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. 232594 judgments in total.

• Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN GILLANI Versus Saith SAIFULLAH KHAN1988 MLD 1751 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus THE STATE1988 MLD 1504 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
• AMANULLAH Versus THE STATE1987 MLD 3302 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-09-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD LQBAL Versus RIAZ AHMED PIRZADA1990 MLD 1445 · Pakistan Bar Council · 1990-03-14Read full judgment →
• RAZIA BEGUM Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, ADVOCATE1990 MLD 1441 · Pakistan Bar Council · 1990-03-14Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali Versus Additional District Judge, Pattoki2025 MLD 773 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• District Officer Labour Versus Akbar Ali2025 MLD 766 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar (deceased) Versus Shahadat Ali2025 MLD 749 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
• Malik Touqeer Abbas Khokhar Versus Malik Saif-ul-Malook Khokhar2025 MLD 2010 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-11Read full judgment →
• Habal Masih Versus Shahzad Vikcy2025 MLD 2001 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waqas Versus State2025 MLD 1987 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-15
  post-arrest bailstatutory interpretationSchedule-II of Cr.P.C.further inquiryShajjah-i-ammahpenal code vs procedural codemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 324, 337-A(v), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, which necessitated resolving a conflict between the punishment prescribed in Section 337-A(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the entry in Schedule-II of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case warranted further inquiry because the medical evidence regarding the alleged head injury was inconclusive and contradictory. Crucially, the Court laid down the principle that the substantive text of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prevails over the tabular entries in Schedule-II of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding punishment. The Court clarified that Schedule-II serves merely as a reference guide and does not define offenses or punishments, meaning the specific provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 must be followed for sentencing purposes. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the text of a substantive penal statute prevail over the tabular entries in Schedule-II of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding punishment?
  • Is an offense under Section 337-A(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 punishable by 10 years or 14 years imprisonment?
  • Does the absence of immediate medical evidence of an injury support a claim for further inquiry in a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahim Ahmed Saeed Versus Mian Humayun Mahmud2025 MLD 1973 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhamamd Iqbal Versus Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs2025 MLD 1962 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mariyam Versus State2025 MLD 1945 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-29
  post-arrest bailmurderuncertain cause of deathfurther inquirysupplementary statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from petitions filed by Mst. Mariyam and Imtiaz Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sharqpur Sharief, District Sheikhupura. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail when the medical evidence leaves the cause and manner of death uncertain, and when the investigative findings and corroborative material against them require further inquiry. The Lahore High Court accepted the petitions and granted post-arrest bail to both accused. The court held that where the prosecution case presents circumstances calling for further probe into the guilt of the accused—such as uncertain medical reports and lack of corroborative evidence—the case falls within the purview of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that liberty is a precious right guaranteed by the Constitution, bail cannot be withheld as a form of preventive or advance punishment, and it is preferable to err in granting bail than in refusing it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the medical officer opines that the cause and manner of death are uncertain?
  • Is bail to be withheld as an advance or preventive punishment during the pendency of a trial?
  • Whether the uncorroborated confessional statement or disclosure of a co-accused against another accused warrants continued incarceration without further investigative support?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Zafarullah Versus Abdul Ghafoor2025 MLD 1913 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-12
  ex parte proceedingslimitation periodconstitutional jurisdictiondue diligencewrit jurisdictioncondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Additional District Judge, Narowal, which set aside a trial court's order allowing the petitioner to contest a civil suit after twelve years of ex parte proceedings. The petitioner, a retired government official, had been proceeded against ex parte in 2012 after service by publication. The core legal question was whether the revisional court correctly dismissed the petitioner's application to set aside the ex parte order on the grounds of limitation and lack of due diligence. The Court held that the petitioner failed to justify the excessive delay of twelve years, emphasizing that the law aids the vigilant and not the indolent. The Court affirmed that ex parte proceedings can only be set aside within the prescribed limitation period unless lack of service is conclusively established. Furthermore, the Court ruled that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary legal remedies or to re-evaluate findings of fact where no jurisdictional defect exists. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  • Is an application to set aside ex parte proceedings maintainable after a delay of twelve years without sufficient cause?
  • Does the law grant preferential treatment to government officials regarding the limitation period for setting aside ex parte orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir Versus Mansoor Rasheed2025 MLD 1897 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-21Read full judgment →
• Sumera Rasheed Versus State2025 MLD 1879 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-27Read full judgment →
• Malik Ijaz Ahmad Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan2025 MLD 1871 · Lahore High Court · 2020-07-15Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali Versus Ghulam Ali (deceased)2025 MLD 1835 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-22Read full judgment →
• Khitab Ullah Versus State2025 MLD 1803 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-14
  benefit of the doubtdelayed FIRinjured witnesspost-mortem delaymurder referenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences/life imprisonments awarded by the trial court under sections 302, 324, 336, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected murder reference, criminal revision, and petition for leave to appeal against acquittal. The core legal questions involve evaluating the evidentiary value of an inordinately delayed FIR, unexplained delays in conducting post-mortem examinations and recording 161 Cr.P.C. statements of injured witnesses, unreliable recoveries, and unproven motives. The Lahore High Court held that multiple material discrepancies, unexplained procedural delays, and a concocted narrative create profound reasonable doubts regarding the participation of the appellants. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt, answered the murder reference in the negative, dismissed the criminal revision for enhancement, and refused leave to appeal against the acquittal of co-accused. The key principle laid down is that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and unexplained delays coupled with material contradictions vitiate the evidentiary worth of otherwise injured witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR shatter the sanctity of the prosecution case?
  • Whether unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination creates serious doubt regarding the trustworthiness of prosecution evidence?
  • Does the mere presence of injuries automatically stamp an injured witness as a truthful witness when material contradictions exist?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right if a single reasonable doubt is found in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh (deceased) Versus Jiwan Hayat2025 MLD 1795 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza Versus State2025 MLD 1760 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-04
  murder appealdeath sentencefirst information reportchance witnessforensic evidenceblood disintegrationcorroborationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore High Court disposed of a criminal appeal along with a murder reference challenging the conviction and death sentence passed against the appellant under Sections 302(b), 311, and 338-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot his wife, dragged her into a house, and killed her with a knife due to an unapproved marriage. The High Court acquitted the appellant, finding that the FIR was recorded after unrecorded initial disclosures to the police, stripping it of its status as a prompt first information report. The court determined that the eyewitnesses were uncorroborated 'chance witnesses' whose presence was unconvincing. Additionally, no blood or dragging marks were found at the alleged initial shooting spot, compromising the scene of crime. Forensic reports were deemed inconsequential due to missing items and recovery delay exceeding the three-week window for blood disintegration. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, allowed the appeal, and rejected the murder reference.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unrecorded initial statement made to the police deprive a subsequently filed written application of its character as a prompt FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C.?
  • Can the testimony of chance witnesses be relied upon without independent and plausible explanation justifying their presence at the spot?
  • Can an eyewitness act as a recovery witness to corroborate his own ocular testimony?
  • Does the failure to send a weapon for forensic serological testing within three weeks render a blood-stained recovery inconsequential due to blood disintegration?
  Read full judgment →
• The Province of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector District, Lahore Versus Tariq Javaid Raja2025 MLD 1748 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• Jamal Younas Mian Versus Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore2025 MLD 1736 · Lahore High Court · 2023-12-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Versus Fayyaz Ahmad2025 MLD 1725 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-11Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Allah Bakhsh Versus Additional District Judge2025 MLD 1716 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-07
  contempt of courtstatus quo orderwillful disobediencesui generis proceedingscivil contemptextraordinary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This contempt petition was filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, alleging that the respondents willfully violated a status quo order passed by the Lahore High Court regarding a disputed property. The core legal question was whether the respondents' actions constituted a clear, deliberate, and willful disobedience of the court's order, thereby warranting punishment for contempt. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any willful disobedience. Relying on a police report confirming no new construction and noting that the underlying dispute regarding possession was sub judice before the civil court, the Court determined that no case for contempt was made out. The judgment reaffirms that contempt proceedings are sui generis, not bound by the technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure, but must adhere to principles of natural justice. It emphasizes that the extraordinary power to punish for contempt must be exercised with circumspection only where the authority and dignity of the Court are undermined by contumacious acts.

  Questions settled

  • Are contempt of court proceedings bound by the technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish contempt of court for the violation of a status quo order?
  • Can contempt proceedings be initiated when the underlying issue of possession is sub judice in a civil suit?
  • Is the power to punish for contempt an extraordinary jurisdiction that must be exercised with circumspection?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood alias Demo Versus State2025 MLD 1685 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-18
  benefit of doubtidentification paradecapital punishmentrecovery of weaponforensic evidencecriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for offences under sections 302 and 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence, specifically the validity of an identification parade conducted after a significant delay, the admissibility of a co-accused's statement, the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery without forensic linkage, and the failure to put prosecution evidence to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It ruled that a co-accused's statement is inadmissible against another, a delayed identification parade without description of features is worthless, and recovery of a weapon from a non-exclusive place without forensic matching lacks probative value. Furthermore, evidence not put to the accused during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be used for conviction. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement made by a co-accused be used as evidence against another accused?
  • Does the failure to put a specific piece of prosecution evidence to the accused during his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render that evidence inadmissible for conviction?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon from a place not in the exclusive possession of the accused sufficient to prove guilt in the absence of forensic matching?
  • What is the legal effect of a significant delay in conducting an identification parade where no features of the accused were previously described?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Ahmad Shafqat Versus Tariq Ali2025 MLD 1675 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-05Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmad Versus State2025 MLD 1658 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-27
  criminal revisiondelayed FIRdishonest improvementsacquittalbenefit of doubtforensic evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction and sentences handed down by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court regarding an incident involving firing and land disputes. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant delays in reporting, the lack of specific role attribution, and the reliance on witnesses whose testimony was rejected regarding co-accused. The High Court accepted the revision petition and acquitted the petitioners. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with fatal flaws, including an unexplained delay in FIR registration, the absence of forensic evidence linking recovered weapons to the crime, and the witnesses' tendency to make dishonest improvements to assign specific roles at trial. The Court reaffirmed the established principle that the benefit of any single circumstance creating doubt must be extended to the accused without reservation, and that it is unsafe to rely on testimony that has been disbelieved regarding other co-accused on the same set of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is it safe to convict an accused based on witness testimony that has been disbelieved regarding co-accused on the same set of evidence?
  • Does the failure to collect crime empties and obtain a forensic report regarding recovered weapons create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when witnesses make dishonest improvements during trial to assign specific roles that were not mentioned in the FIR or initial statements?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus Muhammad Waris2025 MLD 1638 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-13Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider Versus Syed Ali Rizwan Kazmi2025 MLD 1621 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Akram Bhatti Versus Nadeem Abbas2025 MLD 1610 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-16Read full judgment →
• Danish Riaz Dar Versus State2025 MLD 1374 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-29
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustmaster-servant relationshipfurther inquirycivil disputemala fideprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 249 registered under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station RA Bazar, District Rawalpindi, concerning criminal breach of trust by a servant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the lack of specific details of entrustment in the FIR, the civil nature of the dispute regarding accounts, and allegations tinged with mala fide. The Lahore High Court held that the ingredients of criminal breach of trust were not prima facie reflected, the case fell within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the dispute appeared to be of a civil nature given a partnership controversy. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing that where an accusation lacks clear evidence of entrustment, is outside the prohibitory clause, and appears actuated by mala fide to criminalize a civil dispute, pre-arrest bail ought to be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are not prima facie met in the crime report?
  • Can criminal proceedings be utilized to settle what is essentially a civil and contractual dispute regarding accounts?
  • Does an offence carrying a punishment not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail is maintainable where the allegations in the FIR lack specific details of entrustment and are claimed to be tainted with mala fide intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Raza Versus Judge Family Court2025 MLD 1361 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rauf Versus State2025 MLD 132 · Lahore High Court · 2024-06-28
  post-arrest bailstatutory grounddelay in conclusion of trialdishonoured chequeabscondenceright to bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Rauf, the accused in FIR No. 565/2021 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial pursuant to the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question is whether an accused who has suffered continuous pre-conviction detention exceeding one year without the trial being concluded, and without any delay being attributable to him, is entitled to post-arrest bail as a matter of right. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner has indeed made out a case for the grant of statutory bail since his detention exceeded one year, the delay was not caused by his acts or omissions, and he does not fall within the exceptions of being a hardened criminal or involved in terrorism. The court laid down the principle that once the statutory period for concluding a trial has elapsed without the accused causing deliberate delay, bail must be granted as a matter of right irrespective of prior abscondence or other pending non-terrorist cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused become entitled to post-arrest bail as a matter of right if his trial is not concluded within the statutory period under Section 497(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail on statutory grounds be withheld solely on the basis of the accused's prior abscondence?
  • Does the registration of other non-terrorist cases against an accused bar the grant of statutory bail under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What constitutes an act or omission by the accused causing delay in the conclusion of the trial under the third proviso of Section 497(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid Iqbal Versus Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education2025 MLD 1307 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Anwar Versus Chand Bibi (deceased)2025 MLD 1294 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus Muhammad Ashraf2025 MLD 1284 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Lal Chaudhary Versus Shoukat Ali2025 MLD 1268 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-18Read full judgment →
• Sahib Bibi Versus Khushi Muhammad (deceased)2025 MLD 1246 · Lahore High Court · 2025-01-21Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan Versus Malik Muhammad Munir2025 MLD 1201 · Lahore High Court · 2023-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus State2025 MLD 1165 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-21
  murderbenefit of doubtdelayed post-mortemocular accountmedical evidenceprivate complaintcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside related criminal revisions and appeals concerning the enhancement of sentence and acquittal of a co-accused. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the effect of unexplained delays in conducting post-mortem examinations and lodging private complaints, the evidentiary value of site plans and police roznamcha reports, and the reliability of weapon recoveries and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting gross delays in post-mortem examination, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, tainted testimony of related police witnesses, unproved motive, and doubtful weapon recovery. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, acquitted the appellant on the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the appeals and revisions concerning acquittal and sentence enhancement. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's ocular account is untrustworthy, unaligned with medical evidence, and replete with unexplained procedural delays, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained gross delay in conducting a post-mortem examination can create an adverse inference regarding the presence of eye-witnesses?
  • Does the principle that un-cross-examined portions of a statement amount to admission apply in criminal proceedings?
  • Whether the prosecution's failure to prove an asserted motive reacts against the sustainability of a capital or life sentence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime empties to the forensic science agency render the recovery inconclusive?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmad Versus Additional District Judge2025 MLD 1156 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Versus Karam Hussain2025 MLD 1144 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
• Jawad Ali Shah Versus Mst. Sarwat Fatima2025 MLD 1102 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir Versus State2025 MLD 1085 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-12
  criminal appealQatl-e-Amdchance witnessdelayed FIRadverse inferencerecovery of weaponacquittalsafe administration of criminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the murder of his wife. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of Qatl-e-Amd beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, resulting in the appellant's acquittal. The court reasoned that the First Information Report was delayed, suggesting fabrication, and the ocular account provided by 'chance witnesses' was unreliable as their presence at the crime scene was not convincingly explained. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution withheld a natural witness, drawing an adverse inference, and failed to prove the alleged motive. Additionally, the recovery of the murder weapon was compromised due to discrepancies between the recovery memo and the physical evidence, rendering forensic reports inconclusive. The court reaffirmed that medical evidence is merely supportive, not substantive for identity, and that a single significant doubt in the prosecution's narrative is sufficient to warrant acquittal, thereby setting aside the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withholding of a natural witness by the prosecution warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can the testimony of 'chance witnesses' be relied upon without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a significant discrepancy between the recovery memo and the physical condition of the recovered weapon compromise the prosecution's case?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to establish the identity of an assailant in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• National Highway Authority Versus Ghulam Ali2025 MLD 1075 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ahad Versus Punjab Public Service Commission2025 MLD 1058 · Lahore High Court · 2025-05-20
  degree equivalenceHigher Education Commissionqualification equivalencePPSC lecturer recruitmentfederal legislative supremacyconstitutional petitionHEC Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition, decided along with connected matters, arose from the Punjab Public Service Commission's (PPSC) rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Lecturer in Psychology. Although the Higher Education Commission (HEC) had issued a certificate determining the petitioner's double-major degree from Forman Christian College to be equivalent to a Master's degree, the Qualification Equivalence Determination Committee (QEDC) of the Higher Education Department (HED) concluded otherwise, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's application. The core legal issue was whether HEC or the provincial HED holds primacy in determining the equivalence of academic degrees awarded by degree-granting institutions. The Lahore High Court allowed the petitions, holding that under Section 10(1)(o) of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance 2002, a federal law with non-obstante effect under Section 20, HEC is the sole statutory authority entrusted with determining degree equivalence. Provincial entities like HED lack statutory jurisdiction to override HEC's determination. Consequently, PPSC's rejection based on the provincial committee's opinion was declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Higher Education Commission or a provincial Higher Education Department holds primary authority to determine the equivalence of academic degrees?
  • Does a provincial qualification committee have the legal authority to override an equivalence certificate issued by the Higher Education Commission under Section 10(1)(o) of the Higher Education Commission Ordinance 2002?
  • Can the High Court substitute its own decision for that of the Higher Education Commission on the legal equivalence of an academic degree?
  Read full judgment →
• Akeel Aslam Versus Mehmood Anwar2025 MLD 1042 · Lahore High Court · 2024-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah Abrar Syed Versus Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC)2025 MLD 1025 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-03Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Versus Allah Ditta2025 MLD 1012 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-19Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Ahmad Versus State2024 MLD 1942 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-16
  fair trialdue processsupply of documentspolice reportpublic interestforensic reportscriminal procedurecyber crimes
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioners' application for copies of certain documents appended to the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioners are facing trial for various offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The core legal question concerns whether an accused is entitled as of right to copies of all documents and forensic reports annexed to the police report, and whether the prosecution can withhold them on the ground of public interest. The Lahore High Court held that the right to receive copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution is an integral component of the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process. The court ruled that annexures to a police report form an integral part thereof and must be supplied to the accused to enable an effective defense, and that any competing claim of public interest must be balanced by the court against the overarching requirement of a fair trial. The petition was accordingly accepted and the impugned order set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to receive copies of all annexures and forensic reports attached to a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 encompass the right to full disclosure of documents relied upon by the prosecution?
  • Can the prosecution withhold documents from the accused on the ground of public interest without judicial balancing by the court?
  • Are statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 privileged when contained in case diaries?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Munawar Ali Versus The Commissioner Lahore Division, Lahore2024 MLD 1401 · Lahore High Court · 2024-01-31Read full judgment →
• SHAHID MEHMOOD DAR Versus RAZA MEHMOOD KHURSHAND2023 MLD 937 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus FOUZIA NASREEN2023 MLD 914 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-14Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA Versus State2023 MLD 899 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-02
  criminal appealmurderocular accountchance witnessinquest reportbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, which convicted the appellants under Sections 302(b) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the abduction and murder of the complainant's son, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court analyzed the ocular account and found the presence of the eye-witnesses at the crime scene highly doubtful, noting that one was a chance witness and the others had professional duties elsewhere. The Court also highlighted the unnatural conduct of the witnesses, who did not intervene to save the deceased or report the matter to the police. Furthermore, a material contradiction existed regarding the place of occurrence, as the inquest report located the body at a tube well while the site plans placed it in the appellant's house. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a chance witness can be relied upon to sustain a conviction for a capital charge without strong corroboration?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a material contradiction between the inquest report and the site plans regarding the location of the dead body?
  • Does the failure of natural witnesses to intervene or immediately report a violent crime to the police cast doubt on their presence at the scene?
  • Is medical evidence alone sufficient to sustain a conviction when the ocular account has been disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH NAWAZ KHAN Versus MEMBER (JUDL. III) BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB LAHORE2023 MLD 869 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
• INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTORS (PVT.) LIMITED Versus WAPDA2023 MLD 860 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
• PREMIUM DEVELOPERS through Chief Executive Versus MUHAMMAD TARIQ2023 MLD 838 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Nazeer Ahmad , Zafar Zulqarnain Sahi2023 MLD 820 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• AZMAT KAMAL KYANI Versus REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVES SOCIETIES PUNJAB2023 MLD 810 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-04Read full judgment →
• SIKANDAR HAYAT GONDAL Versus BASHIR AHMAD QURESHI2023 MLD 797 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AJMAL (DECEASED) Versus ABDUL KHALIQ2023 MLD 654 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• RIASAT ALI Versus State2023 MLD 629 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-02
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencejoint recoveryacquittalhatchet
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for the murder of the deceased under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence regarding the cause of death. The Lahore High Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the medical evidence regarding the fatal spinal injury was inconsistent with the alleged hatchet blows, and the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene was not credible. The Court reaffirmed that where medical evidence contradicts the ocular account, the latter cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, it established that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused if the prosecution's case is not confidence-inspiring, and that joint recoveries of weapons are legally inadmissible.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the cause of death entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is a joint recovery of a weapon from multiple accused persons admissible in evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of the occurrence is not proven?
  • Is the motive for a crime considered a double-edged weapon in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• JIND WADA Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE2023 MLD 541 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• CHIEF EDITOR MUHAMMAD RIAZ ANJUM Versus Dr. MOHAMMAD SHAHBAZ2023 MLD 525 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-19Read full judgment →
• RAB NAWAZ Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE2023 MLD 511 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
• IRFAN JAVED Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH2023 MLD 483 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ KHAN Versus MOHAMMAD WARYAM2023 MLD 383 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• JEHANGIR Versus Mst. ANEELA2023 MLD 316 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. FOZIA TASLEEM Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KHANEWAL2023 MLD 218 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-16Read full judgment →
• IMTIAZ ALI Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ2023 MLD 1819 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus State Sardar Mahboob2023 MLD 1545 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-06
  pre-sentence detentionSection 382-B Cr.P.C.inherent powers of High Courtcriminal appealsentencingSection 561-A Cr.P.C.mandatory provision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which allows for the set-off of pre-sentence detention against a sentence of imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the High Court, having previously decided a criminal appeal without addressing the applicability of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., could subsequently grant this benefit using its inherent powers. The Court held that the petition should be allowed, ruling that the benefit of Section 382-B is mandatory and that the Court possesses the inherent power under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to rectify an omission regarding this benefit even after the finalization of the appellate judgment. The judgment reaffirms that Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is a beneficial provision that must be construed liberally. Courts are obligated to consider pre-sentence detention, and any refusal to grant this benefit requires the recording of cogent, strong, and convincing reasons. Failure to address this mandatory provision constitutes a rectifiable omission.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the disposal of a criminal appeal?
  • Is the provision of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for courts when awarding a sentence of imprisonment?
  • Must a court record specific reasons if it decides to deny the benefit of pre-sentence detention set-off under Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMEED Versus MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL SHAHID2023 MLD 145 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
• ZAHID MEHMOOD Versus State2023 MLD 1396 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-17
  pre-arrest bailquackerymedical malpracticeimpersonationmala fidecriminal intimidationpublic servant obstruction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by an individual accused of impersonating a doctor, operating an unlicensed medical store, and obstructing public servants during an inspection by the Anti-Quackery Monitoring Committee. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary record. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish the necessary grounds for pre-arrest bail, specifically noting the absence of any demonstrated mala fide on the part of the prosecution. The Court emphasized that the complainant and witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner and that the investigating agency had confirmed his involvement. The key principles laid down are that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted based on parallel stories or bald assertions, and that the judiciary must adopt a dynamic approach in cases involving quackery, which the Court characterized as a serious crime against humanity that necessitates strict judicial scrutiny rather than lenient treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Is the existence of mala fide a necessary condition for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted based on parallel stories and bald assertions?
  • Should the court engage in a deep analysis of evidence at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Is the act of quackery considered a sufficient ground to deny pre-arrest bail when the prosecution has collected convincing material?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNIS KHAN2023 MLD 1372 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus Mst. SUKHAN (DECEASED)2023 MLD 1357 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAINAB (DECEASED) Versus WAHID BUKHSH2023 MLD 1329 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
• JAMSHED IQBAL CHEEMA Versus The RETURNING OFFICER, NA-1332023 MLD 132 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAISAL Versus State2023 MLD 1298 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-14
  murderdeath sentenceocular accountchance witnessrecoveryQanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984Pakistan Penal Code 1860criminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jhelum, convicting the appellant, Muhammad Faisal, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Shehzad Ashraf and sentencing him to death as Ta'zir, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitnesses, whether they qualified as chance witnesses, the admissibility and corroborative value of the weapon recovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and the appropriateness of the death sentence in cases of brutal homicide. The Lahore High Court held that the eyewitnesses successfully established their presence through prompt reporting in the FIR, that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account, and that the recovery of the cleaver knife stained with human blood provided valid corroboration. The Court ruled that in cases of brutal and ferocious killings, the normal penalty of death is warranted and should not be commuted to life imprisonment. Consequently, the conviction and death sentence were upheld, the appeal was dismissed, and the murder reference was answered in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of an eyewitness to the deceased render their deposition untrustworthy or make them a partisan witness?
  • Can the evidence of a witness be discarded as that of a chance witness if they successfully and satisfactorily explain their presence at the crime scene?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon of offence discoverable upon the disclosure of an accused admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 even if independent witnesses from the immediate neighborhood are not associated under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the weakness or absence of a proven motive justify commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life in cases of brutal and ferocious homicide?
  Read full judgment →
• FAISALABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE2023 MLD 1255 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-15Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Director General Excise, Taxation and Narcotics Control Department Punjab Versus RAMZAN SUGAR MILLS LIMITED2023 MLD 1245 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-11Read full judgment →
• SHAHID MEHMOOD Versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR/LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR2023 MLD 1210 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-17Read full judgment →
• IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI Versus Mian MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ SHARIF2023 MLD 1197 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-07Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR ALI Versus AHMAD NAWAZ2023 MLD 1182 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-02Read full judgment →
• NAEEM SHEHZAD Versus Mst. SARRAN BIBI2023 MLD 1167 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
• NASEER AHMAD Versus State2023 MLD 1134 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-18
  rapeDNA evidencepaternity testingminor victimconsentcriminal appealmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing rape against a minor victim, resulting in a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment along with compensation and default imprisonment under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of rape beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the victim was a consenting party or incapable of giving consent due to her minority. The Lahore High Court held that the testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence, DNA profiling establishing the appellant's paternity of the child born from the incident, and the appellant's inconsistent defense, firmly established the guilt of the appellant. The Court further ruled that the victim being under sixteen years of age at the time of the offense was legally incapable of giving consent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence. The key principle laid down is that corroborative DNA evidence coupled with consistent ocular testimony of a minor victim of rape outweighs inconsistent pleas of consent raised by an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether DNA profiling matching the appellant with the child born to the victim constitutes sufficient corroboration in a rape case?
  • Can a minor victim below the age of sixteen legally consent to sexual intercourse under Pakistani law?
  • Whether inconsistent pleas raised by an accused in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can establish the defense of consent?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. MEHR-UN-NISA BEGUM Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2023 MLD 1121 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-23Read full judgment →
• SHAHZAD AKHTAR Versus FARUKH JAMEEL2023 MLD 1118 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-11Read full judgment →
• Sheikh RASHID AHMED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2023 MLD 1105 · Lahore High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• AHMAD BAKHSH Versus IMAM BAKHSH2023 MLD 1076 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-08Read full judgment →
• NAJIB ASLAM Versus State Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf2023 MLD 1061 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-07Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Government of Punjab, Revenue Department, Lahore Versus FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION through Chairman, Islamabad2023 MLD 1023 · Lahore High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• AKBAR ALI Versus SHAHID HAYAT KHAN2022 MLD 762 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-18Read full judgment →
• FAYYAZ-UL-HAQ Versus GHULAM NABI (DECEASED)2022 MLD 688 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• ABDULLAH KHAN Versus State2022 MLD 584 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-06
  conscious possessionnarcotics recoverychemical examiner reporttest protocolsbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to ten years and six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established conscious possession of the recovered narcotics and whether the chemical examiner's report met mandatory legal requirements regarding testing protocols. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove exclusive or conscious possession of the narcotics allegedly recovered from an open Dera accessible to others, and that the chemical analyst's report lacked the requisite full protocols mandated by law. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant and directing his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence or availability of an accused at a place where narcotics are recovered establish conscious possession without independent evidence?
  • Is Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, regarding the reflection of full test protocols in the chemical report, mandatory or directory?
  • Does a chemical examination report that fails to specify the full protocols of the tests applied invalidate the resultant conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD QAYYUM ANJUM Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARGARH2022 MLD 416 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZOHRAN BIBI Versus GHULAM QADIR2022 MLD 250 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABBAS Versus Raja MUHAMMAD ISHAQ2022 MLD 212 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-15Read full judgment →
• SOHAIL LIAQAT Versus Mst. SALMA SHAHEEN2022 MLD 1982 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-02Read full judgment →