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.

• M. Asghar Bashir Gora vs Hassan Khan1975 P Cr. L J 7 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-15Read full judgment →
• Liaqat and 2 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 21 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-02Read full judgment →
• Khurshid vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 614 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-30Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh and 2 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 128 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-02Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Fazal Karim vs The State and Another--1975 P Cr. L J 757 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-04Read full judgment →
• Kharait Illahi vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1301 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-19Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood and 3 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 772 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-05Read full judgment →
• Khalid Jahangir vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 760 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-17Read full judgment →
• Khalas Khan And' Another Convicts vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 172 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-07Read full judgment →
• Khalas Khan and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 172 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-07Read full judgment →
• Kh. Muhammad Safdar and 3 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 407 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-04Read full judgment →
• Karam Elahi vs The State and OTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 902 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-04Read full judgment →
• Kamal Hussain vs Azim Gul and Another1975 P Cr. L J 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-19Read full judgment →
• Kala vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 644 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-26Read full judgment →
• K. M. Asaf vs Abdullah Malik And Another1975 PLC 781 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-14Read full judgment →
• Jamat Ali vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 444 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-29Read full judgment →
• Jamat Ali vs The State-1975 P Cr. L J 444 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-29Read full judgment →
• Jamal Din and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 650 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-01Read full judgment →
• Jaffir vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 582 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-28Read full judgment →
• Jaffir vs The State--1975 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-28Read full judgment →
• Ismail (Muhammad Ismail) vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-31Read full judgment →
• Inayat and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-05
  post-arrest baildelayed FIRtest identification paradefurther inquirymurderrobbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving offenses under sections 302, 392, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were accused of murdering one person and robbing another during an incident on 27th November 1973. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given their absence from the first information report and their belated implication based on suspicion after a significant delay. The Lahore High Court held that the lack of initial naming in the first information report, the subsequent delay in implication, and questions surrounding the test identification parade and recovery of common articles brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners, laying down the principle that unexplained delay in implication coupled with debatable identification evidence warrants further inquiry favoring the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of the accused's name in the first information report makes out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a belated implication of accused persons on suspicion after a considerable delay entitle them to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether questionable test identification parade and recoveries of common articles justify the release of accused persons on bail pending trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Bakhsh vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 233 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-30Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Bakhsh Convict vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 233 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-30Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 209 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-08Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ullah vs The State and ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 1148 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-20Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1207 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-25Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 322 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 31 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 687 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Alias Hasna vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 218 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain alias Hasna Convict vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 218 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-29Read full judgment →
• Ghaus Bakhsh vs The State-1975 P Cr. L J 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ghani vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1112 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-31Read full judgment →
• G Ul M Uhammad Convict vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 322 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-25Read full judgment →
• Fazil and 4 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 123 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-22Read full judgment →
• Fazal Elahi vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-05Read full judgment →
• Fazal Elahi Convict vs Tim State1975 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-05Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and 5 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 301 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-04Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and 5 Others Convicts vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 301 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-01Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 192 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-20Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad Khan vs Paskal Alias Pasa and Anotmrs1975 P Cr. L J 640 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad Khan vs Paskal alias Pasa and Another1975 P Cr. L J 640 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Qadeer vs The State and Another-1975 P Cr. L J 471 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-20Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 947 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-10Read full judgment →
• Dil Muhammad and 2 Dthmss vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-09Read full judgment →
• Corporation . vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab1975 PLC 808 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-29Read full judgment →
• Chiragh vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1118 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-23Read full judgment →
• Ch. Zahoor Illahi vs The State and 4 Others1975 P Cr. L J 1413 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-05Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Asrraf vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 632 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-26Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 632 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-26Read full judgment →
• Beer Din and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 116 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-07Read full judgment →
• Bati and 4 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-30Read full judgment →
• Bashir and 3 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 681 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-08Read full judgment →
• Bashir AHMADConvict vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 203 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 203 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
• Bahawal Ands vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 923 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-24Read full judgment →
• Bahadur and 9 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 162 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-01Read full judgment →
• Baggu and 5 Others vs The STATEs1975 P Cr. L J 829 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-17Read full judgment →
• Baddar Din vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 513 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-15Read full judgment →
• Baddar Din vs The State-1975 P Cr. L J 513 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-15Read full judgment →
• Badar Us Salam vs Muhammad Javed and 2 Others1975 P Cr. L J 1442 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-12
  bail cancellationattempt to murdervicarious liabilityjuvenile bailcommon object
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents who were accused of offences under sections 148 and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the respondents, who were alleged to have inflicted serious knife injuries during an attack, were entitled to bail in view of the prohibition under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the nature of the injuries caused. The court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused were guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or death, and that the discretionary proviso regarding minors did not mandate the grant of bail given the desperate nature of the acts. Consequently, the bail granted to all respondents was cancelled. The key principle laid down is that in determining the applicability of section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the test is what the offence would have been had the victim died, and that the discretionary concession of bail to minors under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be withheld in cases involving grave and dangerous acts of violence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted to accused charged under section 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 should be cancelled when there are reasonable grounds of guilt?
  • Does the proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make it mandatory to release a minor accused on bail?
  • How is the nature of an offence under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 determined with reference to potential death of the victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Bachinoo vs Abdul Hakim1975 P Cr. L J 732 · Lahore High Court · -
  habeas corpusminor custodyconversion to IslamChristian Marriage Actabductionsummary proceedingswelfare of the minor
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, filed by a mother seeking the custody of her minor daughter, Mst. Zarina, who had allegedly been abducted by the respondent, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The core legal questions involved the determination of the girl's age, the validity of her alleged conversion to Islam, and the legality of her subsequent marriage to the respondent. The Court declined to conduct a detailed inquiry into disputed facts, noting that criminal proceedings were already pending. Tentatively holding that the girl was a minor, the Court determined that it was not in her welfare to remain in the respondent's custody pending the outcome of the criminal trial. The Court ordered the girl to be placed in the Darulaman for six months, directing the authorities to expedite the criminal case. The key principle laid down is that in summary proceedings under Section 491, Cr. P. C., where serious allegations of abduction and disputed conversion exist, the Court should avoid conclusive findings on facts better suited for trial, prioritizing the welfare of the alleged minor.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court determine the validity of a conversion and marriage in summary proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a marriage between a Muslim male and a minor Christian female valid under the Christian Marriage Act 1872?
  • Does the Court have the discretion to place a minor in a protective facility like Darulaman pending the outcome of a criminal trial for abduction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 462 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-19Read full judgment →
• Ata Mu Ham Lmad vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-18Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain Convict vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-18Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad Sheikh vs Ch. Abdul Majid, Magistrate Ist Class1975 P Cr. L J 1356 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-22Read full judgment →
• Asadullah alias Sadullah and 4 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 521 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-02Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Alias Sadullah and 4 Others vs The State-1975 P Cr. L J 521 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-02Read full judgment →
• Anwar vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 750 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-30
  murdercriminal appealmedical evidenceocular testimonyinterested witnessesreasonable doubtself-inflictionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant discrepancies between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed and unreliable. The medical evidence, indicating a single injury and a bullet trajectory suggesting self-infliction, directly contradicted the ocular account of multiple shots fired by the appellant. Furthermore, the presence of urine in the deceased's bladder refuted the prosecution's claim that the deceased had just urinated before the incident. The Court established the principle that where ocular testimony is provided by interested witnesses and is inconsistent with established medical facts, it cannot form the basis for a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, as the prosecution failed to prove the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the ocular testimony is directly contradicted by medical evidence regarding the number of injuries and the physical state of the deceased?
  • Does the presence of a significant quantity of urine in the bladder of the deceased discredit the prosecution's claim that the deceased had just urinated prior to the shooting?
  • Is a conviction safe when the trajectory of the fatal wound suggests the possibility of self-infliction rather than a shot fired by another person?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Bakhsh vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-01Read full judgment →
• Amir Bakhsh Convict vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 548 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-11Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya vs The State-1975 P Cr. L J 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Din and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1288 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-09Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1081 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-19Read full judgment →
• Alam Sher and 5 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and 4 Others vs Nasimul Hassan Shah and 3 Others1975 P Cr. L J 41 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 672 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-28Read full judgment →
• Abdus Sattar vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1280 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-15Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Khan Muhammad and Another1975 P Cr. L J 680 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1156 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-22Read full judgment →
• A H Ma D Din vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 672 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-28Read full judgment →
• Zakaullah Khan and 3 Other vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 181 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-17Read full judgment →
• Zafarullah vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 245 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-19Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Khan and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 339 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-29Read full judgment →
• Umaid Khan vs Akbar1974 PLD Lahore 445 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-29Read full judgment →
• Tikka Khan and 3 Other vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 100 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-26Read full judgment →
• Tajoo vs Mst. Sattaran1974 PLD Lahore 105 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Sirajul Hasan and Another vs The Settlement Commissioner and 21974 PLD Lahore 285 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Sharafat Hussain vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 127 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Nazir Hassan vs Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur and Another1974 PLD Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-31
  evacuee propertySettlement Scheme No. ISettlement Scheme No. VIC.H. FormB.S. Formaudi alteram partemvoid orderbuilding siteconversion of formremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged orders of the Settlement authorities rejecting the petitioner's C.H. Form ex parte and transferring the disputed evacuee property exclusively to a private respondent under Settlement Scheme No. VI. The core legal questions pertained to whether an ex parte rejection violating the mandatory procedural provisions of Settlement Scheme No. I renders the order void ab initio, whether outhouses and garages can be treated as independent residential units when the main bungalow was never constructed, whether the 1/8th construction condition under Scheme No. VI is ultra vires the parent statute, and whether a C.H. Form can be converted into a B.S. Form. The High Court accepted the petition, declaring all impugned orders void and without lawful authority, and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The Court held that statutory procedural requirements cannot be cured by subsequent appellate hearings, outhouses without a main house constitute independent residential units, subordinate schemes cannot restrict statutory terms beyond the parent Act, and settlement authorities are legally obligated to consider converting C.H. Forms to B.S. Forms.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to comply with statutory inquiry, notice, and hearing requirements under Settlement Scheme No. I render an ex parte order void ab initio?
  • Can an initial void order passed in violation of mandatory statutory requirements be cured by granting the aggrieved party a hearing in subsequent appeal or revision proceedings?
  • Can outhouses and garages be treated as independent residential units under Section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 where the main bungalow does not exist?
  • Is the condition of 1/8th construction in the definition of a building site under Settlement Scheme No. VI ultra vires the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 and its Schedule?
  • Can a C.H. Form submitted by an applicant be legally converted into and considered as a B.S. Form by the Settlement Authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah, Advocate and Another vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 242 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Zahid (Represented by Heirs) vs Muhammad Ashraf1974 PLD Lahore 282 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Altaf Hussain and Another vs Mian Fazal Ilahi and 2 Other1974 PLD Lahore 502 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-11Read full judgment →
• Surja vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 595 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-19Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Khan and Another vs Master Ali Ahmad Khan and 61974 PLD Lahore 539 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-04Read full judgment →
• Sher Ahmad Khan and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 555 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ghulam Moin-Ud-Din .and 3 Other vs Mst. Razia Begum and 71974 PLD Lahore 173 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-13Read full judgment →