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.

• Shahban vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 44 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-21Read full judgment →
• Shah Din vs Feroz Din and 2 Other1974 PLD Lahore 481 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-18Read full judgment →
• Sh. Zahoor Ahmad vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 256 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-10
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailpolitical victimisationdirect petition High Courtconcurrent jurisdictioninherent powers High Courtimminent arrestpolice harassmentformal registration of FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was filed directly in the High Court by a political worker alleging victimisation through false criminal cases and imminent arrest by police. The core legal questions concerned the conditions for granting pre-arrest bail, particularly when formal registration of a case is deliberately delayed by police, and the circumstances under which the High Court may entertain a direct application for bail without the petitioner first approaching the Sessions Court. The Court held that formal registration of a case is not a sine qua non for arrest or investigation, and imminent arrest, even without formal registration, can justify pre-arrest bail. It further ruled that while generally the Sessions Court should be approached first, exceptional circumstances, such as political victimisation, police tactics to frustrate court process, or genuine apprehension of harm, permit direct filing in the High Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the main conditions to be satisfied for the exercise of jurisdiction to allow pre-arrest bail under Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is formal registration of a criminal case a prerequisite for an arrest or for seeking pre-arrest bail?
  • Under what exceptional circumstances can a High Court directly entertain a petition for pre-arrest bail without the petitioner first approaching the Sessions Court?
  • Can the High Court issue an order prohibiting arrest for a limited period under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to secure information or prevent abuse of process?
  • Does the principle of first approaching a lower court with concurrent jurisdiction apply to petitions under Sections 491 and 526, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when similar remedies are available before lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Sen. Kh. Muhammad Safdar vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore1974 PLD Lahore 113 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-16Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz and 2 Other vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 196 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-05Read full judgment →
• Samru and 5 Other vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 108 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-17Read full judgment →
• Salma Gilani and 2 Other vs Deputy Land Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan1974 PLD Lahore 357 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-29Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri and 4 Others vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 482 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-05
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailcross casesFirst Information Reportsurrender of accusedinvestigation delaybail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for anticipatory bail filed by Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri and others arising out of cross F.I.Rs registered under sections 307, 148, 149, and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a clash at a public meeting. The core legal questions concerned the evaluation of rival versions in cross-cases, the necessity of the physical presence of an accused at the confirmation stage of pre-arrest bail when already surrendered earlier, and the duty of the investigating agency regarding timely action. The Court held that where petitioners had surrendered at the time of obtaining interim pre-arrest relief, their physical presence on every subsequent date of hearing or at confirmation is not mandatory as a strict rule of law and depends on judicial discretion. Confirming the bail, the Court laid down that investigating agencies cannot keep a case dormant indefinitely after completing an investigation, and cross-cases involving rival versions require a careful prima facie appraisal of circumstances, particularly regarding which party was aggressor and earlier in lodging the first report.

  Questions settled

  • Is the physical presence of an accused mandatory at the time of confirmation of pre-arrest bail if the accused has already surrendered when interim relief was granted?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fix any strict time limit for conducting an investigation into a criminal offence?
  • How should cross F.I.Rs regarding the same occurrence be evaluated prima facie for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali Khan and 3 Other vs Muhammad Saeed Uz Zaman and 4 Other1974 PLD Lahore 300 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-20Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad Khan vs The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary,1974 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 1973-08-03
  constitutional petitionouster of jurisdictionMartial Law Regulationscoram non judicemala fideInterim Constitutionjudicial reviewservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a preliminary objection raised by the respondents against the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court to entertain 269 constitutional petitions challenging employment termination orders issued under the Removal from Service (Special Provisions) Regulations, 1972. The core legal question was whether the amendments to Article 281(2) of the Interim Constitution of Pakistan 1972, enacted via the Constitution Sixth Amendment Order 1973, effectively ousted the High Court's jurisdiction to review such orders, even where allegations of coram non judice or mala fide actions were raised. The Court overruled the preliminary objection, holding that the constitutional amendment did not confer an all-encompassing immunity. It established that the phrase "purported exercise of powers" cannot be construed to validate acts that are inherently without jurisdiction, mala fide, or constitute a fraud upon the statute. Consequently, the Court affirmed its authority to scrutinize such impugned orders, as the ouster clause does not protect actions that fall outside the scope of the authorizing legislative measure. The Court granted a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amendment to Article 281(2) of the Interim Constitution of Pakistan 1972, introduced by the Constitution Sixth Amendment Order 1973, completely ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court to review orders passed under Martial Law Regulations?
  • Does the phrase "purported exercise of powers" in Article 281(2) of the Interim Constitution protect acts that are coram non judice or mala fide?
  • Can the High Court scrutinize administrative actions on the grounds of mala fide or lack of jurisdiction despite a constitutional ouster clause?
  • Does the President's power to amend the Constitution under Article 279 of the Interim Constitution extend to ousting the jurisdiction of superior courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Saee vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 184 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-01Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Abdul Aziz and Another1974 P Cr. L J 541 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-23
  quashment of criminal proceedingscivil nature of disputesimultaneous civil and criminal proceedingscriminal breach of trustcheatingstay of criminal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of fraudulent conduct regarding a rental agreement, argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that the pendency of a concurrent civil suit for the recovery of money necessitated the quashment or stay of the criminal case. The core legal question was whether the existence of a civil suit bars the continuation of criminal proceedings arising from the same facts. The Court dismissed the application, holding that there is no inflexible rule requiring the stay of criminal proceedings merely because a civil suit is pending. The Court affirmed that criminal and civil remedies are independent, serving distinct purposes: the former seeks punishment for the offense against the community, while the latter seeks restitution. Consequently, a complainant is entitled to pursue both remedies simultaneously without the criminal proceedings being barred or delayed by the civil litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a civil suit operate as a bar to the continuation of criminal proceedings based on the same facts?
  • Is there an inflexible rule that criminal proceedings must be stayed pending the outcome of a civil suit involving the same subject matter?
  • Can a complainant simultaneously pursue a criminal case for punishment and a civil suit for recovery of money arising from the same transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Khan vs Ghulam Jilani and Another1974 P Cr. L J 578 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-18Read full judgment →
• Raja Irshadul Haq Kayani vs Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and Another1974 PLD Lahore 114 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-11Read full judgment →
• Qaim Hussain and 6 Other vs Anjuman Islamia, Gujranwala and 7 Other1974 PLD Lahore 346 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-17Read full judgment →
• Qaim Din and 3 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 487 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-21Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 439 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-03Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and 5 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 580 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-07Read full judgment →
• Noor Mohammad vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 199 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-27Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 56 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-07
  criminal revisionrash and negligent drivingmotor accidenthostile witnessburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal revision petition filed against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge, Jhang, which maintained the petitioner's conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while reducing his sentence to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question is whether rash or negligent driving was conclusively established by direct evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a fatal motor accident case. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any rashness or negligence on the part of the accused driver, noting that material witnesses were either declared hostile, stated no accident occurred, or admitted in cross-examination that the accused was not at fault. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence, and discharged the petitioner's bail bond. The key principle laid down is that a conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires conclusive direct evidence establishing a rash or negligent act by the accused, which cannot be sustained when prosecution witnesses contradict the occurrence of negligence or fail to prove excessive speed or fault.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained without conclusive direct evidence of rash or negligent driving?
  • Does the testimony of prosecution witnesses admitting that the accused driver was not at fault warrant setting aside a conviction for causing death by negligence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs Nazar Muhammad1974 PLD Lahore 489 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-16
  relationship of landlord and tenantdefault in rentapprobate and reprobaterent restrictionejectmentdetermination of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Additional District Judge rejecting the appellant's appeal against an ejectment order. The respondent sought the appellant's eviction under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, alleging default in rent after notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The appellant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller found that the relationship existed and that notice was served. Although the appellant admitted not paying any rent due to his denial of the tenancy, he argued that the Rent Controller was bound to determine the rent under section 13(6) of the Ordinance and could not review its previous adjournment. The Lahore High Court held that where a tenant falsely denies the tenancy and admits non-payment of rent, he cannot approbate and reprobate by subsequently demanding an inquiry or determination of rent under section 13(6) once the tenancy is established against him. The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that no further inquiry or rent determination was necessary and that the Rent Controller's action did not constitute an incompetent review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant who denies the relationship of landlord and tenant can subsequently demand an inquiry for the determination of rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, after the tenancy is proven against him?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to dispense with the formal determination of rent under section 13(6) where the tenant admits non-payment of rent due to a false plea of denial of tenancy?
  • Whether recalling a previous interlocutory adjournment order for determination of rent constitutes an incompetent review by the Rent Controller?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Latif Hussain and 3 Other1974 PLD Lahore 476 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-05
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcriminal procedurediscretionary powerrapeabetmentlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This application sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted by an Additional Sessions Judge to respondents accused of offences under sections 354, 366, and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the competency of a cancellation application under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when bail was granted under section 498, and whether a private party has the standing to seek such cancellation. The Court held that bail granted under section 498 is effectively a release under section 497, making cancellation under section 497(5) competent. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that private parties may move for bail cancellation. Regarding the merits, the Court held that the lower court failed to properly exercise its discretion. Bail before arrest is an exceptional measure intended to protect innocent citizens from harassment, not to shield accused persons where grave charges are supported by evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the bail order, emphasizing that the Investigating Officer's opinion does not override the Court's duty to assess the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application for cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 competent when the bail was granted under Section 498?
  • Does a private person have the legal standing to move the High Court for the cancellation of bail?
  • Is the opinion of an Investigating Officer regarding the commission of an offence binding on the Court when deciding a bail application?
  • Should bail before arrest be granted in cases involving grave charges where evidence supports the prosecution's allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Khushi Muhammad and 2 Others1974 P Cr. L J 579 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-03Read full judgment →
• Nawab Begum vs The Home Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and Another1974 PLD Lahore 344 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-08Read full judgment →
• Murad Shah and 6 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 132 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-07Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmad Alias Mumtaz Ali vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 137 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-20
  murderdeath sentence confirmationextra-judicial confessionrecoveriessearch witnessessection 103 CrPClast seen togethermotivecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, convicting the appellant, Mumtaz Ahmad, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the triple murder of his three cousins and sentencing him to death, with the case also before the High Court under section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code for confirmation of the death sentence. The prosecution case rested on an extra-judicial confession, motive, various recoveries including a hatchet and blood-stained clothing, and evidence of the accused being last seen together. Upon a thorough reappraisal of the evidence, the Lahore High Court found the extra-judicial confession unreliable due to severe discrepancies and contradictions among the witnesses. The court also rejected the evidence regarding recoveries, emphasizing mandatory non-compliance and grave doubts concerning Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that search witnesses were not from the locality and gave conflicting accounts. Furthermore, the court found the 'last seen' testimony and motive evidence to be highly doubtful and riddled with falsehoods and perjury by key prosecution witnesses. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession can form the sole basis of a murder conviction when the witnesses give discrepant and contradictory statements?
  • What is the legal effect on a search and subsequent recoveries under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when independent inhabitants of the locality are not called as witnesses?
  • Can a conviction for capital murder be sustained when key prosecution witnesses perjure themselves on material aspects such as motive and the last-seen evidence?
  • How should courts evaluate the testimony of recovery witnesses who belong to distant localities and exhibit material discrepancies regarding dates and times of the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Multan Central Co-Operative Bank through Its Manager vs Nawab1974 PLD Lahore 111 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State and Another1974 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 274 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs Muhammad Iqbal and 2 Others1974 P Cr. L J 571 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 180 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-22
  abductionrapesolitary testimony of prosecutrixcorroborationsecondary evidencemedical reportexamination of accusedcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses four criminal appeals filed by Muhammad Siddique and others against their conviction and sentence under sections 366, 367, and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a suo motu revision for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecutrix's solitary testimony without corroboration, the admissibility of secondary medical evidence, and the legal effect of omitting material incriminating circumstances from the accused's examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to material improvements, lack of corroborative evidence, inadmissible medical reports, and procedural lapses. The convictions and sentences were set aside, all appellants were acquitted, and the revision petition for enhancement was discharged. The key principles laid down include the necessity of independent corroboration for the solitary statement of a prosecutrix in sexual offense cases, the strict procedural requirements for admitting secondary evidence of medical reports, and the mandatory nature of putting all incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the solitary uncorroborated statement of a prosecutrix is sufficient to sustain a conviction for abduction and rape?
  • What are the mandatory legal prerequisites for admitting secondary evidence of medical reports when the examining doctor is abroad?
  • Does the failure of the trial court to put material incriminating circumstances to an accused during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the reliance on such evidence?
  • Whether extra-judicial confessions can be used for corroboration when not put to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 168 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and Another vs Sardar Khan and 6 OtherPLD' 1974 Lahore 235 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq (Represented by His Legal Heirs) vs The Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore1974 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 216 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and 2 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 323 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 570 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and 3 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 391 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-22
  murdercommon intentioninterested witnessescourt witnessesmedical evidencefirearm expertmitigating circumstancescompensationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise out of a judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, convicting four appellants under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to transportation for life for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz. The prosecution relied upon interested eye-witnesses and an FIR alleging that all four appellants attacked the deceased, with two firing pistols and the others wielding blunt weapons. However, court-witnesses and independent evidence presented an alternative version splitting the incident and attributing the fatal blows solely to Muhammad Rafiq, supported by firearm expert reports and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court evaluated the conflicting testimonies, noted improvements and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' statements, and disregarded delayed police statements. The Court held that the case against appellants Ghulam Sarwar, Muhammad Sharif, and Muhammad Siddique was doubtful, warranting their acquittal, while the conviction of Muhammad Rafiq was sustained based on independent corroboration. In the revision petition, the Court declined to enhance Muhammad Rafiq's sentence to death due to mitigating circumstances of grave provocation regarding illicit relations, but ordered him to pay compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and interested eye-witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does suspicion of illicit relations with a sister constitute a mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser penalty in a murder case?
  • Whether the provisions of section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the award of compensation are mandatory?
  • What is the evidentiary value of statements recorded by the police after a considerable delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Khan vs DR. Mubashar Hasan and Ano1ier1974 PLD Lahore 49 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-30
  constitutional petitionmaster and servanteconomic reformsstatutory protectionnatural justiceadequate alternative remedyillegal dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his removal from service by BECO Industries Ltd., whose management had been taken over by the Government under President's Order 1 of 1972 (Economic Reforms Order, 1972). The core legal questions were whether an employee of a taken-over private concern enjoys statutory protection under Article 6 of the said Order, whether the Managing Director performs functions in connection with the affairs of the federation, and whether a constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1962 is maintainable against such removal notwithstanding the availability of a civil suit. The High Court held that the Managing Director functions under the control of the Central Government in connection with the affairs of the federation, that Article 6 grants statutory protection to employees of taken-over concerns, and that termination by an incompetent authority without a proper inquiry violates principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The court laid down that employees protected by specific statutory provisions can invoke writ jurisdiction regardless of the ordinary master-servant rule, provided a public duty or statutory violation is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of a private industrial concern taken over under the Economic Reforms Order, 1972, enjoys statutory protection regarding service matters?
  • Does a Managing Director appointed under the Economic Reforms Order, 1972, perform functions in connection with the affairs of the federation?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 is maintainable against the wrongful termination of service of an employee of a federally controlled industrial concern?
  • Is a civil suit for damages an adequate alternative remedy barring the invocation of writ jurisdiction where a statutory public duty is violated?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 3 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 264 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munawar And 3 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 189 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 62 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamil vs Haji Sh. Muhammad Bashir Soni and Another1974 PLD Lahore 224 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Bashir and 4 Other1974 PLD Lahore 446 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-18
  landlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantcompetency of appealorder under section 13urban rent restrictionejectment petitionremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses three consolidated second appeals arising from ejectment petitions filed under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether an order of the Rent Controller dismissing an ejectment petition on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist is an 'order under section 13' and thus appealable under section 15 of the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the phrase 'under section 13' in section 15 is not restricted to cases where the tenancy relationship is admitted or proved, but encompasses any order passed in respect of proceedings initiated or purported to be taken under section 13, including a dismissal for lack of landlord-tenant relationship. The court also held that while the appellate court could reverse the Rent Controller's finding on tenancy, it erred in directly ordering ejectment instead of remanding the matter to the Rent Controller to proceed in accordance with law. The appeals were partly accepted, the finding on the existence of the tenancy was maintained, the direct ejectment order was set aside, and the cases were remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of the Rent Controller dismissing an ejectment petition on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist is appealable under section 15 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does the phrase 'order under section 13' in section 15 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, apply only to orders passed after the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted or proved?
  • Can an appellate authority, upon reversing the Rent Controller's finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant, directly order the ejectment of the tenant instead of remanding the case to the Rent Controller?
  • Do the Rent Controller and appellate authorities have jurisdiction to examine Settlement records to determine rights based on orders of the Settlement Authorities when property is no longer in the compensation pool?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Fazal Haq and Another1974 PLD Lahore 208 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-18
  pre-emptionamendment of pleadingsremand orderfinality of judgmentrevision petitionappellate jurisdictionCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order of the Administrative Civil Judge dismissing the petitioner's application to amend their written statement following a remand order. The core legal question is whether a trial court, post-remand, possesses the jurisdiction to permit an amendment of pleadings that seeks to re-open issues already determined or abandoned during the appellate stage. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a trial court’s jurisdiction after remand is strictly confined to the specific issues remanded by the appellate court. The court established the principle that the power to amend pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, does not authorize a trial court to disturb the finality of findings established by an appellate court or to re-open issues that were not challenged in appeal. Once a case is remanded for a limited purpose, the trial court cannot entertain amendments that contradict the scope of the remand or attempt to re-litigate matters that have attained finality under Section 105(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court allow an amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after a case has been remanded for a limited purpose?
  • Does an appellate court's remand order for specific issues preclude the trial court from re-opening issues that were not challenged in the appeal?
  • Can a party introduce new defenses in a written statement after a case has been remanded by an appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 3 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 164 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 450 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-19
  post-arrest bailmurder casepolice investigationopinion of innocencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for post-arrest bail in a murder case where the petitioner, along with others, was accused of causing the death of the deceased by firing. The core legal question was whether the opinion of innocence expressed by police investigating officers during the investigation can be taken into consideration for granting bail to an accused person. The Lahore High Court held that the opinion of the investigating officer, when based on a proper investigation and material collected during the inquiry rather than mere moral conviction, can be duly considered for the purpose of granting bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established that where an investigating officer forms an opinion of innocence based on admissible evidence and witness statements, an accused is entitled to derive benefit from such an opinion at the bail stage, provided the opinion is not shown to be dishonest or mala fide. Consequently, the petition was accepted and bail was granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Can the opinion of innocence by a police investigating officer be taken note of for the purpose of deciding a bail application?
  • Whether an investigating officer is permitted to make secret inquiries during an investigation to reach conclusions regarding the participation of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghazi Khan vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 600 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh and Another vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 211 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aziz and 20 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 130 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub and 3 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 501 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Thestate1974 PLD Lahore 493 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-11
  pre-arrest bailinterim bailcriminal procedurejudicial discretionbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition filed before the High Court challenging the refusal of a Sessions Judge to grant interim pre-arrest bail while admitting a bail application for regular hearing. The core legal question was whether a court, upon admitting a pre-arrest bail application for hearing, should simultaneously grant interim bail to prevent the petitioner's arrest during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court held that the Sessions Judge erred by admitting the application for hearing while refusing interim bail, thereby leaving the petitioner vulnerable to arrest. The Court granted the interim bail, emphasizing that the primary purpose of pre-arrest bail is to protect an accused from the humiliation of arrest when the court has deemed the application worthy of consideration. The key principle laid down is that once a court admits a pre-arrest bail application for regular hearing, it should grant interim bail to maintain the status quo. Furthermore, the Court directed that such bail matters must be fixed for early hearing to prevent prolonged uncertainty for the accused and potential interference with evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Should a court grant interim bail when it admits a pre-arrest bail application for regular hearing?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to delay the hearing of a pre-arrest bail application for a significant period while refusing interim bail?
  • What is the underlying purpose of granting pre-arrest bail in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 743 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Abdul Rehman and Another1974 PLD Lahore 176 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Bajwa vs Federation of Pakistan1974 PLD LAHORE 545 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-11
  abatement of writ petitionsService Tribunalexclusive jurisdictioncompulsory retirementterms and conditions of servicedisciplinary mattersouster of jurisdictionMLR 114
  Summary & questions settled

  Writ petitions were instituted before the Lahore High Court challenging orders of compulsory retirement passed against civil servants under the Removal from Service (Special Provisions) Regulation 1972 (MLR 114). The core legal issue was whether, following the promulgation of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Civil Servants Act 1973, and the Service Tribunals Act 1973, such pending writ petitions abated under Article 212 of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The High Court held that the establishment of the Service Tribunal created an exclusive jurisdiction over matters concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants, including disciplinary removals and actions under MLR 114. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 was completely ousted. The Court laid down that orders passed under MLR 114 pertain to terms and conditions of service, that the 'competent authority' functions as a 'departmental authority', and that grounds such as lack of jurisdiction or mala fides can be raised on appeal before the Service Tribunal. Accordingly, all pending petitions abated and subsequent ones were held non-entertainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether writ petitions challenging compulsory retirement under Martial Law Regulation 114 abate upon the establishment of a Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does an order passed by a competent authority under Martial Law Regulation 114 relate to the 'terms and conditions' of a civil servant within the meaning of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Can a plea of coram non judice or mala fides in respect of a departmental penalty be adjudicated in an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 preserve pending writ proceedings despite the establishment of exclusive Administrative Courts or Tribunals under Article 212?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 355 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 202 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alias Mammi and 2 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 433 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs The Province of Punjab1974 PLD Lahore 231 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab Bibi and 5 Other vs Mst. Iqbal Begum and Another1974 PLD Lahore 350 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-04
  rented landbuilding siteejectmentjurisdictionevacuee propertyaccretionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals before the Lahore High Court involved a common question of law regarding whether the Rent Controller has jurisdiction over residential plots transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, where non-permanent structures exist. The appellants argued that because the transferred properties were vacant plots rather than 'rented land' (which the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 defines as land used for trade or business), the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction. The Court analyzed paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Schedule to the 1958 Act alongside Settlement Scheme No. VI, holding that a 'vacant building site' includes sites with non-permanent constructions. Such non-permanent structures constitute accretions to the land and pass to the transferee upon auction. Consequently, once a plot contains a residential structure, it falls within the definition of a 'house' or 'building' under the 1959 Ordinance. The Court affirmed that the Rent Controller possesses jurisdiction over such properties and dismissed the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a building site containing non-permanent constructions is deemed a vacant site and transferred inclusive of such constructions under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Does the Rent Controller have jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding whether a building on a transferred site is permanent or non-permanent?
  • Do unauthorized constructions raised by an occupant on evacuee property form an accretion that passes to the transferee of the site?
  • Does a residential plot containing a non-permanent building fall within the definition of a house or residential building under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raji and 7 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 429 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Latifan and 7 Other vs Muhammad Ishaq and 3 Other1974 PLD Lahore 65 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khanan vs Zakir and 7 OTHERSs1974 P Cr. L J 105 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fattan Bi And 2 Other vs Fateh Muhammad and 6 Other1974 PLD Lahore 458 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-20
  limitationrepeal of statutelimited estateancestral propertycustomary lawrevival of barred claimsgift by widow
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a suit for possession of ancestral land gifted by a widow holding a limited estate under custom. The plaintiffs, collaterals of the deceased husband, filed the suit in 1964 after the widow's death in 1963, challenging the validity of the 1951 gifts. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred under Section 7 of the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act 1920, but the appellate court reversed this, holding that the suit was governed by Article 141 of the Limitation Act 1908 following the repeal of the 1920 Act by the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962. The High Court analyzed whether the repeal of the 1920 Act revived a right of suit that had already become barred under the old law. The Court held that once a right of action is barred under an existing statute of limitation, the subsequent repeal of that statute or the enactment of a new law does not revive the barred claim, as the defendants had acquired a vested right of immunity from challenge. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act 1920 revive a right of suit that had already become time-barred under its provisions?
  • Can a plaintiff evade the specific limitation period prescribed for challenging an alienation of ancestral property by framing the suit purely as one for possession under Article 141 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does an admission regarding the ancestral nature of property made in a replication form part of the pleadings binding on the party?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakht Bibi vs Mehr Khan and 2 Other1974 PLD Lahore 367 · Lahore High Court · 1966-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina Begum vs Ghulam Nabi and 2 Other1974 PLD Lahore 78 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-08
  jactitation of marriagefamily courts jurisdictionmarital statusdeclaratory suitexclusive jurisdictioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition addresses whether a suit for a declaration that the defendant is the plaintiff's legally wedded wife and for a permanent injunction constitutes a suit for "jactitation of marriage" and thus falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Courts under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The core legal question is whether jactitation of marriage is strictly confined to a suit brought by a party denying the marriage to silence a false boaster, or whether it extends to a converse suit filed by a party asserting the marriage. The Lahore High Court held that the expression "jactitation of marriage" is not limited to suits for negative declarations seeking to silence a false pretender; it encompasses any suit or declaration regarding marital status where one party alleges and the other denies the marriage. The ratio decidendi is that any suit involving a dispute over the existence or subsistence of a marriage relates to family affairs and falls within the exclusive purview of Family Courts. The court set aside the trial court's order and directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for a declaration that the defendant is the plaintiff's legally wedded wife constitutes a suit for jactitation of marriage?
  • Does the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts over jactitation of marriage under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 extend to suits seeking affirmative declarations regarding the subsistence of a marriage?
  • Is the expression 'jactitation of marriage' confined strictly to negative declaratory suits brought to silence a false pretender of marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sahira Almas and Another vs Gulbaz Khan and 4 Other1974 PLD Lahore 289 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-26Read full judgment →
• MRS. Habiba Jilani vs The Federation of Pakistan Throughthe1974 PLD Lahore 153 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-24
  preventive detentionsecurity of PakistanDefence of Pakistan Rulesfundamental rightsproclamation of emergencyhabeas corpusreview board
  Summary & questions settled

  This second writ petition was filed by the wife of Major-General (Rtd.) Mian Ghulam Jillani under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging her husband's preventive detention under Rule 32(1)(b) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules pursuant to an order dated June 21, 1973. The core legal questions involved whether the detention was founded on sufficient and relevant material, whether the action was vitiated as being based on mere suspicion under Rule 208, and whether the procedural safeguards and time limits under Article 10 of the Constitution applied despite the suspension of fundamental rights during a proclamation of emergency. The Lahore High Court held that the detaining authority had sufficient and relevant material before it to reasonably satisfy itself that the detention was necessary for the security of Pakistan and public safety, and that the court cannot substitute its own discretion for that of the executive. Furthermore, the court held that the provisions of Article 10 of the Constitution constitute positive statute law that must be read into preventive detention laws, allowing the court to examine compliance under its constitutional jurisdiction, though the maximum permissible period of detention in this case was twelve months, rendering the continued custody lawful until February 15, 1974. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can substitute its own discretion for that of the detaining authority when reviewing the sufficiency of material for preventive detention?
  • Do the safeguards contained in Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 operate as positive statute law that must be read into preventive detention enactments?
  • Whether the suspension of the right to move a court for the enforcement of fundamental rights during an emergency bars a citizen from seeking scrutiny of mandatory statutory detention procedures?
  • What is the maximum permissible period of preventive detention under Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for a person detained for acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza Inayat Beg Alias Mirza Inayat Hussain and 9 Other vs Mirza1974 PLD Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-19Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Siddique and Another vs Commissioner, Lahore1974 PLD Lahore 468 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mian Manzar Bashir, Advocate vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1974 PLD Lahore 319 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mehra vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 46 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-11Read full judgment →
• Mazuoor Union (Read.) vs The Management (Colony) Thal Textile Mills1974 PLC 191 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-27Read full judgment →
• Maulana Abdus Sattar Khan Niazi- Petitioner vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 324 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-03
  anticipatory bailomnibus bail ordermala fide arrestabuse of statutory powerconstitutional jurisdictionfraud on the statuteright to liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application for bail and protective orders filed on behalf of Maulana Abdus Sattar Khan Niazi, who faced a series of successive arrests across various police stations in Punjab following numerous speeches critical of the government's stance on political and constitutional issues. The core legal question centered on whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to issue an omnibus or composite interim order granting bail and restraining the state from arresting the petitioner in multiple un-notified and pending cases where particulars were deliberately withheld by the prosecution to prolong incarceration. The Lahore High Court held that the systematic and successive re-arrests of the petitioner constituted a mala fide exercise of statutory powers and a fraud on the statute, which warranted the intervention of the court under constitutional jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process. The court confirmed the bail granted to the petitioner, ruling that a mala fide administrative or police action is void ab initio and stands on the same footing as an act done without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to issue an omnibus or composite order granting bail in multiple cases where the full particulars and FIRs are not known to the accused due to state withholding information?
  • Does a mala fide exercise of power by investigating agencies render an arrest and subsequent detention illegal and without jurisdiction?
  • Whether a series of successive re-arrests immediately upon the grant of bail in prior cases constitutes a colourable exercise of police powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mauj Khan vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 237 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-12Read full judgment →
• Matiullah and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 49 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-09Read full judgment →
• Master Chiragh Din vs Abdul Hakim and Another1974 PLD Lahore 370 · Lahore High Court · 1970-08-05
  evacuee trust propertylocus standistatutory referenceDisplaced Persons Actcompensation pooljurisdiction of Settlement Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This litigation concerns a dispute over the character of property situated in Lahore Cantonment, specifically whether it constitutes "evacuee trust property" or part of the "compensation pool" under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether a private individual has the locus standi to directly refer the question of the property's character to the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 4(3) of the Act. The Court held that such a direct reference by a private individual is incompetent. The ratio decidendi is that the power to make a reference under Section 4(3) is reserved for courts, tribunals, or authorities seized of a dispute, not for private litigants. The key principle laid down is that the term "reference" in statutory contexts must be interpreted according to the specific legislative intent of the Act; absent explicit authorization, the power to refer is a procedural mechanism for adjudicating bodies to resolve legal questions, not a substantive right for individuals to initiate proceedings directly before the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can a private individual directly refer a question regarding the status of evacuee property to the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Is the power to make a statutory reference under Section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, restricted to courts or tribunals?
  • Does a tenant have an interest sufficient to challenge the transfer of property by the Settlement Department?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain And Another vs Manzoor Hussain1974 PLD Lahore 202 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-17
  quashing of proceedingshabeas corpusadulteryenticementres judicatacriminal jurisdictionmarital statusinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for offences related to enticement and adultery. The core legal questions revolved around whether previous summary proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, where the alleged detenu (petitioner No. 2) declared herself married to petitioner No. 1, barred subsequent criminal prosecution by her first husband (the respondent). The court held that proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, are summary in nature, do not finally decide questions of marital status or divorce, and therefore do not operate as *res judicata* to prevent a regular criminal trial. It was further clarified that a criminal court is competent to determine the question of marriage in connection with offences like adultery without requiring a prior civil decree. The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, should be exercised sparingly, especially when a competent court has found a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Do summary proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, operate as a bar to subsequent criminal proceedings for offences like adultery or enticement?
  • Can a criminal court determine the validity or subsistence of a marriage in connection with offences under the Pakistan Penal Code without a prior civil decree?
  • Is the non-summoning of co-accused or a delay in filing a complaint sufficient ground for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in quashing criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansha and 2 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 598 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-26Read full judgment →
• Mansab Khan vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 416 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-07Read full judgment →
• Malik Sohrab Khan vs The District Magistrate, Rawalpindi and 2 Other1974 PLD Lahore 214 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-01
  preventive detentionvague groundseffective representationpost-arrest bailfrustration of bailhabeas corpusmartial law regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a habeas corpus petition and connected bail applications challenging the preventive detention of the detenu under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, alongside criminal cases registered under various statutes including the Pakistan Penal Code and Martial Law Regulations. The core legal question concerns whether the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu were sufficiently precise to enable an effective representation, and whether the detention was ordered to frustrate lawful bail orders. The High Court held that the grounds of detention were vague, indefinite, and lacked necessary particulars, thereby rendering the detention order illegal and without lawful authority. Furthermore, the court held that since the offences in the primary F.I.R. were not punishable with death or transportation for life, and the detenu appeared to be a British national, he was entitled to bail in both the criminal case and the Martial Law Regulation cases. The key principle laid down is that detention grounds must contain precise particulars to enable the detenu to make an effective representation beyond a bare denial, and authorities cannot utilize preventive detention merely to frustrate bail orders.

  Questions settled

  • Are detention grounds considered vague and indefinite if they lack precise particulars of the actual acts committed by the detenu?
  • Can a preventive detention order be sustained when it is issued to frustrate lawful bail orders obtained by a detenu?
  • Whether bail should be granted in offences not punishable with death or transportation for life when the detenu is a foreign national?
  • What is the true test for examining whether the grounds furnished for preventive detention are in order?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Salim and Another vs Malik Miraj Din and Another1974 P Cr. L J 460 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-04Read full judgment →
• Manga Khan vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 223 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Alam vs Mir Zaman and 2 Other1974 PLD Lahore 218 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-02Read full judgment →
• Lal Hussain and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 129 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-21Read full judgment →
• Kunwar Khurshid Muhammad Khan vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, West Pakistan9 Lahore and Another1974 PLD Lahore 87 · Lahore High Court · 1973-08-29Read full judgment →
• Kh. Muhammad Safdar vs The State and Another1974 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-16Read full judgment →
• Karim Dad and 6 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 16 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-07Read full judgment →
• Karam Khan vs The Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and 51974 PLD Lahore 487 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-26Read full judgment →
• Kamir vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 65 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-17Read full judgment →
• Kala vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 537 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-25Read full judgment →
• Javed Akbar vs Rai Muhammad Shafi-1974 P Cr. L J 491 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-09Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 351 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-17Read full judgment →
• Islamul Haq and 2 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 6 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-15
  murdercommon intentionocular testimonymedical evidencerecoveriescriminal appealdeath sentence confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 and Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Ghulam Farid and murderous assault on prosecution witnesses following a petty dispute. The core legal questions involved whether the ocular testimony was consistent with the medical evidence, whether recoveries could be proved by the solitary statement of the investigating officer, whether the sequence of discussion in the trial judgment vitiated it, and whether common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was properly invoked. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitness testimony of injured witnesses was reliable and sufficient for conviction despite minor discrepancies, that an investigating officer's solitary statement can prove recoveries if otherwise credible, that a judgment's order of discussion does not invalidate it if all requirements are met, and that common intention was established by the concerted nature of the attack. The court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the death sentence of the main appellant, and upheld the remaining convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of injured eyewitnesses alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration?
  • Whether the recovery of a weapon can be proved by the solitary statement of an investigating officer?
  • Does the failure of a trial judge to follow a specific sequence of discussing defense and prosecution evidence render a judgment illegal?
  • When can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be legitimately inferred in a murderous assault?
  Read full judgment →
• In Re : Messrs K. S. B. Pumps Co. Ltd., Lahore vs Not1974 PLD Lahore 362 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-29Read full judgment →
• Iftikharul Haq. vs The West Pakistan Water and Power Develop Ment1974 PLD Lahore 82 · Lahore High Court · 1973-08-22Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim and 3 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 119 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-30Read full judgment →
• Hayat Muhammad and Another vs Member, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi and 2 Other1974 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-27
  land reformsvoid transfersdowergiftfederal land commissionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from orders passed by land revenue authorities and the Federal Land Commission rejecting a land transfer made by a husband to his wife in lieu of dower prior to the enforcement of Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115) of 1972. The core legal question was whether the authorities properly evaluated the existence and bona fides of the transfer under Paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Regulation, particularly regarding transactions in favour of heirs. The Lahore High Court held that the Federal Land Commission failed to render a categorical finding on whether the transaction actually took place or whether it lacked bona fides, and overlooked the legal distinction regarding transactions in favour of heirs under the Second Proviso to Paragraph 7(1)(b). Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Federal Land Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Land Commission must record a categorical finding on the actual existence of a transfer of land made prior to the enforcement of Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115) of 1972?
  • Are the bona fides of a land transaction in favour of an heir required to be examined under the Second Proviso to Paragraph 7(1)(b) of Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115) of 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashmat vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 158 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-22Read full judgment →