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.

• Ali Muhammad vs Hakim Muhammad Shafi1972 PLD Lahore 751 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-14Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1972-04-10Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Noor And 5 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 910 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 30 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan And 4 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 877 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-08Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Khalid and Another vs The State1972 PLD Lahore 90 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs Zulqarna1n, Additional Deputy Commissioner1972 P Cr. L J 177 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 503 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Alias Dadda vs Khan Iqbal Ahmad Khan Lodhi, P.C.S., District Tribunal, Lahore and Another1972 PLD Lahore 41 · Lahore High Court
  control of goondasimplied repealdistrict tribunalrevisional jurisdictiondouble jeopardyacquittal as evidenceshow-cause noticepreventive detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This full bench reference arises from numerous revision petitions under section 19 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, wherein a learned Single Judge referred twelve questions of law for determination. The core legal questions involve the interpretation of the 1959 Ordinance regarding the constitutionality of multiple tribunals within a single district, the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction, the nature of hearings required under section 14(2), the use of prior acquittals or insufficient material as evidence, and whether a person brought before the Tribunal is an accused person. The court held that the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 does not impliedly repeal the 1959 Ordinance, that only one tribunal can be legally established per district, that proceedings under the Ordinance do not constitute a criminal trial rendering the person an accused, and that the High Court's revisional powers are confined to jurisdictional errors. The key principles laid down include the strict construction of special statutes regarding district tribunals, the permissibility of utilizing prior acquittal records as evidence without constituting double jeopardy, and the limitations on High Court review of factual findings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the enactment of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 impliedly repeals the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959?
  • Whether it is permissible under the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959 to constitute more than one Tribunal in a district?
  • What is the exact nature of the hearing to be afforded to a Goonda under subsection (2) of section 14 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, and does it postulate a formal show-cause notice?
  • Whether a person brought before a Tribunal under the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959 is an accused person?
  • Can an order of acquittal by a criminal Court be used as evidence for making an order under section 13 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid And 2 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 796 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Khan vs The State and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 714 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Superintendent, District Jail, Lahore and 2 otherss1972 P Cr. L J 1220 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 188 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and 57 Other vs The Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 35 Other1972 PLD Lahore 530 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1095 · Lahore High Court
  rash and negligent drivingcausationpost-mortem examinationgrievous hurtcriminal revisionmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought revision of his conviction under Section 304-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for causing death by rash and negligent driving. The core legal question was whether a conviction for causing death could be sustained when no post-mortem examination was conducted to establish the direct causal link between the injuries sustained and the victim's subsequent death. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the injuries were the immediate, proximate, and efficient cause of death due to the absence of an autopsy. Consequently, the conviction under Section 304-A was set aside. However, because the medical evidence clearly established the existence of grievous injuries, the Court altered the conviction to Section 338, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principle laid down is that for a conviction under Section 304-A, the prosecution must provide medical evidence establishing the injuries as the causa causans of death; a failure to perform a post-mortem examination creates a fatal lacuna that precludes a conviction for causing death.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of a post-mortem examination?
  • Is a post-mortem examination necessary to establish the causal link between injuries and death in a prosecution for rash and negligent driving?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction from Section 304-A to Section 338 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on proven grievous hurt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif And 2 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 353 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Butt vs Abdul Qayyum And Another1972 PCr. L J 1182 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Tub State1972 P Cr. L J 521 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Sardar-Muhammad and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 183 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khan vs (1) Government of Pakistan, and (2) Central1972 PLD Lahore 336 · Lahore High Court · 1971-12-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Alias Ghafoora vs The State1972 PCr. L J 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1972-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Elahi vs Thb State1972 P Cr. L J 973 · Lahore High Court · 1972-02-17Read full judgment →
• A.R. Soofi vs Water and Power Development Authority1972 PLC 568 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-02Read full judgment →
• A. R. Soofi vs Water & Power Development Authority1972 PLD Lahore 718 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-02Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The State-.Respondent1971 P Cr. L J 244 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-23Read full judgment →
• Yusuf and 3 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 257 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-15Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan and Another vs The State and 3 OTHERSs1971 P Cr. L J 266 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-26
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powerstheft of cropssuperdarcriminal investigationabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged theft of crops. The core legal question concerns whether the removal of crops sown by persons in possession of disputed land, where the appointment of a superdar over the produce lacks lawful authority, constitutes the offense of theft. The Lahore High Court held that in the absence of lawful authority empowering revenue officers to entrust the crop to a superdar, the petitioners remained entitled to the produce they had sown and maintained, rendering the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of the process of the court. The court laid down the principle that High Courts possess the inherent power under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings even at the investigation stage in appropriate cases, and that harvesting crops grown while in lawful possession does not constitute theft.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at the investigation stage?
  • Does the removal of a crop by a person in possession amount to theft when the appointment of a superdar over the produce is without lawful sanction?
  • Are criminal proceedings liable to be quashed if they constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Warms Iqbal and Another vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1971 PLD Lahore 1020 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State and Others1971 PLD Lahore 433 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-16
  government land leasediscretionary poweradministrative lawrenewal of leasepublic intereststatutory interpretationfettering of discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several writ petitions challenging the Collector's refusal to renew government land leases granted under the Pedigree Livestock Breeding Scheme. The petitioners contended that the renewal clause in the Statement of Conditions, using the word "may," created a mandatory obligation for renewal, and that a government Memorandum altering the renewal policy was invalid for lack of formal notification. The Court held that the word "may" confers discretionary power rather than a mandatory duty, particularly as the petitioners held no vested right to renewal. The Court affirmed that public authorities cannot fetter their future executive discretion by contract or prior policy, as they must remain free to act in the public interest. Furthermore, the Court ruled that administrative instructions issued by a controlling authority, such as the Board of Revenue, possess the force of law and effectively guide the exercise of discretion. Consequently, such instructions do not require formal Gazette notification unless explicitly mandated by statute. The petitions were dismissed, upholding the Collector's authority to align renewal decisions with current government policy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the word "may" in a lease renewal clause create a mandatory legal duty for the authority to renew the lease?
  • Can a public authority fetter its future executive discretion by entering into contracts or policies that limit its ability to act in the public interest?
  • Do administrative instructions issued by a controlling authority regarding land allotment have the force of law?
  • Is formal Gazette notification required for administrative instructions that modify existing conditions of a government land grant?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and 2 Others vs Inam-Ul-Hassan Khan and 5 Others1971 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-02
  letters patent appeallimitation and condonation of delaybig mansion transferdisplaced persons compensation and rehabilitationdelegation of powerssuo motu reviewwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal calls in question a judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants' writ petition, which challenged the transfer of a big mansion ('Dinga Singh Building') through private negotiations under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal questions involved whether the transfer order passed by a Settlement Commissioner (Industries) without formal Gazette notification delegation under section 31(2) was valid, whether a delegatee could review or dispose of the matter upon transfer under section 32-A, and whether the appeal was barred by time. The Lahore High Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation as no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was shown, and further held on merits that although the initial delegation lacked a Gazette notification, the appellants were precluded from challenging it in subsequent proceedings due to their earlier conduct and departmental practice, and that the Settlement Commissioner lawfully exercised review powers under the applicable notifications and discretion. The court established that a party cannot belatedly challenge an administrative action in subsequent rounds of litigation when it was omitted in earlier challenges, and that departmental practice and subsequent notifications validate the exercise of delegated powers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Letters Patent Appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation can be condoned on the ground of a fluid state of law or mistaken legal advice regarding the maintainability of appeals?
  • Can an officer to whom powers have not been formally delegated by a Gazette notification exercise the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 10(b) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Whether a party is precluded from challenging an administrative order on jurisdictional grounds in subsequent writ proceedings if such grounds were omitted in an earlier writ petition involving the same subject matter?
  • Is a Settlement Commissioner competent to review an order passed by a predecessor who exercised delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 557 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-06Read full judgment →
• Tufail Muhammad vs Nisar Ahmad and Another1971 PLD Lahore 48 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Salehoon--Accused1971 PLD Lahore 292 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-13
  Section 429 CrPC referencedifference of opinionappeal against acquittalocular evidencecorroborationrecovery of weapontransportation for lifecommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference arose under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following a difference of opinion between two Division Bench Judges regarding the acquittal of respondent Salehoon in a State appeal against acquittal for multiple murders under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal questions involved the scope of duty and powers of a third referee judge under Section 429, the standard for reversing an acquittal, and whether direct ocular testimony required independent corroboration when other co-accused were granted the benefit of doubt without a finding of false implication. The High Court held that a third judge under Section 429 has the power and duty to examine the whole case afresh independently and is not bound to lean in favour of acquittal. It found the ocular evidence of natural and related eyewitnesses credible, further corroborated by motive, the respondent's proximity to the crime scene, and the recovery of a weapon. Consequently, the High Court set aside Salehoon's acquittal, convicted him under Section 302/34, and sentenced him to concurrent terms of transportation for life.

  Questions settled

  • What is the duty and scope of powers of a third judge to whom a criminal case is referred under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon a difference of opinion between two appellate judges?
  • Is a third judge acting under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 obliged as a matter of law or prudence to adopt the opinion favouring acquittal?
  • Does the granting of the benefit of doubt to certain co-accused necessitate independent corroboration before acting upon the same eyewitness testimony against another accused?
  • Under what principles may the High Court reverse an order of acquittal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Akram1971 P Cr. L J 1125 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-26Read full judgment →
• The State vs Faiz Muhammad and Another1971 P Cr. L J 264 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-24Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ejaz Mahmood and 4 Others1971 PLD Lahore 445 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-30Read full judgment →
• The State through Collector, Central Excise & Land Customs, Lahqre1971 P Cr. L J 965 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-08Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, North Zone (West Pakistan), Lahore1971 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-20Read full judgment →
• The Colony Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore vs The West Pakistan Labour1971 PLD Lahore 348 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-30Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad and 4 Otherss vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 592 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah and 16 Others vs Ch. Muhammad Hassan, D. S. C., West Pakistan and Another1971 PLD Lahore 108 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-29
  land settlementalienee rightscancellation of allotmentaudi alteram partemnatural justicevested rightsdisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a settlement revision petition challenging the cancellation of land allotments originally confirmed in favour of certain allottees who subsequently sold the land to the petitioners. The core legal question is whether bona fide alienees of agricultural land, whose vendors' allotments were cancelled for alleged misrepresentation, are entitled to a hearing under the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions before an adverse order is passed. The Lahore High Court held that the alienees acquired a valid vested right upon purchase, as there was no legal bar against the transfer of confirmed agricultural land under the relevant scheme. The Court ruled that the alienees qualified as 'persons affected' under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and were entitled to notice and an opportunity of being heard (audi alteram partem). Consequently, the impugned orders cancelling the allotment without hearing the alienee-petitioners were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision after affording a hearing to both the vendors and the alienees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bona fide alienee of agricultural land whose vendor's allotment is cancelled is entitled to a pre-decisional hearing under the principles of natural justice?
  • Does an alienee of confirmed agricultural land acquire a vested right upon transfer under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
  • Who constitutes a 'person affected' entitled to a hearing under the proviso to Section 11(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Whether the cancellation of an allottee's land allotment on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation automatically avoids the subsequent sale made to an alienee without notice to the latter?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shakir Hussain and 4 Others vs Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and 5 Others1971 PLD Lahore 578 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Mazhar Ali Shah--Plaintiff vs Agricultural Development Bank of1971 PLD Lahore 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Ishtiaq Hussain vs Syed Niaz Ali and ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 1103 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Hussain Shah vs Shamasuddin and ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 703 · Lahore High Court · 1971-01-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Qadeer vs Mirza Ishtiaq Hussain1971 P Cr. L J 537 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sumra and Another vs THB State1971 P Cr. L J 739 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-27Read full judgment →
• Suleman and 3 Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, Lahore and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 77 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-01
  evacuee propertymortgage by conditional saleright of redemptionclog on redemptionlimitation periodcustodian of evacuee propertyadverse possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 98 was filed to challenge an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property holding that disputed agricultural land mortgaged by a non-Muslim owner in 1888 remained evacuee property subject to the mortgagees' right to receive the mortgage amount. The petitioners contended that under the terms of the mortgage by conditional sale, the land automatically transferred to them after seven years, or alternatively that the right of redemption was extinguished by limitation. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the transaction constituted a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, where the principle 'once a mortgage always a mortgage' applies under Section 60, rendering any clause clogging redemption invalid. Furthermore, because the equity of redemption vested in the Custodian as evacuee property on 1st March 1947, prior to the expiration of the sixty-year limitation period, time ceased to run against the Custodian by virtue of Section 5 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957, preserving the right to redeem indefinitely.

  Questions settled

  • Does a stipulation in a mortgage deed converting a mortgage into an absolute sale upon non-payment operate as an invalid clog on the equity of redemption?
  • Does limitation stop running against the Custodian of Evacuee Property once the equity of redemption vests in the Custodian prior to the expiry of the redemption period?
  • Can the Custodian exercise suo motu powers of revision without being restricted by the period of limitation prescribed for review petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Siraj and Another vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 182 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-24Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 236 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-20Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and Another vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 381 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-30Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Atta Muhammad vs Mian Muhammad Abdullah and 10 Others1971 PLD Lahore 210 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-08
  fair renturban rent restrictionarbitration awardsecond appealfinding of factvires of ordinanceconstitutional protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil second appeal arises from a dispute regarding the fixation of fair rent for a shop located in Lyallpur, leased to the appellant since 1948. The core legal questions involved the constitutional vires of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the effect of a prior arbitration award and agreement on the Rent Controller's power to fix fair rent, and the competency of interfering with a finding of fact in second appeal under section 15 of the said Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is a valid piece of legislation protected under Article 225 of the 1962 Constitution despite lacking subsequent legislative approval. It further held that the Rent Controller retains the power to fix fair rent under section 4 notwithstanding any prior agreement or arbitration award, and that a finding of fact regarding fair rent by the lower appellate Court, based on a consideration of the entire evidence, cannot be disturbed in second appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is a valid piece of legislation despite lacking subsequent legislative approval under the 1962 Constitution?
  • Does a prior arbitration award and subsequent lease agreement oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to fix fair rent under section 4 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a finding of fact regarding the fixation of fair rent by the lower appellate Court be interfered with in second appeal under section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali and S Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 109 · Lahore High Court · 1970-08-03Read full judgment →
• Shamim A. Tariq and 2 Others vs The State1971 PCr. L J 609 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-13Read full judgment →
• Shameem Ajmal vs The State1971 P. Cr. L J 23 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-16Read full judgment →
• Shahu and 7 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 138 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-30Read full judgment →
• Shah Mohammad vs Haq Nawaz1971 P Cr. L J 610 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-02Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Nasir Ahmad Piracha vs S. M. Almas Ali, Advocate1971 PLD Lahore 131 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-10Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Hussain and 5 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-26Read full judgment →
• Sh. Allah Diva Saleem vs Abdul Qadeer1971 PLD Lahore 311 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-29Read full judgment →
• Sh. Ahmad vs Sh. Muhammad Yunus1971 P Cr. L J 331 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-23
  quashing of criminal proceedingsstay of criminal proceedingscivil and criminal litigationconflicting decisionstransfer of civil suitsbusiness disputes
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves connected civil and criminal litigation between the same parties arising from business transactions, including a criminal complaint under sections 406, 417, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code and multiple civil suits for recovery and rendition of accounts. The core legal questions relate to whether criminal proceedings should be quashed or stayed pending the outcome of related civil litigation. The Lahore High Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because civil litigation is pending between the parties. However, to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions and to balance the interests of justice, the court laid down the principle that criminal proceedings intimately connected with civil matters may be stayed until the decision of the civil suits, provided appropriate measures are taken for the expeditious disposal and consolidation of the related civil cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed simply on the ground that civil litigation is also pending between the parties?
  • Whether criminal proceedings should be stayed till the disposal of connected civil cases to avoid conflicting decisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz and 4 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 205 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-26
  murderconstructive liabilitychance witnessesconcealment of evidencedeath sentencetransportation for lifeocular testimonycriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions for murder and rioting. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of chance witnesses, the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for moving a dead body, and the appropriateness of the death penalty when the specific fatal shot could not be attributed to a particular accused. The Court held that the ocular testimony, though involving chance witnesses, was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence and recovery of incriminating items. However, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, ruling that the open parading of the deceased's body did not constitute the concealment or disappearance of evidence required by the statute. Regarding sentencing, the Court held that where multiple accused are convicted under Section 302/149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the fatal shot cannot be identified, the death sentence should be substituted with transportation for life. The State’s appeal against acquittals was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere removal of a dead body from the place of occurrence constitute the offense of causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the death penalty appropriate for multiple accused convicted under Section 302/149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, when the specific fatal shot cannot be attributed to any individual?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses be relied upon if it is corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Alias Kaka vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 659 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar Mohammad vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 621 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-30Read full judgment →
• Samuel Sherriff vs Rita Moody and Another1971 PLD Lahore 215 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-12Read full judgment →
• Salehon vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 224 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-05Read full judgment →
• Said Akbar vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1108 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-23Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Masih vs Ghulam Mohayuddin and Another1971 P Cr. L J 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-05Read full judgment →
• S. Zahid Ali vs Wah Cantt. and Another1971 PLD Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-22Read full judgment →
• Riaz Khan vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 575 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-10Read full judgment →
• Rashid Alias Kaka vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 976 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 782 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sardar and Another vs Sultan and 3 Others1971 PLD Lahore 690 · Lahore High Court · 1971-01-28Read full judgment →
• Rajba vs Lala and Another1971 PLD Lahore 1056 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-15Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Alam vs Mst. Akbari Begum and Another1971 PLD Lahore 164 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-12Read full judgment →
• Rai Bashir Ahmad vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 255 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-11Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs The State -1971 P Cr. L J 269 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-04Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs Khalil-U R-Rehman1971 PLD Lahore 517 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-09
  transfer of suitcontempt of courtreasonable apprehension of biasjudicial impartialitycivil procedureshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 sought the transfer of a civil suit from the Court of a Civil Judge on the grounds of apprehended bias. The petitioner alleged that the trial judge acted with prejudice by issuing a show-cause notice for contempt of court after the petitioner claimed the defendant had boasted of having influence over the court regarding an interim injunction. The core legal question was whether the mere initiation of contempt proceedings by a trial judge against a party constitutes sufficient grounds for transferring the case to another court due to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the issuance of a show-cause notice is a standard judicial procedure to maintain court decorum and does not, by itself, indicate bias or justify transfer. The court established that for a transfer to be granted, there must be a reasonable apprehension of partiality, and the mere initiation of contempt proceedings, which is an extraordinary jurisdiction intended to protect the purity of justice, does not satisfy this test.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere issuance of a show-cause notice for contempt of court by a trial judge constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a case?
  • What is the legal test for determining whether a party has a reasonable apprehension of bias justifying the transfer of a case?
  • Is the power of contempt intended to be used as a ground for transferring a case from the court initiating such proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh and 12 Others vs Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) West, Pakistan Lahore and 12 Others1971 PLD Lahore 323 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-31Read full judgment →
• Rahem Bux and Another vs Gul Muhammad and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 746 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-03
  dismissal in defaultrestoration of suitinherent powersvoid orderlimitationact of courtdate of hearingcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from an order of the Civil Judge restoring a suit that had been dismissed for default on a date not fixed for hearing. The suit was adjourned to 30-09-1963 for filing a written statement, but the Reader mistakenly recorded the date in the order sheet as 26-07-1963, on which date the suit was dismissed in default. The plaintiffs applied for restoration on 30-09-1963 upon learning of the dismissal. The primary legal questions were whether the restoration application was time-barred under Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 and whether inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 could be invoked to restore the suit. The High Court held that dismissal on a date not fixed for hearing is ab initio void and a nullity, against which no period of limitation runs. Order IX Rule 9 applies only to dismissals on a date fixed for hearing under Order IX Rule 8; where a suit is dismissed due to a mistake of the court staff, Section 151 CPC is applicable, as no party should suffer due to an act of the court. The revision was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order dismissing a suit in default on a date not fixed for its hearing is ab initio void and a nullity?
  • Does Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to bar an application for restoration of a suit where the dismissal order was a nullity?
  • Whether Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to suits dismissed on a date not fixed for hearing?
  • Can a court exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restore a suit dismissed due to an error of the court staff?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq and 6 Others vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 1118 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-16Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Western Railway, Lahore vs Muhammad Usman1971 PLD Lahore 27 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-04Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Cement Industries Ltd., Rawalpindi vs Teekayef Trading Co.1971 PLD Lahore 522 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-04
  arbitration agreementunstamped documentenlargement of timestamp dutycivil revisionretrospective validation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an order of the Administrative Civil Judge enlarging the time for an arbitrator to make an award under an arbitration agreement. The core legal question concerns whether an unstamped arbitration agreement can be acted upon by an arbitrator and whether subsequent stamping validates prior proceedings retrospectively under the Stamp Act 1899. The Lahore High Court held that an unstamped arbitration agreement is barred from being acted upon under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, and while subsequent stamping validates the agreement from that date, it cannot retrospectively validate arbitration proceedings conducted while the document remained unstamped. The court established that 'acting upon' and 'admission in evidence' are distinct, and Section 36 does not cure the statutory bar against acting upon an unstamped document. Consequently, the revision was accepted and the impugned order setting time extension was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can an unstamped arbitration agreement be legally acted upon by an arbitrator?
  • Does the subsequent stamping of an arbitration agreement validate previous arbitration proceedings conducted while the document was unstamped?
  • Is a civil court required to determine the validity of an arbitration agreement when an application for enlargement of time is filed under section 28 of the Arbitration Act?
  • Does participation in arbitration proceedings estop a party from raising objections regarding the lack of proper stamp duty on the agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Alias Nusri vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1227 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-09Read full judgment →
• Noor vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 371 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-01Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Gahi and 2 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 632 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-21Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and Another vs The State and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 766 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-23Read full judgment →
• Nazabat vs The State and ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 148 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-06Read full judgment →
• Nawab Saadat Hussain Ahd Another vs Muhammad Sulaman1971 P Cr. L J 87 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-04Read full judgment →
• Nawab and 3 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 56 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-05Read full judgment →
• Nausher vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 811 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-04Read full judgment →
• Nasiruddin vs The State and 5 OTHERSs1971 P Cr. L J 555 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-20Read full judgment →
• Nasir Khan vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 47 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-12Read full judgment →
• Naik Muhammad and Another vs Yar Muhammad-Complainant1971 P Cr. L J 927 · Lahore High Court · 1971-01-25Read full judgment →
• Naib Subbdar Lal Khan vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 904 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 988 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-24Read full judgment →
• Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. vs Province of West Pakistan and Another1971 PLD Lahore 317 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-06Read full judgment →
• Munshi and Another--Convict vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 781 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-19
  circumstantial evidencelast seen togethermurder referenceappellate reviewburden of prooffabricationrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the conviction and death sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of the deceased. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, primarily comprising motive, the 'last seen together' testimony, and alleged recoveries of blood-stained garments and the deceased's belongings. The Lahore High Court examined whether the solitary circumstance of the deceased being last seen alive in the company of the accused, coupled with unreliable recoveries and indications of police fabrication in lodging the First Information Report, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The court held that where evidence shows signs of design and fabrication, and where it is not established that the deceased was killed shortly after being seen with the accused, the solitary circumstance of 'last seen together' without reliable corroborative evidence is insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and death sentences, laying down that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence, and the onus to explain subsequent events does not shift to the accused unless proximity of time and exclusive proximity are strictly established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the solitary circumstance of the deceased being last seen alive in the company of the accused is sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of corroborative evidence?
  • Under what circumstances does the onus of explaining the disappearance or death of the deceased shift onto the accused under Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  • Does the discovery of a body after a significant lapse of time from when the deceased was last seen with the accused obligate the accused to account for the intervening period?
  • How should courts evaluate a prosecution case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence when there are clear indications of design and fabrication in the investigative record?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain and 2 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 14 · Lahore High Court · 1970-08-28Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmad vs Mansur Hasan Khan, Secretary to the Government1971 PLD Lahore 530 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-29Read full judgment →