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.

• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, North Zone (West Pakistan), Lahore-Applicant vs Messrs Fayyaz Brothers1972 PTD 599 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-13Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, North Zone (West Pakistan), Lahore1972 PLD Lahore 792 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-13Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain And 3 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-03Read full judgment →
• Talah Din and 3 Other vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khanewal and Another1972 PLD Lahore 676 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Naushab Ali vs LT. Col. Mehmood Khan Durrani1972 PLD Lahore 766 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ashraf Shah vs Province of West Pakistan, (Services1972 PLC 518 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Mazhar Hussain Rizvi and 3 Other vs The Government of West1972 PLC 572 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Manzoor Hussain Ghazi vs Syed Ejaz Hussain Shah, Settlement1972 PLD Lahore 743 · Lahore High Court
  court-feeLetters Patent Appealwrit petitionvested rightprocedural lawtaxing judgeretrospective effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference before the Taxing Judge concerns the determination of the appropriate court-fee payable on Letters Patent Appeals arising from writ petitions. The core legal question was whether the court-fee is governed by the law in force at the time of the institution of the original writ petition, based on the theory of a vested right, or by the law in force at the time of the actual presentation of the appeal. The Court held that the court-fee must be paid according to the law in force at the time of the actual presentation of the appeal. The ratio establishes that the right of appeal is distinct from the payment of court-fee, and a litigant possesses no vested right in a specific court-fee rate. Furthermore, the imposition of fees is a regulatory and procedural matter within the High Court's competence under its Letters Patent. Consequently, the Court rejected the argument that the law in force at the time of the original suit's institution should apply, affirming that procedural changes regarding fees apply to all documents filed thereafter.

  Questions settled

  • Is the court-fee payable on an appeal determined by the law in force at the time of the institution of the original suit or at the time of filing the appeal?
  • Does a litigant have a vested right to pay the court-fee that was prevalent at the time of the institution of the original suit?
  • Does the High Court have the power to regulate court-fees for Letters Patent Appeals under its Letters Patent?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Fayyaz Hussain Qadri, Advocate vs The Administrator. Lahore1972 PLD Lahore 316 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-14
  constitutional petitiontermination of servicesmunicipal employeestatutory bodymaster and servantwrit jurisdictiondiscretionary powerdelegation of authoritylegal advisermunicipal corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's services as Legal Adviser to the Municipal Corporation of Lahore. The termination order, issued by the Administrator, stated it was directed by the Government. The core legal questions revolved around the applicability of constitutional safeguards to municipal employees, the competence of a writ petition in such cases, and the authority to terminate the Legal Adviser's services. The Court held that Article 177 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1962, does not apply to employees of statutory corporations like Municipal Committees, as they are not civil servants of the Province. However, a writ petition is competent if the termination violates a statute or statutory rules. The Court found that the petitioner was a municipal servant appointed under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, and the Basic Democracies Order, 1959. The power to remove a Legal Adviser, after the repeal of the West Pakistan Statutory Bodies (Appointment and Removal of Legal Advisers) Ordinance, 1965, vested exclusively in the Municipal Committee or, upon its supersession, in the Administrator, who was required to exercise independent discretion and not merely act on government instructions. Consequently, the impugned termination order, not having been passed by the Administrator in the exercise of his own discretion, was declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Do the constitutional safeguards under Article 177 of the 1962 Constitution apply to employees of a Municipal Corporation?
  • Is a writ petition competent to challenge the termination of services of an employee of a statutory body if the termination violates a statute or statutory rules?
  • Does the repeal of an ordinance automatically terminate appointments made under it if the primary appointing authority is a separate statutory body?
  • Can an Administrator of a superseded Municipal Committee merely implement government instructions for removal of an employee, or must they exercise independent discretion?
  • What is the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of a Controlling Authority over a Municipal Committee under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Iqtidar Shah Dara and 6 Other vs The Custodian, Evacuee1972 PLD Lahore 798 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-17Read full judgment →
• State Sadu and 4 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 10 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-29
  criminal revisiondacoitytest identification paraderecovery of stolen propertydelayed FIRbenefit of doubtpresumption of stolen property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arose out of the convictions of petitioners Sadu and Majid under Sections 458 and 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and petitioners Jaffar, Ghausi, and Fazal under Section 411 of the same Code, stemming from an alleged nighttime dacoity. The prosecution relied primarily on test identification parade evidence and alleged recoveries of stolen property. The High Court accepted the revision petition and acquitted all petitioners. It held that the First Information Report was lodged after an unexplained delay without detailing the stolen articles or suspects' descriptions. Consequently, the subsequent recovery of common articles after more than two months could not prove they were stolen property or raise a presumption under Section 411. Furthermore, the test identification parade held one month and twenty-two days after the incident lacked evidentiary value due to inordinate delay, the accused having appeared in court without identity concealment precautions, and significant contradictions by the identifying witnesses during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a test identification parade conducted after an inordinate delay where the accused were produced in court beforehand without precautions to conceal their identity?
  • Can a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the recovered articles were of common pattern, recovered after significant delay, and not detailed in the initial First Information Report?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report combined with the absence of a list of stolen articles vitiate the prosecution's case regarding subsequent recoveries?
  Read full judgment →
• Shera vs The State and 3 otherss1972 P Cr. L J 626 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-25
  quashmentpolice investigationmagisterial inquirycause of deathcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed for the quashment of a magistrate's inquiry report and finding in a murder case. A criminal case was registered alleging that the respondents had attacked the petitioner and murdered his father. While police investigation was underway, the District Magistrate, upon an application by the accused, ordered an inquiry and disinterment of the deceased under Section 159, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The inquiring magistrate submitted a report finding the petitioner and others guilty of murder. The core legal questions were whether a magistrate can direct an investigation under Section 159, Cr.P.C. when police investigation is already in progress, and whether an inquiry under Section 176, Cr.P.C. empowers a magistrate to record findings regarding the guilt or innocence of specific persons. The Lahore High Court held that a magistrate cannot order an investigation or inquiry under Section 159, Cr.P.C. while the police are already investigating the matter, and that Section 176, Cr.P.C. limits the magistrate's inquiry to determining the cause of death without recording findings on criminal culpability. The petition was accepted and the offending findings were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a magistrate direct an investigation under Section 159 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an investigation by the police is already under way?
  • Does the scope of an inquiry conducted under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to determining the guilt or innocence of specific persons accused of an offense?
  • What are the limits of a magistrate's powers when holding an inquiry into the cause of a person's death under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shera Ahd 3 Other vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 563 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-24
  quashment of proceedingsconfession of co-accusedcorroborationdelay in trialfoot-print identificationmurderrape
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks the quashment of criminal proceedings against four petitioners accused of murder and rape under sections 302 and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether criminal proceedings against a minor accused can be continued solely on the basis of a co-accused's confession without independent corroborating evidence, and whether delay in trial warrants quashment. The court held that delay caused by bona fide legal proceedings such as writ petitions does not justify quashing, and that a confession of a co-accused under section 30 of the Evidence Act 1872 does not constitute substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for a conviction. Consequently, the court quashed the proceedings against the minor petitioner due to lack of evidence, while dismissing the petition as to the remaining co-accused who faced specific incriminating material including extra-judicial confessions, foot-print identifications, and recoveries.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the confession of a co-accused under section 30 of the Evidence Act 1872 without independent corroboration?
  • Whether delay in criminal proceedings caused by pursuing writ petitions in the High Court warrants the quashment of a criminal case?
  • Does the confession of a co-accused possess the quality of substantive evidence against other accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 537 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-23Read full judgment →
• Sher Dil Alias Sher Muhammad vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and Other1972 PLD Lahore 164 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-02Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Manzoor Hussain vs The Multan Improvement Trust, Multan1972 PLD Lahore 225 · Lahore High Court
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuetown improvementcompulsory acquisition allowancebuilding siteaverage sale price
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated regular first appeal arose out of cross-appeals filed by the Multan Improvement Trust and land-owners against the award of the Senior Civil Judge, Multan, concerning compensation for land acquired for the Shamshabad Colony housing scheme. The primary legal questions concerned the determination of the correct market value of the acquired property under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as modified by the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922, specifically regarding whether potential future building use could be considered, and whether land-owners were entitled to a 15% compulsory acquisition allowance. The Lahore High Court held that under Clause 10(3) of the Schedule to the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922, market value must be assessed strictly according to the actual use to which the land was put at the material date, ignoring future potential development. The Court found that the land had already acquired the character of a building site based on proximate sales. The Court re-assessed the market value at Rs. 55 per marla (Rs. 8,800 per acre) and held that land-owners were statutorily excluded from claiming the 15% compulsory acquisition allowance.

  Questions settled

  • How is the market value of compulsorily acquired land determined when modified by the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922?
  • Can the future potential use of land be taken into consideration when assessing compensation under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922?
  • Are land-owners entitled to a 15% compulsory acquisition allowance when land is acquired for a town improvement trust under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922?
  • Is the overall average sale price of an entire revenue estate a proper criterion for fixing the market value of specific acquired land?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharif And 3 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 94 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-23Read full judgment →
• Shamshir Ali and 11 OTHERSs vs Government of Pakistan and Another-1972 PTD 571 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-23Read full judgment →
• Shamim Mustafa Ansari and 170 Other vs Government of Punjab1972 PLC 590 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-01Read full judgment →
• Shami vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 149 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-30Read full judgment →
• Shaman vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 400 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-11
  murder convictionocular evidencecriminal investigationpolice powersculpable homicidehatchet blowCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a co-villager. The incident arose from a dispute over straying cattle, resulting in the appellant striking the deceased on the head with the blunt side of a hatchet, causing fatal skull fractures. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence from interested witnesses and the legality of an investigation conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector rather than the Station House Officer. The Court upheld the conviction, ruling that the ocular evidence was credible despite the witnesses' connection to the deceased, as no enmity existed. Regarding the investigation, the Court held that Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not mandate investigation solely by the Station House Officer and that procedural irregularities do not vitiate a trial. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that striking a victim on the head with a heavy object constitutes murder, as the assailant is presumed to know such injury is likely to cause death.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investigation conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector, rather than the Station House Officer, invalidate the trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the fatal blow was delivered with the blunt side of a weapon?
  • Does an irregularity in the police investigation process vitiate the subsequent criminal trial?
  • Is ocular evidence from witnesses related to the deceased inherently unreliable in the absence of proven enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 374 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-21
  kidnappingstatutory interpretationprocedural omissioncriminal appealdeath sentencelegislative intentCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the kidnapping of two minors. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the specific intent required for a Section 364-A conviction and whether the legislature's failure to include Section 364-A in the Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rendered the trial void for lack of procedural framework. The Court held that the evidence failed to prove the specific intent necessary for Section 364-A, resulting in the conviction being altered to Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with the sentence reduced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Regarding the procedural challenge, the Court ruled that an unintentional drafting omission in the Second Schedule does not nullify substantive law. The key principle laid down is that courts must interpret statutes to promote their object and may supply procedural omissions to give effect to the manifest intention of the legislature, preventing technical drafting errors from defeating the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the legislature to include a newly created offence in the Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the trial for that offence void?
  • Can a court supply a procedural omission in a statute to give effect to the manifest intention of the legislature?
  • Is the specific intent required for a conviction under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 presumed merely from the act of kidnapping a minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz--Appellant vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 868 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-06Read full judgment →
• Shahab-Ud-Din vs Syed Muzaffar Ud Din1972 PLD Lahore 474 · Lahore High Court · 1969-02-07Read full judgment →
• Shadi Khan and Another vs Khan Saeed Ud Din Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and Other1972 PLD Lahore 262 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-18Read full judgment →
• Shabir Ahmed And 4 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-09
  dacoityidentification paradestolen propertybenefit of doubtrecoveryfingerprint expertcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of five appellants under sections 395 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code for dacoity. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with firearms, raided a residential house at night, caused simple injuries to the occupants, and looted cash, ornaments, and valuables. The core legal questions involved the reliability of nighttime identification parades, the sufficiency of mixing suspects, and the probative value of subsequent recoveries of stolen property and ballistic evidence. The court held that the identification parade evidence was unsatisfactory and suffered from legal and factual infirmities, warranting the acquittal of one appellant, while the recovery of stolen property and matching receipts established offences relating to stolen property for the remaining appellants. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions under sections 395 and 397, altered them to section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and reduced the sentences to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that where identification evidence is weak or tainted, convictions for dacoity cannot be sustained, but established recoveries of stolen property can support convictions under lesser related offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade held after suspects have been shown to witnesses and taken to various places of recovery can be relied upon?
  • Does the recovery of unidentifiable silver coins alone suffice to connect an accused with the crime of dacoity?
  • Can a conviction under sections 395 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code be altered to section 412 when dacoity is not proved but possession of stolen property is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Alauddin vs The Official Liquidator, the Central Exchange Bank1972 PLD Lahore 552 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-09Read full judgment →
• Sewa And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1135 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-11Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Muhammad Ali Shah Bokhari vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf1972 PLD Lahore 416 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-16Read full judgment →
• Sarwar vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 546 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-19Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 906 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-30Read full judgment →
• Sami and 2 Other vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 511 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-10Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs The Province of West Pakistan through Secretary1972 PLC 525 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad and Another vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 360 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-01Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 984 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-10Read full judgment →
• Sadiq vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 596 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-04Read full judgment →
• S. A. Waheed vs MR. Masood Ahmed Ansari, Magistrate First Class, Lahore1972 PLD Lahore 485 · Lahore High Court · 1969-03-27Read full judgment →
• Riat Ali vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1129 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-16Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Magistrate I Class, Sahiwal and 31972 PLD Lahore 809 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-22Read full judgment →
• Rais Ahmad vs Mian Abdul Jabbar and Another1972 PLD Lahore 711 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-09
  ejectmentcompromise orderbuilding reconstructionCantonments Rent Restriction Actletters patent appealrent controller jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising from the dismissal of a writ petition against an ejectment order. The appellant-tenant challenged an order of the Rent Controller passed on the basis of a compromise agreement whereby the appellant agreed to vacate the premises for reconstruction upon an undertaking that a new shop would be provided upon completion. The core legal questions involved whether a Rent Controller is bound to follow the Code of Civil Procedure in recording compromises, whether a subsisting building sanction is mandatory at the time of the ejectment order, and whether an appeal lies against a consent order. The Lahore High Court held that the Rent Controller is not bound by strict civil procedure codes when conducting inquiries under rent restriction laws, that the expiration of a building sanction period during pending litigation does not invalidate the ejectment order provided initial sanction was obtained, and that no appeal lies against an order passed on compromise. The key principles laid down include that Rent Controllers possess wide discretionary inquiry powers akin to executive officers, and that a tenant consenting to an order waives the necessity of formal proof regarding the landlord's grounds for eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller bound to follow the Code of Civil Procedure when recording a compromise between landlord and tenant?
  • Does the expiration of the validity period of a building sanction during the pendency of eviction proceedings render the ejectment order illegal?
  • Whether an appeal is competent against an order passed by a Rent Controller on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahman and Another vs The State and 2 Other1972 PLD Lahore 534 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-07Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs The State and 14 otherss1972 P Cr. L J 982 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-12Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Punjab Labour Appellate1972 PLC 327 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-19Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Corporation vs Punjab Labour Appellate1972 PLD Lahore 699 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-19
  workman dismissalinquiry reportsecond show-cause noticenatural justiceindustrial disputeStanding Orders Ordinancereinstatementwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from an order passed by the West Pakistan Labour Appellate Tribunal upholding an Industrial Court award that reinstated a workman dismissed by the Punjab Road Transport Corporation. The core legal questions involved whether an employer who initiates an independent inquiry against an employee for misconduct must supply a copy of the inquiry report to the employee and issue a second show-cause notice before ordering dismissal, and whether failure to do so vitiates the dismissal order under the applicable labor laws. The Lahore High Court held that where an employer chooses to hold an inquiry and relies upon its adverse findings, principles of natural justice and the requirements of clause (4) of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, make it mandatory to provide the employee with a copy of the inquiry report and an opportunity to explain those findings through a second show-cause notice. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer is legally bound to supply a copy of the inquiry report to an employee when the inquiry findings are used against him for dismissal?
  • Does the failure to issue a second show-cause notice before dismissing a workman following an adverse inquiry report vitiate the dismissal order under clause (4) of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can an objection regarding the maintainability of an application under section 38 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, be raised for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction when it was abandoned or not argued before the lower tribunals?
  • Whether the principles of natural justice require that an employee be given an opportunity to explain adverse findings recorded by an inquiry officer before an order of dismissal is passed.
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province and 2 Other vs Mumtaz Khan1972 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-23Read full judgment →
• Pirzada Ghulam Muhammad Shah vs Messrs Chashlum Contractors, Kundian1972 P Cr. L J 348 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Tanneries Ltd. (under Liquidation), Lahore vs Sardar Hidayat1972 PLD Lahore 880 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-06
  land acquisitionevacuee propertycompensation poolsettlement authoritieseminent domaindelegated powerswinding up
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns revision petitions challenging an order passed by a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which declared the acquisition of land by the government for Pakistan Tanneries Ltd. invalid and ordered its resumption into the "Compensation Pool." The core legal question was whether the government could validly acquire evacuee property under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and whether the Settlement authorities possessed the jurisdiction to resume such land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings were valid and that the evacuee property laws did not prohibit the government from acquiring such property for public purposes. Consequently, the Court ruled that the land ceased to be evacuee property upon its valid acquisition, rendering the Settlement authorities' resumption order without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that the acquisition of evacuee property by the government under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 constitutes a valid exercise of sovereign power that is not barred by evacuee property legislation, and such property is not subject to the jurisdiction of Settlement authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquisition of evacuee property by the government under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 constitute a prohibited transfer under evacuee property laws?
  • Do Settlement authorities have the jurisdiction to resume land that has been validly acquired by the government for a public purpose?
  • Does Section 11(2) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 empower the Chief Settlement Commissioner to resume land from occupants who do not hold a valid allotment under the Act?
  • Is the acquisition of evacuee property by the government subject to the prior approval of the Central Government under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance 1949?
  Read full judgment →
• P. D. H. Laboratories Employees & Workers' Union vs Registrar of Trade1972 PLC 536 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-27Read full judgment →
• Okara Bus Service Ltd., Okara vs Jan Muhammad And Another1972 P Cr. L J 358 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-09Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-10Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The Government of West Pakistan through Its1972 PLC 539 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-25Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 920 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-23Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain Alias Ranjha vs District Magistrate, Sahiwal and Another1972 PLD Lahore 836 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-14Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ali Alias Nawabi vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 532 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-22Read full judgment →
• Nausher And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 695 · Lahore High Court · 1971-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mukhtaran and Other vs (1) Mst. Nur Begum and (2) Chief Settlement1972 PLD Lahore 282 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Tajammal Hussain and 6 Other1972 PLD Lahore 565 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wasil vs Manager of Waqf Properties and 2 Other1972 PLD Lahore 425 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And 41 Other vs Government of West Pakistan and 21972 PLD Lahore 858 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham and 3 Other vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 661 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-23
  murdergrievous hurtcommon intentionsecondary evidencepost-mortem reportnon-vital partsabatement of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentences awarded to four appellants under Section 302/34 and Sections 323/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, for the murder of Lal and injuries to an eyewitness. During the pendency of the appeal, one appellant died, resulting in the abatement of his appeal under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions pertained to the admissibility of secondary evidence to prove a post-mortem report when the examining doctor was abroad, and whether inflicting multiple blunt and sharp weapon injuries confined primarily to non-vital body parts (limbs) amounted to murder under Section 302 PPC or grievous hurt under Section 325 PPC. The Lahore High Court held that secondary evidence of the post-mortem report was validly recorded under Section 32 of the Evidence Act 1872 read with Section 428 CrPC. Altering the conviction from Section 302/34 to Section 325/34 PPC, the High Court held that where assailants avoid vital organs and inflict injuries primarily on limbs, intention or knowledge to cause death cannot be inferred, even if fatal internal complications unexpectedly ensue.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inflicting multiple injuries on non-vital body parts without intention or knowledge to cause death constitutes murder under Section 302 or grievous hurt under Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether a post-mortem report can be proved through secondary evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act 1872 when the medical officer has proceeded abroad and cannot be procured without unreasonable delay?
  • Whether an appeal against conviction abates in respect of an appellant who dies during the pendency of proceedings under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The Chairman, Union Committee, Lahore and 21972 P Cr. L J 73 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And 3 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 292 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saghir vs The State and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 586 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and 15 Other vs The Chief Administrator of Auqaf, West Pakistan, Lahore and Another1972 PLD Lahore 780 · Lahore High Court
  Waqf propertyChief Administrator of Auqaflease cancellationjudicial reviewalienation of WaqfMutwalliconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 challenges the cancellation of leasehold rights by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf, who sought to transfer Waqf land attached to a shrine to a private trust for hospital construction. The core legal question concerns the extent of the Administrator's power to alienate Waqf property and cancel existing leases for such purposes. The Court held that the Administrator’s action was without lawful authority. It ruled that Waqf property, being dedicated to God, cannot be transferred to a private trust, as the Administrator acts merely as a manager (Mutwalli) for the benefit of the shrine. Furthermore, the lease cancellation was deemed improper because it failed to secure the best market rent and violated established leasing rules. The key principle laid down is that Waqf property must be administered strictly for the purposes of the dedication; it cannot be alienated or mismanaged at the Administrator's discretion, and any lease or transfer must comply with both statutory rules and the principles of Islamic law regarding the preservation of Waqf assets.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chief Administrator of Auqaf transfer Waqf property to a private trust?
  • Is the Chief Administrator of Auqaf's management of Waqf property subject to judicial review?
  • Does the Chief Administrator of Auqaf have the power to cancel a valid lease of Waqf property to facilitate a transfer to a third party?
  • What are the limitations on the power of a Mutwalli to lease non-agricultural Waqf property for a term exceeding one year?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 33 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs N/A1972 P Cr. L J 171 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khurshid And 3 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 975 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 913 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalil Khalid vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 65 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 37 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Thb State1972 P Cr. L J 682 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Haider And 7 Others1972 P Cr. L J 664 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Buta And 3 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 567 · Lahore High Court · 1971-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 836 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-22
  illegal gratificationanti-corruptionprevious enmitytainted currency notessolitary witnessburden of proofraidcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, convicting the appellant, a Labour Inspector, under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and sentencing him to six months' rigorous imprisonment for accepting illegal gratification. The core legal question was whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained solely on the testimony of a complainant with whom the appellant held proven previous enmity, in the absence of independent corroboration regarding the demand of the bribe. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that in corruption cases, the existence of previous enmity or hostility is of high significance as it provides a motive for a false frame-up, and it is unsafe to base a conviction on the solitary, uncorroborated testimony of an interested complainant where the raiding party did not overhear the conversation. The key principle laid down is that the general burden of proving the commission of an offense always rests on the prosecution, and a conviction for bribery cannot be sustained upon the uncorroborated testimony of a hostile or inimical complainant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for accepting a bribe can be sustained on the solitary and uncorroborated testimony of a complainant who bears previous enmity toward the accused?
  • Does the existence of previous enmity or hostility between the complainant and the accused carry lesser weight in corruption cases than in ordinary criminal cases?
  • Can a conviction be based merely on the failure of the accused person to prove the correctness of their defence plea?
  • Is it safe to presume that money recovered during a raid was passed as illegal gratification when no witness overheard the conversation between the complainant and the accused at the time of the alleged passing of money?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 96 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad And 3 Others1972 P Cr. L J 856 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Rose vs Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan1972 PLD Lahore 756 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Mirza vs Mst. Khurshid Begum1972 PLD Lahore 603 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-17
  rent restrictionex parte orderinherent powersreviewfunctus officiolimitationpersona designata
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a reference to a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court to determine whether a Rent Controller, acting under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, has the power to set aside an ex parte ejectment order and whether Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to such an application. The majority of the Full Bench held that a Rent Controller is not a civil Court, that section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not apply to proceedings before him, and that once an order is passed under the Ordinance, the Rent Controller becomes functus officio and possesses no inherent power to review, recall, alter, or set aside his own order in the absence of an express statutory provision. The court also held that Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 does not apply to applications before the Rent Controller, and left the applicability of Article 181 open. The core legal principle established is that a Rent Controller, being a persona designata exercising quasi-judicial functions under a self-contained special statute, has no inherent jurisdiction to review or set aside ex parte orders once issued.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller appointed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 has the power to set aside an ex parte order?
  • Does section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  • Whether a Rent Controller possesses inherent powers to review, recall, or vary a judicial or quasi-judicial order once passed?
  • Whether Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to an application for setting aside an ex parte order passed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 476 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar And 4 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 862 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And 2 Others vs The State1972 PCr. L J 314 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 5 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Mir And 4 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 15 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mufti Mushtaq Ahmad vs The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1972 PLC 134 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-10Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali vs Thb State1972 P Cr. L J 889 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahjahan Begum vs Mst. Shabbir Fatima and Another1972 PLD Lahore 546 · Lahore High Court · 1972-11-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum vs Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and 3 Other1972 PLD Lahore 458 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-13
  land acquisitionTown Improvement Actmandatory noticeSection 9 noticeCollector awardexemption from schemevoid orderwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The legal representatives of Mst. Sardar Begum challenged the acquisition of her bungalow at 78-Upper Mall, Lahore, by the Lahore Improvement Trust and its subsequent sale to the National Institute of Public Administration (NIPA). The acquisition was initiated under the Town Improvement Act 1922 and the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The petitioner asserted that mandatory notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were never served on her or the occupier, making the Collector's award and subsequent possession transfer void. The respondents argued that the award had become final under Section 12 and the property had vested in the Trust free of encumbrances under Section 16.

  The Lahore High Court accepted the writ petition, holding that compliance with Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is a mandatory prerequisite for a valid award and acquisition. Because no notice was served on the owner or occupier, the award dated 30 January 1965 and all subsequent actions—including the transfer of possession—were illegal and without lawful authority. The court declared all proceedings from the stage of Section 9 notice void.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to serve mandatory notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 render subsequent acquisition proceedings and the award void?
  • Can land vest in the acquiring authority under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 if the underlying award is legally invalid?
  • Is a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 an adequate remedy when an owner seeks exemption of property under Section 56 of the Town Improvement Act 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia vs Thb State1972 P Cr. L J 8 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Panna H Bibi vs The ST Ate1972 P Cr. L J 1240 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nawab Begum vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 79 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajan Nawab Bibi vs Settlement Authorities (Settlement1972 PLD Lahore 306 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Government of West Pakistan Etc.S1972 P Cr. L J 451 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 852 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fahmida Bibi vs Mukhtar Ahmad and Another1972 PLD Lahore 694 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-20
  restitution of conjugal rightsMuslim Family Laws Ordinancedivorce noticeFamily Court jurisdictiontalaqevidentiary valuewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an appellate court's order remanding a suit for restitution of conjugal rights to a Family Court. The petitioner argued that a divorce certificate issued by the Chairman of a Union Committee was conclusive proof of divorce, rendering the suit incompetent. The core legal question was whether such a certificate is conclusive and whether a Family Court can inquire into the genuineness of a divorce notice during such proceedings. The High Court held that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 does not authorize the Chairman to issue a divorce certificate, and such a document holds no legal effect. The court affirmed that while a Family Court may not have jurisdiction to declare a divorce valid as a primary relief, it possesses the inherent authority to determine the validity of a divorce notice as a necessary incidental issue when adjudicating a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Consequently, the court upheld the remand order, allowing parties to lead evidence regarding the genuineness of the divorce notice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a certificate of divorce issued by a Chairman of a Union Committee conclusive proof of divorce under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  • Does a Family Court have the jurisdiction to determine the validity of a divorce notice when deciding a suit for restitution of conjugal rights?
  • Can a husband revoke a talaq after serving notice to the Chairman but before the expiration of ninety days?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashir Begum and 2 Other vs Ghulam Nabi and Another1972 PLD Lahore 185 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bano vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 775 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Alfat Bibi and Another vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 121 · Lahore High Court
  quashment of criminal proceedingskidnappingabductionhabeas corpusminor custodyMuslim Law marriageSection 561-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the kidnapping and abduction of minor girls. The core legal question was whether a minor girl's statement in habeas corpus proceedings—asserting her marriage to the accused and desire to live with him—renders the pending criminal prosecution for kidnapping infructuous. The Court held that the petitions were without merit and dismissed them. The ratio decidendi is that orders passed in habeas corpus proceedings under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, permitting a minor girl to reside with her alleged husband, do not constitute a final finding on the validity of the marriage or the innocence of the accused regarding kidnapping charges. The Court affirmed that even if a marriage is valid under Muslim Law, it does not absolve the accused of criminal liability for kidnapping a minor under sixteen years of age. Consequently, the criminal trial must proceed independently of the custody determination, as the consent of a minor is no defense to kidnapping charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order in habeas corpus proceedings allowing a minor to live with her alleged husband render pending criminal proceedings for kidnapping infructuous?
  • Can a marriage valid under Muslim Law absolve an accused of criminal liability for kidnapping a minor under sixteen years of age?
  • Does the consent of a minor female constitute a valid defense in a prosecution for kidnapping or abduction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad and Another vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 109 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mir Afzal vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-28Read full judgment →