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 Zaman vs Abdul Ghaffar and 3 Others1980 PLD Lahore 582 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-11
  second appealconsent ordercompromiseejectmentlandlord and tenantjudicial recordundue influence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a tenant's second appeal challenging an appellate ejectment order passed in terms of a mutual compromise. The core legal question is whether a consent order based on a compromise recorded by a judicial officer can be challenged in a second appeal on allegations of coercion and undue influence against the presiding judge, and whether a judge's recording of a statement is conclusive. The Lahore High Court held that statements and judicial acts recorded by a presiding officer are to be taken as absolute verity and conclusive as to what transpired in court, and cannot be lightly controverted without exceptionally strong evidence. The court laid down the principle that the presumption of correctness and legality attached to judicial proceedings under the Evidence Act can only be overturned by conclusive proof, and a consent order or decree springing from the agreement of parties is unassailable in a second appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a consent order based on a compromise appealable in a second appeal?
  • Are the statements and notes of a presiding judge regarding what occurred in court conclusive?
  • What standard of proof is required to overturn the presumption of correctness attached to judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahir Khan vs Ch. Shah Muhammad1980 PLD Lahore 125 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-13
  rent restrictionejectmentlandlord and tenantinterpretation of statutespersonal requirementmeaning of children
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the appellant by a Rent Controller, which was subsequently affirmed by an Additional District Judge. The respondent sought the eviction of the appellant on the ground that the disputed premises were required for the occupation of his grandchildren for their educational purposes. The core legal question was whether the term "children" in the relevant rent restriction legislation encompasses grandchildren, thereby allowing a landlord to seek eviction for their occupation. The Court held that the term "children" used in the statute refers strictly to the first generation of offspring, namely sons and daughters, and does not extend to grandchildren or remoter descendants. The Court reasoned that the statutory framework places the responsibility on the landlord to provide for his immediate children, but not for subsequent generations. Consequently, the Court set aside the eviction orders, holding that the requirement for grandchildren is not a valid ground for ejectment under the law. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's application for eviction was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'children' in the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 include grandchildren?
  • Can a landlord seek the eviction of a tenant on the ground that the premises are required for the occupation of his grandchildren?
  • Is the requirement of a house for grandchildren a valid ground for ejectment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 117 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf vs Muhammad Hassan1980 CLC 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf and 2 Others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and 2 Others1980 CLC 744 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yunus vs Iqbal Begum1980 PLD Lahore 577 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-09
  eviction petitionbona fide reconstructionpersonal use of husbandnon-residential buildingdefault in rentrent restrictionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlady against the appellant-tenant regarding a shop on the ground of default in rent, bona fide need for reconstruction, and personal use of her husband. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, finding no wilful default, no bona fide need for reconstruction due to an expired site plan and increased rent motives, and that the statute did not permit eviction for a husband's need in a non-residential building. On appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, holding the site plan valid and including the husband under family occupation. The core legal question concerns whether a non-residential building can be recovered for a husband's personal use under the rent restriction law and whether the plea of reconstruction was established in good faith. The Lahore High Court held that a husband is not among the specified categories (self or male children) for whose benefit a non-residential building can be vacated, and that the reconstruction plea lacked good faith. The appeal was accepted, setting aside the appellate order and restoring the Rent Controller's dismissal of the eviction petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a non-residential building can be got vacated by a landlady for the personal use of her husband under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Does the term 'for his own use' in relation to non-residential buildings include the husband of a female landlord?
  • Are the pleas of reconstruction and good faith relevant when the landlord refuses to offer the reconstructed premises back to the tenant?
  • Does the expiry of the sanction period for a site plan affect the bona fides of a reconstruction eviction application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Faizuddin and Another1980 CLC 53 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar and 8 Others vs Ghulam (Represented by Legal Heirs)1980 CLC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub Shah vs Superintendent of Police, Muzaffargarh1980 PLC (C. S.) 215 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub Etc. vs Allah Ditta Etc.1980 P Cr. L J 588 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Erc. vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 992 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Y Asin vs Mst. Iqbal Begum1980 CLC 367 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs Begum Bilqees Nazir1980 CLC 418 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail Khokhar vs Tiro` Inspectorgeneral of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore and 3 oTHERs1980 PLD Lahore 162 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir and Another vs Directorgeneral, National Guards1980 PLD Lahore 802 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Qaim Ali Khan1980 CLC 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq Cheema vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 738 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Roshan Din and 2 Others1980 CLC 635 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Municipal Committee, Jaranwala1980 CLC 1827 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Khan vs Ghulam Farm and 4 Others1980 CLC 545 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Others vs Rahmat Ali and Others1980 P Cr. L J 438 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Another vs Mst. Azra Parveen and Another1980 CLC 1878 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Another vs Jamoon Shah and 2 Others1980 PLD Lahore 484 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs The State and Anothers1980 P Cr. L J 1143 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Etc. vs Ghulam Hassan Shah Etc.1980 CLC 1588 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Shaikh vs Ghulam Muhammad1980 CLC 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Etc. vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 726 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar Ali Iqbal vs Sher Muhammad and 2 Others1980 CLC 520 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-28
  pre-emptionkhasra girdawaricorrection of revenue recordaudi alteram partemLand Reforms Regulation 1972judicial reviewtenancy rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a pre-emption suit where the vendee-respondents sought to establish a superior right of pre-emption as tenants under Paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. Pending the suit, the Collector, without giving notice or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, allowed the respondents' application to correct khasra girdawari entries in their favour. While the Additional Commissioner set aside the Collector's order as unlawful, the Member, Board of Revenue, restored it in revision. The High Court declared the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court held that revenue authorities' administrative orders correcting revenue records during pending litigation, especially without hearing interested parties or properly examining the record, cannot stand. The Court further observed that correcting khasra girdawari entries is an administrative act, and permitting revenue authorities to alter records during pre-emption proceedings amounts to an unwarranted interference with the course of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed by a Collector correcting revenue entries without notice to an interested party valid in law?
  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction to review revenue record correction orders passed by the Board of Revenue under the Land Revenue Act?
  • Can administrative correction of khasra girdawari entries be permitted to affect the outcome of pending judicial pre-emption proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State and 6 Others1980 P Cr. L J 17 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Punjab Road Transport Board, Lahore and 31980 PLD Lahore 481 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Abdul Karim and Another1980 PLD Lahore 767 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Butt vs The State and 4 Others1980 P Cr. L J 1126 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Tufail1980 CLC 753 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Mirza Naseer Beg1980 CLC 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and Others vs The State1980 PLD Lahore 708 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and Another vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 381 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1960 P Cr. L J 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Latif, Advocate vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 170 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan vs Muhammad Za14an Khan and 3 Others1980 PLD Lahore 155 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 377 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-12
  pre-arrest bailmilitary court jurisdictioncognizance of offensefoodstuffs controlinterim bailcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This was a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner accused of offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act. The core legal questions were whether the High Court's jurisdiction was ousted by the potential transfer of the case to a Military Court and whether section 9(d)(ii) of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act 1958 barred the court from granting bail. The Court held that the mere existence of a directive to forward the case to a Military Court does not oust the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts until the Military Court actually takes cognizance of the matter. Finding the evidence regarding the culpable homicide charge weak and noting that the statutory bar issue was pending before a larger bench, the Court granted interim pre-arrest bail. The principle established is that the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts remains intact until a Military Court formally takes cognizance of an offense, and interim bail may be granted pending the resolution of complex jurisdictional questions by a larger bench.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere existence of a directive to forward a case to a Military Court oust the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts?
  • Can a Military Court take cognizance of an offense without receiving a formal complaint or report of facts?
  • Is the High Court barred from granting interim bail while a legal question regarding statutory bars on bail is pending before a larger bench?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munshi vs Ghulam Habib and Another1980 CLC 1965 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mubarik Khan vs The Settlement & Reb Bilitation1980 CLC 1980 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-03
  Permanent Transfer Deedfunctus officiocompensation poolpast and closed transactionsettlement authoritieswrit jurisdictionexcess land
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order by the Settlement Commissioner that authorized the auction of 'excess' land attached to a bungalow previously transferred to him. A Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) had been issued for the property, and the petitioner argued that upon its issuance, the property exited the compensation pool, rendering the Settlement Authorities functus officio. The respondents contended that the auction was valid and raised preliminary objections regarding the petitioner's standing and the timing of the writ petition. The Court held that once a PTD is issued, the Settlement Authorities lack the jurisdiction to reopen the matter or auction the property, as it constitutes a past and closed transaction. The Court emphasized that the authorities could not unilaterally determine rights afresh. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed. However, the Court clarified that if the authorities determine that excess land was indeed transferred, they are entitled to recover the prevailing market value of that land from the petitioner, rather than subjecting the property to auction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed render the Settlement Authorities functus officio regarding the property?
  • Can Settlement Authorities reopen a case to auction alleged excess land after the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed?
  • Does the pendency or withdrawal of a civil suit deprive a party of the right to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Is a person who has alienated property still an aggrieved party entitled to challenge the transfer of that property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 82 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Mst. Hanifan Bibi and Another1980 P Cr. L J 122 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Qureshi vs Settlement Commissioner, Punjab and Another1980 CLC 2125 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Etc.1980 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30
  local government electionsdisqualification of candidatesservice of Pakistannomination paperslegislation by referencestatutory bodywrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple writ petitions challenging the acceptance of nomination papers of certain candidates for elections to local councils under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether section 21(f) of the Ordinance, read with Article 10(2)(b)(4) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977, disqualifies a candidate who was in the service of Pakistan or a statutory body and two years have not elapsed since ceasing service. The Lahore High Court held that section 21(f) incorporates by reference all disqualifications applicable to members of Parliament or Provincial Assemblies under any law for the time being in force, including the two-year bar on former civil servants or government-controlled corporation employees. The Court laid down that disqualification under section 21(f) operates by operation of law and does not require a prior specific order of disqualification, and that provisions of earlier laws incorporated by legislative reference form an integral part of the subsequent statute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 21(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 disqualifies a person from being a candidate for a local council if they are disqualified from membership of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly under any law for the time being in force?
  • Does a disqualification under section 21(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 require a specific prior order of disqualification, or does it operate by operation of law?
  • Whether the provisions of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977 can be incorporated by reference into the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the two-year restriction on former employees of the government or statutory bodies holding public office apply to local council elections?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Maseel, Ahm a D and Another1980 CLC 1478 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 3 Others vs Mst. Zainab Bi131 and Another1980 PLD Lahore 108 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 116 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 263 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail alias Kala vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 513 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque and 3 Others vs Dilawar and 4 Others1980 CLC 1036 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs Syed Mumtaz Hussain1980 CLC 2021 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Fasih vs National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore1980 PLD Lahore 38 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-22
  small cause courtcivil revisionsummons for final disposalstatement of accountsmaterial irregularityright of rebuttal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Lahore, in favor of the respondent bank for the recovery of a loan. The core legal question was whether the trial court committed a material irregularity by issuing a notice to file a written statement instead of issuing a summons for the final disposal of the suit under the proviso to rule 5 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether the defendant was prejudiced by being deprived of the opportunity to defend the suit or present rebuttal evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court committed a fatal material irregularity by failing to issue the proper summons for the final disposal of the suit, thereby prejudicing the petitioner who appeared without witnesses or counsel and was not afforded an opportunity to rebut the statement of accounts. The court established the principle that while a statement of accounts may be received in evidence without formal proof, it is not conclusive and the opposing party must be given a fair opportunity to present rebuttal evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to issue a summons for the final disposal of a suit under Order V Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a Small Cause Court proceeding vitiates the judgment?
  • Is a statement of accounts conclusive evidence that leaves no scope for rebuttal evidence?
  • Does a statement made by a defendant admitting the execution of certain documents constitute a confessional statement admitting the entire claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and Another vs Nazir Ahmad and 3 Others1980 CLC 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi vs Mst. Jaleesa Begum1980 PLD Lahore 443 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-27
  second appealejectmentstatutory noticedisplaced personsrepeal of statuteaccrued rightslandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent orders of the lower forums directing the ejectment of the appellant-tenant from a property purchased by the respondent. The core legal question was whether the service of a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was a mandatory prerequisite for seeking ejectment, notwithstanding the repeal of the said Act. The Lahore High Court held that the repeal of a statute does not affect rights or protections already accrued, as preserved under section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Consequently, the statutory protection and tenancy terms under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 subsist despite the repeal, and an ejectment petition filed without serving the mandatory notice is ab initio incompetent. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the ejectment orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 is a prerequisite for ejectment?
  • Does the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 destroy the accrued rights and protections of tenants under section 30?
  • Is an ejectment petition filed without serving the statutory notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 competent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'A', Punjab, Lahore and Another1980 PLD Lahore 165 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Ghulam Nabi and Another1980 PLD Lahore 619 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Pervaizurrehman and Another1980 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 54 Others vs Federal Government through Secretary, Communications and Works, Government of Pakistrn and 2 Others1980 CLC 1656 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussa1n vs Bulleh Khan1980 CLC 608 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-06
  civil revisionpre-emptionremandadditional evidencerevisional jurisdictionrebuttal evidenceOrder XLI Rule 27
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a suit for possession through pre-emption. The trial court dismissed the suit upon finding that the respondent failed to establish a superior right of pre-emption against the petitioner. On appeal, the respondent applied to submit additional documents as evidence. Without passing a formal order on the application or giving reasons, and without providing the petitioner an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, the appellate court relied on the documents and decreed the suit. The petitioner challenged this judgment in revision before the High Court. The core legal issues were whether an appellate court can consider additional evidence without issuing a formal order and allowing rebuttal, and whether a revisional court has jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to remand a case. Accepting the revision, the High Court set aside the appellate decree and remanded the case. It held that revisional powers under Sections 115 and 151 of the Code include the authority to remand a case when circumstances require it.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 have the authority to order a remand?
  • Can an appellate court rely on documents as additional evidence without passing a formal order under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is an appellate court obligated to afford the adverse party an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal when additional evidence is admitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haleem Chohan vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 128 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-07
  bail before arrestbail after arrestbail cancellationjudicial confessionbank fraudorganized crimeeconomic crimejurisdiction of additional sessions judge
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple petitions concerning pre-arrest bail, post-arrest bail, and bail cancellation arising from an organized bank fraud involving millions of rupees misappropriated through fictitious accounts and forged foreign remittance documents. The core legal questions involve the entitlement of accused persons to pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in heinous, pre-planned economic crimes, the weight to be attached to judicial confessions implicating co-accused, the scope of concessions granted to women under criminal procedure, and the jurisdiction of Additional Sessions Judges regarding offenses triable by Special Judges. The Lahore High Court held that bail before arrest is granted only in rare cases where the implication is doubtful or malicious, that judicial confessions duly corroborated are sufficient to implicate co-accused, and that being a woman does not confer an absolute right to bail in major organized crimes, particularly when the accused is a principal perpetrator. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petitions for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail and suo motu cancelled the bail earlier granted to the female co-accused, establishing principles regarding judicial discretion in organized economic offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail before arrest can be claimed as a matter of right irrespective of the nature of the offense and the quantum of evidence?
  • Can a judicial confession by a co-accused be used to implicate another accused person?
  • Does the status of being a woman entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right in cases involving organized and pre-planned crimes?
  • Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to grant bail in cases exclusively triable by a Special Judge involving public servants and scheduled offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez and Another vs Lahore Development Authority1980 PLD Lahore 553 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 426 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Shaukat Ali1980 CLC 1454 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Darkat Ali Etc.1980 CLC 862 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 232 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs Muhammad Ali1980 CLC 135 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State and Another1980 PLD Lahore 152 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Muhammad Iqbal1980 CLC 1077 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir and 5 Others vs Allah Dad and Another1980 PLD Lahore 141 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir (Represented by Legal Heirs) and 9 Others vs Fateh1980 CLC 1581 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Iqbal Ahmad alias Ahmad and Another1980 P Cr. L J 191 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-18
  criminal revisionacquittalpolice challanprivate complaintinherent jurisdictioncompetency of revisionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which had dismissed the petitioner's revision petition under Section 439-A in limine as incompetent. The petitioner's original complaint under Section 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, initiated via a police challan, had resulted in the acquittal of the accused by a Magistrate. The petitioner's application to the District Magistrate to prefer a State appeal was rejected, prompting the revision before the Sessions Court. The High Court analyzed the impact of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 on the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. It held that while a private complainant in a case initiated via private complaint has a right of appeal under Section 417(2) (barring revision under Section 439(5)), no such right of appeal exists for a private complainant in a police challan case. Consequently, a revision petition before the Sessions Judge under Section 439-A is fully competent in police challan cases. Although a second revision before the High Court was barred by Section 439(4)(b), the High Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to set aside the illegal order and remand the matter for a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private complainant in a case instituted upon a police challan can file a revision petition before the Sessions Judge under Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an order of acquittal?
  • Does the right of appeal granted to a private complainant under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases initiated on a police challan?
  • Does the bar on a second revision under Section 439(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prevent the High Court from invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to set aside an illegal order of the Sessions Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh and Another vs Haq Nawaz1980 PLD Lahore 506 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The Sessions Judge, Jhelum and 7 Others1980 P Cr. L J 999 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub and Another vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 429 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 742 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-09
  quashment of proceedingsnon-cognizable offencepolice investigationMotor Vehicles Ordinancecomplaintcognizance of offencesummary disposalcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965, arguing that the police investigation into this non-cognizable offence was conducted without the requisite Magistrate authorization under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering the trial void. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the failure to include summary disposal concessions in the challan copy vitiated the proceedings. The Court held that the investigation by a police officer without prior authorization does not invalidate the trial. Relying on established precedent, the Court ruled that such a police report can be treated as a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allowing the Magistrate to take cognizance. Furthermore, the Court determined that the omission of summary disposal information in the initial challan copy is not a fatal defect, as the accused retains the right to exercise those concessions. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the investigation of a non-cognizable offence by a police officer without prior Magistrate authorization invalidate the subsequent trial?
  • Can a police challan filed without prior authorization be treated as a complaint under Section 190(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to include summary disposal concessions in a challan copy vitiate the criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Superintendent of Police, Kasur and Another1980 P Cr. L J 795 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Station House Officer, Police Station Mamun1980 PLD Lahore 116 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Fazal Karim1980 CLC 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Erc, vs Muhammad Ali1980 CLC 551 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and Others vs Muhammad Yousuf1980 CLC 467 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-11
  ejectmentsecond appealclosing of evidenceCode of Civil ProcedureRent Controllerreasonable opportunitylandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an order of ejectment passed against the appellants by the Rent Controller on the grounds of default and personal need, which was upheld by the Additional District Judge. The core legal questions involved whether the Rent Controller is strictly bound by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the adjournment and closing of evidence, and whether the appellants were afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case under the relevant rent legislation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a Rent Controller is not bound to follow the strict procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in every case, provided a reasonable opportunity to show cause and present a viewpoint is afforded to the tenant in accordance with the statute. The key principle laid down is that rent proceedings are governed by the specific provisions of the rent statute rather than the strict technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the nature of the inquiry is largely left to the discretion of the Rent Controller.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller strictly bound to follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during ejectment proceedings?
  • Does a tenant have an absolute right to insist on the production of evidence in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure before a Rent Controller?
  • What constitutes a reasonable opportunity for a tenant to present their viewpoint under subsection (2) of section 13 of the Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and Another vs Nasim Akhtar and 12 Others1980 CLC 616 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam alias Muhammad Mehdi vs District Magistrate, Gujrat and AisiomER1980 P Cr. L J 707 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Ajaib1980 PLD Lahore 311 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-18
  election petitiondisqualificationthrown away votesnotorious disqualificationlocal councils electiondeclaration of election void
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an election dispute where the petitioner, Muhammad Ashraf, challenged the election of respondent No. 1, Muhammad Ajaib, to a peasant seat in a Union Council. The Election Tribunal declared the returned candidate's election void after he admitted to being disqualified as a depot holder and owner of more than 40 kanals of land, but the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's claim to be declared elected in his place. The core legal question is whether an unsuccessful candidate who secured fewer votes is entitled to be declared elected upon the unseating of the returned candidate due to disqualification. The Lahore High Court held that the votes cast in favour of the disqualified candidate cannot be treated as 'thrown away' unless the disqualification was notorious and the voters had prior notice of the facts creating it. The Court ruled that because the disqualification depended on complex legal interpretations and facts not notoriously known at the time of the poll, the minority candidate could not be seated, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unsuccessful candidate securing fewer votes is automatically entitled to be declared elected when the returned candidate's election is declared void?
  • When can votes cast in favour of a disqualified candidate be regarded as thrown away?
  • Does a disqualification depending on legal argument and complex facts justify treating votes cast for the disqualified candidate as wasted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Mohammad Latif and Another1980 P Cr. L J 481 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 4 Other vs Government of Punjab and 91980 PLC (C. S.) 400hh · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 3 ontERss vs President, Summary Military1980 P Cr. L J 81 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1062 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs Salim Akhtar Malik and Another1980 P Cr. L J 393 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs Mst. Dilshad Begum1980 CLC 669 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq alias Ashiq Ali vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 652 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Butt vs Muhammad Akbar1980 CLC 598 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and Others vs Muhammad Sarwar Khan and Others1980 CLC 1929 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 256 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore1980 CLC 237 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1980 PLD Lahore 195 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-19
  Drugs Actretrospective operationjurisdiction of Drug Courteffect of repealGeneral Clauses Actchange of forumcriminal appealsubstantive rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Drug Court under the Drugs Act, 1976, for an offense allegedly committed under the repealed Drugs Act, 1940. The core legal question revolves around whether the Drug Court constituted under the 1976 Act possessed retrospective jurisdiction to try offenses committed during the operation of the repealed 1940 Act, and whether a change of forum affecting substantive rights can operate retrospectively. The Lahore High Court held that the Drugs Act, 1976, is prospective in operation and does not possess retrospective effect to take cognizance of offenses committed under the repealed 1940 Act, particularly where the new forum and penalties affect substantive rights of appeal and defense. The court laid down the principle that penal statutes and changes in forum that impair existing rights or remedies are prospective only, and a tribunal established under a new enactment cannot assume jurisdiction over offenses committed under a repealed statute unless expressly or by necessary implication provided by the legislature.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Drug Court constituted under the Drugs Act, 1976 has jurisdiction to try offenses committed under the repealed Drugs Act, 1940?
  • Does a change of forum under a new enactment operate retrospectively when it affects substantive rights of appeal and penalties?
  • Can an accused person in criminal proceedings be estopped from raising the plea of lack of jurisdiction for the first time on appeal?
  Read full judgment →