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.

• YAQOOB SHAH Versus THE STATE , S. Fakhre Alam Khan1975 PLD 205 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-05-28Read full judgment →
• HAQ NAWAZ Versus RAMZAN1975 PLD 199 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-05-19Read full judgment →
• HASSAN NOOR Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRAL1975 PLD 196 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-04-01Read full judgment →
• SHADI KHAN Versus MAKHMAD1975 PLD 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-03-25Read full judgment →
• EJAZ ASLAM Versus UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR THROUGH ITS VICE1975 PLD 186 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-04-24Read full judgment →
• NAWABZADA IHSANULLAH KHAN Versus COMMISSIONER, N.-W. F. P., PESHAWAR1975 PLD 182 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-04-02Read full judgment →
• ADIL SHAH Versus THE STATE1975 PLD 173 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-03-25Read full judgment →
• FAZAL MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD NOOR1975 PLD 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-09-09Read full judgment →
• NOOR KHAN Versus THE STATE1975 PLD 164 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-03-18Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF N.-W. F. P. THROUGH COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, NOWSHERA Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN1975 PLD 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-03-03Read full judgment →
• KHAISTA GUL Versus AKBAR KHAN1975 PLD 146 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-12-23Read full judgment →
• KIFAYATULLAH Versus THE STATE1975 PLD 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-12-16Read full judgment →
• SHER BAHADUR KHAN ALIAS MALIK BAHADUR KHAN Versus ABDUL SAMAD KHAN1975 PLD 124 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-10-08Read full judgment →
• MST. HUSSAN PARI Versus SULTAN MUHAMMAD KHAN1975 PLD 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-01-21Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHAFFAR Versus GHULAM JAN1975 PLD 12 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-09-30Read full judgment →
• NOOR ALI SHAH Versus1975 PLD 109 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-11-04Read full judgment →
• UMAR FAROOQ Versus1975 PLD 103 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-11-06Read full judgment →
• WAPDA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, LAHORE Versus AURANGZEB KHAN1975 PLD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-08-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR Versus ALLAH DITTA1974 PLD 51 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• KHAISTA GUL Versus MIAN GUL1973 PLD 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1970-01-21Read full judgment →
• 1973 PLD 1671973 PLD 167 · Peshawar High Court · 1973-05-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN KHATTAK Versus S. M. AYUB AND 2 OTHER1972 PLD 175 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE1971 PLD 226 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-07-15Read full judgment →
• THE STATE Versus GHULAM JAFFAR ETC.1970 PLD 66 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• ITBAR KHAN AND 18 OTHERS Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1969-08-29Read full judgment →
• SHAFIULLAH KHAN Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS1970 PLD 176 · Peshawar High Court · 1970-05-25Read full judgment →
• ABDUL AZIZ Versus K. B. MIAN FEROZE SHAH (REPRESENTED BY 10 HEIRS) AND 4 OTHERS1970 PLD 146 · Peshawar High Court · 1970-03-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHUJA AND 4 OTHERS Versus SHER AFZAL KHAN AND 2 OTHERS1970 PLD 136 · Peshawar High Court · 1969-11-11Read full judgment →
• WALI MUHAMMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS1970 PLD 119 · Peshawar High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
• TCS, GUJRANWALA Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE GHUMMAN2025 PLD 861 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar AMBER MAQSOOD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, PRIVATISATION COMMISSION PIACL2025 PLD 827 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
• SULTAN MEHMOOD RANA Versus NAEEM AHMAD2025 PLD 818 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-19Read full judgment →
• IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB2025 PLD 795 · Lahore High Court · 2024-07-25Read full judgment →
• UMER NAWAZ Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FIA2025 PLD 779 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-06Read full judgment →
• NABILA HAKIM ALI KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB2025 PLD 759 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ABBAS Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB2025 PLD 749 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Interior, Islamabad2025 PLD 747 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-10Read full judgment →
• OLYMPIA CHEMICAL LTD Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary (Board of Revenue)2025 PLD 735 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-19Read full judgment →
• SHAUKAT BUTT Versus State2025 PLD 731 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-30
  criminal revisiondismissal for non-prosecutioninherent jurisdictionrestoration of petitionabuse of processmaintainabilitybail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of a second criminal revision petition filed after the dismissal of an initial revision petition for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether a party can file a fresh revision petition against an order when a prior revision petition challenging the same order was previously dismissed due to the petitioner's non-appearance. The Court held that a second revision petition is not maintainable in such circumstances, as the dismissal of the first petition for non-prosecution does not constitute a decision on merits. The Court clarified that the appropriate legal remedy for an aggrieved party is to seek restoration of the dismissed petition by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, provided that sufficient cause for non-appearance is demonstrated. The Court emphasized that while dismissal for non-prosecution is a valid practice to prevent abuse of process, it does not bar the revival of the petition through an application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second criminal revision petition maintainable when the first revision petition against the same order was dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Does the dismissal of a revision petition for non-prosecution constitute a decision on merits?
  • Can the High Court restore a revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution under its inherent jurisdiction?
  • Does the prohibition under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to the restoration of a revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MANZOOR Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI2025 PLD 724 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
• BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION RAWALPINDI Versus SADIA IQBAL2025 PLD 709 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-13Read full judgment →
• MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus SAIQA CH.2025 PLD 704 · Lahore High Court · 2025-06-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAR Versus NAVEED ASLAM KHAN LODHI2025 PLD 692 · Lahore High Court · 2025-07-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus ALI MUHAMMAD2025 PLD 682 · Lahore High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• JAMSHAID AHMAD DASTI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Tariq Mehmood Dogar , Khalid Masood Ghani2025 PLD 679 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. MISBAH FAROOQ Versus DAEWOO PAKISTAN EXPRESS BUS SERVICE LIMITED2025 PLD 661 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-04Read full judgment →
• State Versus SAQIB HUSSAIN2025 PLD 657 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-16Read full judgment →
• SHAHBAZ AKMAL JANDRAN Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Director General, Excise and Taxation, Lahore2025 PLD 649 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State2025 PLD 641 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-17
  competency of witnessdisabled victim testimonyvoir dire testprocedural accommodationsremandexpert evidencefair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeals and a criminal revision were filed arising out of a judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, convicting two appellants under Sections 365-B and 376(3) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the abduction and rape of a mentally impaired, deaf, and dumb victim. The trial court had declared the victim incompetent to testify under Articles 3 and 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, after conducting a voir dire test without seeking expert medical or psychological evaluation. The High Court considered whether a court can declare a person with cognitive or intellectual disabilities incompetent to testify without professional expert assessment. Holding that Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 guarantees fair trial rights to victims, the court ruled that mental incapacity does not automatically preclude a witness from testifying. Courts must seek expert guidance to explore reasonable procedural accommodations. The High Court set aside the convictions, allowed the appeals, dismissed the revision, and remanded the matter for re-evaluation with expert assistance under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court declare a person with intellectual or cognitive disabilities incompetent to testify without obtaining an expert medical or psychological evaluation?
  • Does Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 guarantee fair trial rights and procedural accommodations to victims of crime?
  • What duty rests upon courts before excluding the testimony of a deaf, dumb, or mentally impaired victim in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• KAKAKHAIL TRADERS Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB2025 PLD 630 · Lahore High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
• EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB2025 PLD 604 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-24
  stamp duty auditpublic office definitionconstitutional validitydelegation of public functionsinsurance companiesStamp Act 1899separation of powersprovincial legislative competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by trans-provincial insurance companies challenging notices issued by the Chief Inspector of Stamps, Punjab, which mandated audits of their records to verify stamp duty payments. The core legal question was whether provincial authorities could exercise audit powers over private insurance companies under the Stamp Act, 1899, and whether the statutory definition of 'public office' in the Act, which purports to include private entities, is constitutionally valid. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned notices were without lawful authority. The court ruled that the definition of 'public office' in the Stamp Act, insofar as it includes private entities, is unconstitutional as it improperly attempts to delegate public functions to private bodies, violating the principle of separation of powers and Article 138 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the court observed that the 2021 amendment to the Act specifically omitted 'bodies registered under the Companies Act' from the definition, indicating a legislative intent to exclude such companies from audit. Consequently, the court struck down the relevant definition and declared the notices void.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'public office' in the Stamp Act, 1899, to the extent it includes private entities, violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers?
  • Can a Provincial Government delegate public functions, such as the impounding of instruments, to private entities or commercial concerns?
  • Does the omission of 'bodies registered under the Companies Act, 1913' from the definition of 'public office' in the Stamp (Amendment) Act, 2021, exclude such companies from the scope of stamp audit?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN2025 PLD 581 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-23Read full judgment →
• GHULAM FAREED Versus MUHAMMAD BILAL2025 PLD 575 · Lahore High Court · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD HANIF2025 PLD 572 · Lahore High Court · 2025-03-10Read full judgment →
• SADIQ POULTRY (PRIVATE) LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2025 PLD 57 · Lahore High Court · 2024-09-09Read full judgment →
• AAMIR NAWAZ MINHAS Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU Shahzeb Jafar2025 PLD 563 · Lahore High Court · 2025-04-08Read full judgment →
• MOHAMMAD MOHSIN RAZA Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JATOI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARGARH2025 PLD 551 · Lahore High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• SADIA AZIZ Versus D.P.O.2025 PLD 540 · Lahore High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• IKHLAQ HAIDER CHATTHA Versus CARETAKER CHIEF MINISTER PUNJAB2025 PLD 51 · Lahore High Court · 2023-06-07Read full judgment →
• ASIF HUSSAIN Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN through Chief Election Commission2025 PLD 446 · Lahore High Court · 2022-12-21
  Election Commission of Pakistandisciplinary proceedingselection officialsfunctus officiocoram non judicedeputationistconstitutional petitionshow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves twenty-one consolidated constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against provincial and federal civil servants deployed for election duties during a bye-election in National Assembly Constituency NA-75 (Sialkot-IV). The polling process was annulled and declared null and void by the ECP on 25.02.2021, and the ECP subsequently issued show cause notices and initiated disciplinary inquiries against the petitioners under Section 55 of the Elections Act 2017. The core legal question was whether the ECP retains disciplinary jurisdiction over deputed public servants after an election is annulled and they cease to be 'election officials'. The High Court held that under Section 55 read with Section 2(xviii) of the Elections Act 2017, a deputed official is subject to ECP discipline only from their appointment until the publication of the election result; once the election is annulled, officials lose their status as election officials and the ECP becomes functus officio. The court set aside the disciplinary proceedings as coram non judice, clarifying that any disciplinary action must be initiated by the petitioners' respective parent departments under applicable discipline laws.

  Questions settled

  • Can a show cause notice issued by an administrative authority be challenged directly in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the Election Commission of Pakistan retain disciplinary jurisdiction under Section 55 of the Elections Act 2017 over deputed civil servants after an election process has been annulled?
  • Whether the Election Commission of Pakistan can initiate disciplinary action against a deputed public servant without prior approval from the parent department as required under relevant service statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAKEEL AKHTAR Versus State2025 PLD 430 · Lahore High Court · 2023-07-06
  DNA profilingself-incriminationfair trialcriminal investigationrevision petitionforensic evidenceinquisitorial power
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged a trial court order directing the petitioner’s DNA test during an ongoing murder trial. The core legal questions were whether compelling an accused to provide a DNA sample violates the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 13(b) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, and whether a trial court possesses the authority to order such testing during trial to rectify investigative lapses. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that DNA testing does not offend Article 13(b) because it is not testimonial in nature, but rather a physical identification procedure analogous to fingerprinting. The court established that trial courts possess broad powers under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 to order such evidence at any stage to ensure justice. It emphasized that a fair trial requires balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of the victim and society, and that judicial intervention is appropriate to correct investigative omissions that might otherwise obscure the truth.

  Questions settled

  • Does compelling an accused to provide a DNA sample violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 13(b) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a trial court order an accused's DNA test during an ongoing trial to rectify investigative lapses?
  • Does the power of a court to order the production of evidence under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to ordering an accused to undergo a DNA test?
  Read full judgment →
• FALAK SHER Versus HASHMAT BIBI2025 PLD 414 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-21Read full judgment →
• SHABBIR AHMAD Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN2024 PLD 76 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IMRAN Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE2024 PLD 626 · Lahore High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
• STRATEGIC PLANS DIVISION Versus PUNJAB REVENUE AUTHORITY2024 PLD 545 · Lahore High Court · 2024-04-23Read full judgment →
• ASAD MUMTAZ WARRAICH Versus ALI MUMTAZ WARRAICH2024 PLD 233 · Lahore High Court · 2023-11-14Read full judgment →
• BANK ALFALAH LIMITED, LAHORE through Muhammad Rafiq and Syed Aqeel Abbas Versus PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION2023 PLD 61 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAJID Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD SHAHID IQBAL2023 PLD 585 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-15
  contempt of courtdead personnullity in lawofficial capacitysubstitution of partiescivil contemptmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This contempt of court petition was filed under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 against the Medical Superintendent of Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, seeking initiation of proceedings for non-compliance of an order passed in a writ petition. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the named respondent (former Medical Superintendent) had passed away prior to the filing of the writ petition. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of proceedings and petitions against a dead person, whether an order directed to an office by designation survives the death of a former incumbent, and the substitution of parties. The Lahore High Court held that legal proceedings initiated against a sole respondent who is already dead are a nullity in the eyes of law and void ab initio, and substitution of parties is not permissible in such circumstances. However, the underlying order passed against an official designation remains valid and binding on the current incumbent. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable against a dead person, with the observation that the petitioner could seek remedies against the incumbent office-holder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether legal proceedings initiated against a sole respondent who is already dead are a nullity in the eyes of law?
  • Can a contempt of court petition filed against a dead person be cured by substituting the current incumbent of the office?
  • Does an order directed to a public office by official designation remain valid and binding despite the death of the former office-holder prior to the institution of the proceedings?
  • Whether personal actions such as contempt of court survive the death of the alleged contemner?
  Read full judgment →
• Col. (R) MUHAMMAD SHABIR AWAN Versus Raja SAGHIR AHMED2023 PLD 458 · Lahore High Court · 2023-01-26Read full judgment →
• SAIMA NAZIR Versus GUARDIAN JUDGE (IV), LAHORE2023 PLD 433 · Lahore High Court · 2023-02-03Read full judgment →
• NADEEM SULTAN Versus HAMZA SHAMIM2023 PLD 334 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-22
  sine die adjournmentcriminal revisionfair trialdue processabsconding accusedSessions trialstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, which adjourned a murder trial sine die due to the continued abscondence of a co-accused. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Court possesses the authority to adjourn proceedings indefinitely under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court held that the impugned order was illegal and unsustainable. The Court determined that Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not authorize sine die adjournments; rather, it mandates that adjournments be for a specific, reasonable duration. The Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial, guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, precludes indefinite delays. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the prosecution of available accused should continue, as the testimony of witnesses can be preserved under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, even if a co-accused remains at large. Consequently, the sine die adjournment order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 authorize a Sessions Court to adjourn a trial sine die?
  • Can a trial court adjourn proceedings indefinitely due to the non-arrest of a co-accused?
  • Is the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 violated by an indefinite adjournment of criminal proceedings?
  • Can evidence recorded in a judicial proceeding be used in subsequent proceedings if a co-accused is absconding?
  Read full judgment →
• MUBARIK ALI alias MAKHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB2023 PLD 19 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-16Read full judgment →
• GUL SHER Versus ADDITIONAL AND SESSIONS JUDGE/EX OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE, BHOWANA2023 PLD 171 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
• POSCO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Versus RIKANS INTERNATIONAL2023 PLD 116 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
• PERVAIZ AKHTAR Versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR2022 PLD 730 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-19Read full judgment →
• SHAMIM HAIDER Versus ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (HOME), GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2022 PLD 676 · Lahore High Court · 2022-07-19Read full judgment →
• AMEER HUSSAIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2022 PLD 61 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-01Read full judgment →
• TARIQ IQBAL Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN2022 PLD 607 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-28Read full judgment →
• ZARMEEN ABID Versus NATIONAL DATABASE AND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD2022 PLD 39 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
• Ch. MUNIR AHMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab Lahore2022 PLD 384 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-16Read full judgment →
• Miss SHAKEELA RANA Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2021 PLD 802 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-29Read full judgment →
• JET GREEN (PVT.) LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Ms. Ayesha Hamid , Naveed Sohail Malik2021 PLD 770 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
• ANA LIAQAT Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA2021 PLD 757 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• MUBASHIR AHMAD ALMAS Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore2021 PLD 735 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAHIDA PARVEEN Versus LAMREY CERAMICS (PVT.) LIMITED2021 PLD 635 · Lahore High Court · 2021-04-04Read full judgment →
• AMIR ABBAS MINHAS Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAKWAL2021 PLD 630 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-09Read full judgment →
• MAIMOONA RAJAB Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Section Officer of Governor of Punjab, Lahore2021 PLD 598 · Lahore High Court · 2021-03-09
  workplace harassmentsexual harassmentquasi-criminal chargeburden of proofconstitutional jurisdictionProvincial Ombudspersonadministrative grievances
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Governor of Punjab, which set aside a decision of the Provincial Ombudsperson that had previously found the respondent guilty of workplace harassment and imposed the penalty of removal from service. The core legal question was whether the respondent's exoneration by the Governor was based on a proper appreciation of evidence and whether the petitioner had sufficiently substantiated the allegations of harassment. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order was fair, reasoned, and based on a thorough examination of the record. The Court emphasized that a charge of sexual harassment at the workplace is quasi-criminal in nature, carrying severe consequences for the accused's career and social standing. Consequently, such allegations must be supported by credible, independent, and convincing evidence rather than mere assertions. The Court found that the petitioner failed to meet this evidentiary burden, noting that the allegations were largely administrative grievances that lacked the necessary proof to establish harassment, thus precluding the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required to establish a charge of sexual harassment at the workplace?
  • Can a constitutional petition be used to re-evaluate findings of fact made by an appellate authority under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010?
  • Does an allegation of workplace harassment require independent and convincing evidence to sustain a penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH Versus FAIZ MUHAMMAD2021 PLD 52 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Syed YASIR HASSAN Versus HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE2021 PLD 473 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-19Read full judgment →
• AL-ARABIA SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Versus FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2021 PLD 226 · Lahore High Court · 2020-11-03Read full judgment →
• MOHYUDDIN MOHAMMAD KHAN Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/MEMBER (JUDICIAL-V), BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB, LAHORE2021 PLD 130 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
• SALMAN KHALID Versus State2020 PLD 97 · Lahore High Court · 2019-07-04
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeSection 489-F PPCcompromisebreach of commitmentbail cancellationundertaking
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question addressed is whether an accused, having secured bail through a compromise involving an undertaking to pay the cheque amount, retains the right to bail upon defaulting on that payment. The Court held that the petitioner’s liberty was contingent upon the compromise terms. Consequently, the Court confirmed the bail based on the petitioner's affidavit undertaking to pay the amount by a specified date, holding that any default constitutes a breach of commitment and misuse of the bail concession. The Court established the principle that such compromises are binding undertakings; failure to honour them automatically vacates the bail order. Furthermore, the Court issued mandatory guidelines for trial courts, directing that bail orders in Section 489-F cases must explicitly condition liberty on the fulfillment of compromise terms, allowing for immediate commitment to custody upon default without requiring a formal application for bail cancellation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to honour a compromise agreement made to secure bail in a Section 489-F case result in the automatic cancellation of that bail?
  • Is a formal application for bail cancellation under Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 required when an accused defaults on a compromise agreement in a Section 489-F case?
  • What are the mandatory procedural guidelines for trial courts when granting bail based on a compromise in cases involving dishonoured cheques?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZAHIDA BEGUM Versus ASHFAQ AHMED2020 PLD 684 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
• DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK PAKISTAN Versus Mst. SAIMA YASIN2020 PLD 518 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-16Read full judgment →
• General (R) PERVEZ MUSHARRAF Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2020 PLD 285 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus State2019 PLD 594 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-13
  recall of witnessprosecution witnessfilling of lacunaehostile witnessjudicial discretiondiscovery of truthcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which allowed the prosecution's application to recall and re-examine a prosecution witness (ASI Niaz Ahmad Khan) after his cross-examination had already concluded. The core legal question was whether the prosecution has an absolute right to recall a witness to rectify testimony or if such discretion should be exercised only under exceptional circumstances to prevent the filling of lacunae. The Court held that the trial court exercised its discretion improperly by failing to provide plausible, balanced reasons for recalling the witness. The Court emphasized that while the pursuit of truth is paramount, the power to recall a witness is not a matter of course and cannot be used to allow a party to fill gaps in their case. The Court ruled that to invoke provisions regarding hostile or varying witnesses, it must be established that the witness is suppressing the truth or acting with animosity, rather than simply providing testimony that conflicts with other evidence. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution have an absolute right to recall a witness for re-examination at any stage of the trial?
  • Can a trial court allow the recall of a witness solely to permit the prosecution to fill lacunae in its case?
  • What criteria must be met to justify the recall of a witness under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• NESTLE PAKISTAN Versus DIRECTOR PESSI2019 PLD 515 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-29
  excessive delegationsocial security contributionlegislative policywage limitsconstitutional petitiondelegated legislationlabour welfare legislationadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of 240 constitutional petitions challenged the validity of amendments to Sections 2(8)(f), 20(1), and 71 of the Punjab Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, and the subsequent notifications issued by the Government of Punjab determining wage limits for social security contributions. The core legal question was whether these provisions suffered from the vice of excessive delegation by empowering the Executive to determine wage limits without sufficient legislative standards. The Court held that the delegation was not excessive, as the Ordinance provided a sufficient framework and policy guidance for the Executive, including a structured review process involving stakeholders and consideration of economic factors like wage levels and living costs. The Court affirmed that the Legislature may delegate ancillary or subsidiary legislative tasks, provided the legislative policy is clear. Furthermore, the Court found that the impugned notifications were neither arbitrary nor procedurally improper, as they were based on rational economic data and, where applicable, had received the necessary Cabinet approval in accordance with constitutional requirements. The petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the delegation of power to the Executive to determine wage limits under the Punjab Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, constitute excessive delegation of legislative authority?
  • Is the determination of wage limits for social security contributions by the Government under Section 71 of the Punjab Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, subject to sufficient legislative standards and guidance?
  • Can a notification issued by the Provincial Government be declared invalid on the ground of procedural impropriety if it was issued without the approval of the Provincial Cabinet?
  • Does the principle established in the Mustafa Impex case regarding the necessity of Cabinet approval for executive acts apply prospectively or retrospectively?
  Read full judgment →
• FUN INFOTAINMENT NETWORK (SMC-PVT) LIMITED/NEO TV, through Muhammad Nasrullah Khan Versus PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY2019 PLD 486 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN MUAWIYAH Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB2019 PLD 448 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
• YASIR AYYAZ Versus State2019 PLD 366 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-30
  rapedelay in FIRmodern devicesvideo evidenceconsent versus submissionforensic analysiscredibility of prosecutrix
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for gang rape and recording/disseminating the video of the assault. The core legal questions involved the effect of delay in lodging the FIR, the evidentiary value of modern digital devices and video footage under modern legal provisions, the presence of old ruptured hymen regarding the prosecutrix's credibility, and the distinction between consent and submission under duress. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the psychological trauma of a rape victim adequately explains a fortnight's delay in reporting, that modern digital video evidence authenticated by forensic analysis is fully admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that submission under fear or coercion does not constitute legal consent. The key principles laid down include that a rape victim's initial silence due to trauma cannot be viewed as fatal delay, that a woman's virtue is not impeached by anatomical variations like a ruptured hymen, and that modern digital evidence processed through automated systems without human interference is reliable and admissible to prove guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of fifteen days in reporting a sexual assault vitiate the prosecution case where the delay is explained by trauma and threats?
  • Are digital video recordings captured on mobile phones and verified by forensic agencies admissible as primary evidence under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What is the legal distinction between consent and mere submission under fear, duress, or inevitable compulsion in cases of sexual assault?
  • Does the presence of an old healed or ruptured hymen impeach the credibility or virtue of a prosecutrix in a rape trial?
  Read full judgment →