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.

• Muhammad Ishaque and 7 Others vs The State and Another-1973 P Cr. L J 26 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 118 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 685 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad and 3 Others1973 P Cr. L J 379 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Hashmat Ali and 6 Others1973 P Cr. L J 371 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Alias Auchhu and 5 Others vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 263 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs Superintendent. of Darul Aman, Lahore and 31973 P Cr. L J 79 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-08
  habeas corpusillegal detentioncustody of wifevalid marriagepubertyDarul Amanabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a habeas corpus application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by Muhammad Ashiq for the recovery and release of his wife, Mst. Safia Akhtar, from Darul Aman. The petitioner was accused of abducting the detenu under sections 363 and 366 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the detenu maintained before the court that she was sui juris, had attained puberty, had contracted a valid marriage with the petitioner of her own free will, and desired to live with him. The core legal question was whether a magistrate has the lawful authority to detain an adult female witness in Darul Aman against her will when she claims to be validly married and wishes to accompany her husband. The Lahore High Court held that the magistrate's order detaining the detenu in Darul Aman was wholly unwarranted and illegal, as a witness cannot be treated as a chattel or detained without statutory backing. The court established that a Muslim female who has attained puberty and contracted a marriage of her own free will is entitled to the custody of her husband, and a pending criminal investigation does not justify her illegal confinement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a magistrate has the legal authority to send a witness or alleged abductee to Darul Aman for detention against her will?
  • Is a Muslim marriage contracted after attaining puberty valid under Islamic law notwithstanding pending criminal proceedings regarding abduction?
  • Who is entitled to the custody of an adult female who has contracted a valid marriage of her own free will?
  • Can an adult female witness be detained in institutional custody instead of executing a bond for appearance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Sheikh Qurban Ali and 3 OTHERSr1973 P Cr. L J 882 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-04
  transfer of criminal casesjudicial inquiryexecutive inquirymagisterial inquirySection 176 CrPCSection 526 CrPCapprehension of bias
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two transfer petitions filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner, seeking the transfer of a private complaint inquiry under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and an inquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending before a First Class Magistrate. The respondents raised preliminary objections asserting that proceedings under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were purely executive in nature and that Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 did not apply to such proceedings. The High Court rejected these arguments, holding that an inquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a judicial proceeding conducted by a subordinate judicial court, making revision and transfer petitions competent under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding that the Magistrate's conduct created an impression of non-compliance with law, the High Court directed the District Magistrate to conduct both inquiries himself or transfer them to another Senior Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Is an inquiry conducted by a Magistrate under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a judicial proceeding amenable to the transfer jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of specific procedural provisions under Section 526(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 deprive the High Court of its jurisdiction to transfer an inquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a High Court order the transfer of a magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the Magistrate's conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the proceedings are not being conducted in accordance with law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs Rafiq Hussain and 3 others--1973 P Cr. L J 394 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs THB State1973 P Cr. L J 13 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 63 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 2 Others vs The State and 2 OTHERSs1973 P Cr. L J 529 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Ali vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 240 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Bibi vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 246 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rafia Sajjad Hussain vs Fayyaz Khan and 4 Others1973 P Cr. L J 75 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Alam Khatoon and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 757 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-29Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shireen Gardezi vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis Sioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and Another1973 PLD Lahore 224 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-25Read full judgment →
• Moor Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 891 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Afzal vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 221 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-19Read full judgment →
• Mithoo and Another vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 510 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mistry Ameen vs Mustaqeem Ahmed Khan and Another1973 P Cr. L J 626 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-25Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 901 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-22Read full judgment →
• Mian Khan and 11 Other vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 164 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Meraj Din Alias Majah vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 829 · Lahore High Court · 1972-09-26Read full judgment →
• Mehraj Din and Another vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 414 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-09Read full judgment →
• Maqsud Ahmad vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 313 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-06Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Alam Khan vs Sakhawat Ali and Another--1973 P Cr. L J617 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• LT.-Col. Yaqub Khan vs The Punjab Road Transport Corporation,1973 PLC 173 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-18Read full judgment →
• Lal Din vs Mohammad Malik and 4 Others1973 P Cr. L J 624 · Lahore High Court · 1968-11-24Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 304 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-18Read full judgment →
• Khushi Mohammad and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 609 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-20Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and Another vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 284 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-10Read full judgment →
• Karamat Elahi vs The State and 5 Others1973 P Cr. L J 226 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-04Read full judgment →
• Jiwan and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-18Read full judgment →
• J Brgum Jalal Din vs Batala Engineering Co. Ltd., Kot Lakhpat, Lahore1973 PLC 341 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-07Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad Qureshi vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 833 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-09Read full judgment →
• Hussain Naqi and Another vs The District Magistrate, Lahore and 41973 PLD Lahore 164 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-23
  press and publicationsnull and void declarationnon-publication of newspaperfundamental rights suspensionproclamation of emergencyinterim constitutionstatutory interpretationseizure of newspapers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the seizure of newspapers by the District Magistrate, Lahore, under the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963. The core legal questions involved whether the declarations of the petitioners became null and void due to non-publication under Section 9 of the Ordinance, and whether the petitioners could challenge the seizure based on Fundamental Rights and the 'grounds norm' of the Objectives Resolution. The Court held that Section 9(3) of the Ordinance operates automatically; failure to publish for the prescribed period renders a declaration null and void without requiring a formal administrative order. The Court further ruled that Fundamental Rights were suspended by the Proclamation of Emergency, which was validly continued under the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1972. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the 'grounds norm' cannot be utilized to challenge the validity of a written Constitution. The key principle laid down is that statutory provisions operating by operation of law require no formal order for enforcement, and constitutional provisions must be interpreted to give effect to every part, avoiding redundancy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to publish a newspaper for the period prescribed in Section 9 of the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, automatically render the declaration null and void?
  • Can the 'grounds norm' or Objectives Resolution be used to challenge the validity of a written Constitution?
  • Is the Proclamation of Emergency issued on 23rd November 1971 validly continued under Article 139 of the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1972?
  • Are the provisions of Section 9(3) of the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963, directory or mandatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayatullah Klan and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 8 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Mustafa vs The Secretary to Government, Punjab,1973 PLC 308 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-21
  seniority disputebiaswrit jurisdictionimproperly constituted tribunalcivil servicejudicial disqualificationArticle 98
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order of the Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal, Punjab, which declared respondent No. 3 senior to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was improperly constituted due to the bias of a member who had previously dealt with the petitioner's seniority case as Deputy Secretary (Regulations) and recorded notes expressing a firm opinion against the petitioner. Additionally, the Court addressed whether a writ petition is maintainable under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution regarding seniority disputes. The Court held that the Tribunal was improperly constituted because the member in question had prejudged the issue, rendering the decision without lawful authority. The Court established that while Article 98 bars direct interference in seniority matters, it does not preclude judicial review when challenging the legality of a tribunal's constitution or its jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that a judicial or quasi-judicial officer is disqualified from deciding a matter if they have previously investigated or formed an opinion on it in an administrative capacity, as justice must manifestly be seen to be done.

  Questions settled

  • Is a member of an appellate tribunal disqualified from hearing a case if they previously expressed an opinion on the matter in an administrative capacity?
  • Does the constitutional bar on seniority disputes prevent a High Court from reviewing the legality of a tribunal's constitution?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained to challenge an order of a service tribunal on the grounds of bias?
  • Does the doctrine of waiver or estoppel apply when a party fails to object to the constitution of a tribunal during the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Niaz Muhammad and Another vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 391 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-19Read full judgment →
• Habibullah, and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 255 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-26Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs Chairman, Road Transport Corporation, Lahore1973 PLD Lahore 240 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Alias Khan vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 327 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohammad vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 656 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Maseih Alias Gaman and Another vs Ch. Abdur Rehman and 31973 P Cr. L J 439 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastgir and 6 Other vs The Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 5 Other1973 PLD Lahore 220 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-18
  writ jurisdictionaudi alteram partemnatural justiceadministrative authoritystatutory interpretationKanungo selectionCollector's powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges an order passed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, which set aside the Collector's selection of Patwaris as Kanungo candidates. The core legal questions were whether the Commissioner had the appellate or revisional authority to interfere with the Collector's selection made under the West Pakistan Kanungo Service (Northern Zone) Rules, 1964, and whether the Commissioner's order violated the principle of natural justice by failing to implead affected parties. The Court held that the selection process was a specific duty conferred upon the Collector by the Rules, and in the absence of a statutory provision for appeal or revision, the Commissioner lacked the legal authority to interfere or introduce new criteria like seniority-cum-fitness. Furthermore, the Court found the Commissioner's order violated the maxim audi alteram partem as several petitioners were not impleaded. The Court declared the Commissioner's order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, affirming that statutory powers of selection cannot be usurped by superior officers absent express legal authorization, and that administrative control does not override specific statutory duties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Divisional Commissioner have the authority to set aside a selection made by a Collector under the West Pakistan Kanungo Service (Northern Zone) Rules, 1964, in the absence of an express statutory provision for appeal?
  • Can a superior revenue officer introduce new selection criteria, such as seniority-cum-fitness, when the governing rules do not provide for such criteria?
  • Is an administrative order passed without impleading affected parties violative of the principle of natural justice?
  • Does the general administrative control of a superior officer under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, empower them to interfere with specific statutory duties assigned to a subordinate officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Gehna vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 212 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-24Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Muhammad vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Bahawalpur Range, Bahawalpur and Another1973 PLC 361 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Farman Ali Shah and 3 Others vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 217 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-06Read full judgment →
• Faqirullah and 3 Others vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 236 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-21Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 515 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-03Read full judgment →
• DR. Faiz Muhammad vs The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation1973 PLD Lahore 250 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-29Read full judgment →
• Ch. Sami Ullah vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 57 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ataullah vs Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Kahloon and 3 Afinng1973 P Cr. L J 69 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-09
  FIR registrationcognizable offencepolice investigationexecutive interferencecross-casesmultiple investigationsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the registration of an FIR, which was initiated following a directive from an Adviser to the Government of Punjab to a Station House Officer. The petitioner contended that the Adviser lacked the authority to direct the registration of a case, rendering the subsequent proceedings illegal. The Court held that while an executive directive to register a case may be outside the Adviser's competence, the Station House Officer is statutorily obligated under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register a case upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence. The Court clarified that the police's duty to investigate is triggered by the nature of the allegations, not by executive orders, and that the police are not barred from conducting further investigations or registering cross-cases arising from the same incident. The Court affirmed that there is no statutory prohibition against multiple investigations into a crime, emphasizing that the police's primary function is to discover the truth. The petition was dismissed, with a caution that the police must investigate independently, uninfluenced by the Adviser's directive.

  Questions settled

  • Is the registration of an FIR invalid if it was initiated pursuant to an unauthorized directive from an executive official?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibit the police from conducting a fresh investigation into a matter that has previously been investigated?
  • Is a Station House Officer legally obligated to register a case upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence regardless of executive directives?
  • Can cross-cases be registered in respect of different allegations arising out of the same incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Dara vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 247 · Lahore High Court · 1973-07-17Read full judgment →
• Boota vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 798 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Billa and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 123 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-16Read full judgment →
• Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish and 2 Kashmiri vs Senior1973 P Cr. L J 482 · Lahore High Court · 1972-09-20Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Pardesi vs The West Pakistan Water and Power1973 PLC 374 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-15Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Shakar Ali and 2 OTHERSs1973 P Cr. L J 794 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-15Read full judgment →
• Bashir A. Malik vs The Punjab Labour Court (Northern Zone), Lahore1973 PLC 318 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-19Read full judgment →
• Bahadur and 3 Others vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 612 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-02Read full judgment →
• Bagh Ali vs The State1973P Cr. L J 812 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-21Read full judgment →
• Aspain Gul and 3 Others vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 345 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ashiq vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 387 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-02Read full judgment →
• Asadullah vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 571 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-23Read full judgment →
• Asad Hussain vs A. H. Malik and Anotssr1973 PLC 81 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-11Read full judgment →
• Asad Hussain vs A. H. Malik and Another1973 P Cr. L J 84 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-11Read full judgment →
• Amir vs The Statethe State(a) Criminal Procedure Code (v of 1898),1973 P Cr. L J 205 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-06
  post-arrest bailstatutory prohibitiontransportation for lifeprivate defencequantum of sentencediscretionary bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from two separate bail applications before the Lahore High Court, involving offences under Sections 304 and 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether offences carrying a maximum punishment of transportation for life (or lesser imprisonment terms) strictly fall within the statutory prohibition against granting bail under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the court can evaluate the likely sentence at the bail stage. The High Court, interpreting the Supreme Court's guidance in Amir v. The State, held that while such offences generally fall within the statutory prohibition, the court is not bound solely by the maximum prescribed sentence. If the court can conclude from the available data at the bail stage that the maximum punishment of transportation for life is highly improbable or would not be entailed, the case falls outside the prohibition. Consequently, the court has discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail, treating the grant of bail as the rule and its refusal as an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable with transportation for life or a lesser term of imprisonment automatically fall within the bail prohibition of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court at the bail stage assess the available data to determine if the maximum punishment of transportation for life is unlikely to be imposed, thereby taking the case out of the statutory prohibition?
  • What is the guiding rule for the exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail when a case does not fall within the statutory prohibition of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha and 3 Others vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 766 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-20Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 144 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-12Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and Another vs Raja Saeed Akhtar1973 PLD Lahore 215 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-30Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and 4 Others vs The State-1973 PCr.LJ 961 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad and Another vs Muhammad Fazal and Another1973 PLD Lahore 207 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-05
  pre-emption decreeexecution of decreelimitation periodextinguishment of titlemutationrevenue authoritiespossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a Letters Patent Appeal concerning land ownership following a consent decree in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption decree becomes inoperative and extinguishes the pre-emptor's title if an application for execution is not filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Lahore High Court held that upon payment of the decretal amount, title validly vests in the pre-emptor, and the failure to execute the decree within the limitation period merely bars the remedy to seek court assistance for delivery of possession, but does not extinguish the title itself under Section 28 of the Limitation Act. The court laid down the principle that a pre-emption decree creates substantive ownership upon payment, and such title remains alive unless extinguished by law or statute, obligating revenue authorities to reflect the decree in mutations.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pre-emptor lose title to property if they fail to execute a pre-emption decree within the limitation period prescribed by Article 182 of the Limitation Act?
  • Does Section 28 of the Limitation Act apply to applications for execution of a decree?
  • Are revenue authorities bound to sanction a mutation to give effect to a civil court decree under Section 45 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
  • When does title to property accrue in favour of a successful pre-emptor in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Al Laij Bakhsh vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 680 · Lahore High Court · 1972-07-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq Malik vs The Water and Power Development Authority1973 PLD Lahore 188 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-16
  dismissal from servicestatutory corporationdouble jeopardymaster and servantwrit jurisdictiondelegation of powerdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an Accountant challenging his dismissal from service by the Chairman of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner had previously been administered a severe warning on identical charges following a departmental inquiry. Subsequently, a second inquiry was initiated on the same charges, leading to his dismissal by the Chairman. The court examined whether the second inquiry violated the principle of double jeopardy, whether the Chairman had the jurisdiction to dismiss the petitioner, and whether the general law of master and servant applied to employees of statutory corporations. The court held that the second inquiry on the same charges was barred by the maxim 'nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa'. It further held that since the petitioner was promoted by the Authority itself, only the Authority, and not the Chairman, was competent to impose the penalty under the statutory rules. Finally, the court ruled that where statutory rules govern the terms of employment of a public corporation, the general law of master and servant does not apply, and the High Court has jurisdiction to declare an illegal dismissal void.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of double jeopardy (nemo debet bis vexari) apply to departmental disciplinary proceedings against an employee of a statutory corporation?
  • Can an officer or authority subordinate to the original appointing authority legally dismiss an employee of a statutory public corporation?
  • Does the general law of master and servant apply to employees of a statutory public corporation whose terms of service are governed by statutory rules?
  • Is a declaration of invalidity of dismissal available as a remedy to an employee of a statutory corporation under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State--.Respondent.1973 P Cr. L J 398 · Lahore High Court · 1972-08-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and 3 Others vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 428 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Muhammad Shafi1973 PCr.LJ 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khera vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 291 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and 2 Others vs The State and Another-Opponents1973 P Cr. L J 261 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State and 5 Others-1973 P Cr. L J 1050 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and 5 Others vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 990 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-12Read full judgment →
• Zia-Ur-Rahman vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 382 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zahur Ahmad vs District Magistrate, Rawalpindi And Another1972 PCr.LJ 706 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-13Read full judgment →
• Zafrullah And Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 734 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-15Read full judgment →
• Zafar vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 344 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-26Read full judgment →
• Zabtey Khan vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 196 · Lahore High Court · 1968-11-21
  public servantjurisdictionCriminal Law Amendment Actforgeryvitiated trialretrialWest Pakistan Social Welfare Council
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four criminal appeals against convictions for forgery and related offences. The central legal question was whether the appellant, a dispatcher at the West Pakistan Social Welfare Council, qualified as a public servant, thereby necessitating trial by a Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, rather than a Magistrate First Class. Upon examining the Council's constitution and administrative structure, the Court held that the Council functions as a government department, rendering the appellant a public servant. Consequently, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, as the offences fell under the exclusive purview of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, which requires sanction and trial by a Special Judge. The Court established the principle that a complete lack of jurisdiction vitiates the entire proceedings, rendering them void regardless of the parties' consent or failure to raise the objection earlier. Given the significant delay of over seven years since the occurrence, the Court set aside the convictions and declined to order a retrial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the lack of jurisdiction in a trial court vitiate the entire proceedings?
  • Is an employee of the West Pakistan Social Welfare Council a public servant for the purposes of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958?
  • Can a trial court's lack of jurisdiction be cured by the failure of the parties to raise the objection during the trial?
  • Should a retrial be ordered when a significant period has elapsed since the occurrence of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Z. D. Yasman vs Mrs. Z. D. Yasman1972 P Cr. L J 23 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-05Read full judgment →
• Yousuf Ali Khan, Barrister-at-Law vs The West Pakistan Bar Council1972 PLD Lahore 404 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wazir Muhammad And 4 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 549 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-18Read full judgment →
• Walt Muhammad And Another vs Tub State1972 P Cr. L J 219 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-04Read full judgment →
• Umar Khan vs (1) The Director of Enforcement and (2) the Deputy1972 PLD Lahore 221 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-27Read full judgment →
• Town Committee, Dipalpur vs Ahmad Din and 3 Other1972 PLD Lahore 290 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-08
  withdrawal of suitformal defectpermission to file fresh suitrevision petitionestoppelmis-joinder of partiesinconsistent pleascivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Civil Judge, Pakpattan, allowing the respondents to withdraw their civil suit with permission to file a fresh suit. The original suit challenged the petitioner's right to recover rent and tehbazari for certain plots and shops. The trial court framed preliminary issues regarding estoppel, mis-joinder, and inconsistent pleas. Subsequently, the plaintiffs applied under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the suit due to formal defects, which the trial court allowed summarily. The Lahore High Court held that neither the withdrawal application nor the trial court's order specified the formal defects or demonstrated satisfaction that the suit must fail by reason of such defects. The Court clarified that issues like estoppel do not constitute formal defects and procedural irregularities like inconsistent pleas should be cured through amendment rather than withdrawal. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to decide the original suit according to law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can permit the withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit without being satisfied that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect?
  • Does a plea of estoppel constitute a formal defect under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can inconsistency of pleas be deemed a formal defect warranting the withdrawal of a suit instead of seeking an amendment?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere in revision with an order permitting the withdrawal of a suit where the lower court failed to apply its judicial mind?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Taj Din and Other1972 PLD Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Qudratullah and 2 Other1972 PLD Lahore 146 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-11Read full judgment →
• The State vs Noor Muhammad And 3 Others1972 P Cr. L J 1001 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-29Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Shafi Etc.S1972 P Cr. L J 235 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-03Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Sattar And Another1972 P Cr. L J 1102 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-11Read full judgment →
• The Punjab Miners' Labour Union vs The West Pakistan Industrial1972 PLD Lahore 489 · Lahore High Court
  locus standitrade unionwrit petitionworkmen's compensationindemnity bondmining operations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed by a trade union representing registered and unregistered salt miners against management actions regarding employment reduction and compensation liability. The core legal questions involve the locus standi of a trade union to maintain a writ petition regarding individual member grievances under the Constitution, and whether the management's requirement that registered miners indemnify the management for compensation paid to unregistered miners violates the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court held that a trade union lacks locus standi to maintain a petition under Article 98 in respect of specific individual grievances of its members, and that the management's demand for indemnification is lawful under section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, as the management remains primarily liable to pay compensation while being entitled to indemnity from the contractor or registered miner. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trade union have the locus standi under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 to maintain a writ petition in respect of specific individual grievances of its members?
  • Are unregistered miners employed as helpers by registered miners considered workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923?
  • Is the management of a mine entitled to seek indemnification from a registered miner for compensation paid to an unregistered miner under section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923?
  Read full judgment →