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.

• Miana vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 129 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mian Noor Ahmad vs The Chairman, Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal, Punjab and 5 Others S1972 PLC 429 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-03Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Majid and 7 Other vs The Chief Administrator of Auqaf, West Pakistan, Lahore1972 PLD Lahore 66 · Lahore High Court
  Waqf propertyAuqaf departmentShrine offeringsBeneficial interestNotificationRetrospective effectMutawalli
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple appeals arising from disputes over the control and sharing of offerings, box income, and subscriptions at the shrine of Hazrat Imam Sahib in Sialkot, following its takeover by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions involved whether the initial notification of 1960 implicitly included shrine offerings, whether a subsequent notification of 1961 could retrospectively add such offerings, and whether taking over the administration of a waqf property extinguishes the pre-existing beneficial rights and shares of long-standing beneficiaries, Khadims, or Mujawars. The Lahore High Court held that property takeover under section 6 of the Ordinance requires an express, unambiguous notification and cannot be implied from general statutory definitions or explanations. Furthermore, the Chief Administrator possesses no legislative power to give notifications retrospective effect, nor does taking over management destroy the vested beneficial interests of historical beneficiaries. The Court ruled that while the corpus becomes waqf, existing beneficiaries retain their rights to share in the income, subject to supervisory regulation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the taking over of a shrine by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1959, automatically includes the income from boxes and offerings without an express notification?
  • Does the Chief Administrator of Auqaf have the legal authority to give a notification issued under section 6 of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1959, retrospective effect?
  • Whether the assumption of management and control of a waqf property by the Auqaf Department extinguishes the pre-existing beneficial interests and hereditary rights of traditional beneficiaries or Mujawars?
  • Does the definition of waqf property under section 2(d) of the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1959, vest the corpus in the Chief Administrator of Auqaf as an absolute owner?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shameem Textile Mills, Lahores vs The Republic of Pakistan1972 PLD Lahore 572 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-14
  constitutional petitionfactory sanctionimport licensestatutory presumptionindustrial undertakingnatural justiceprivilege versus right
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a long-standing dispute concerning the establishment of a rayon and art silk power-loom factory and the issuance of an import license for machinery. The petitioners sought to set up forty power-looms in Lahore, invoking the statutory presumption under section 5-A(i) of the Factories (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1940, where a failure by the Provincial Government to communicate a rejection within six months amounts to deemed permission. Despite earlier judicial success in a writ petition, the authorities repeatedly resisted granting formal clearance and subsequently refused to recommend or issue import licenses. The core legal questions involved whether a granted factory sanction could be arbitrarily revoked, whether the Central Government's independent sanction was legally necessary for a unit employing fewer than fifty workers, and whether an import license is a mere privilege or a valuable right enforceable through constitutional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the prior statutory sanction could not be negated by re-agitating rejected pleas, that the Central Government's independent sanction was not required under the applicable rules, and that an import license constitutes a valuable property right rather than a mere privilege, attracting the principles of natural justice and judicial review. The petition was accepted, declaring the refusal to sanction the factory illegal, and the matter of the import license was remanded to the competent statutory authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statutory permission deemed to have been granted under section 5-A of the Factories (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1940, can be subsequently revoked by the authorities on grounds previously rejected by the court?
  • Is an independent sanction from the Central Government legally required under the Development of Industries Rules, 1950, for establishing an industrial unit employing fewer than fifty workers?
  • Whether the issuance of an import license is a mere executive privilege or a valuable property right capable of being enforced through constitutional remedies under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1962?
  • Does the denial of an import license by the executive without affording the affected party a proper opportunity of being heard violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jans Caterers vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Chairman, Pakistan Western Railway, Lahore and 2 Other1972 PLD Lahore 169 · Lahore High Court
  civil procedurenecessary partyproper partyimpleadmentspecific performancecontractual disputerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition concerns the propriety of impleading third-party contractors as defendants in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the original contractor against the Pakistan Western Railway. The original contractor sought to challenge the termination of their catering contract, while the new contractors sought to be impleaded under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, claiming they would be adversely affected by the suit's outcome. The core legal question was whether these third parties were 'proper parties' to the suit. The Court held that the new contractors were neither necessary nor proper parties. It reasoned that the suit involved a specific contract between the plaintiff and the Railway, and the new contractors were not privy to this agreement. The Court established that 'questions involved in the suit' under Order I, Rule 10 refer only to questions between the existing parties, not disputes between defendants and third parties. Furthermore, where full adjudication is possible between existing parties, the Court lacks jurisdiction to add parties against the plaintiff's objection, especially when the third party's claim arises from a distinct, independent transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Are third-party contractors 'proper parties' to a suit challenging the termination of a contract between an original contractor and a public entity?
  • Does the term 'questions involved in the suit' under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend to disputes between defendants and third parties?
  • Can a court implead a third party as a defendant in a suit for specific performance against the objection of the plaintiff when full adjudication is possible between the existing parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Farid Sons Ltd., Karachi- Petitioner vs Messrs Ghulam Farid1972 PTD 453 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Farid Sons Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Ghulam Farid Mohammad1972 PLD Lahore 311 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Ever Shine Candle Industries, Lahore and 36 Other vs Muhammad Jamil1972 PLD Lahore 845 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Eva Hornby & Company vs Oriental Mutual Life Assurance Ca.1972 PLD Lahore 795 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Aziz Tanneries Ltd. vs Superintending Engineer, Lower Bari1972 PLD Lahore 517 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Bombay through Its Duly1972 PLD Lahore 201 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Bombay through Its Duly1972 PTD 97 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mehraj Din and 3 Other vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 177 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-14Read full judgment →
• Mehr Kamir vs Wali Muhammad and 5 Other1972 PLD Lahore 287 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-12Read full judgment →
• Maula Bakhsh vs Muhammad Ishaq (Represented by His 5 Hiers)1972 PLD Lahore 173 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-29Read full judgment →
• Manzur Ahmad vs Manzur Ahmad And 8 Others1972 P Cr. L J 1192 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-10Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain Shah and Another vs Ghulam Hussain and 22 Other1972 PLD Lahore 855 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-05Read full judgment →
• Manual (Emanuel) And 2 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 958 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-31Read full judgment →
• Mansabdar vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 182 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-14Read full judgment →
• Managing Committee, Masjid Muhajreen Lahores vs S. Ijaz Hussain1972 PLD Lahore 245 · Lahore High Court
  locus standiaggrieved persondisplaced persons propertytransfer of propertyreligious property schemeSettlement Scheme No. VI
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dismissing a revision petition concerning the transfer of a vacant site comprised in Khasra No. 1134 in Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner Managing Committee of a mosque had the locus standi as an aggrieved person to challenge a transfer of the plot made in favour of a displaced person under Settlement Scheme No. VI prior to the introduction of the Religious Property Scheme, and whether the site in dispute constituted a religious institution. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, having failed to apply for the plot under Settlement Scheme No. VI at the relevant time, was not an aggrieved person and lacked locus standi to challenge the completed transfer, and that the residence of an Imam did not qualify as a religious institution under the Religious Property Scheme. The key principle laid down is that a party lacking a subsisting legal interest or failing to contest at the relevant time cannot subsequently challenge a finalized property transfer, and a residential structure for a mosque's Imam separated from the mosque does not convert into a religious institution or an educational institution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an association that failed to apply for property transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VI has locus standi to challenge a transfer made to another party?
  • Does the residence of an Imam constructed on a separate plot qualify as a religious institution under the Religious Property Scheme?
  • Whether an order of transfer passed by a competent Settlement Authority is void ab initio merely due to procedural irregularities or association of an Additional Settlement Commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Mamoori Alias Mamoora vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 816 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-09Read full judgment →
• Malik Habibur Rehman vs Siddique Ahmad Khan and 2 Other1972 PLD Lahore 8 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-01
  unfair meansdisciplinary committeeuniversity examinationnatural justicedisqualificationright to silencewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the disciplinary orders of the University of the Punjab disqualifying the petitioner for one year for allegedly using unfair means and possessing unauthorized papers during an M.A. Examination. The core legal questions concerned whether a candidate's refusal to make a written statement to a Centre Superintendent constitutes an independent punishable offense under university regulations, and whether mere possession of unspecified 'objectionable' materials without proper inquiry or evidence of their relevance to the examination subject can sustain an order of disqualification. The Lahore High Court held that a candidate under scrutiny has no legal obligation to provide an inculpatory statement on demand and that failure to do so cannot be treated as an act of disobedience under Regulation 18. Furthermore, the Court held that the disciplinary orders were vitiated by a lack of proper inquiry, absence of evidence establishing the relevance of the missing recovered documents, and violations of natural justice. The impugned orders were consequently declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate's refusal to make a statement before a Centre Superintendent when accused of using unfair means constitute an independent punishable offense of disobedience under university regulations?
  • Can a student be legally penalized for possessing unauthorized papers when the alleged documents are lost and there is no evidence establishing their relevance to the examination subject?
  • Whether the failure of a Centre Superintendent to expel a candidate from the examination hall creates a material circumstance affecting the validity of subsequent disciplinary proceedings for possession of unfair means material?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodul Hasan vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Ministry of Industries and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 Others1972 PLC 563 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-29Read full judgment →
• M. Rashid Ahmad vs National & Grindlays Bank Ltd. and Another1972 PLC 48 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-03Read full judgment →
• M. Ibrahim vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Home and Kashmir Affairs (Home Affairs Division), Islamabad1972 PLD Lahore 60 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-01Read full judgment →
• M. Anwar, Barrister-at-Law vs The Station House Officer, Civil Lines, Police Station, Lahore and Another1972 PLD Lahore 493 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-24
  first information reportcognizable offencestatutory dutypolice officerLetters Patentpreliminary investigationcriminal administration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under clause 22 of the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court was filed by a practicing barrister alleging that the Station House Officer failed to register a criminal case against the former President of Pakistan upon a written information detailing cognizable offences including murder, treason, and conspiracy. The core legal question concerned the statutory duty of a police officer under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to record information relating to a cognizable offence and the High Court's jurisdiction to order a preliminary investigation. The Full Bench held that upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, a police officer is under a mandatory statutory obligation to enter it in the prescribed register, and such registration does not depend upon the officer's discretion or assessment of its correctness. Since a formal FIR was registered during the proceedings, the petition was disposed of as having borne fruit. The key principle established is that the duty to record a first information report under section 154 is absolute upon receiving information of a cognizable offence, provided it constitutes an accusation intended to set the police machinery in motion.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police officer under a statutory obligation to record information relating to a cognizable offence under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the registration of a first information report depend on the discretionary will or opinion of a police officer regarding its correctness?
  • What are the conditions precedent for recording a first information report under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the High Court have the power under clause 22 of the Letters Patent to direct a preliminary investigation into cognizable offences where no investigation has been initiated?
  Read full judgment →
• Lyallpur Cotton Mills, Lyallpur vs Maqsood Ali and 16 Others1972 PLC 448 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-05Read full judgment →
• Layallpur Cotton Mills, Layallpur vs Maqsood Ali and 16 Other1972 PLD Lahore 864 · Lahore High Court · 1972-06-05Read full judgment →
• Lal Hussain vs Amir Muhammad Khan and Another1972 PLD Lahore 256 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-18Read full judgment →
• Lahore Divisional Superintendent, P. W. R., Lahore vs Muhammad Naseer-1972 PLC 403 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-03Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs Muhammad Sadiq and Another1972 PLD Lahore 716 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-06Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 51 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-07Read full judgment →
• Khitab Khan vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 380 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-01Read full judgment →
• Khan Umar Khan vs (1) Market Committee, Jhelum and (2) the State1972 PLD Lahore 497 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-31
  quashment of proceedingscantonment arealegislative competencepith and substance doctrinemarket committeeagricultural produce marketsprovincial legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for alleged evasion of market fees under rules framed pursuant to the Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939. The core legal question was whether a Provincial Legislature lacks the competence to extend a provincial enactment like the said Act to a cantonment area, given the Central Legislature's exclusive powers over cantonments under Item 1(e) of the Third Schedule read with Article 131 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962. The Lahore High Court held that the proceedings could competently be challenged under section 561-A and that the impugned extension was valid, applying the doctrine of 'pith and substance' to determine the true nature and character of the legislation. The Court laid down that provincial laws enacted within their proper legislative domain—such as agriculture and markets—are not invalidated merely because they incidentally affect cantonment areas, and that the Central Legislature's power over cantonment local authorities is primarily related to the Defence of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Can a citizen invoke section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge the validity of a law and seek quashing of criminal proceedings?
  • Does the extension of a provincial agricultural market law to a cantonment area violate the Central Legislature's exclusive legislative powers under the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
  • How is the true nature and character of a statute determined when a conflict of legislative competence arises between provincial and central domains?
  • Does the power of the Central Legislature to regulate local self-government in cantonment areas entirely exclude Provincial Legislatures from legislating on matters otherwise within their provincial domain?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Azizul Hassan Khan vs Haji Muhammad Ismail1972 PLD Lahore 142 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-15
  statutory tenancyejectment applicationnotice of demandcontracting out of statuteestoppel against statuteProvisional Transfer Orderrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment petition filed by a landlord who acquired property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant based on an alleged default in rent and a previous compromise agreement wherein the tenant purportedly agreed to vacate the premises. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the Appellate Court remanded the case to determine whether statutory notices under Section 30 of the 1958 Act were served. Before the High Court, the landlord argued that the statutory tenancy was replaced by a fresh contractual tenancy through the compromise, and that the tenant was estopped from pleading lack of statutory notice. The High Court held that statutory tenancy created by Section 30 cannot be contracted out of, making any contrary agreement void. Serving a notice of demand is a mandatory condition precedent for claiming eviction on the ground of default. Finding it admitted that no notice of demand was issued for the default period, the High Court dismissed the landlord's ejectment application.

  Questions settled

  • Can parties contract out of the statutory tenancy created under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Is a notice of demand under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 a mandatory precondition for seeking eviction on grounds of rent default?
  • Can the plea of estoppel be invoked against the mandatory provisions of a statute regulating public policy?
  • Is the court obligated to apply a relevant law based on admitted or proved facts even if a party failed to explicitly plead it in its written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Rashid and Another vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 729 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-25Read full judgment →
• Khalid Rasheed and 2 Other vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 722 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-07Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Ilyas And 5 Others1972 P Cr. L J 657 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-08Read full judgment →
• Kazim Hussain Shah And 4 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-31Read full judgment →
• Jahan vs Ghulam Muhammad1972 P Cr. L J 640 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-06Read full judgment →
• Izharul Haq vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-11Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs S. A. M. Khan and 35 Other1972 PLD Lahore 682 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-14
  usufructuary mortgagerestitution of mortgaged landextinctive prescriptionlimitation periodredemption of mortgagewrit jurisdictionsubsisting mortgage
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged orders passed by revenue authorities concerning the restitution of mortgaged land under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964. The core legal question was whether a petition for restitution of a usufructuary mortgage is maintainable when the right to redeem the mortgage is time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that a petition under Section 10 of the 1964 Act is not competent if the limitation period for a redemption suit under Article 148 of the Limitation Act, 1908, has expired. The Court established that the expiry of the limitation period for a suit for possession of mortgaged property, pursuant to Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908, operates as extinctive prescription. This process extinguishes the mortgagor's substantive right and title to the property. Consequently, the Collector lacks jurisdiction to order restitution for a mortgage that is no longer subsisting due to the bar of limitation. The impugned orders remanding the case for determination of the mortgage's age were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expiry of the limitation period for a suit for possession of mortgaged property extinguish the mortgagor's substantive right to the property?
  • Is a petition for restitution of a usufructuary mortgage maintainable under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964, if the mortgage is no longer subsisting due to the bar of limitation?
  • Does the Additional Commissioner have the authority to hear appeals against orders of the Collector under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Inam Ur Rehman Khan vs Muhammad Bashir1972 P Cr. L J 969 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ilyas And 2 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 20 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-17Read full judgment →
• Ibne Hassan vs Government of West Pakistan through Secretary of Services & General Administration Department, Lahore and 4 Others1972 PLC 396 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ibne Hassan vs Government of West Pakistan through Secretary of Services & General Administration Department, Lahore and 4 Other1972 PLD Lahore 294 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hilal Mutual Insurance Company Ltd., Lahore and Another vs Pakistan1972 PLD Lahore 471 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-15Read full judgment →
• Hassan Din And 2 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 944 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Rafique vs The State1972 PCr. L J 1101 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Jamal Khan vs Thf, State and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 363 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-09
  superdaricustody of vehiclecriminal revisionseized propertyphysical possessionmotor vehicles ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal revisions arose from a dispute regarding the custody of a seized truck under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the principles governing the release of seized property on superdari to a claimant versus retention by the police pending trial, particularly when ownership or title is disputed. The Lahore High Court held that for the purposes of superdari under sections 516-A and 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the property should ordinarily be restored to the person from whom it was seized or who was last in physical possession through an employee, regardless of underlying civil disputes concerning title or registration under the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965. The court established that an Assistant Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to nullify valid prior superdari orders or withhold seized property from the person last in lawful possession merely because ownership is contested, directing any rival claimant to seek resolution in a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • What are the powers of a criminal court in respect of the disposal and custody of a vehicle under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should seized property be handed over to the person from whose possession it was taken if no offence is proved in respect of the property itself?
  • Does a dispute regarding the ownership or title of a vehicle serve as a valid ground for refusing to release it on superdari to the person last in possession?
  • Can an Assistant Commissioner nullify earlier superdari orders passed by a court of competent jurisdiction regarding seized property?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ali vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 28 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-13Read full judgment →
• Haider And 6 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 938 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-28Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmed vs The State and Another1972 PLD Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-27Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs The Chairman, Road Transport Corporation, Lahore1972 PLC 614 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-10Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs Chairman, Road Transport Corporation Lahore1972 PLC 474 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and 6 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 565 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad And 2 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 993 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 153 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-16
  grave and sudden provocationculpable homicidestrangulationbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his sister. The prosecution alleged the appellant strangled the deceased, a tuberculosis patient, following her previous elopement with the complainant's brother. While the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the appellant contended that the act occurred under grave and sudden provocation. The High Court observed that the prosecution witnesses did not witness the actual act of strangulation, leaving the precise circumstances preceding the death uncertain. Applying the principle that where two interpretations of a situation are possible, the one favorable to the accused must be preferred, the Court held that the possibility of the deceased having provoked the appellant through defiant threats could not be excluded. Consequently, the Court ruled that the case fell within the purview of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The conviction was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on grave and sudden provocation if the plea was not specifically raised at trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt where two reasonable interpretations of the facts exist?
  • Does the act of a sibling killing a sister following a provocative threat regarding her immoral conduct fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Habib vs The State and 2 Other1972 PLD Lahore 158 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-11Read full judgment →
• Ftikhar Ali Razi vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 189 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-11Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad and Another vs N/A1972 P Cr. L J 422 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-25Read full judgment →
• Fazal Karim vs Parveen Akhtar And Another1972 P Cr. L J 185 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-25Read full judgment →
• Fazal Haq Khan And 4 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-31Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 179 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-26Read full judgment →
• Farzan Ali vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 282 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-03Read full judgment →
• Faqir M Uh Am Mad vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 673 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-12Read full judgment →
• Fakharuddin Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 62 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-15Read full judgment →
• Faiz And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 895 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-12Read full judgment →
• DR. Munawar Hussain Chaudhry vs Central Public Service1972 PLC 624 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-03Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, P. W. R., Lahore vs Muhammad Naseer Ud Din1972 PLD Lahore 301 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-03Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad And 4 Others vs I Thb State1972 P Cr. L J 1229 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-06Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad and 3 Other vs Boota and Another1972 PLD Lahore 709 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi vs Messrs1972 PLD Lahore 773 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore-Applicant vs S.1972 PTD 587 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore vs S. Mubarak1972 PLD Lahore 787 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Yunous vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 Other1972 PLD Lahore 847 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-06
  locus standiwrit jurisdictionaggrieved personenemy propertytender processpro bono publicoadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the sale of property declared as "enemy property" by the Custodian of Enemy Property to a foreign banking institution, arguing that the respondent was ineligible under tender instructions and that the petitioner, as a taxpayer, had standing to challenge the administrative action. The Lahore High Court examined whether the petitioner, as an unsuccessful bidder and taxpayer, qualified as an "aggrieved person" under Article 98 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1962. The Court held that an advertisement inviting tenders constitutes an invitation to offer, not an offer itself, and no binding contract arises until a tender is formally accepted. Consequently, the petitioner possessed no vested right or personal interest in the property. The Court further ruled that a taxpayer cannot maintain a petition pro bono publico without demonstrating a specific personal interest or legal injury. The principle established is that to invoke writ jurisdiction, a petitioner must show a direct personal interest in the performance of a legal duty, rather than a general interest shared with the public. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an advertisement inviting tenders constitute a binding offer or merely an invitation to treat?
  • Can a taxpayer maintain a writ petition challenging administrative action without demonstrating a specific personal interest or legal injury?
  • Does an unsuccessful bidder have locus standi to challenge the sale of property by a public authority?
  • What constitutes an 'aggrieved person' for the purpose of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Sham and 8 Other vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1972 PLD Lahore 187 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-20
  evacuee trust propertycharitable institutioncompensation poolwrit petitiondisplaced personsdedicationfree hospital
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected writ petitions challenging orders concerning the disposal of a property in Lahore under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, on the ground that it was an evacuee trust property attached to a charitable institution (a free hospital). The core legal question was whether the property was validly determined to be attached to a charitable institution and excluded from the compensation pool under section 4(3) of the Act, despite the absence of a formal written trust deed. The court held that under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, a property need not be held strictly in trust but is required only to be attached to a charitable, religious, or educational institution to be excluded from the compensation pool. The key legal principle laid down is that the expression "property attached to a charitable, religious or educational trust or institution" under the 1958 Act differs distinctively from a formal public trust under the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, and can be established through clear and unequivocal owner intent, conduct, and continuous user prior to Partition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a property must be held in a formal written trust or if being attached to a charitable institution suffices to exclude it from the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Does the absence of a formal trust deed negate the finding that a property was attached to a charitable institution before Partition?
  • Can a finding of fact by the Chief Settlement Commissioner's delegatee regarding the status of an evacuee property be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution if it is neither fanciful nor arbitrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Hayee vs The State and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 1231 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Burhanuddin vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 7 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-04Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1972 PCr. L J 81 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-13Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali Mirza vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 511 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-17Read full judgment →
• Barkat vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 486 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-12Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Ghulam Nabi and Another1972 PLD Lahore 183 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-13Read full judgment →
• Bakhu vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 131 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-08Read full judgment →
• Baj Din and Another vs Din Muhammad and 2 Other1972 PLD Lahore 567 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-17
  pre-emption suitevacuee propertycompensation poolDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Actprovisional permanent allotteejurisdiction of civil courtslimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a pre-emption suit filed in respect of agricultural land sold on 30th October 1964, which was originally evacuee property allotted to the vendor under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The core legal question addressed by the court is whether a pre-emption suit regarding land that was part of the compensation pool at the time of sale is barred by section 6 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and whether such a suit becomes competent after the property ceases to be part of the compensation pool. The Lahore High Court held that section 6 of the Act bars suits only against property currently forming part of the compensation pool and does not permanently immunize property that was once part of it. The court laid down the principle that a pre-emptor must show the right of pre-emption on the date of sale, the date of the suit, and the date of the decree, and a suit for pre-emption is maintainable once the statutory bar or defect is removed, provided the suit is within limitation. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit is barred by section 6 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, if the land was part of the compensation pool at the time of sale but subsequently ceased to be so?
  • Does the acquisition of property by the Central Government under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, extinguish all evacuee interest in it?
  • Can a suit initially barred by a statutory restriction be continued or freshly instituted after the removal of that bar, provided it is within limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahar Khan And 2 Others vs The State1972 PCr. L J 411 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-14Read full judgment →
• B. A. Waien and 18 Other vs Col. Ehsan Ul Haq, Chairman, Border1972 PLD Lahore 273 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-15Read full judgment →
• Azimulllah vs Sped Shaukat Ali and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 306 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-07Read full judgment →
• Ayub Khan vs Mst. Balqees Begum1972 PLD Lahore 686 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-06Read full judgment →
• Athar Khan and 2 Other vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 19 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-25
  constructive liabilitycommon intentionmurdergrievous hurtfree fightcriminal assaultplea of self-defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court arises from criminal appeals and a revision petition concerning a violent clash between two neighbouring families in District Multan, which resulted in one death and multiple injuries. The core legal question involved the scope and applicability of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code in determining constructive liability for murder and grievous hurt where an unpremeditated fight ensued following a minor local dispute, and whether a common intention to commit murder could be inferred from the circumstances. The court held that the appellants did not share a common intention to commit murder, as evidenced by the specific weapons used and the careful employment of the blunt side of a hatchet by one of the assailants, but that their common intention extended to causing grievous hurt. The court set aside the murder convictions under section 302 read with section 34, while upholding the conviction of the principal offender for murder under section 302 simpliciter and maintaining convictions under section 326 read with section 34 for causing grievous hurt. The key principle laid down is that section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code requires strict proof of a pre-arranged plan and a common intention directed precisely towards the crime actually committed, and vicarious liability cannot be extended to a capital offence merely because an unlawful enterprise resulted in a death, unless the shared intention encompassed that specific consequence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be invoked to sustain a conviction for murder when the common intention of the accused persons did not extend beyond causing hurt or grievous hurt?
  • Does the use of the blunt side of a cutting weapon during an assault negative the presence of an intention to cause death?
  • How does the scope of constructive liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code differ from that under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether multiple accused persons participating in a sudden, unpremeditated assault can be held constructively liable for the specific fatal act committed independently by one of the co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ata-Ul-Haq vs Qamar Ur Rahim and 2 Other1972 PLD Lahore 505 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-22Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 609 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-13Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs Syed Panah Ali Shah and Another1972 PLC 556 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 90 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-14Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 530 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-20Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 841 · Lahore High Court · 1972-01-13Read full judgment →
• Allah D1tta And 2 Others vs Thp State1972 P Cr.L J 427 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh And 2 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 761 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachaya vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 162 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-20Read full judgment →
• Alimad Bakush vs Tub State--1972 P Cr. L J 279 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-14Read full judgment →