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.

• Ejaz Ahmed vs Board of Revenue, Punjab through Member (Colonies), Lahore and 3 Other1976 PLD Lahore 563 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-29
  Board of Revenuecoram non judicejudicial independencerevenue courtswrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple writ petitions challenging the authority of an Additional Chief Land Commissioner to exercise the powers of a Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, for the disposal of colony judicial cases. The core legal question is whether the Government of Punjab could, through a notification, validly authorize an officer who is not a Member of the Board of Revenue to perform the Board's judicial functions. The Court held that the impugned orders passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner were coram non judice and without lawful authority. The ratio is that the Board of Revenue is established as the highest court of appeal and revision in revenue cases, and the legislature intended it to be independent of government control in its judicial functions. The Government’s power to control the Board is limited to non-judicial matters. Furthermore, the statute requires that only a duly appointed Member of the Board may exercise these judicial powers. Consequently, the Court declared the proceedings conducted by the unauthorized officer to be of no legal effect, directing that the revision petitions be treated as still pending before a properly constituted Member of the Board.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Government of Punjab authorize an officer who is not a Member of the Board of Revenue to exercise the Board's judicial powers?
  • Is the Board of Revenue subject to government control in the exercise of its appellate and revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does an order passed by an officer not duly appointed as a Member of the Board of Revenue constitute a valid order of the Board?
  • What is the effect of a notification attempting to confer judicial powers of the Board of Revenue upon an officer not appointed as a Member?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsanul Haque and Another vs Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary to1976 PLD Lahore 501 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-11
  medical college admissionequality before lawspecial provision for womenfundamental rightssupplementary examinationadministrative discretionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses several consolidated writ petitions challenging admission policies for medical colleges in Punjab. The petitioners contested the inclusion of students who passed the F.Sc. (pre-medical) supplementary examination for newly created seats, arguing they should have been reserved for annual examination candidates. They also challenged the continuation of the 'Governor's quota' for admissions and alleged that reserving seats for female students violated the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law. The Court held that authorities possess the discretion to set admission criteria for new seats and colleges, and that the petitioners had no legal grievance regarding the inclusion of supplementary candidates. Furthermore, the Court found the challenge to the Governor's quota factually meritless as it was not applicable to the current admissions. Regarding the reservation of seats for women, the Court held that such provisions are protected under the Constitution as special measures for the protection of women and children. The Court affirmed that reasonable classification based on sex for such purposes does not violate the equality clause, and consequently dismissed the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Can authorities include supplementary examination candidates in the admission process for newly created medical college seats?
  • Does the reservation of seats for female students in medical colleges violate the constitutional prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex?
  • Is the state permitted to make special provisions for the protection of women and children under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a petitioner challenge admission policies based on the expectation that seats should be restricted to candidates from earlier examination cycles?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Muhammad Ismail vs Deputy Commissioner, Jhang Arts Another,1976 PLD Lahore 758 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-15
  escheatspeaking orderconstitutional petitionquasi-judicial orderreasons for ordersdesealing of propertyindependent mind
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 concerning a property taken over by the State as having escheated on the premise that the propositus left no heir in Pakistan. The petitioner moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner for desealing the property, asserting that heirs existed elsewhere, but the Deputy Commissioner disposed of it summarily with a brief noting of "seen, file" without applying his independent mind or providing reasons. The core legal question was whether a quasi-judicial authority can dispose of a matter without a speaking order containing reasons. The Lahore High Court held that the Deputy Commissioner's order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect, emphasizing that persons performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions are under an implied duty to render speaking orders that reflect independent application of mind and reasoning. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision on the petitioner's application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority without giving reasons is lawful?
  • Is it essential for the State to establish that a propositus left no heir in the world rather than just in Pakistan under the law of escheat?
  • Does a summary endorsement such as "seen, file" satisfy the legal requirement of a judicial determination?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Aijaz Hussain Qureshi vs National Industrial Relations1976 PLC 47 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-30Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aijaz Hussain Qureshi vs National Industrial Relations Commission1976 PLD Lahore 611 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-30
  unfair labour practiceinterim reliefstatutory tribunalreinstatementjurisdictionindustrial relationsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an interim order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) directing the petitioner to reinstate dismissed employees pending the final disposal of a complaint filed under Section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the NIRC possesses the jurisdiction to grant interim reinstatement as a form of relief during the pendency of proceedings concerning unfair labour practices. The Lahore High Court held that the NIRC lacked the authority to pass such an interim order. The Court reasoned that the power to direct reinstatement is not incidental or ancillary to the adjudication process, but is a consequential power that only arises after a finding of guilt is established under the relevant provisions. Consequently, the Court declared the interim order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The judgment establishes the principle that statutory tribunals, being creatures of statute with defined jurisdiction, cannot exercise inherent powers to grant interim relief unless such power is expressly conferred or necessarily implied as an ancillary procedural requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the power to order interim reinstatement of employees pending the final disposal of a complaint under Section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
  • Is the power to direct reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance an incidental or ancillary power to the adjudication process?
  • Can a statutory tribunal exercise inherent powers to grant interim relief where such power is not expressly conferred by the governing statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aijaz Hassan Qureshi vs District Magistrate, Lahore and Another1976 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-27Read full judgment →
• DR. Maqbool Ahmad Jauhar vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 333 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-13Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 689 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
• Dewan Ali and 7 Other vs Barkat Ali and 10 Other1976 PLD Lahore 147 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-17
  refugee claiminheritance entitlementland allotmentsettlement authoritieswrit jurisdictiondiscretionary reliefsubstantial justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a dispute regarding the inheritance and entitlement to land allotments made on the basis of a common refugee claim of a deceased right-holder who died in India in 1945. The petitioners contended that the allotment of land in specific villages should enure solely to their benefit to the exclusion of the heirs of a deceased female heir, Mst. Ghulam Fatima. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Additional Settlement Commissioner, and Settlement Commissioner concurrently ruled that the land allotment obtained on the basis of the common claim enured for the benefit of all legal heirs in their proportionate shares. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the entitlement to inheritance was undisputed, the allotment made on the basis of a common claim must benefit all heirs. The Court further held that even if the Deputy Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to direct the handing over of produce shares, discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 would not be exercised to foster injustice or allow petitioners to usurp the lawful shares of others.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allotment of land made on the basis of a common refugee claim enure for the benefit of all legal heirs of the deceased right-holder?
  • Will the High Court exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with a just and fair order that prevents the usurpation of shares by co-heirs?
  • Can a writ be issued in aid of injustice to protect petitioners in retaining benefits to which they are not entitled under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Da. Ghulam Qadir vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 922 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-02Read full judgment →
• Crown Bus Service Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue and 2 Others1976 PTD 321 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore vs Messrs Anwar &1976 PTD 9 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore vs Messhs Anwar &1976 PLD Lahore 545 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore vs Umar Saigol1976 PTD 76 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore vs Nasim Hassan, Advocate1976 PTD 336 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Imam Bux Allah Dewaya, Leiah1976 PLD Lahore 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Imam Bakhsh Allah Dewaya, Leiah ,1976 PTD 199 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chuni Lal vs Dittoo and 2 Other1976 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-01
  cancellation of bailunlawful assemblyvicarious liabilitycommon objectcapital offencejudicial discretionnon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal miscellaneous applications seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge, Lahore, in a case involving charges under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge exercised proper judicial discretion in granting bail to the respondents, who were alleged members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, despite the vicarious liability provisions of section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the Sessions Judge erred by prematurely determining the degree of culpability of the accused, thereby prejudicing the prosecution's case regarding vicarious liability. The Court emphasized that in non-bailable capital offences, bail discretion must be exercised with extreme care and circumspection, particularly where reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused were members of an unlawful assembly. Consequently, the Court accepted the petitions, cancelled the bail of the respondents, and ordered them into custody, while clarifying that this decision does not preclude future bail applications after material evidence is recorded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be determined at the bail stage?
  • Does the grant of bail to an accused charged under section 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require the exercise of judicial discretion with special care and circumspection?
  • Can bail be cancelled if the lower court prematurely determines the culpability of the accused in a capital case?
  • Is a member of an unlawful assembly liable for an offence committed by another member if the result was known to be likely?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore vs Commissioner1976 PTD 56 · Lahore High Court
  local authorityincome tax exemptionstatutory corporationmanaging agency commissionreference applicationassessment limitationdissolution of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 addresses seventeen consolidated tax assessment matters concerning the Thal Development Authority. The core legal questions involve the validity of assessment notices, limitation periods, whether the Thal Development Authority constitutes a "local authority" under section 4(3)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the taxability of its receipts. The Lahore High Court held that the Thal Development Authority, having its own local fund, executing development schemes, and exercising local self-government functions, qualifies as a "local authority" under section 3(28) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and section 4(3)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, distinguishing it from corporate companies. The court concluded that its income is exempt to the extent provided by law, answering the primary question in the negative and ruling on limitation and procedural aspects accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Thal Development Authority is a local authority within the meaning of section 4(3)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  • Whether income-tax can legally be charged in respect of receipts of the Thal Development Authority?
  • Whether assessment proceedings were initiated and completed during the statutory period of limitation under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  • Whether the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 184(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 over tax disputes involving a dissolved statutory authority represented by an administrator?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore vs Commissioner1976 PLD Lahore 258 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-27
  local authorityincome tax exemptionstatutory interpretationThal Development Authoritycorporate statuslocal fundtax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns seventeen reference applications under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, arising from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the tax status of the Thal Development Authority (TDA). The core legal question was whether the TDA constituted a 'local authority' under Section 4(3)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, thereby exempting its income from taxation. The Court held that the TDA, established under the Thal Development Act, 1949, possessed the characteristics of a local authority, including the power to levy taxes, manage a local fund, and exercise functions of local self-government within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court ruled that the TDA was a 'local authority' and not merely a 'company' as the Tribunal had erroneously concluded. The principle laid down is that a body corporate's status as a 'company' under the Income-tax Act does not preclude it from simultaneously being a 'local authority' if it meets the statutory criteria of managing a local fund and exercising local self-government functions, and that the definition of 'local authority' in the General Clauses Act, 1897, governs such interpretation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Thal Development Authority a 'local authority' within the meaning of Section 4(3)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  • Does the status of a body corporate under the Income-tax Act, 1922, preclude it from being classified as a 'local authority'?
  • Can an Administrator appointed under the Thal Development Act, 1949, be considered the same entity as the Provincial Government for the purposes of Article 184(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore and 31976 PLC 740 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-05Read full judgment →
• Ch. Zahoor Elahi vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 988 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-16Read full judgment →
• Ch. Noor Muhammad Khan vs The Board of Revenue, West Pakistan1976 PLD Lahore 1061 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ch. Khurshid Ahmad Chauhan vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 342 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-05Read full judgment →
• Carlus Luch Caleagno and Anothi3r Convict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 643 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-19Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1162 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-22Read full judgment →
• Bashir Hussain and Another vs Sh. Muhammad Saeed and 2PLD 1976 Lahore 1095 . · Lahore High Court
  ejectmentreconstructionbona fide requirementtenant's right of re-entrysecond appealrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against tenants under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, seeking possession for reconstruction to extend a contiguous building occupied by a bank. The Rent Controller and the District Judge concurrently allowed the ejectment. The core legal question was whether an application for reconstruction is bona fide when the landlord has already committed the property to a third party, thereby rendering the statutory right of the tenant to re-occupy the reconstructed premises under section 13(5-B) impossible. The Court held that the ejectment application was incompetent. It reasoned that reconstruction must be bona fide, and a plan designed to circumvent the tenant's statutory right to re-entry under section 13(5-B) cannot be considered bona fide. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while findings of fact regarding bona fide requirement are generally not disturbed in second appeal, the legal interpretation of whether specific facts constitute a bona fide requirement under the Ordinance is a question of law. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower orders and dismissed the ejectment application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for ejectment for reconstruction is bona fide if the landlord has already committed the property to a third party?
  • Can a tenant be evicted for reconstruction if the landlord's plan effectively denies the tenant's statutory right to re-occupy the premises under section 13(5-B)?
  • Is the question of whether a reconstruction plan constitutes a bona fide requirement a question of law or a question of fact?
  • Can a landlord seek ejectment for personal use for a third party such as a bank under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir and Another Convict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-15Read full judgment →
• Basharat MAHMOODConvict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-01Read full judgment →
• Bash1r alias Matto vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 652 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-08Read full judgment →
• Bas H Ir Hussain vs Sadiq Hussain Shah alias Sadiq and Another1976 P Cr. L 1609 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-10Read full judgment →
• Bakhshu vs Tire State1976 P Cr. L J 735 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-19Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1283 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-27
  surety bond forfeiturebail bond validitySection 499 CrPCcriminal revisionpenalty reductionattendance of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the forfeiture of a surety bond by the District Magistrate, Mianwali, which had been reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 3,000. The petitioner, who stood surety for his son, contended that the bail bond was legally defective under Section 499, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, because it failed to specify the exact time and place for the accused's appearance. The Court examined whether specifying the date of hearing and the relevant court, including potential transferee courts, satisfied the statutory requirements. The Court held that the bail bond was valid, ruling that specifying the date of hearing and the court is sufficient compliance with Section 499, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it is presumed the accused must attend during court hours. The Court rejected the necessity of specifying an exact hour. Furthermore, exercising judicial discretion regarding the quantum of forfeiture, the Court reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,000, considering the petitioner’s financial hardship and the absence of evidence suggesting connivance in the accused's non-appearance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a bail bond require the specification of an exact hour of appearance to be valid under Section 499, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a bail bond valid if it requires the accused to appear on every date of hearing before the trial court or any court to which the case is transferred?
  • What factors should a court consider when determining the amount of penalty to be forfeited from a surety upon the accused's failure to appear?
  Read full judgment →
• Bagga and 2 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 956 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-16Read full judgment →
• Baboo Khan Etc vs Khalil Ahmed Etc.1976 PLD Lahore 179 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-16Read full judgment →
• Aziz Maseeh vs The State1976 PLD Lahore 53 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-26
  criminal breach of trustmisappropriation of public fundscurable irregularityinvestigation by policesanction for prosecutionSection 409 PPCAgricultural Development Corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 1,200 by a supervisor at an Agricultural Development Corporation depot. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the misappropriation of public funds and whether procedural irregularities, specifically an investigation by a Sub-Inspector without a magistrate's order and potential issues with the prosecution sanction, vitiated the trial. The Lahore High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the funds belonged to the Corporation or were misappropriated, as the money was an advance payment for fertilizer held in trust pending a private dispute resolution. The Court established that an investigation conducted by an officer below the rank of Inspector without a magistrate's order constitutes a curable irregularity under Section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rather than a fatal defect. Additionally, a conviction for criminal breach of trust requires clear proof that the funds were public property and were dishonestly misappropriated, which was not demonstrated in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investigation conducted by a police officer below the rank of Inspector without a magistrate's order vitiate a trial?
  • Is the failure to obtain a valid sanction for prosecution a fatal defect in a criminal trial?
  • Can a conviction for criminal breach of trust be sustained when the funds in question are not proven to be public property?
  Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain vs Tim State1976 P Cr. L J 296 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-13Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1366 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-27Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad Khan vs Mst. Khanzadi and Other1976 PLD Lahore 909 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-10Read full judgment →
• Anwar and 3 OTHERSConvict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 560 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-17Read full judgment →
• AMIRconvict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1110 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-06Read full judgment →
• Amir BAKHSHConvict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 431 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-05Read full judgment →
• Ami R Khan Convict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-10Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 795 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar and 3 Others Convict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 923 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-28Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya vs Sultan Ahmed and Another1976 PLD Lahore 62 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-30Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 502 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-12Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Mst. Kausar Parveen1976 P Cr. L J 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-26Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha and 3 Others Convict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-25Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs THB State through Secretary, Ministry Op Defence, Islamabad1976 PLD Lahore 823 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-10
  Pakistan Army Actactive servicecivil offencesCourt Martialjurisdictionexcessive delegationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenged an order issued by a Brigade Commander claiming two military personnel, subject to the Pakistan Army Act 1952 and accused of murder and rape of a civilian, for trial before a Court Martial. The core legal questions involved whether military personnel committing civil offences against non-military persons in a peaceful area are triable under the Army Act, the vires of the Federal Government's notification under section 7 of the Act deeming all Army personnel to be on "active service", and whether handing over the accused initially to civil police bars subsequent trial by Court Martial. The Lahore High Court held that the notification issued under section 7 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 is valid, does not suffer from excessive delegation, and legally treats all army personnel as being on "active service", thereby removing the bar under section 59(2) of the Act. The Court further held that initial mishandling or surrender of custody by an unauthorized officer does not constitute an election of forum, and the prescribed competent officer retains the discretion under section 94 of the Act to claim the accused for trial by Court Martial. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government can validly issue a notification under section 7 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 deeming all persons subject to the Act to be on active service without specifying a particular area?
  • Does section 7 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power?
  • Are military personnel who commit murder against a civilian in a peaceful area triable under the Pakistan Army Act 1952 when declared to be on active service?
  • Does the initial handing over of accused military personnel to civil police by an unauthorized officer bar the prescribed officer from subsequently claiming them for trial by a Court Martial under section 94 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation) and 5 Other1976 PLD Lahore 897 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-04Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and Another vs THB State1976 P Cr. L J 522 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Din and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 249 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-12Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 434 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-10Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1272 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-17
  dying declarationmurderocular testimonyappreciation of evidencecriminal appealdeath sentence confirmationcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting several accused persons for murder and related offences arising from a fatal shooting incident outside a court premises. The core legal questions involve evaluating the evidentiary value and reliability of a dying declaration, assessing ocular testimony, and determining the complicity of accused individuals allegedly playing secondary roles. The Lahore High Court held that the dying declaration, corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness testimony, reliably established the guilt of the primary assailant who fired the fatal shot and an accomplice who inflicted a head injury. However, the court acquitted other co-accused whose alleged roles of holding the deceased were found to be improbable and exaggerated. The key principles laid down are that a dying declaration, when recorded with due safeguards and found to be voluntary and truthful, can form the basis of a conviction without extensive corroboration, and that exaggerated or unnatural ocular attributions regarding peripheral accused must be separated and discarded.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of a dying declaration when it is duly recorded by a magistrate and found to be voluntary and truthful?
  • Whether minor discrepancies or the absence of minute details in a dying declaration vitiate its evidentiary value?
  • How should the court evaluate the testimony of an injured eyewitness whose presence is established by physical injuries?
  • Whether the uncorroborated and improbable attribution of roles to empty-handed co-accused in a murder case warrants their acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and Another vs The State1976 PLD Lahore 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-17Read full judgment →
• Ali SHERConvict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1217 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-08Read full judgment →
• Ali Mohammad and 3 Other vs Settlement Commissioner (Land), Multan1976 PLD Lahore 880 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-01Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-26Read full judgment →
• Alaf (Represented by 3 Hbirs) vs Not1976 PLD Lahore 647 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-11Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and 2 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 452 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-12Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman and 5 Other vs Tub Province of Punjab through Collector of Multan and 5 Other1976 PLD Lahore 917 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 584 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 717 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul SHAKOORConvict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 810 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1466 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 721 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs Muhammad and Another1976 P Cr. L J 1203 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-11
  bail cancellationprofessional misconductduty of counselprofessional disciplinetrial proceedingsadvocate conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondents. The core legal question was whether the bail order should be set aside due to allegations of professional misconduct by the respondents' counsel, who allegedly misled the Court regarding the status of the trial proceedings. The Court declined to cancel the bail, reasoning that the trial had already commenced and the recording of evidence was underway; cancelling bail at this advanced stage could improperly influence the trial proceedings. Regarding the conduct of the counsel, the Court found that the advocate failed in his duty to apprise the Court of the true status of the trial on the date the bail order was dictated. While the Court deemed this a grave act of professional indiscipline, it refrained from reporting the matter to the Bar Council or suspending the advocate's license, citing extenuating circumstances and the counsel's youth. The Court emphasized the principle that legal practitioners must be diligent and transparent, ensuring they do not withhold or omit material facts that could influence the Court's determination of a case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be cancelled if the trial has already commenced and evidence is being recorded?
  • Does an advocate have a duty to inform the Court of the true status of trial proceedings during a bail hearing?
  • Can a court refrain from reporting professional misconduct to the Bar Council if extenuating circumstances exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 326 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid alias Majha vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 545 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-10
  criminal appealmurderattempt to murderchance witnessinterested witnessbenefit of doubtacquittalperjury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Multan, convicting the appellant under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to transportation for life after he was acquitted of the primary murder charge. The prosecution alleged that the appellant fired a pistol shot at the deceased during a sudden altercation, resulting in her death weeks later following hospitalisation. The core legal questions involved the credibility of interested and chance witnesses, the reliability of ocular testimony unsupported by independent corroboration, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses were either interested, hostile, or chance witnesses whose testimonies suffered from material contradictions and inconsistencies, and that the physical layout of the scene precluded a clear view of the incident. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, laying down the principle that uncorroborated testimony of chance and interested witnesses, riddled with contradictions and falsified by physical features of the crime scene, is insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of chance witnesses can be relied upon to sustain a conviction?
  • Does the evidence of an interested and inimical witness require independent corroboration to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Whether contradictions between statements made before a committing magistrate and a trial court render a witness unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul KHALIQConvict vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 713 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 685 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and 6 Other vs Member, Board of Revenue1976 PLD Lahore 281 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Gil a Ffa R alias Ghaffra and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 768 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Muhammad Saleem and 6 Others1976 P Cr. L J 944 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Assistant Di RSC f or, Immigration and Passport, Lahore1976 P Cr. L J 610 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-06Read full judgment →
• Ziauddin Alias Joja and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 429 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-19Read full judgment →
• Zahida Parveen Etc. vs Mahmood Javad Esc.S1975 P Cr. L J 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-21Read full judgment →
• Yara vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 508 · Lahore High Court · 1974-09-02Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Sadiq1975 P Cr. L J 246 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-14Read full judgment →
• THB State vs Jahan Dad1975 P Cr. L J 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-24Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain and 3 Others vs The State Respondent1975 P Cr. L J 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-27Read full judgment →
• Taja Alias Tajo vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Amanat Ali vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 952 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sufi Muhammad Iqbal and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 628 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-19Read full judgment →
• Smail and 3 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1258 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Siraj Alias Saji vs THS State--1975 P Cr. L J 417 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-22Read full judgment →
• Siraj alias Saji vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 417 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-22Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1229 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-07Read full judgment →
• Sikandar and 2 Othersa ccuseds vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 349 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-27Read full judgment →
• Sikandar and 2 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 349 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-27Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman and 3 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-21Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan Alias Mammi vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 655 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-20Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs The State and ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-07Read full judgment →
• Shah Ali vs The State-1975 P Cr. L J 225 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
• Shah Ali Convict vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 225 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Rashid vs Mst. Sharaf Sultana1975 P Cr. L J 678 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-19Read full judgment →
• Sarwar and 6 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-04Read full judgment →