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.

• Hasan Bakhsh and Another vs Ghulam Mustafa Khan Niazi and Another1974 P Cr. L J 116 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-21Read full judgment →
• Hakim Muhammad Anwar Babri vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to the1974 PLD Lahore 33 · Lahore High Court · 1973-08-26Read full judgment →
• Habib Khan vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 450 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-26Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Masih vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 530 · Lahore High Court · 1967-06-25Read full judgment →
• Gulab vs Tim State-1974 P Cr. L J 74 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-28
  criminal appealidentification paradeocular testimonyreasonable doubtmurderattempted murderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of death imposed by the trial court for triple murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the identity of the appellant as the third assailant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the identification parade and ocular testimony. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The ratio of the decision is that where an identification parade is conducted after witnesses have already been exposed to the accused at the police station, the evidentiary value of such identification is completely nullified. Furthermore, ocular testimony that fails to provide a specific description of an unknown assailant in the initial report, combined with the absence of credible corroborative evidence, is insufficient to support a conviction. The Court established the principle that the prosecution must prove identity beyond reasonable doubt, and where identification procedures are compromised by prior exposure, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prior exposure of an accused to witnesses at a police station invalidate a subsequent identification parade?
  • Is ocular testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction when the identity of the assailant was not established in the initial report?
  • What is the effect of an identification parade conducted after a significant delay and prior witness exposure on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir Alias Shabbu vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 405 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sabir Sabri vs The Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab and Another1974 PLD Lahore 233 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sabir vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 228 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Raza and 2 Others vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 95 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs Collector, Lahore and Another1974 PLD Lahore 495 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 486 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mehr vs Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and 2 Other1974 PLD Lahore 520 · Lahore High Court
  subsistence holdingalienation of landfamily settlementantecedent titleseverability of transferland reformsvoid transactionrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders of the Chief Land Commissioner declaring a family settlement and court decree regarding land transfers as void under paragraph 25 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 64) of 1959. The core legal questions involved the severability of a co-transferee's share, the true import of restrictions on alienations reducing holdings below a subsistence holding, whether a transaction in recognition of antecedent title constitutes an alienation, and the scope of revisional powers. The Lahore High Court held that the prohibition against alienation under paragraph 25 of M.L.R. 64 is not absolute and only renders void that specific portion of a transfer which reduces the balance holding below a subsistence holding, rather than vitiating the entire transaction. Furthermore, the court held that the Chief Land Commissioner failed to consider vital aspects such as the severability of transfers, the nature of antecedent family settlements, and mutual cross-transfers. The impugned orders were declared without lawful authority and quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an alienation that reduces a landholder's property below a subsistence holding render the entire transaction void or only the specific portion causing the deficiency?
  • Whether a transfer of land made in recognition of a prior antecedent title or family settlement constitutes an alienation under paragraph 25 of M.L.R. 64 of 1959?
  • Can a co-transferee's abandonment of their share affect the validity of a separate transfer made to another co-transferee under land reform laws?
  • Whether an application filed to invoke the suo motu revisional jurisdiction of the Chief Land Commissioner constitutes a pending proceeding saved under the repeal provisions of M.L.R. 115 of 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hassan and Another vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 258 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar and 2 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1974 P Cr. L J 300 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmad and Another vs Atta Muhammad and 2 Other S1974 PLD Lahore 248 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-23Read full judgment →
• Gharib Alam and 3 Other vs The State1974 PLD Lahore 306 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-11Read full judgment →
• Gehna and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 531 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1968-12-12Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 596 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-25Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain and 4 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 161 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-01Read full judgment →
• Fazal Elahi and 2 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 586 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-10Read full judgment →
• Fazal Dad vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 452 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Faryad vs The Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Multan Division, Multan and 3 Other1974 PLD Lahore 110 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-15Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-22Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Elias Dubash vs Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and 51974 PLD Lahore 90 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-25Read full judgment →
• DR. MRS. Munawar Zaheen vs The Secretary, Punjab Public Service1974 PLD Lahore 36 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-27
  public service commissionzonal representationdomicile of married womanrecruitmenteligibility criteriacivil services ruleswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology advertised by the Punjab Public Service Commission for Zone 4. The Commission rejected her application on the ground that, by marrying a person belonging to Zone 3, her domicile automatically followed that of her husband under general principles and Appendix 4 of the Civil Service Rules (Punjab), rendering her ineligible for the Zone 4 post despite having entered government service earlier while domiciled in Campbellpur (Zone 4). The High Court held that Appendix 4 applied strictly to overseas recruitments and had no application to zonal representation schemes. Synthesizing relevant government instructions, the Court ruled that while a woman marrying prior to entering government service assumes her husband's domicile, a female employee already in government service retains the domicile she possessed upon entering service. The Commission's rejection was declared unlawful, and the petitioner was held eligible under Zone 4.

  Questions settled

  • Does a female government servant's domicile automatically change to that of her husband upon marriage for the purposes of a zonal recruitment quota?
  • Whether Appendix 4 of the Civil Services Rules (Punjab) applies to determine the zonal domicile of candidates for provincial public service appointments?
  • Is a married woman who was already in government service before marriage entitled to retain her original domicile of entry for subsequent selection within a zonal recruitment scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Hassan Din vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 480 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-20Read full judgment →
• DR. Arshad Mahmood vs DR. Mumtaz Hussain1974 PLD Lahore 312 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-29Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 275 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-29Read full judgment →
• Chahat Khan vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 285 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Mumtaz Hussain vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 98 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-04Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdur Rehman and 7 Others vs District Magistrate, Layallpur1974 P Cr. L J 495 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-05Read full judgment →
• Capt. Muhammad Azhar vs Province of Punjab through the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 Other1974 PLD Lahore 921 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bheem Khan vs Baboo and 2 Other1974 PLD Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-20Read full judgment →
• Begum Tahira Masood vs Farid Ud Din Masood1974 PLD Lahore 500 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-30Read full judgment →
• Begum Shamim Afridi vs The Province of Punjab through the Secretary,1974 PLD Lahore 120 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-26
  habeas corpusunlawful manner of detentionmilitary custodysolitary confinementdue process of lawconstitutional jurisdictiontorturefundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses multiple writ petitions challenging the illegal detention and unlawful manner of custody of retired military officers and a civilian. The core legal question revolves around the extent of the High Court's extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution of Pakistan 1972 to examine not only whether a person is held without lawful authority, but also whether they are detained in an "unlawful manner," including the treatment of under-trial prisoners in military or civil custody. The court held that the manner in which the detenus were kept—subjected to solitary confinement, blind-folding, manacling, and denial of basic amenities without statutory justification—was unlawful and violated the applicable rules and regulations under the Pakistan Army Act 1952, the Prisons Act 1894, and the Punjab Jail Manual 1955. The court laid down the principle that executive and military authorities must strictly adhere to the due process of law and respect human dignity, and that the High Court possesses full judicial review powers to correct unlawful detention conditions and prevent torture.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution of Pakistan 1972 to examine the manner in which a detenu is kept in custody?
  • Does keeping an under-trial prisoner in solitary confinement without express statutory backing constitute detention in an unlawful manner?
  • Are retired military officers subject to the Pakistan Army Act 1952 after their retirement for the purpose of invoking jurisdictional bars in habeas corpus petitions?
  • Whether the use of blind-folding and manacling on an accused person in military custody is permissible under the Pakistan Army Regulations in the absence of unruly behavior?
  Read full judgment →
• Begum Nazir Abdul Hamid vs Pakistan (Federal Government) through the Ecretary, Interior, Division Islamabad .and Another1974 PLD Lahore 7 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-25
  habeas corpuspreventive detentionaggrieved personmala fideDefence of Pakistan Rulesconstitutional petitionfreedom of movement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for habeas corpus was filed by the wife of a retired General challenging a government order restricting his movements to his residence under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971. The petitioner contended the order was a continuation of previous illegal detention, which had been rescinded following a Review Board report. The core legal questions were whether the restriction order constituted "detention" and whether the petitioner had standing as an "aggrieved person." The Court held that the restriction of movement to a specific house, enforced by potential state power, constitutes detention. It further ruled that the petitioner, as the wife, was an "aggrieved person" under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The Court found the impugned order was a mala fide attempt to circumvent the Review Board's findings and the constitutional limits on detention. Consequently, the Court declared the restriction order without lawful authority. The principle established is that where the government imposes restrictions on movement that are physically enforceable, such restrictions amount to detention, and successive orders attempting to bypass constitutional safeguards are mala fide.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order restricting a person's movements to their residence constitute detention for the purposes of a habeas corpus petition?
  • Is a spouse an 'aggrieved person' entitled to file a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 regarding the detention of their partner?
  • Can the government issue successive detention orders to circumvent a Review Board's finding that a previous detention was illegal?
  • Does the power to restrict movement under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules 1971 include the power to confine a person to their private residence?
  Read full judgment →
• Begum D. F. Hassan vs Habib Bank Ltd., Lahore1974 PLD Lahore 117 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-02
  intra-court appealoriginal civil jurisdictionsupervisory jurisdictionmaintainability of appealLaw Reforms Ordinancewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court, which dismissed a petition filed under Article 102 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962. The core legal question is whether the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 102, which empowers the Court to supervise and control subordinate courts, constitutes 'original civil jurisdiction' for the purpose of maintaining an intra-court appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972. The Court held that the jurisdiction under Article 102 is supervisory and revisory in nature, not original, as it does not involve the trial of suits by the High Court itself. Consequently, the Court ruled that the order in question was not passed in the exercise of the High Court's 'original civil jurisdiction.' The key principle laid down is that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts is distinct from its original civil jurisdiction, and therefore, orders passed under such supervisory powers are not appealable under Section 3 of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 102 of the 1962 Constitution constitute 'original civil jurisdiction'?
  • Is an order passed by a Single Judge under Article 102 of the 1962 Constitution appealable under Section 3 of the Law Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972?
  • What is the distinction between 'original civil jurisdiction' and 'supervisory jurisdiction' of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 507 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-17Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-01
  murderdeath sentencemedical evidenceocular evidenceconflict of evidencebenefit of doubtinterested witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentences awarded to the appellants, a father and son, under Section 302/14 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution's case rested on motive, ocular testimony of three relatives, and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the alleged motive was weak and improved upon at trial. The ocular evidence was contradicted by medical evidence; while the eye-witnesses claimed the shot was fired from a distance of 11 to 15 feet, the medical report noted scorching and blackening of the wound, indicating a shot fired from a very close range of a few inches. Applying established jurisprudence, the Court held that where oral evidence is directly contradicted by medical evidence, the latter must be preferred. Furthermore, the presence of the father at the scene and the explanation for his minor scrotal injury were deemed highly doubtful. Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, accepted the appeal, and set aside their convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical evidence is to be preferred over oral testimony when there is a direct contradiction between the two regarding the distance of firing?
  • Can the benefit of doubt on a material point in a criminal trial be denied to the accused to accommodate inaccuracies in rustic witnesses' estimates?
  • Is a conviction sustainable solely on the testimony of related witnesses when independent witnesses from the locality were not joined despite the occurrence taking place in broad daylight on a public path?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Khan and 3 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 367 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-06Read full judgment →
• Asghar Beg Alias Akri and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 533 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-07Read full judgment →
• Amirzada Khan, M. N. A. vs The Chief Election Commissioner and 2 Other1974 PLD Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 1973-08-08
  presidential electionnomination papersmaintainability of writ petitionelection disputeconstitutional bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court challenging the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 3 for the election to the office of the President under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions involved whether a writ petition is maintainable against the acceptance of a nomination paper given the constitutional bar on calling into question the validity of a presidential election, and whether the challenge to nomination papers constitutes a challenge to the election process itself. The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable because Article 41(6) of the Constitution explicitly bars any court from calling in question the validity of the presidential election, and an election is a continuous process starting from the issuance of the election programme, including nomination and scrutiny stages. The key principle laid down is that the right to challenge an election is a statutory right strictly regulated by the creating law, and what cannot be challenged directly cannot be challenged indirectly through intermediate stages like nomination papers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the validity of the election of the President can be called in question before any court?
  • Does a challenge to the acceptance or rejection of nomination papers amount to challenging the election process?
  • Is the right to challenge an election a common law right or a right regulated by the statute creating it?
  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable against the decisions of the Chief Election Commissioner regarding presidential nomination papers?
  Read full judgment →
• Alyas Beg vs District Magistrate, Sialkot and Another1974 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1974-02-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux and Another vs Muhammad Riaz1974 PLD Lahore 268 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-04Read full judgment →
• Aish Bahadurand Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 362 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-08Read full judgment →
• Air-Marshal (R) M. Asghar Khan vs Fariduddin Mason1974 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-04Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 463 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Alias Aehmi and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 454 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-29Read full judgment →
• Agha Muhammad Ali Khan vs Muhammad Nawaz and 4 Other1974 PLD Lahore 189 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-10Read full judgment →
• Abdus Samad and 7 Other vs The Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore1974 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Butt vs Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of1974 PLC 120 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 208 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-25
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of doubtabscondencedelayed FIRocular evidencemotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, convicting the appellant Abdul Sattar under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing him to death for the murder of Ghulam Rasool. The core legal question involves determining whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of a weak motive, abscondence, and uncorroborated ocular testimony where the First Information Report was recorded after preliminary police investigation on the spot. The Lahore High Court held that the First Information Report, having been recorded after preliminary investigation, was inadmissible, that the ocular testimony was insufficient, that the motive was too weak to connect the appellant to the crime, and that abscondence alone is insufficient to sustain a murder conviction without other supporting evidence. The court laid down the principle that abscondence by itself is wholly insufficient to hold an accused person responsible for murder in the absence of sufficient independent connecting evidence, and accordingly accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by giving him the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is an FIR recorded after preliminary investigation on the spot admissible in evidence?
  • Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of motive and abscondence?
  • Whether abscondence by itself is sufficient to hold an accused responsible for murder in the absence of other evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and 4 Others vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 170 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 478 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-27Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Mai vs The State and ANOTHERs1973 P Cr. L J 785 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-21Read full judgment →
• Zia Ul Haq vs THS State-1973 P Cr. L J 457 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-06Read full judgment →
• Yusuf Ali Khan Bar at Law vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 876 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-30Read full judgment →
• Workers vs The Management, Sultan Textile Mills Ltd.,1973 PLC 175 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-10
  industrial disputeright of appealrepeal and savingsvested rightjurisdiction of high courtpending proceedingsdeeming clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns twenty-four connected appeals filed under section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1959, pending before the Lahore High Court, which were affected by subsequent repeals and the enactment of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1968 and the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The core legal question is whether the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and dispose of these pending appeals was ousted by the new legislation, or whether they were saved by the repealing and saving clauses contained in section 46(2) of the 1968 Ordinance and section 67(2) of the 1969 Ordinance. The Full Bench held that the right of appeal to a superior tribunal is a vested right and that the saving clauses, read with the general clauses legislation, expressly preserved pending proceedings, including appeals. The court ruled that the term 'proceedings commenced' and 'anything done' are comprehensive enough to save pending appeals, and that the jurisdiction of the High Court to adjudicate them was neither impliedly taken away nor transferred to the newly constituted Labour Appellate Tribunals. The key principle laid down is that a statutory repeal does not abate pending appeals or alter the appellate forum unless the legislature explicitly and unequivocally manifests a retrospective intention to that effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the repeal of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1959 by the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1968 abates appeals pending in the High Court?
  • Does a right of appeal to a superior forum constitute a vested right that cannot be taken away retrospectively without express legislative intent?
  • Whether the saving clauses in section 46(2) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1968 and section 67(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 preserve the jurisdiction of the High Court over pending appeals?
  • Whether the change of an appellate forum is a matter of pure procedure operating retrospectively on pending litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Umtul Maqsoom vs Hassan Din and 3 Others1973 P Cr. L J 319 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-05Read full judgment →
• The State vs Din Muhammad and 2 Others1973 P Cr. L J 41 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-03Read full judgment →
• The State vs Bashir Ahmad Alias Chitta1973 P Cr. L J 593 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-06Read full judgment →
• The Rawalpindi Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rawalpindi vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, Lahore and 3 Other1973 PLD Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-08
  evacuee propertyofficial liquidatorjurisdictionwinding upcustodianexemption notificationlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under the Law (Continuance in Force) Order 1958 read with the 1956 Constitution of Pakistan challenged the orders of the Custodian and Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property. The authorities had declared the Punjab and Kashmir Bank Ltd. to be an evacuee concern and its building in Rawalpindi to be evacuee property, thereby invalidating a sale executed in 1958 by the State Bank of Pakistan acting as the court-appointed Official Liquidator. The petitioner, who purchased the property, argued that the property was never treated as evacuee property prior to 1 January 1957. The High Court held that under the mandatory and overriding provisions of Section 3(1) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957, no property not treated as evacuee property immediately before 1 January 1957 could be so treated thereafter. The Court further ruled that the management of the property by a court-appointed Official Liquidator did not fall under the exception in Section 3(2)(b). Consequently, the Custodian authorities lacked jurisdiction to declare the property evacuee for the first time in 1959, and the impugned orders were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a government notification exempting a bank as a juristic person from the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 automatically exempt the immovable properties owned by that bank?
  • Can the Custodian of Evacuee Property declare a property as evacuee property after 1 January 1957 if it was not treated as such immediately before that date?
  • Does the management of a bank's property by a court-appointed Official Liquidator bring the property within the exception of Section 3(2)(b) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Din and 2 Others vs Sardar Vakil Khan and 2 Others-1973 P Cr. L J 629 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ashraf Shah vs Province of West Pakistan (Services1973 PLD Lahore 42 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-11
  war service senioritypro forma promotionarrears of paycivil servantconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a member of the Ministerial Services and an ex-serviceman who rendered war service, sought a direction from the Lahore High Court for the payment of arrears of pay amounting to Rs. 11,671.78 following an order dated 7-8-1965 granting him war service seniority and pro forma promotions. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent-Government amended the order on 26-3-1968, disentitling him to arrears for periods where he did not actually perform the duties of higher posts. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, denied service on a higher post due to a government mistake rather than his own fault, is entitled to the salary and arrears of the higher post based on pro forma promotion. The Court held that if a civil servant is deprived of serving on a higher post through no fault of his own but due to the Government's fault, he is entitled to the salary of the higher post. The petition was accepted with a direction to pay the remaining arrears.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant deprived of serving on a higher post due to a government fault is entitled to the salary of the higher post?
  • Can an order granting war service seniority and financial benefits be unilaterally modified or cancelled to the detriment of a civil servant?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to arrears of pay based on pro forma promotion without actually performing the duties of the higher post due to departmental delays?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Dil Alias Sher Gul and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 802 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-11
  murder convictioninterested witnessesinimical witnessesappreciation of evidencecriminal appealdeath sentence referencecorroboration of testimonybenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of two appellants for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with one appellant sentenced to death and the other to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on testimony from interested and inimical witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court found that the alleged motive was demonstrably false, the eye-witnesses were unreliable and had made significant improvements to their statements to align with medical evidence, and the medical evidence itself contradicted the prosecution's version of the shooting. Furthermore, the court rejected the testimony of a purported independent witness, identifying him as a chance witness with ties to the complainant party. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution witnesses are interested and inimical, their testimony requires independent corroboration, and deliberate improvements or contradictions in their statements render their evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses have made significant improvements to their statements to align with medical evidence?
  • Is an accused person under any legal liability to furnish a defense explanation before the prosecution has proven its case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamir vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 321 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sardara vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 867 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-30Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs The State and Another1973 P Cr. L J 752 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-29Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Muhammad vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 397 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-02
  pre-arrest bailold age infirmityfalse implicationenmitybail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, Sakhi Muhammad, who was accused of offences under sections 148, 302, 307, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of old age, infirmity, and alleged false implication due to prior enmity, where no specific injury was attributed to him. The Lahore High Court held that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty of an offence punishable with death or transportation for life, noting his advanced age and general nature of allegations. The court laid down the principle that old age itself brings infirmity and senility, which can be factored into assessing the case for bail alongside the lack of specific overt acts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed for an elderly accused where no specific injury is attributed to him and allegations are general in nature?
  • Does old age and accompanying infirmity constitute a valid ground for consideration in pre-arrest bail matters?
  • Can bail be confirmed without expressing a definitive view on the merits of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 402 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-19Read full judgment →
• Saee vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1973-08-01
  murderdeath sentenceinterested witnessesindependent corroborationbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceinquest reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Lahore High Court wherein the appellant Saee was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ahmad Yar and sentenced to death. The prosecution case rested on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence including the recovery of an empty cartridge and a gun. The core legal questions involved the assessment of testimony from closely related and interested witnesses, the requirement and validity of independent corroboration for such testimony, and the evidentiary value of disputed recoveries and inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence. The Court held that the eyewitnesses were interested and partisan, and since the recovery witnesses were the same as the eyewitnesses, no independent corroboration existed in law. Furthermore, significant contradictions between the medical evidence, the inquest report, and the testimonies rendered the prosecution case doubtful. Consequently, the Court established the principle that corroboration of interested witnesses must be independent and cannot be supplied by the same witnesses, and that material contradictions regarding the situs and directional matrix of the crime warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of closely related and interested eyewitnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Can the recovery of an incriminating article by the same persons who deposed as eyewitnesses constitute independent corroboration in the eye of the law?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the foundational recovery of an empty cartridge from the crime scene is unproven?
  • How does a material conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence impact the proof of a criminal charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Beg vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 111 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-25Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 23 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-02Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab and Another vs Amanat Ali1973 PLC 264 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-24Read full judgment →
• Pirzada Ghulam Muhammad Shah vs Messrs Chashlum Contractors, Chashma Barrage, Colony Kundian, District Mianwali1973 P Cr. L J 548 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-15Read full judgment →
• Pervalz Ahmad Ahd Another vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 283 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-27Read full judgment →
• P. D. H. Laboratories Employees & Workers' Union, Petitioner vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore Region, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore and Another1973 PLD Lahore 256 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-27Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and Another vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-07Read full judgment →
• Nazar Arid 4 Others, vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 824 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Najeebullah and 2 Others vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 737 · Lahore High Court · 1967-10-23Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bakhsh and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 1052 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 715 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-13Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-04Read full judgment →
• Munshi Abdus Salam vs Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.1973 PLC 303 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 919 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 32 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Shah and 4 Others vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, West Pakistan, Lahore and 3 Othbrs1973 P Cr. L J 845 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Naseem vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 911 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Akhtar and 14 Other vs Punjab Civil Service1973 PLC 255 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Thewater and Power Development1973 PLC 287 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore and Another1973 PLC 270 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 120 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 366 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 2 Others vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 328 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munawar vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 425 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Alam Khan and 4 Others1973 P Cr. L J 559 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 6 an Others vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 228 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 127 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-14Read full judgment →