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.

• ABDUL RASHID Versus STATE1986 MLD 2718 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus STATE1986 MLD 2678 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANEEF Versus STATE1986 MLD 2668 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF Versus STATE1986 MLD 2632 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• SAKINA BIBI Versus BAQAR HUSSAIN1986 MLD 2548 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus STATE1986 MLD 2491 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus STATE1986 MLD 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ Versus STATE1986 MLD 2438 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus STATE1986 MLD 2410 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus STATE1986 MLD 2409 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus STATE1986 MLD 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH Versus WALAYAT SHAH1986 MLD 2404 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-15Read full judgment →
• WASEEM NIAZ Versus THE STATE1986 MLD 1697 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus STATE1986 MLD 1695 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1986 MLD 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
• ABBAS Versus STATE1986 MLD 1542 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAMIN Versus STATE1986 MLD 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
• RIAZ AHMAD Versus STATE1986 MLD 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
• REHMAT ALI Versus STATE1986 MLD 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-18Read full judgment →
• HAJI MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1986 MLD 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE1986 MLD 1111 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
• ABDUR RAZZAQ Versus THE STATE1986 MLD 1100 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
• FAIZ Versus STATE1986 MLD 1099 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUKHTAR HUSSAIN Versus STATE1986 MLD 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus EHSAN U-LLAH1986 MLD 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1985 MLD 915 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
• AHMAD KHAN Versus STATE1985 MLD 905 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
• GHULAM RASOOL Versus STATE1985 MLD 870 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus STATE1985 MLD 847 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus STATE1985 MLD 834 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus STATE1985 MLD 828 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus STATE1985 MLD 813 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1985 MLD 807 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
• ABDUL AZIZ Versus STATE1985 MLD 805 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RAZZAQ Versus STATE1985 MLD 787 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
• GHULAM NABI Versus STATE1985 MLD 778 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE1985 MLD 771 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
• SHAHID Versus STATE1985 MLD 758 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RASHID Versus STATE1985 MLD 75 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus STATE1985 MLD 749 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus STATE1985 MLD 721 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• GHAZI KHAN Versus STATE1985 MLD 70 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1985 MLD 7 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus STATE1985 MLD 670 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-08Read full judgment →
• SARFRAZ Versus STATE1985 MLD 61 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE1985 MLD 54 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
• NIAZ MUHAMMAD DAR Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, JHELUM1985 MLD 419 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-23Read full judgment →
• MST. SHEHNAZ BEGUM Versus MST. GHULAM FATIMA1985 MLD 245 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI1985 MLD 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Versus STATE1985 MLD 1425 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE1985 MLD 1396 · Lahore High Court · 1884-11-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1985 MLD 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE1985 MLD 1333 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE1985 MLD 1332 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus STATE1985 MLD 1314 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus STATE1985 MLD 1307 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1985 MLD 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-22Read full judgment →
• TUFAIL MUHAMMAD Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1985 MLD 1149 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE1985 MLD 11 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE1985 MLD 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
• SHABBIR AHMAD Versus STATE1985 MLD 1070 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI Versus STATE1985 MLD 1050 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE1985 MLD 1036 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI Versus STATE1985 MLD 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
• ILAM DIN Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR1984 MLD 503 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER1984 MLD 447 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB1984 MLD 272 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
• RAZAUL HAQ Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF1984 MLD 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
• ABRAR HUSSAIN Versus A. F. FURTADO1984 MLD 1587 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
• MAQSOOD AHMED Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER"SUKKUR1984 MLD 1581 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• ABDUL REHMAN Versus STATE1984 MLD 1564 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-10Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA Versus STATE1984 MLD 1556 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-25Read full judgment →
• HABIB Versus STATE1984 MLD 1550 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus STATE1984 MLD 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE1984 MLD 1467 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-15Read full judgment →
• TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI Versus MARATHON SHIPPING AND TRADING CO. LTD1984 MLD 1454 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus STATE1984 MLD 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE1984 MLD 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus STATE1984 MLD 1315 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• ASGHAR ALI Versus STATE1984 MLD 1314 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-18Read full judgment →
• MUKHTAR HUSSAIN Versus STATE1984 MLD 1308 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus STATE1984 MLD 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL1984 MLD 1279 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
• BAQAR HUSSAIN Versus JAMILA BEGUM,1984 MLD 1273 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• PAK INTERNATIONAL GOODS TRANSPORT CO. Versus ADAM TEA LTD.,KARACHI1984 MLD 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
• State Versus Mustafa Iqbal2025 MLD 1991 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-26
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peacetransfer of investigationnomination of investigating officerpolice hierarchyadministrative domainquasi-judicial jurisdictionfair investigationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the State through the Advocate General, Islamabad, challenging orders dated 08.03.2025 and 21.05.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Islamabad (West)/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. The Justice of Peace had directed the SSP (Operations) to transfer and entrust the investigation of FIR No. 101/2025 specifically to a nominated police officer by name (ASP/SDPO Ali Raza Qureshi). The core legal issue was whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace acting under Section 22-A(6)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 possesses lawful authority to direct the entrustment of an investigation to a specific named police officer. The Islamabad High Court held that while a Justice of Peace may direct the transfer of investigation generally, the statute does not confer power to nominate a particular investigating officer. The authority to assign specific officers vests exclusively within the administrative domain and hierarchy of the police. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders to the extent of naming a specific officer.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have the jurisdiction under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to nominate a specific police officer by name to conduct an investigation?
  • Does the power to assign or re-assign a criminal investigation to a particular police officer vest exclusively within the administrative discretion of the police hierarchy?
  • Can a directive specifying a named investigating officer issued under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be sustained if the officer is subsequently transferred?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Ahmed Versus State2025 MLD 1347 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-14
  narcotics possessionheroin recoverychemical analysis samplepolice witnessesdirectory rulesprevious convictioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(1)(6)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the possession of 1455 grams of heroin and sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions addressed whether the recovery of narcotics was duly proved by official witnesses without independent corroboration, whether a one-gram sample was sufficient for chemical analysis, and whether the delayed transmission of the sample to the forensic laboratory vitiated the trial. The court held that the testimonies of police officials are as credible as private witnesses, that there is no rigid yardstick for sample size provided the laboratory can analyze it, and that procedural rules regarding dispatch timelines are directory rather than mandatory. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeals and maintained the conviction, laying down principles regarding the evidentiary value of official witnesses in narcotics cases and the directory nature of sample dispatch timelines.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials alone is sufficient to prove the recovery of narcotics without independent corroboration?
  • Is there a fixed statutory requirement or yardstick for the minimum quantity of narcotics to be separated as a representative sample for chemical analysis?
  • Does the failure to dispatch a narcotic sample to the forensic laboratory within seventy-two hours render the search and seizure a nullity?
  • Whether the provisions prescribing timelines for sending samples to the forensic laboratory are mandatory or directory in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Zahir Zada Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior2025 MLD 1315 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-08Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Shah Versus State2025 MLD 1127 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-04
  narcotics controlexhibition of case propertyconscious knowledgefair trialsentencing discretioncriminal appealchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 12 kilograms of charas. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the proper exhibition of case property and the establishment of the appellant's conscious knowledge of the contraband. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony consistent and the chemical examiner's reports conclusive. However, the Court reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to the period already undergone, citing the harshness of the sentence relative to the evidence and the principle that stricter standards of proof apply to harsher sentences. The judgment clarifies that "exhibiting" evidence requires the trial court to physically de-seal and display case property to the court and the accused, rather than relying on presumptions. It emphasizes that in narcotics cases, the prosecution must investigate vehicle ownership to establish conscious knowledge of concealed contraband, and reaffirms that the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution mandates strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to de-seal and physically exhibit case property in open court vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is the investigation of vehicle ownership a mandatory requirement to establish conscious knowledge of contraband concealed within a vehicle?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of life imprisonment to the period already undergone if the sentence is deemed harsh relative to the evidence?
  • Does the definition of 'exhibit' in criminal proceedings require the physical production and display of evidence to the court and the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mustajab Versus State2025 MLD 1107 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-11
  narcotic substanceschain of custodycriminal appealreasonable doubtforensic evidenceinvestigating officeracquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 'Ecstasy Pills'. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the integrity of the chain of custody, the reliability of the recovery evidence, and the propriety of the complainant acting as the investigating officer. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case due to significant evidentiary gaps, including a missing chain of custody for the narcotics between the date of dispatch and receipt at the forensic laboratory, material contradictions between the quantity of pills allegedly recovered and the quantity reported by the forensic examiner, and the failure of the prosecution to prove the appellant's lawful possession of the premises where the recovery occurred. The Court reaffirmed the principle that any reasonable doubt arising from dubious evidence must benefit the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that the complainant and the investigating officer are the same person create a risk of bias sufficient to undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Is a discrepancy between the quantity of narcotics allegedly recovered and the quantity reported by the forensic laboratory a ground for acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the chain of custody of the recovered narcotics?
  • Does the failure to prove the accused's lawful possession of the premises where the recovery occurred invalidate the recovery evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shireen M. Mazari Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad2024 MLD 1020 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-12-01Read full judgment →
• LIAQAT ALI KHAN Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION2023 MLD 880 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-01-14Read full judgment →
• HAMAD Versus State2023 MLD 2082 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-05-31
  post-arrest bailchild sexual abusefurther inquiryprotection ordersAnti-Rape Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 377-B and 506(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code for the alleged sexual abuse of a minor. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of further inquiry when the allegation involves an attempt or acts such as kissing, and whether protection orders can be annexed to bail in child abuse cases. The Islamabad High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the evidence and medical status required trial evaluation, thereby granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court established the key principle that while granting bail in child sexual abuse cases, courts can invoke protective measures and restraining orders inspired by international best practices and the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021, to ensure the safety of the victim and the community.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allegation of sexual abuse involving acts short of full penetration present a case of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court attach protective conditions and restraining orders relating to child sexual abuse when granting post-arrest bail?
  • Whether compromise by the complainant in non-compoundable offences of sexual abuse forms a valid sole ground for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan2023 MLD 1273 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-02-28Read full judgment →
• HAMID KHAN Versus State2022 MLD 31 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMED Versus Syed ANEES AHMED2022 MLD 296 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN JADOON Versus WAHID MEHMOOD2022 MLD 2003 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-17Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD NADEEM ABBASI2021 MLD 617 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-27
  specific performanceagreement to sellequitable reliefreadiness and willingnessdiscretionary jurisdictioncancellation of agreementbalance sale consideration
  Summary & questions settled

  These Regular First Appeals arose from a consolidated judgment of the Civil Judge, Islamabad-West, which decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell filed by respondent No.1 and dismissed a counter-suit for cancellation of the agreement filed by the appellant. The core legal questions involved the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, the bona fides of the parties, and the proper exercise of judicial discretion in granting specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Islamabad High Court held that the respondent No.1 successfully established his readiness and intention to perform his part of the contract by making substantial advance payments, promptly instituting the suit upon the vendor's refusal, and depositing the balance sale consideration within the time granted by the trial court. The appellate court ruled that the trial court's exercise of discretion was neither arbitrary nor perverse. The key principles laid down are that specific performance is an equitable and discretionary remedy which must be exercised based on sound judicial principles, and an appellate court will not interfere with a well-reasoned trial court judgment unless it is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether specific performance can be granted when the plaintiff deposits the balance sale consideration within the time allowed by the trial court?
  • Does an appellate court interfere with the discretionary relief of specific performance granted by a trial court if the decision is based on proper appreciation of evidence?
  • Is a suit for cancellation of an agreement filed long after the institution of a suit for specific performance considered an afterthought?
  Read full judgment →
• BUSHRA ZIA Versus MANSOOR NAWAB2021 MLD 1669 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-08-02Read full judgment →
• REEMA SHAMIM Versus PAKISTAN MEDICAL COMMISSION Fatima Tu Zara Butt , Taimoor Aslam2021 MLD 1117 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →