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 Yunis and others vs Riffat Hayat and others1990 MLD 120 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Secretary Education, Government of Punjab1990 CLC 825 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Abdul Majid Etc.K.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 125 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 360 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1487 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 905 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Warts alias Kuk vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 700 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Punjab Local Council Election Authority1990 CLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-05
  Local Council ElectionElection PetitionElection Authority JurisdictionElection TribunalFunctus OfficioGazette NotificationReturn of ElectionQuorum and Boycott
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Punjab Local Council Election Authority setting aside an election for Chairman, Union Council Ballanwala, and ordering a fresh poll. Due to an initial scuffle, polling scheduled for 11:00 a.m. actually occurred peacefully at 12:30 p.m. Out of 24 councillors, 20 attended; the petitioner secured 10 votes while 10 boycotted, and the Presiding Officer declared the petitioner elected and submitted a return. The contesting respondent approached the Election Authority under Section 17(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 prior to gazette notification. The High Court addressed whether the Election Authority possessed jurisdiction to annul the election after the poll was completed and the result was returned. Allowing the petition, the Court held that under Section 17(2), once an election is held and the return of election is submitted, the Election Authority becomes functus officio; any challenge must be brought exclusively before the Election Tribunal via an election petition, and non-gazette notification does not confer jurisdiction under Section 17(1).

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Authority retain jurisdiction under Section 17(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 to annul an election after the poll has concluded and the return has been submitted?
  • Does the absence or non-publication of an election result in the official Gazette allow an aggrieved candidate to invoke the jurisdiction of the Election Authority instead of awaiting an election petition before the Election Tribunal?
  • Can an election result be rendered a legal nullity solely because certain members were absent or staged a boycott during the polling?
  • Whether the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal under Section 17(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 excludes the supervisory powers of the Election Authority once an election has factually taken place?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Local1990 MLD 327 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Liaqat Ali and 7 others1990 P Cr. L J 1857 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail alias Thailoo vs S.H.O., Police Station Bhaipheru and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 1161 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Director, Livestock and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 596 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Board of Intermediate and1990 CLC 898 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir and another vs The State1990 MLD 2378 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohni and 7 others vs The State1990 PLD Lahore 323 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1470 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Mushtaq Warraich and others1990 P Cr. L J 1463 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Deputy Commissioner & Collector, Bahawalnagar and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1867 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 305 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Bajwa and Another vs Writ Petition No. 1035 Of 1988K.L.R 1990, Labour & Service Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 733 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Mst. Aisha Bibi1990 P Cr. L J 811 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamas vs Deputy Collector of Customs and othersPTCL 1990 CL. 370 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique alias Kaka vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2074 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Akbar vs Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Health Department, Punjab Secretariat, Lahore1990 PLD Lahore 17 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1659 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs Additional District Judge And Other1990 CLC 1108 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mehdi Shah and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 1028 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 929 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir alias Shabbira vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Khan vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 691 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and 2 others vs Abdullah and 3 others1990 MLD 760 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and another vs The State1990 MLD 2367 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem alias Billu vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 908 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Nahid Shagufta and 3 others1990 PLD Lahore 467 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-25
  rejection of plaintcause of actionrelinquishment deedcompulsory registrationimmovable propertyinheritance rightsunregistered document
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arises from an order of the trial Court rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failing to disclose a cause of action. The plaintiff instituted a civil suit for a declaration of ownership based on an unregistered relinquishment deed dated 7-1-1986, through which defendant No. 1 allegedly surrendered her inheritance rights in immovable property. The trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that the document was compulsorily registrable and its absence rendered it legally ineffective. The Lahore High Court examined whether an unregistered relinquishment deed of immovable property valued over one hundred rupees requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act 1908 and whether an unregistered document can be used for collateral purposes in light of amendments to Section 49 of the said Act. The High Court held that the relinquishment deed purported to extinguish and create rights in immovable property and thus required compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act 1908. The Court concluded that without registration, the document could not affect the immovable property or confer rights upon the plaintiff, thereby failing to disclose a valid cause of action for a title suit. The appeal was dismissed in limine, affirming the trial Court's rejection of the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Does a written relinquishment deed surrendering rights in immovable property require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908?
  • Can an unregistered relinquishment deed valued above one hundred rupees be used to establish title or create rights in immovable property?
  • Whether a plaint based entirely on an unregistered, compulsorily registrable relinquishment deed fails to disclose a cause of action under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Mazhari vs Muhammad Sharif And 10 Other1990 CLC 889 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-22
  second appeallocal commissionerdemarcationfailure to exercise jurisdictionremand of caseinterlocutory application
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second appeal arising from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which dismissed the appellant's first appeal against the dismissal of his suit for declaration. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court committed a failure of jurisdiction by deciding the main appeal without disposing of a pending application filed by the appellant for the appointment of a local commissioner for demarcation. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate court was legally obliged to decide the pending application for the appointment of a local commissioner, and failing to do so or to discuss it in the main judgment amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. The court laid down the principle that an appellate court must expressly decide and dispose of pending interlocutory applications, such as one for appointing a local commissioner, before or alongside deciding the main appeal. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the lower appellate court's judgment, and remanded the case back for a fresh decision on both the application and the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is legally obliged to dispose of a pending application for the appointment of a local commissioner before deciding the main appeal?
  • Does the failure of a lower appellate court to attend to or decide a pending interlocutory application for the appointment of a local commissioner amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction?
  • What is the legal effect when an appellate court decides an appeal without adjudicating upon a properly filed application for local demarcation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed alias Seedu and 3 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1447 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed alias Pupoo and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 552 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Etc. vs Abdul Aziz Etc.K.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 93 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Another vs Abdul Aziz And Another1990 CLC 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-28
  co-sharer rightspre-emptionagricultural landurban immovable propertyjoint holdingpartition of landdeclaratory decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved two distinct legal disputes: a suit by a co-sharer challenging the sale of specific joint land, and pre-emption suits concerning the same property. Regarding the co-sharer's suit, the Court held that while a co-sharer may transfer specific fields within a joint holding, such a sale is not void but remains subject to the rights of other co-sharers until partition by metes and bounds. The plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the sale was ineffective against their rights. Regarding the pre-emption suits, the core question was whether the subject land constituted 'agricultural land' or 'urban immovable property.' The Court determined that the land had lost its agricultural character due to its location, surrounding industrial infrastructure, and lack of agricultural use, rendering it 'urban immovable property.' Consequently, the land was not subject to the right of pre-emption. The judgment reaffirms that the character of land for pre-emption purposes is determined by its actual use and surroundings at the time of sale, rather than mere revenue classification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer sell specific fields within a joint holding without the consent of other co-sharers?
  • Does the sale of specific fields by a co-sharer entitle other co-sharers to a declaration that the sale is ineffective against their rights?
  • What criteria determine whether land constitutes 'agricultural land' or 'urban immovable property' for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • Does the inclusion of land within municipal limits and the presence of surrounding industrial structures automatically classify it as urban immovable property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1978 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Sahi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Minhas vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1353 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-05
  bail before arrestprohibition of hadd ordercustoms actheroin smugglingmala fidefurther inquiryinvestigating officer opinion
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 read with sections 156(1) and 157 of the Customs Act 1969, arising out of a recovery of heroin from an office premises. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery, the investigating officer's declaration of innocence, and potential mala fides. The Lahore High Court held that where the investigating officer declares the accused innocent, no material directly connects the accused to the recovered contraband, and prima facie evidence points towards possible mala fides, a case for further inquiry is made out, warranting the grant of pre-arrest bail despite the heinousness of the offence. The key principle laid down is that the heinousness of an allegation alone should not deny an accused pre-arrest bail when the facts and circumstances of the case, including a lack of incriminating evidence and potential mala fides, establish a case for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted in a narcotics case when the investigating officer declares the accused innocent?
  • Does the heinousness of an allegation alone bar an accused from obtaining pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether bail before arrest is maintainable when there is prima facie material indicating bad faith or mala fides in the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid and 3 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1908 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 897 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and another1990 PLD Lahore 267 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Bashir AlMAD1990 MLD 825 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan alias Tariq Mahmood and 3 others vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 1446 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 886 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 196 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and another vs The State1990 MLD 650 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 899 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1373 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Sultan Mehmood and 4 others1990 PLD Lahore 182 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs District Judge Rahimyar Khan And Other1990 CLC 1442 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Allah Diwaya And 3 Other1990 CLC 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1985 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 9 others vs The State1990 PLD Lahore 287 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 272 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem alias Gogi and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1607 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-06
  capital punishmentocular evidenceinterested witnessescorroborationforensic evidencealibiburden of proofcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from convictions for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on ocular testimony from interested and related witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that because the eyewitnesses were deeply connected to the deceased and had a history of enmity with the accused, their testimony required independent corroboration. The Court acquitted most appellants, finding no such corroboration for them. However, it upheld the conviction and death sentence of Muhammad Naeem alias Gogi, as his ocular testimony was corroborated by forensic evidence linking his recovered sten-gun to crime scene empties. The Court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove its case independently; an accused’s failure to prove a defense, such as an alibi, cannot be used to establish guilt or shift the burden of proof. Furthermore, forensic ballistic reports serve as vital corroborative evidence when ocular accounts are otherwise insufficient.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to prove a plea of alibi shift the burden of proof to the accused?
  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient for conviction in a capital case without independent corroboration?
  • Can forensic ballistic reports serve as sufficient corroboration for ocular testimony in murder cases?
  • Does the opinion of police officers regarding the innocence of certain accused during investigation carry evidentiary weight in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malik vs Muhammad Hussain and others1990 PLD Lahore 386 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 691 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and others vs Fazal Haq and another1990 P Cr. L J 1123 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 694 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 572 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jafar Tarar vs District Magistrate, Gujranwala And Another1990 CLC 281 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26
  constitutional petitionmandatory consultationadministrative lawlocal authorityparking point permissionstatutory interpretationjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the District Magistrate, Gujranwala, granting permission to use a specific land parcel as a parking point for wagons. The petitioner contended that the order was mala fide, violated statutory provisions, and was issued without the mandatory consultation with the local authority and the Superintendent of Police. The core legal question was whether the requirement of consultation under the relevant motor vehicle laws is mandatory or directory. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was without lawful authority because the District Magistrate failed to consult the local authority as required by law. The court rejected the argument that consultation with local Members of Parliament or Provincial Assemblies could substitute for the statutory requirement of consulting the local authority. The court established the principle that where a statute prescribes a specific procedure or condition precedent, such as mandatory consultation with a named body before exercising administrative power, that condition must be strictly complied with. Failure to adhere to such mandatory procedural requirements renders the administrative action void and unsustainable in law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement to consult a local authority under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 mandatory or directory?
  • Can consultation with Members of Parliament or Provincial Assemblies satisfy a statutory requirement to consult a local authority?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to comply with a mandatory condition precedent prescribed by a statute for the exercise of administrative power?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jafar Tarar vs District Magistrate, Gujranwala And 31990 CLC 271 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Itbar Khan vs Fazal Hussain and 3 others1990 PLD Lahore 116 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-06
  consent decreeright of appealwaiverlocal inspectionextra cursum curiaeestoppelcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for a perpetual injunction regarding property possession and construction, where the plaintiff alleged interference by the defendants. During the proceedings, the parties jointly agreed to waive the production of evidence and consented to be bound by the trial court's decision following a local inspection and inquiry. The trial court conducted the inspection, determined the plaintiff had encroached upon common land, and ordered the removal of the construction. A decree was drawn up accordingly. The plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal, which was dismissed on the ground that the decree was passed with the parties' consent and was therefore unappealable. The petitioner challenged this dismissal in the High Court. The High Court held that where parties agree to a deviated procedure, inviting the court to act as a final arbiter or referee, the resulting decision constitutes a consent judgment. The court affirmed that such an agreement implies a waiver of the right to appeal, as parties cannot resile from a procedure they invited the court to adopt. The revision petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party appeal against a decree passed by a court acting as a referee based on the parties' joint consent?
  • Does an agreement to accept a court's decision based on local inspection imply a waiver of the right to appeal?
  • Is a judgment rendered through a procedure outside the ordinary course of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the invitation of the parties, binding and unappealable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam vs S.H.O., Police Station Dijkot, Tehsil and District1990 P Cr. L J 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Muhammad Shabbir1990 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 502 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The State1990 MLD 182 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad and 2 others vs The State1990 MLD 667 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs District Education Officer Etc.K.L.R 1990 Labour & Service Cases 204 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs District Education Officer (W), Jhang and 51990 PLC (C.S.) 664 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Goraya vs Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore and another1990 PLC (C.S.) 634 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Cheema vs Mehr Ashiq Manat, S.H.O., Police Station1990 P Cr. L J 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 661 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 4 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1410 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs S.H.O., Police Station, Sheikhupura1990 P Cr. L J 1717 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-06
  illegal detentionhabeas corpuspolice excessnon-cognizable offencesconstitutional guaranteesmonetary compensationmala fide action
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition filed against the illegal detention of a citizen by police officials. The core legal question was whether the police acted within their authority by confining an individual in a lock-up based on an inquiry into non-cognizable offences initiated by a Tehsildar's order. The Court held that the detention was illegal and mala fide, as the police lacked the authority to investigate non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order. The Court emphasized that ignorance of the law by State functionaries is no excuse. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu, directed the responsible police officers to pay monetary compensation to the petitioner for the expenses incurred in securing the release, and ordered the registration of a criminal case against the delinquent officers. The judgment reinforces the principles that the deprivation of liberty must strictly adhere to the law and that the dignity of a citizen is inviolable under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can police officers legally confine a person in a lock-up for the investigation of non-cognizable offences without a Magistrate's order?
  • Does the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 provide for monetary compensation to a citizen whose liberty has been illegally curtailed by state functionaries?
  • Is ignorance of the law a valid defense for a police officer acting in their official capacity?
  • Can a court order the registration of a criminal case against police officers found to have acted in breach of law and violated constitutional guarantees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Mst. Bakhtawar1990 CLC 894 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Pervaiz vs Secretary, Communication and Works1990 PLC (C.S.) 550 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and anothers vs The State1990 MLD 209 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and anothers vs Muhammad Yaqoob1990 MLD 783 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 5 others vs Mst. Munni and another1990 MLD 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 2 others vs The State1990 MLD 638 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Additional District Judge, Okara and 2 others1990 MLD 1815 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Additional District Judge 1ST, Okara and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 350 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-14
  guardianshipcustody of minorsjurisdictioncoram non judiceSenior Civil Judgeconstitutional petitionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Additional District Judge and the trial court regarding the custody of minors under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The core legal question was whether a judge who was not a Senior Civil Judge possessed the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate matters under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, given the statutory requirement that such powers are conferred upon Senior Civil Judges, with specific exceptions. The High Court, upon reviewing the statutory provisions and relevant notifications, held that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction as he was not a Senior Civil Judge. The Court emphasized that where there is a total lack of jurisdiction, the proceedings are coram non judice, and such an objection regarding jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even if not previously agitated. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders, allowed the petition, and remanded the case to the competent Senior Civil Judge for expeditious disposal within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Can an objection regarding a total lack of jurisdiction be raised for the first time in constitutional proceedings?
  • Are proceedings conducted by a judge lacking the requisite statutory authority considered coram non judice?
  • Which judicial officers are competent to adjudicate matters under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 in the Province?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1657 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and 2 others vs The State1990 MLD 685 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →