Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Mian Din Ahmad and Others vs The Collector, Lahore District and Others1983 CLC 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Union Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd vs Assistant1983 CLC 129 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs Uganda Hotel vs Government of Pakistan and 2 Others1983 CLC 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs S. M. Ayub & Co. and Others vs National Bank of Pakistan and Others1983 CLC 2828 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal arose from a writ petition challenging a conditional leave to defend granted by the Special Judge, Banking, under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. The respondent bank had filed a suit for recovery of a loan, which was secured by a mortgage of properties and pledge of goods. The Special Judge granted the appellants leave to defend on the condition that they deposit a substantial portion of the claimed amount or furnish a bank guarantee. The appellants' writ petition challenging this condition was dismissed by a Single Judge. On appeal, the High Court addressed whether suits based on mortgages under the Ordinance must follow the summary procedure of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the imposition of a deposit condition on a fully secured loan constituted a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The High Court held that Section 7(2) of the Ordinance overrides general law, making the summary procedure mandatory for mortgage suits. However, it ruled that imposing a cash deposit condition when a loan is already fully secured by a mortgage is an arbitrary and fanciful exercise of discretion, rendering the leave to defend illusory. The appeal was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Questions settled- Does the summary procedure under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to mortgage suits brought under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Can a discretionary order granting conditional leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be challenged through writ jurisdiction?
- Is it a valid exercise of judicial discretion to impose a cash deposit condition for leave to defend when the underlying loan is already fully secured by a mortgage?
- Messrs Rana Motors Ltd. vs Sheikh Raziuddin and 2 Others1983 CLC 1987 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pioneer Belting Mills Ltd. vs Joint Secretary, Government of Pakistan and 2 Others1983 CLC 784 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs Muhammad Islam Iftikhar Ahmad & Co. and Another vs Habib1983 CLC 2862 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Motel Inns Garden, Islamabad vs The Director, Excise and Taxation_Assistant Commissioner, Islamabad1983 PLD Lahore 458 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Haji Janna T Gul & Co.s vs Ch. Nawaz Haq and 6 Others1983 CLC 241 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants challenged the concurrent orders of the lower courts ordering their ejectment from the disputed property on the ground of personal bona fide need by the landlords. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in finding the landlords' requirement for personal use to be bona fide and whether interference was warranted in concurrent findings of fact. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the question of bona fide personal need is a question of fact, and concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless there is a material misreading or omission of evidence. The Court reaffirmed that a landlord is entitled to choose any of their premises for personal use and is not required to plead every ingredient of personal need in the initial ejectment application.
Questions settled- Whether the question of bona fide personal need of a landlord in an ejectment case is a question of fact?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement in a second appeal?
- Is a landlord required to plead all ingredients constituting personal bona fide requirement in the ejectment application?
- Does a landlord have the prerogative to choose any of their tenanted premises for personal use?
- Messrs Frank Sons & Co. vs Mian Muhammad Hussain1983 CLC 1042 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant in respect of a commercial shop on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The respondent, who is the exclusive transferee of the property, sought eviction not for his own direct occupation, but to accommodate a private limited company, "Mian Motors Limited," in which he serves as the Managing Director. The core legal question is whether a landlord can seek the ejectment of a tenant from a non-residential building for the benefit and use of a separate juristic entity such as a private limited company under the garb of "his own use" under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that a company possesses a distinct legal personality separate from its shareholders, and the expression "for his own use" strictly contemplates personal use by the individual landlord or their specified male children, rather than use by a separate juristic entity. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the ejectment orders of the lower courts were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord can seek ejectment of a tenant from a non-residential building for the benefit and use of a private limited company under the phrase 'his own use'?
- Does a shareholder or Managing Director have such an identical interest with a private limited company that the need of the company can be treated as the personal need of the individual under rent restriction laws?
- What is the precise legal scope and interpretation of the expression 'for his own use' regarding non-residential premises under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Messrs Electric Concern Corporation vs Central Board of Revenue1983 CLC 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ally Brothers & Company vs The Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 5 Others1983 CLC 1897 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-17Read full judgment →
- Meraj Din vs District Judge, Multan and Other1983 SCMR 666 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- Mehraj Din vs Lahore Improvement Trust and Others1983 CLC 70 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
- Mehdi Hussain Shah vs Malik Khizar Hayat Khan and Another1983 P Cr. L J 1601 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition sought the annulment of a revisional order passed by the Sessions Judge, which had set aside a Magistrate's order cancelling a criminal case registered under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Judge can exercise revisional jurisdiction against a Magistrate's order cancelling a police case under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when no evidence had been recorded at trial. The Lahore High Court held that an order cancelling a police report where no evidence has been recorded is administrative in nature rather than an order of discharge on merits, and is therefore not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435, 439, and 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that a Magistrate's order cancelling a case under Section 173(3) does not amount to a judicial discharge unless evidence has been recorded, and Sessions Courts lack revisional competence to interfere with such administrative cancellation orders, though Magistrates must apply their conscious minds rather than act mechanically.
Questions settled- Whether an order of a Magistrate cancelling a case on a police report under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure amounts to an order of discharge when no evidence has been recorded?
- Can a Sessions Judge exercise revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an administrative order of cancellation of a case passed by a Magistrate?
- Is the power conferred on Magistrates under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel a police case an arbitrary power or one that must proceed on relevant legal principles?
- Mehboob Ali vs Deputy Martial Law Administrator1983 CLC 3160 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- Meharban vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 6 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-15Read full judgment →
- Maulu and Others vs Secretary, Cooperative Department and Others1983 CLC 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
- Mauloo and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1847 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-29Read full judgment →
- Maula and 4 Other vs Province of Punjab and 6 Others1983 CLC 2868 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
- Maul vi Muhammad Mukhtar and Others vs Licensing Officer and Others1983 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- Mathela vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 642 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- Master Muhammad Asaf vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 908 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
- Master Haider Ali vs DR. Abdul Majid and 2 Others1983 CLC 2111 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- Masood Ahmad vs Mst. Anwar Begum1983 CLC 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
- Masitay Khan and Another vs Sardar Hadayatullah Khan, Settlement1983 CLC 3143 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-21Read full judgment →
- Masita Khan vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Another1983 PLC (C. S.). 342 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2236 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
- Maqbool and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 766 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain and Others vs The State1983 PCr.LJ 2140 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain Alias Jhoora vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 88 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-23Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Alias Manzoori and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1931 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-18Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 1967 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs XXIV Civil Judge, Karachi and 2 Others1983 CLC 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-13Read full judgment →
- Manzal Shah vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1837 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-18Read full judgment →
- Mangal Khan vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), Lahore and Another1983 CLC 22 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-01Read full judgment →
- Managing Director, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. vs Deputy1983 PLC 243 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mamraiz vs Eidhi and Others1983 CLC 96 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
- Malku and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2551 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
- Malik Sikandar Khan vs Shan Muhammad and 3 Other1983 CLC 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Waryam vs Mst. Shahnaz Masood1983 CLC 109 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-13Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Sarwar Etc. vs Government of Punjab and Others1983 CLC 2087 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Jahangir vs Federal Land Commission and 2 Others1983 PLD Lahore 394 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Hanif vs Electric Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd.1983 PLC 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
- Malik Gulzar Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1692 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
- Malik Ghulam Abbas vs Allah Wadhaya1983 CLC 205 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
- Malik Fazal-Ul-Haq and Another vs Hassan Muhammad1983 CLC 2584 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-27Read full judgment →
- Malik Ata Hussain vs D. C., Muzaffargarh1983 CLC 2445 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
- Malik Anwar Ali and Others vs Malik Bashir Ahmad1983 CLC 3083 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
- Major Amir Muhammad Khan vs DR. Faqir Muhammad and mums1983 CLC 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
- Major (Retd.) Azim Ullah Ansari vs LT.CoL. (Retd.) M. A. Mannon and Others1983 CLC 2488 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
- Majeedan Bibi vs Mukhtar Ali and Others1983 P Cr. L J 142 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-29Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodullah Khan vs Mst. Kaniz Fatima Shaifta1983 CLC 3033 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-05Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Ali Kasuri vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Akhtar vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1641 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-13Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Ahmad and 3 Others vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 612 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-27Read full judgment →
- Mahabat Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2142 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
- M. Yasin Siddiqui and 7 Others vs Ch. Muhammad Boota1983 CLC 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises from a suit for declaration and subsequent ex parte decree passed against the petitioners-defendants. The core legal question concerns the validity of substituted service and ex parte proceedings initiated on the basis of an incorrect address provided in the summons and newspaper publication, as well as the limitation period for filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted with material irregularity in proceeding ex parte where an incorrect address was used for substituted service and mandatory procedural rules regarding newspaper publication and proof thereof were not complied with. Consequently, the High Court set aside the ex parte proceedings and the resulting decree, and accepted the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that no legal presumption of knowledge can be raised regarding a notice published in a newspaper unless statutory and procedural rules requiring the sending of the newspaper copy to the party under postal certificate are strictly fulfilled.
Questions settled- Whether an ex parte decree can be sustained when substituted service is ordered and executed on an incorrect address?
- Does a legal presumption arise that a notice published in a newspaper was read by the party when mandatory procedural rules regarding proof of service are not complied with?
- Whether an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is time-barred when knowledge of the ex parte decree is disputed and unsupported by conclusive evidence?
- M. M. Khalil vs Messrs Manzoor Textile Works and Others1983 CLC 1670 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- M. K. Khakwani vs Commissioner, Multan Division and Another1983 PLD Lahore 427 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
- M. Hayat and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 260 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M. A. Tahir vs P. D. S. P., Vehari1983 P Cr. LJ 208 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-04Read full judgment →
- M. A. Majid Engineering Co. vs Solvex (Pakistan) Ltd.1983 CLC 3059 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-19Read full judgment →
- M. A. Jalil vs Group Capt. (Retd.) Salahuddin Khan1983 CLC 1685 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from proceedings to make an arbitration award a rule of the court. The core legal questions involved the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and forum of appeal based on the subject-matter of the reference under the Arbitration Act, 1940, as well as the legality of the trial court closing the petitioner's evidence and the validity of an award rendered by multiple arbitrators. The Lahore High Court held that the pecuniary jurisdiction and the forum of appeal in arbitration matters are determined by the value of the subject-matter of the reference, not the amount awarded or the market value under the Suits Valuation Act, 1887. The Court further held that a trial court acts illegally in closing a party's evidence merely for failing to file a witness list within the prescribed period, as parties retain the right to produce evidence on their own. The impugned orders making the award the rule of the court and dismissing the appeal were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after recording evidence.
Questions settled- How is the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court and the forum of appeal determined for applications and proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Does the failure to file a list of witnesses within the prescribed period deprive a party of the right to produce evidence on their own?
- What is the effect of an arbitration award rendered by multiple arbitrators where one arbitrator fails to join or give a verdict on the entire dispute?
- Can a civil revision petition be treated as an appeal and the time spent in prosecuting it in a wrong forum be condoned under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- M Uham Mad I Drees vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs Chairman, Town Committee, Qila Sobha Singh1983 PLC (C. S.) 831 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
- Liaqat and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 4 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-08Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs Punjab Road Transport Board and Another1983 PLC (C. S.) 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-27Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs Faith Muhammad and orHERs1983 CLC 1637 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs Deputy Administrator/Deputy Settlement Commis Sioner1983 CLC 306 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs Ahmed Din Gill and 2 Others1983 P Cr. L J 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali and 3 Others vs The State1983 P. Cr. L J 1203 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
- Late DR. Jan Muhammad Alvi (through Its Legal Representatives) vs Assistant Registrar, Industrial Cooperative Societies, Lahore and 5 Others1983 CLC 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
- Lalu and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
- Lala vs Sattar and Others1983 CLC 582 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-05Read full judgment →
- Lal Muhammad vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2153(1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
- Lal Muhammad vs Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and 31983 CLC 770 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question a revisional order of the Additional District Judge, which set aside the trial court's order allowing the petitioner to amend a reply to an application regarding a preliminary issue of unsound mind. The core legal question revolves around whether the trial court had the legal basis to permit the correction of an inadvertent clerical omission in a reply, and whether the appellate court correctly applied Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court held that the Additional District Judge erred in restricting his view to Order VI, Rule 17, while completely overlooking other applicable provisions such as the second proviso to Order XII, Rule 4, C.P.C. concerning the amendment or withdrawal of admissions, as well as the inherent powers of the court under section 151, C.P.C. The key principle laid down is that procedural rules should not be construed to defeat justice, and courts possess adequate inherent and specific statutory powers to allow corrections of clerical mistakes in applications and replies in the interest of justice.
Questions settled- Whether Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to applications and replies filed in a suit or is strictly confined to pleadings?
- Can a trial court allow the correction of an inadvertent clerical mistake in a reply by invoking the inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the second proviso to Order XII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empower the court to allow a party to amend or withdraw an admission?
- Whether a revisional order passed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is open to challenge under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court if it would otherwise attain finality and cause grave prejudice?
- Lal Din vs Member, Board of Revenue1983 CLC 2946 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
- Lal and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1127 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-13Read full judgment →
- Lahore Development Authority vs Messrs Own Homes Service Ltd.1983 PLD Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- Lahore Development Authority vs Land Acquisition Collector, L. D. A.1983 PLD Lahore 413 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
- Lahore Development Authority vs Labour Court No. 1 Lahore and Others1983 PLC 1284 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- Laaiq Ali Alias Jugnoo vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- Kubra Bibi and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- Khyzer Hayat and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2279(1) · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Muhammad Han If and Others1983 P Cr. L J 180 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-10Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Haji Kabir Ahmed and Another1983 PLD Lahore 250 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Ata Muhammad1983 CLC 2356 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Assistant Commissioner Vehari and Another1983 PLD Lahore 192 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2021 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
- Khushdil Khan vs AlibUL Jabbar and 2 Others1983 CLC 981 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
- Khurshid vs Pir Bakhsh and 7 Others1983 CLC 195 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
- Khurshid and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2562 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Alam vs Sh. Fazal Karim1983 CLC 2538 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad Zaidi vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 514 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a Line Superintendent of WAPDA, was convicted by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification (a bribe) for restoring an electric connection, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine. The appellant challenged his conviction through an appeal before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the tainted money beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the evidence of interested witnesses harboring enmity was sufficiently corroborated. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions regarding the recovery of the tainted money, discrepancies in witness accounts, and suppression of material facts concerning the prior enmity between the complainant and the accused over official disconnections. The key principle laid down is that in trap cases, the prosecution bears a heavy onus to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and where material contradictions exist and the witnesses are hostile or interested, independent corroboration is mandatory, failing which the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt before the burden shifts to the accused in a trap case?
- Does a material contradiction between the eyewitness testimony and the raiding magistrate regarding the place of recovery of tainted money vitiate the conviction?
- Can the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses harboring a prior grudge or enmity against the accused form the sole basis for a conviction under anti-corruption laws?
- What is the legal effect of suppressing the background of official enmity and previous departmental disputes in a criminal trial for bribery?
- Khurshid Ahmad Naz vs Deputy Commissioner, D.G. Khan and Another1983 PLC (C.S.) 46 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-07Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1530 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs Ghulam Muhammad1983 PLD Lahore 574 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-19Read full judgment →
- Khizar Hayat and Others vs The State---1983 PCr.LJ 1771 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-09Read full judgment →