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.
- Mehrban Ali vs Haji Muhammad Qasim1976 PLD Lahore 1052 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal was filed against the orders of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, Multan, which had directed the ejectment of the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The appellant, who had occupied the shop since 1959, contended that the respondent-landlord had established a practice of accepting rent periodically in lump sums rather than monthly, as evidenced by multiple rent receipts. The core legal question was whether a landlord's consistent practice of accepting rent periodically after intervals alters the strict monthly payment terms of a tenancy agreement, thereby precluding a finding of willful default. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal and set aside the ejectment orders. The Court held that where a landlord's conduct and multiple receipts demonstrate a practice of accepting rent periodically, the tenant may genuinely believe that such payments do not constitute default. Consequently, in the absence of deliberate default, the Rent Controller's discretion to order eviction should not be exercised against the tenant.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's consistent practice of accepting rent periodically in lump sums modify the strict monthly payment terms of a tenancy agreement?
- Can a tenant be held to be in willful default if the landlord's conduct of accepting rent after intervals created a genuine impression that such payment was acceptable?
- How should a Rent Controller exercise discretionary eviction powers when a deliberate default in rent payment is not conclusively established?
- Mehr Khan vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 519 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-13Read full judgment →
- Matah and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 426 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-10Read full judgment →
- Masood-Ul-Hassan Qureshi vs Government of the Punjab through Its1976 PLD Lahore 630 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-07Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Hussain and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L I 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-19Read full judgment →
- Manzoor vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-31Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Hussain vs Nawazish Nazir Hussain and Another1976 PLD Lahore 637 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a summary ejectment order passed against the appellant-tenant under Section 13(6) of the relevant rent restriction framework for failing to furnish security for arrears of rent. The core legal question concerns whether the execution of an agreement to sell the property by the landlord in favour of the tenant terminates the relationship of landlord and tenant, thereby attracting the protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, and whether an appellate court can directly order summary ejectment for non-compliance with a conditional stay order. The Lahore High Court held that once an agreement to sell is executed and possession is held or continued thereunder, the original relationship of landlord and tenant ceases to exist, serving as a valid defense against ejectment under Section 53-A. The Court ruled that the Rent Controller erred in determining the relationship without first recording evidence on the execution of the agreement to sell, and that the District Judge improperly ordered summary ejectment and struck off the defense instead of merely vacating a conditional stay order. The case was remanded for fresh determination.
Questions settled- Does the execution of an agreement to sell by a landlord in favour of a tenant terminate the relationship of landlord and tenant under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Can a Rent Controller determine the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant without recording evidence on the plea of an agreement to sell?
- Does Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply when the default in rent allegedly occurred prior to the execution of the agreement to sell?
- Can an appellate authority pass a direct order of summary ejectment and strike off the defense for the non-fulfillment of a condition attached to a stay order?
- Manzoor Elahi and Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-04Read full judgment →
- Managing Director, Punjab Road Transport .1 Board vs Punjab1976 PLC 747 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-01Read full judgment →
- Malik Wahid Bakhsh vs Ch. Muhammad Shafi1976 PLD Lahore 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land in Multan. The central legal question was whether the sale price of Rs. 52,000, as recorded in the registered sale deed and endorsed by the Sub-Registrar, represented the genuine consideration paid, or if the actual price was Rs. 26,000, as alleged by the pre-emptor to defeat the right of pre-emption. The High Court upheld the lower appellate court’s decision, holding that the endorsement of a Sub-Registrar, while carrying a presumption of truth, is a rebuttable presumption. The Court established that once a pre-emptor provides evidence that the market value is significantly lower than the stated sale price, the burden of proof shifts to the vendee to justify the higher price paid. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it is the duty of the court to ascertain the genuine and actual price paid, regardless of the recitals in the deed. As the lower appellate court’s finding of fact regarding the actual price was based on a reasonable appraisal of evidence, the High Court declined to interfere.
Questions settled- Is the endorsement of a Sub-Registrar on a sale deed regarding the payment of sale price a rebuttable presumption?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the vendee to justify the sale price once a pre-emptor proves the market value is significantly lower than the stated price?
- Can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a lower appellate court if that finding is based on a reasonable appraisal of evidence?
- Malik Noor Mohaand Another vs District Council, Jhang through Chief Officer, District Council Mang and Another1976 PLD Lahore 916 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-27Read full judgment →
- Malik Noor Alam vs Ch. Saeed Akhtar, District Magistrate Gujranwala1976 PLD Lahore 350 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-02Read full judgment →
- Malik Ghulam Jilani vs The Government of Pakistan through the1976 PLD Lahore 38 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns habeas corpus petitions filed by political figures challenging their detention in the Punjab while facing criminal charges in Baluchistan. The core legal questions addressed whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to review the legality of detention for prisoners held within its territorial boundaries, and whether transferring under-trial prisoners outside the jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate rendered their detention unlawful. The Court held that while it maintained jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to examine the legality of detention within its territory, it could not quash criminal proceedings pending in another province, as that authority rested with the competent courts in Baluchistan. The Court further determined that the detention was lawful, as no specific law prohibits detaining under-trial prisoners outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate. Moreover, the Court found no violation of Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding the right to be informed of arrest grounds or legal counsel. Consequently, the Court vacated its prior restraint order, allowing the authorities to transfer the prisoners to Baluchistan for trial.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review the legality of detention of prisoners held within its territorial jurisdiction, even if the trial is pending in another province?
- Is the detention of an under-trial prisoner illegal solely because they are held outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate?
- Does the failure to produce an under-trial prisoner before a Magistrate periodically violate Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a High Court quash criminal proceedings pending against an accused in another province?
- Malik Faqir Hussain and 3 Other vs Federal Land Commission, Islamabad1976 PLD Lahore 1083 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-19Read full judgment →
- Malik Ahmad Din and Another vs Khawaja Mahmud Sadiq and Another1976 PLD Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mal1k Jan vs Tile State1976 P Cr. L 1 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-09Read full judgment →
- Major Riaz Ahmad vs Hamid Aziz Sheikh and 2 Other1976 PLD Lahore 871 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-29Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Textile Mills Workers' Union vs Tim Registrar of Trade1976 PLC 387 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-05Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Textile Mills Workers Union vs The Registrar of Trade1976 PLD Lahore 721 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-05Read full judgment →
- Mahla also Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1059 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition concerning an affray over disputed land resulting in multiple casualties, including two deaths on the complainant side and one on the accused side. The core legal question involves determining entitlement to bail based on the role attributed to individual accused persons and the prima facie possession of the disputed land as reflected in the revenue record. The Lahore High Court held that petitioners to whom no fatal blows or serious injuries to the deceased were attributed, and whose alleged roles were restricted to causing simple injuries to prosecution witnesses, did not prima facie commit an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, thus entitling them to bail. The key principle laid down is that in cross-cases involving land disputes and rioting, the specific attribution of fatal injuries and the prima facie verification of land possession via revenue records serve as crucial determinants for granting post-arrest bail to the non-attacking or less-involved accused parties.
Questions settled- Are accused persons to whom no fatal injuries are attributed entitled to post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Whether the revenue record can be examined for prima facie determination of land possession during bail proceedings?
- Does participation in an affray resulting in simple injuries only warrant withholding of bail?
- M. Shakeel Saigol vs Income Tax Officer (Companies), Etc.1976 PLD Lahore 616 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Writ petitions and tax references were filed before the Lahore High Court challenging orders imposing 'additional tax' under Section 45-A of the Income-tax Act for failure to pay assessed income tax within the stipulated time. The petitioners contended that additional tax computed on unpaid tax is not relatable to income under Section 2(6)(c) or Section 3 of the Income-tax Act, and that the Central Legislature lacked legislative competence under Item 43(c) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of Pakistan (1962) to enact Section 45-A. The High Court rejected these arguments and dismissed the petitions. The Court held that Section 2(14) expressly defines 'tax' to include any penalty, interest, fee, or other charge. Consequently, 'additional tax' under Section 45-A is in the nature of interest or penalty for delayed payment to enforce recovery, which is fully authorised by the Act's extended definition. Furthermore, its enactment is constitutionally valid under Item 49 of the Third Schedule as a matter incidental and ancillary to the imposition and collection of income tax.
Questions settled- Whether additional tax imposed under Section 45-A of the Income-tax Act constitutes a tax on income or a penalty/interest for delayed recovery?
- Does the statutory definition of 'tax' in Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act extend to cover additional charges like statutory interest under Section 45-A?
- Does the Central Legislature have legislative competence under incidental and ancillary powers to enact provisions enforcing delayed tax recovery?
- Liaquat vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-24Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs The State1976 PLD Lahore 68 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-29Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Khadeja Hakeem and Ahot11ett1976 PLD Lahore 99 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged orders passed by a Rent Controller, who restored an ejectment application previously dismissed in default without issuing notice to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller is strictly bound by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding restoration procedures and whether the failure to issue notice violated principles of natural justice. The Court held that the Rent Controller is not a court in the strict sense but acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, and is not bound by the procedural rigors of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the Rent Controller may evolve their own procedure to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court further held that the principle of natural justice regarding notice only applies when an order divests the opposite party of a vested right. Since the dismissal of an ejectment application in default does not vest a right in the tenant—as a fresh application could be filed—the restoration order without notice was legally valid. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a Rent Controller strictly bound by the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the restoration of an ejectment application without notice to the respondent violate the principles of natural justice?
- Does the dismissal of an ejectment application in default vest any legal right in the tenant?
- Can a Rent Controller evolve their own procedure for the conduct of proceedings?
- Khushi Mohammad and 2 Others vs Nazar Muhammad and Another1976 P Cr. L J 343 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-11Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Alam vs The State1976 PLD Lahore 213 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-19Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs Muhammad Yousaf1976 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-30Read full judgment →
- Mansha and 2 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 511 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-26Read full judgment →
- Khanvaja Azhar Hussain vs The State1976 PLD Lahore 729 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from criminal appeals filed by three convicts against their convictions and sentences passed by the trial court in a case involving triple murder and multiple injuries caused by indiscriminate shooting at the complainant's residence. The prosecution asserted that the principal accused, Khawaja Azhar Hussain, accompanied by armed co-accused, gate-crashed the house of his estranged wife's family to avenge her departure and opened fire with a Sten-gun and handguns, killing three persons and injuring four. The core legal questions centered on whether the ocular testimony of natural, interested witnesses was sufficiently corroborated by forensic recoveries and medical evidence, and whether an empty-handed companion accused of instigation could be convicted alongside armed principal offenders.
The High Court held that the ocular evidence of natural witnesses was fully corroborated by firearm recoveries, ballistic matching, and medical evidence regarding the principal accused and an injured co-accused. However, as no instigatory role was mentioned in the FIR or initial police statements against the empty-handed companion, improvements made at trial were doubtful, entitling him to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the High Court confirmed the death sentence of the principal accused, upheld the conviction of the injured co-accused, and acquitted the empty-handed appellant.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated ocular testimony of interested witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a capital case?
- Can an empty-handed accused be convicted of participation in a shooting occurrence based on trial-stage improvements attributing instigation not mentioned in the FIR?
- Is forensic recovery of a weapon and positive ballistic matching sufficient corroboration to uphold the conviction of a principal accused?
- Khan Muhammad and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 320 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-25Read full judgment →
- Khalid Latif vs Sardar Amir Muhammad and 2 Others1976 P Cr. L J 26 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-01Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain and Another vs District Council, Lyallpur and Another1976 PLD Lahore 1044 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions filed by transporters challenging a notification issued by the District Council, Lyallpur, which cancelled a previous amendment to a toll tax notification. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of an amending notification, which had become part and parcel of the original notification, automatically revived the original tax provision, and whether the petitioners were precluded from seeking relief due to the availability of alternate remedies under the Basic Democracies Order, 1959. The Court held that the amendment, once incorporated into the main notification, became an integral part thereof. Consequently, the repeal or cancellation of the amending notification did not revive the original provision, as no contrary intention was expressed. Furthermore, the Court determined that the statutory remedies under the Basic Democracies Order were not adequate or efficacious, as they did not guarantee a right to be heard. The Court laid down the principle that the repeal of an amending enactment does not affect the continuance of the amendment unless expressly stated otherwise.
Questions settled- Does the repeal of an amending notification automatically revive the original provision of the main notification?
- Is the right of representation under Article 67 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, an adequate alternate remedy to bar a writ petition?
- Does the repeal of an amending statute affect the validity of the amendment already incorporated into the main statute?
- Karimuddin and 2 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 483 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-02Read full judgment →
- Kareem Bakhsh vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 911 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-29Read full judgment →
- K. S. B. Pumps Co. Ltd., Lahore and Another vs National Industrial1976 PLC 897 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-13Read full judgment →
- K. M. Asaf vs Abdullah Malik and Another1976 PLD Lahore 158 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves writ petitions challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by Punjab Labour Courts upon complaints filed under section 53 read with section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, concerning alleged victimization and discrimination related to trade union activities and general elections. The core legal questions relate to whether unfair labor practices under section 15 encompass discrimination based on participation in trade union general elections, whether remedies under section 25-A and section 53 are mutually exclusive, and whether territorial jurisdiction lies where an order is signed or where it is implemented under section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that trade union general elections constitute trade union activities, that remedies under section 25-A and section 53 are simultaneous and concurrent, and that preliminary findings of a prima facie case by a special tribunal based on evidence do not warrant constitutional interference at an interlocutory stage. The key principles established are that participation in union elections falls within union activities, statutory remedies for grievance redressal and penal prosecution are concurrent, and High Courts will not prematurely interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 with interlocutory orders of tribunals possessing proper prima facie jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does participation in the general elections of a trade union constitute a trade union activity under section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Are the remedies provided under section 25-A and section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 mutually exclusive or can they be availed of simultaneously?
- Does a Labour Court have territorial jurisdiction under section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where an impugned discriminatory order is implemented, even if it was signed elsewhere?
- Can a High Court interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 with a preliminary order of a Labour Court issuing process when a prima facie case has been established on the record?
- K. G. Old, Principal, Christian Technical Training Centre, Gujranwala1976 PLC 675 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses several writ petitions concerning whether educational institutions, such as the Christian Technical Training Centre and the University of the Punjab, constitute an 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question is whether the statutory definition of 'industry' encompasses educational activities, particularly when such institutions operate workshops or printing presses. The Court held that educational institutions are not 'industries' within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It reasoned that the terms 'business', 'trade', and 'manufacture' in the definition must be interpreted in their popular and conventional sense, focusing on enterprises organized for the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth or material services. Ancillary activities, such as workshops or printing presses run for educational purposes, do not alter the primary character of an educational institution. The key principle laid down is that the character of an establishment is determined by its primary purpose; activities incidental or ancillary to education do not bring an educational institution within the ambit of industrial law.
Questions settled- Does an educational institution fall within the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can ancillary commercial activities, such as workshops or printing presses, transform an educational institution into an 'industry'?
- How should the terms 'business', 'trade', and 'manufacture' be interpreted within the context of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the registration of a trade union by employees of an educational institution constitute a valid exercise of power under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- K. G. Old, Principal, Christian Technical Training Centre, Gujranwala1976 PLD Lahore 1097 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of multiple writ petitions involving the question of whether educational institutions and their ancillary units fall within the definition of "industry" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The core legal question examined by the court was whether education and related institutional activities constitute an industry, making labour and industrial laws applicable to educational bodies such as technical training centres, universities, and education boards. The Lahore High Court held that the expressions used in the definition of "industry" must be interpreted in their popular and conventional sense rather than their widest literal dictionary meaning, applying only to enterprises organized and systematic, depending on cooperation between labour and capital for the production, distribution, or consumption of wealth, or the provision of material services. The court ruled that educational institutions and their incidental operations, such as training workshops or printing presses established to fulfill educational objectives, do not constitute an industry. Consequently, the impugned orders treating educational bodies as industries were declared to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether educational institutions fall within the definition of "industry" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Does the operation of a printing press or training workshop by a university or educational institution change its character into a commercial industry?
- Are the terms used in the statutory definition of industry to be interpreted in their plain dictionary meaning or their popular and conventional meaning?
- Jumma and Others vs The S Pate1976 P Cr. L J 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-25Read full judgment →
- Jumma and 3 Others Convict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-21Read full judgment →
- Javaid alias Javaid Iqbal vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 227 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-10Read full judgment →
- Jalil Ahmad Khan Niazi vs DR. Qamaruddin1976 PLD Lahore 80 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-11Read full judgment →
- Jaffar and 3 Others vs The Sta1 E1976 P Cr. L J 337 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-18Read full judgment →
- Ismail vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1446 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-23Read full judgment →
- Ishaque Hussain and 6 Other vs Shahzad Hassan Pervaiz and Another1976 PLD Lahore 34 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-13Read full judgment →
- Irshad Hussain vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 25 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ahmad vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 928 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-17Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Hussain vs Siraj Din1976 P Cr. L 1 1447 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-06Read full judgment →
- Inayatullah vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 676 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-29Read full judgment →
- Inayatullah vs Muhammad Tufail and 2 Other1976 PLD Lahore 641 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged a Magistrate's order granting the superdari (custody) of a stolen tractor to the complainant, Muhammad Tufail, after a previous interim order had granted custody to the petitioner, Inayat Ullah. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate became functus officio under Section 369, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, upon passing the initial order, thereby lacking the authority to subsequently vary it. The Court held that the initial order was explicitly temporary, contingent upon a Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding the validity of a sale receipt. Because the petitioner accepted this interim condition and the report subsequently proved the receipt was forged, the Magistrate retained jurisdiction to pass further orders. The Court affirmed that an interim order subject to a future event does not constitute a final judgment under Section 369, Cr.P.C. The key principle laid down is that a Magistrate is not barred from varying an order that is expressly interlocutory or conditional, and that stolen property should generally be entrusted to the rightful owner rather than a purchaser from a thief pending trial.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate become functus officio under Section 369, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after passing an interim order for the custody of property?
- Can a Magistrate vary an order for superdari that was explicitly made subject to the outcome of a forensic report?
- Should stolen property be entrusted to a bona fide purchaser or the original owner pending the trial of the case?
- Inayat All vs Muhammad Ishaque and 2 Others1976 P Cr. L J 774 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-26Read full judgment →
- In Re : Application under Sections 153 & 153-a, Companies Act, 1913 vs1976 PLD Lahore 850 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-24Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1313 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-18Read full judgment →
- Hirai and 7 Others Convict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-05Read full judgment →
- Hidayatullah and Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1067 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, convicting seven accused persons for double murder, attempt to murder, causing simple injuries, and rioting. The core legal questions involved determining the credibility of the ocular testimony versus the defence plea of private defence and sudden fight, and assessing the applicability of constructive liability under unlawful assembly. The Lahore High Court held that the occurrence was a sudden flare-up and a free fight rather than a premeditated attack by an unlawful assembly. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, extended the benefit of doubt to certain appellants, altered convictions where appropriate, and reduced the death sentences of the remaining convicts to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that in sudden mutual fights without pre-planning, individual liability replaces constructive liability under an unlawful assembly, and death sentences are appropriately commuted to life imprisonment when the incident lacks premeditation.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution version or the defence plea of private defence is established in a case involving mutual injuries?
- Can constructive liability under an unlawful assembly be sustained in the case of a sudden flare-up and free fight?
- Whether the death sentence should be commuted to imprisonment for life when a murder is committed during a sudden and unpremeditated fight?
- Is a co-accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when no specific fatal part is attributed to him?
- Hidayat Shah and 6 Other vs Mst. Murad Khatun1976 PLD Lahore 119 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-05Read full judgment →
- Hazara and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 106 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences of the appellants for murder and related offenses. The core legal question revolves around the evidentiary value of a dying declaration and whether it requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that while a dying declaration can form the basis of a conviction if found genuine, voluntary, and made by a fit person, courts as a matter of abundant caution seek independent corroboration before relying upon it. The ratio decidendi is that where a dying declaration is corroborated by independent evidence such as motive and medical testimony against one accused, his conviction shall be maintained; however, where no corroboration exists against a co-accused attributed an ineffective shot, his conviction must be set aside on the principle of benefit of the doubt. The key principles laid down include the requirements for testing the mental fitness of a declarant, the necessity of corroboration for uncorroborated dying declarations, and the standards for assessing interested ocular witnesses.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration without independent corroboration?
- Whether a dying declaration recorded in the presence of a medical officer certifying the fitness of the injured person is admissible and reliable?
- Does the absence of corroborative evidence regarding a co-accused warrant his acquittal despite being named in the dying declaration?
- Is the recovery of an unlicensed weapon sufficient to corroborate a murder charge when no spent cartridge matching the weapon is recovered from the crime scene?
- Hassan and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 997 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-16Read full judgment →
- Haq Niwaz vs The Province of Punjab through Secretary, HomePLD1976 Lahore 1013 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Hakim Sher Ahmad Chishti vs Syed Abbas and 2 Other1976 PLD Lahore 85 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil revisions arising from a suit filed by the Shia community seeking a declaration of their right to conduct religious processions (Azzadari) and challenging the refusal of police protection. The core legal question was whether the community possesses an inherent right to take out such processions and whether the authorities can impose a total ban or require prior licensing under the Police Act and Police Rules. The Court held that citizens have an inherent right to take out religious processions on public highways, subject to reasonable regulation to prevent breaches of the peace. It ruled that Section 30 of the Police Act does not authorize a total ban or a permanent, general licensing requirement, but only allows for regulation when a breach of peace is apprehended. Furthermore, Rule 21.22 of the Police Rules does not create an independent obligation to obtain prior permission from the District Magistrate. The Court restored the trial court's decree, affirming that the right to procession is subject to the provisions of Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Police Act.
Questions settled- Does the public have an inherent right to conduct religious processions along public highways?
- Does Section 30 of the Police Act authorize the police to impose a total ban on religious processions?
- Is a prior license from the District Magistrate mandatory for every religious procession under Rule 21.22 of the Police Rules?
- Can a civil court grant an injunction that interferes with the public duties of government departments under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act?
- Hakim Ali vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 789 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-10Read full judgment →
- Haji Nizam Khan vs Additional District Judge, Lyallpur and Other1976 PLD Lahore 930 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition arose out of proceedings before a Family Court wherein minor children of a deceased son claimed maintenance from their paternal grandfather under Muslim Law. The petitioner (grandfather) contended that no statutory duty was cast upon him to maintain the children of his deceased son and that rules of Muslim Personal Law regarding maintenance were impliedly excluded by the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, and the Punjab Laws Act, 1872. The core legal questions involved whether the Family Court was competent to apply substantive Muslim Law to resolve the grandfather's liability for maintenance, and how the expression 'justice, equity and good conscience' should be interpreted under Pakistani jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court held that in the absence of explicit statutory exclusion, and where statutes are silent or leave a vacuum, the residuary law to be applied in Pakistan is Muslim jurisprudence and the fundamental principles of Islam rather than English common law or rules of equity. The Court affirmed the lower decisions, holding that a grandfather in easy circumstances is bound under Muslim Law to maintain his needy grandchildren, and dismissed the writ petition.
Questions settled- Whether a paternal grandfather in easy circumstances is legally bound under Muslim Law to maintain his needy minor grandchildren?
- Does the omission of maintenance from Section 2 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, amount to an express or implied exclusion of Muslim Law on the subject?
- Whether the expression 'justice, equity and good conscience' in Pakistani jurisprudence should be interpreted in accordance with English common law or Islamic law and jurisprudence?
- Are the superior courts in Pakistan empowered to apply Islamic law and its juridical principles to fill gaps and vacuums in unoccupied fields of statutory law?
- Haji Muhammad Convict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-22Read full judgment →
- Haji Ali Muhammad and 3 Others vs Tee State1976 P Cr. L J 644 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-20Read full judgment →
- Haji Ahmad Yar vs Warts Muhammad and 5 Others1976 P Cr. L J 986 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-09Read full judgment →
- Haft Muhammad S1ddiq vs The State and Another1976 P Cr. L J 1471 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-18Read full judgment →
- Habibul Wahhab Elkheiri, Advocate vs Sh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate1976 PLD Lahore 373 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-13Read full judgment →
- Gulzar and 4 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 419 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, convicting five appellants under sections 148, 302/149, and 323/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and rioting, resulting in death sentences and transportation for life. The core legal questions involved the credibility of hostile eye-witnesses whose previous statements were transferred under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the requirement of independent corroboration for such statements, the evidentiary value of delayed and unsealed blood-stained weapon recoveries, and the applicability of the right of private defense regarding property. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the participation of four of the appellants, who were accordingly acquitted. Regarding the sole remaining appellant, the court found that the incident stemmed from a sudden altercation over crop damage by a stray horse, attracting the right of private defense and reducing the offence. The key principle laid down is that where eye-witnesses turn hostile, their previous statements under Section 288 Cr.P.C. require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, and where a sudden fight ensues over the defense of property without premeditation, culpable homicide not amounting to murder is attracted.
Questions settled- Whether statements of hostile witnesses transferred under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require independent corroboration before they can form the basis of a conviction?
- Does a delay in dispatching blood-stained weapon recoveries to the Chemical Examiner render the recovery evidence valueless?
- Whether an accused acting in defense of property against the trespass of a horse who exceeds the right of private defense can be convicted under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code instead of Section 302?
- Can the uncorroborated testimony of eye-witnesses who change their stance between the committing magistrate and the trial court be safely relied upon to convict multiple co-accused?
- Government of Punjab through Secretary. Irrigationi and Power1976 PLD Lahore 471 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-14Read full judgment →
- Gliulam Mohayuddin alias Muhammad Panah vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 311 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction and death sentence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the sentence. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether a belated defence theory, raised for the first time at the appellate stage, warranted consideration. The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence, finding the prosecution's ocular and circumstantial evidence, including forensic reports and recoveries, to be reliable. The Court laid down the principle that an accused cannot introduce a new plea of self-defence at the appellate stage if it was not raised or supported by evidence during the trial. Additionally, the Court held that the absence of independent witnesses does not automatically invalidate a prosecution case, provided that the testimony of related witnesses is consistent, trustworthy, and corroborated by other evidence, particularly given the prevailing societal reluctance of independent persons to testify in criminal proceedings.
Questions settled- Can an accused raise a plea of self-defence for the first time at the appellate stage?
- Does the failure to produce independent witnesses necessarily weaken the prosecution's case?
- Is the testimony of related witnesses reliable if corroborated by circumstantial evidence?
- Can a statement made before a committing magistrate be transferred to the sessions file under Section 288, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Ghulam. Nabi and Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabir vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-09Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir and 5 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-26Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir (Sabir) vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 142 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1165 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-24Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1976 PLD Lahore 720 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Muhammad Ismail and 2 Other1976 PLD Lahore 570 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mohammad vs Mst. Suban and 11 Others1976 P Cr. L J 39 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ahmad vs Punjab Province and Another1976 PLD Lahore 773 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas Khan vs Zakaullah and 11 Other1976 PLD Lahore 21 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal proceedings before the Lahore High Court, reported as PLD 1976 Lahore 21. The judgment text provided contains only the appearance of counsel for the State. Due to the extreme brevity of the text, no substantive legal questions, core holdings, or specific principles can be discerned from the record.
- Ghul Am Nabi vs The State and 5 Others1976 P Cr. L J 94 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-12Read full judgment →
- Ghaus Khan and 2 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 777 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-02Read full judgment →
- Gharib Alam and 3 Others Convict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 980 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-11Read full judgment →
- Ghanam Rang vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 655 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-03Read full judgment →
- GH Ul Am M U Ham Mad Convict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 258 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-17Read full judgment →
- General Steel Tools Company, Gujranwala vs Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore and 2 Others1976 PLC 397 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-31Read full judgment →
- General Steel Tools Company, Gujranwala vs Lahore and 2 Oth1?Rs1976 PLD Lahore 528 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by a Junior Labour Court and a Punjab Labour Court directing the petitioner-firm to pay gratuity to a former employee. The core legal questions involved whether the Junior Labour Court had jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to adjudicate a gratuity claim given the concurrent provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and whether a reconstituted firm was liable for gratuity accrued over continuous service spanning prior partnership changes. The Lahore High Court held that the employee had concurrent remedies under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and was entitled to choose the more beneficial forum. Furthermore, Labour Courts are not 'Civil Courts' barred by section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the reconstituted firm was liable for continuous service upon the employee's retirement. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether the Junior Labour Court has jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to adjudicate a claim for gratuity notwithstanding the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Whether section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 bars a Labour Court from entertaining a workman's claim for dues?
- Whether a reconstituted partnership firm is liable to pay gratuity for continuous service rendered prior to the latest reconstitution of the firm?
- Does the creation of a remedy under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 exclude the jurisdiction of Labour Courts under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Gaman and Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 528 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-04Read full judgment →
- Feroze and 9 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 916 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-18Read full judgment →
- Fazle Hussain Etc vs Inayat Ali Etc.1976 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-27Read full judgment →
- Fazal vs Incharge, C. I. A. Staff, Jaranwala1976 P Cr. L J 730 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-08Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain vs The State and 2 Others1976 P Cr. L J 747 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected criminal revision petitions arising from a dispute over the interim custody (supardari) of a tractor. The tractor was sold to the petitioner, Fazal Hussain, by a co-owner, after which the other co-owner lodged an F.I.R. for theft. The police recovered the tractor from Fazal Hussain and initially handed it over to the complainant. However, the Magistrate subsequently modified this ex parte order and granted supardari to Fazal Hussain, from whose custody the tractor was recovered. This order was later cancelled by the Magistrate on a police report alleging Fazal Hussain was an accused. The High Court held that, in matters of interim custody, the property should normally be returned to the person from whose possession it was recovered. Furthermore, an ex parte interim custody order is not final and can be modified, meaning the bar on review under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply. Consequently, the High Court set aside the cancellation order and restored the custody of the tractor to Fazal Hussain.
Questions settled- Whether property seized by the police during an investigation should normally be handed over on supardari to the person from whose possession it was recovered?
- Can a Magistrate modify an ex parte order of interim custody, or does the prohibition of review under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar such modification?
- What is the effect of a civil court's temporary injunction on the police's authority to remove property from a party's custody during an investigation?
- Fatima Bib! and 2 Others vs Inayatullah Tater and Another1976 P Cr. L J 1076 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-05Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhamma D and Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1062 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-02Read full judgment →
- Farooq Jamil vs The Stave and Another1976 PLD Lahore 58 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-17Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-05Read full judgment →
- Faqir Ali vs Muhammad Hayat1976 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a trial court order issuing a warrant of attachment before judgment against the appellant's tractor. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, when it attached the property without proper notice or evidence of the defendant's intent to obstruct execution. The High Court held that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedural requirements of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, which necessitates giving the defendant an opportunity to show cause or furnish security before attachment. The Court further determined that because the order did not comply with Rule 6, it was not strictly appealable under Order XLIII, Rule 1(q). However, invoking its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court set aside the attachment. The key principle laid down is that attachment before judgment is an extraordinary measure requiring strict procedural compliance; vague allegations of property disposal are insufficient, and the court must be satisfied that the defendant specifically intends to obstruct or delay the execution of a potential decree.
Questions settled- Can a court order attachment before judgment without first issuing a notice to the defendant to show cause or furnish security?
- Is an order of attachment before judgment that fails to comply with the procedural requirements of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 appealable?
- Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an irregular order of attachment?
- Are vague allegations regarding the disposal of property sufficient to justify an order of attachment before judgment?
- Falak Sher vs Hafiz Saeed Akhtar and Others1976 P Cr. L J 612 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-07Read full judgment →