulraufahmad vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-07Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Mohabbat and others1991 CLC 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wali Khan vs Nawab Zulfiqar Ali Mamdot1991 CLC 109 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahad vs Yasmin Saigal for the State.1991 P Cr. L. J 1110 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahad vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1186 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar. vs Muhammad Sarwar and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 105 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 103 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Alias Bagga vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1313 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sami vs Abdul GhaffarK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Anwar Jillani(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 284) · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq Alias Kala vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1559 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Engineer Stores Depot, Lahore Cantt1991 PLC (C.S.) 309 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Mst, Ismat Aziz and others1991 CLC 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum And Another vs The State-1991PCr.LJ 98 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Qaddus vs Govt of Punjab Etc(K.L.R 1991 Labour & Service Cases 73) · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qaddus and others vs Government of Punjab and 266 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 471 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot and others1991 CLC 1995 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-22
  evacuee trust propertylocus standiaggrieved partyconstitution petitionultra viresauction proceedingsadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution petition challenged the auction and transfer of land by the Deputy Commissioner and Tehsildar, which the petitioner alleged was unallotted evacuee property. The core legal questions were whether the authorities possessed the jurisdiction to auction the land and whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the transaction. The Court held that the land in dispute was, in fact, evacuee trust property, which vested in the Federal Government and was subject to the management of the Evacuee Trust Property Board. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner and Tehsildar lacked the legal authority to auction or transfer such property, rendering their orders a nullity. Regarding locus standi, the Court affirmed that the term 'aggrieved party' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 should be construed liberally, granting the petitioner standing to challenge the illegal administrative action. The key principle laid down is that evacuee trust properties are distinct from general evacuee properties and can only be disposed of by the competent authority under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Deputy Commissioner have the authority to auction land classified as evacuee trust property?
  • What is the scope of the term 'aggrieved party' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are administrative orders passed without jurisdiction by a public official considered a nullity in the eyes of the law?
  • Under which statute is the Evacuee Trust Property Board empowered to manage and dispose of evacuee trust properties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and others vs Abdul Waheed and others1991 CLC 299 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1497 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed and others vs Senior Member, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi and others1991 CLC 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 194 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs S.H.O. and others-1991 P Cr. L J 966 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Siddique1991 P Cr. L J 2431 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Ahmed Din and others1991 CLC 1358 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and others vs Muhammad Younas1991 CLC 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1751 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 478 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Ghulam Samdani1991 CLC 773 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 786 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Province of Punjab and others1991 CLC 1666 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed & Company vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore 4 others1991 PLD Lahore 30 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim and others vs Mst. Farakh Jehan Begum and others1991 CLC 1613 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafiz Khan vs Muhammad Anwar and others1991 CLC 1364 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-28
  ejectment petitionlandlord and tenant relationshipdenial of titlePunjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959constitutional petitionidentity of propertycivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an appellate order of the Additional District Judge reversing the Rent Controller's eviction order under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The petitioner claimed ejectment of respondents based on default, damage to property, and personal need, asserting ownership of the premises. The respondents denied the landlord-tenant relationship and disputed the exact identity and property number of the premises in their possession. The Additional District Judge held that evidence was insufficient to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. The High Court affirmed the appellate decision, holding that where the landlord's title to the property is disputed and not free from doubt, and the identity of the premises is uncertain, the landlord must first establish title before a Civil Court. Relying on binding Supreme Court precedent, the High Court dismissed the petition while granting explicit permission to the petitioner to establish title in the Civil Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment petition can proceed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 when the landlord's title and the identity of the premises are disputed and uncertain?
  • Must a claimant establish title in a Civil Court before seeking eviction where the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied on a genuine dispute of property title?
  • Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction grant permission to a petitioner to file a civil suit for declaration of title after an ejectment petition is dismissed for lack of proven landlord-tenant relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez Bhatti And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2250 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Muhammad Shafi1991 CLC 1708 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Additional District Judge and 10 others1991 CLC 1375 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 245 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1743 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Wajid vs Rana Zahoor, S.I., Actg. S.H.O. and 2 others-1991 P Cr. L J 1551 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Wajid vs Rana Zahoor and 2 OtherK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 540 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Ashiq and others1991 CLC 820 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09
  civil revisiontemporary injunctionregistered documentdenial of executionpresumption of correctnessattesting witnessesillegal dispossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which upheld the trial court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction to the petitioner in a suit concerning a disputed plot. The petitioner claimed to be the lawful transferee of the plot since 1972, alleging that he was illegally dispossessed through forged powers of attorney and an agreement to sell, the execution of which he categorically denied. The courts below had initially refused the injunction solely on the ground that the powers of attorney were registered documents carrying a presumption of correctness. The core legal question was whether a registered document retains its presumption of correctness and sanctity when its execution is expressly denied by the alleged executant. The Lahore High Court held that once the execution of a registered document is denied, the presumption of correctness is displaced, and its veracity must be established through proper evidence, including the production of attesting witnesses pursuant to Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the respondents were restrained from altering the nature of the plot or alienating it pending the final decision of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a registered document retain a presumption of correctness when its execution is categorically denied by the alleged executant?
  • Must the execution of a denied registered document be proved by producing attesting witnesses under Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Can a temporary injunction be refused to a plaintiff merely on the basis of the registration of disputed powers of attorney without requiring proof of their execution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and others vs The State1991 MLD 2425 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Abbas And 4 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 122 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
• A. Stratta vs Government of West Pakistan and others1991 CLC 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• A. Rashid Rizwani vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf and others1991 MLD 2387 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• 77-Club through Secretary vs Secretary, Ministry, Government of Pakistan and others1991 MLD 1729 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• (M/s) Taj Company Ltd vs Tabassum Shahzad EtcK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 317 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Fatima Bibi vs Mohammad AslamK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-06Read full judgment →
• (Mst). Safia vs Muhammad RamzanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 127 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
• (Mst). Ruqeyya Khanum Etc vs Sarbuland Khan EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 126 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
• (Mst). Khairan Bibi vs The State(K.L.R.1991 Shariat Cases 4) · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
• (Mst). Fatima Bibi vs Mohammad Aslam(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 48) · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-06Read full judgment →
• (Mst). Bashiran Bibi vs (Mst) Basharat Batool Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 151 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Shahnaz Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 275 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-25Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Safia vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 235 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-23Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Mehrun-Nisa Etc vs (Mst) Zubaida Begum EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 220 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-15Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Mausooda Begum vs (Mst) Aisha Bili EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 229 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-17Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Hafeezan Begum vs Salamat AliK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 346 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
• (Mrs) Maryam Wasif vs (Mrs) Shahida Khan, EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 511 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
• (DR). Bashir Ahmad vs Province of Punjab Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 286) · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Zulqarnain vs The State1990 MLD 678 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-17Read full judgment →
• Zulqarnain Khan alias Zulfiqar Ali Khan vs The Government of Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others1990 MLD 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-03
  extraditionnarcotics smugglingfundamental rightsconstitutional petitionprima facie casepending criminal proceedingsreasonable restrictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged extradition proceedings initiated by the Government of Pakistan to surrender the petitioner to the United States for alleged narcotics smuggling. The petitioner contended that the inquiry was procedurally flawed, violated his fundamental right to reside in Pakistan, and ignored pending criminal proceedings against him before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Court held that the authenticated material provided by the United States established a prima facie case for extradition, and that the Extradition Act, 1972, imposes reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to reside in Pakistan. Regarding the pending Supreme Court proceedings, the Court determined that the petitioner, having been summoned as an accused in a pending appeal against acquittal, qualifies as a person accused of an offence under the Extradition Act, 1972. Consequently, the Court ruled that extradition cannot be effected until the conclusion of the domestic criminal proceedings. The petition was accepted in part, prohibiting the petitioner’s surrender until the finalization of the Supreme Court case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court of Pakistan preclude the extradition of an accused person?
  • Is the right to reside in Pakistan subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the Extradition Act, 1972?
  • Does the failure of a fugitive to file a written statement under the Extradition Act, 1972, invalidate the extradition inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 938 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
• Zia-Ur-Rehman vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →