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.

• SALEEM SHAHADAT Versus Mst. NOOR JEHAN2019 PLD 346 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. RABYIA ILYYAS Versus ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE2019 PLD 281 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-08Read full judgment →
• SUBAY KHAN Versus SECRETARY, LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB2019 PLD 253 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-25
  domestic workersfundamental rightschild domestic labourright to livelihoodforced labourminimum wagesPunjab Domestic Workers Act 2019public interest litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Lahore High Court upon a petition seeking the enforcement of fundamental rights of domestic workers and directing the government to enact specific legislation regulating their minimum wages and working conditions. The core legal question involved whether the lack of legal protection and regulatory framework for domestic workers violated their fundamental constitutional rights against exploitation and forced labour. The Court noted that during the proceedings, the Provincial Government enacted the Punjab Domestic Workers Act, 2019. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition with directions to the relevant departments to fully implement the new enactment, frame necessary rules, establish enforcement authorities, and launch awareness campaigns. The key principle laid down is that domestic workers are entitled to full constitutional protections, including the right to fair remuneration, dignified working conditions, and freedom from exploitation under Articles 3, 4, 11, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of specific legislation regulating the wages and working conditions of domestic workers violates their fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a contempt of court petition involving a matter of public importance regarding fundamental rights be converted into a writ petition?
  • Are domestic workers entitled to the protection of labour laws and minimum wage standards akin to workers in the industrial sector?
  • What are the statutory obligations of employers and the provincial government under the Punjab Domestic Workers Act, 2019?
  Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN MEDICAL AND DENTAL COUNCIL Versus MUHAMMAD JUNAID ALAM2019 PLD 234 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-06Read full judgment →
• AMANAT ALI Versus Mst. NADIA SHAUKAT2019 PLD 160 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-27Read full judgment →
• ABDUL WAHAB BALOCH Versus IMRAN AHMAD KHAN NIAZI2019 PLD 119 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
• HUSNAIN COTEX LTD., Versus WASEEM SANA2018 PLD 871 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAWAD HAMID Versus Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF Rai Bashir Ahmad2018 PLD 836 · Lahore High Court · 2018-07-06Read full judgment →
• KHALIDA IDREES Versus ANAS FAROOQ CHAUDHARY2018 PLD 819 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-07Read full judgment →
• MASOOD AHMAD ABBASI, ADVOCATE Versus SHAHID KHAQAN2018 PLD 752 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-27Read full judgment →
• HABIB AKRAM Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad2018 PLD 641 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-30Read full judgment →
• LOUIS DREYFUS COMMODITIES SUISSE S.A. Versus ACRO TEXTILE MILLS LTD.2018 PLD 597 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-08Read full judgment →
• ASGHAR LEGHARI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2018 PLD 364 · Lahore High Court · 2018-01-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZISH ALI PIRZADA Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN2018 PLD 318 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. FAIZ MAI Versus HOME SECRETARY2017 PLD 896 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• ABU TALIB KHAN BARKI Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT2017 PLD 882 · Lahore High Court · 2017-09-19Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN COLLEGE OF LAW Versus UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB2017 PLD 830 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-10
  legal educationadmission eligibilitycooperative federalismuniversity autonomy3rd divisionprofessional standardsconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the University of the Punjab’s refusal to register students holding a 3rd division in their F.A/F.Sc. or B.A/B.Sc. qualifications for the LL.B (3 and 5 years) program. The core legal question was whether the University’s Admission Regulations, which mandate a minimum 2nd division for admission, were valid, particularly given the silence of the Pakistan Bar Council Legal Education Rules, 2015 on this specific threshold. The Court held that the University’s policy is a valid exercise of its statutory authority. Applying the principle of cooperative federalism, the Court ruled that while federal law sets baseline minimum standards, provincial institutions are empowered to impose more stringent, higher standards of excellence. Consequently, the University’s refusal to register the 3rd division students was upheld as lawful. The Court emphasized that professional education standards must be maintained, rejecting any compromise for the sake of student convenience. While dismissing the petition, the Court ordered the petitioner college to refund the academic fees to the affected students to prevent unjust enrichment.

  Questions settled

  • Are students holding a 3rd division in F.A/F.Sc. or B.A/B.Sc. eligible for admission to the LL.B program at the University of the Punjab?
  • Can a provincial university impose higher admission standards than those prescribed by federal regulatory bodies?
  • Does the principle of cooperative federalism allow for the coexistence of federal and provincial educational standards?
  • Is a college liable to refund academic fees if it grants admission to students in violation of university eligibility regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• ROOMI FOODS (PVT) LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2017 PLD 784 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus State2017 PLD 750 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-09
  murderjudicial confessiondeath sentenceremedial corroborationtranquillizerfirearm recoverymurder referenceconfession voluntariness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Afzal, who was convicted by the trial court for the pre-planned murders of his father, mother, four brothers, and two sisters under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with other related offences. The core legal questions involved the voluntariness and evidentiary value of the appellant's judicial confession, the reliability of eyewitness and medical evidence, and the proof of motive regarding an alleged illicit liaison. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through a voluntary and unretracted judicial confession, consistent eyewitness testimonies, positive forensic and medical reports confirming that the victims were tranquillized before being shot, and the recovery of the murder weapon. The Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, holding that premeditated mass familial murder of this brutality warrants the utmost deterrent punishment, and answered the murder reference in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can form the sole basis of a capital conviction without further corroboration when it is voluntary and unretracted?
  • Does the administration of tranquillizers to victims prior to a fatal shooting establish premeditation and intent to commit murder in a calculated manner?
  • Whether minor discrepancies and contradictions in eyewitness testimonies are sufficient to discard the evidence of witnesses who apprehended the accused red-handed at the spot?
  • Is a death sentence warranted for a pre-planned mass murder committed with extreme brutality against members of one's own family?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus Chaudhary ABDUL RASHEED2017 PLD 703 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-20Read full judgment →
• MOHAMMAD SHAFIQ-UR-REHMAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2017 PLD 558 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-15Read full judgment →
• ALAMDAR HUSSAIN Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU2017 PLD 479 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-19Read full judgment →
• MUZAFAR ABBAS Versus Maulana MUHAMMAD AHMAD LUDHIANVI2017 PLD 394 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. JAMEELA MANZOOR Versus RAJA ZAFAR MEHMOOD2017 PLD 360 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• ASGHAR BIN SHAHID JAFRI Versus DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY2017 PLD 347 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12Read full judgment →
• KHALIDA SHAMIM AKHTAR Versus GHULAM JAFFAR2016 PLD 865 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus State2016 PLD 655 · Lahore High Court · 2016-01-20
  blasphemybenefit of the doubtdeath sentencecriminal appealmurder referencerevaluation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 295-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the trial court in respect of an allegation of uttering blasphemous remarks. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony, the unexplained five-day delay in lodging the FIR, the failure to produce independent witnesses or the pamphlet that allegedly triggered the incident, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that in serious criminal charges carrying capital punishment, particularly under Section 295-C, the prosecution must prove its case through unimpeachable and rigorous evidence, failing which the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of five days in lodging an FIR for an offence under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 casts serious doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal where the prosecution witnesses are interested or biased and no independent corroboration is brought on record?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the exact words attributed to the accused beyond a reasonable doubt warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• SAFDAR HUSSAIN Versus Mst. NOSHI (NISHAT) GILLANI2016 PLD 563 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-11Read full judgment →
• KARAMAT HUSSAIN Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN through Provincial Election Commissioner (Punjab)2016 PLD 491 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-10Read full judgment →
• Sheikh MUBASHAR IRFAN Versus PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN2016 PLD 402 · Lahore High Court · 2015-12-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAWAD HAMID Versus HASEEB AKBAR Rai Bashir Ahmad2016 PLD 397 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. SARA ALI MALIK Versus CITY POLICE OFFICER, GUJRANWALA2016 PLD 373 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. BUDHAI Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA2016 PLD 287 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-29Read full judgment →
• SALIM JAVED BAIG Versus FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN2016 PLD 248 · Lahore High Court · 2015-10-19Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH2016 PLD 130 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-10Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER REGULATORY AUTHORITY Versus FAISALABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED2015 PLD 661 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAMREEN BIBI Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT2015 PLD 504 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-04Read full judgment →
• BAKHT MUNIR Versus QADIR KHAN2014 PLD 87 · Lahore High Court · 2013-10-28Read full judgment →
• TALIB HUSSAIN Versus State2014 PLD 574 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-24
  suspension of sentencespecial leave to appealbail pending appealappellate jurisdictioncriminal procedureHigh Court powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several criminal petitions filed under Section 426(2B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail following the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s power under Section 426(2B) to suspend a sentence is restricted to cases where the High Court itself certifies the case as fit for appeal, or if it extends to cases where the Supreme Court grants special leave to appeal. The Court held that Section 426(2B) empowers the High Court to suspend a sentence and grant bail to a convict once the Supreme Court of Pakistan has granted special leave to appeal against a sentence imposed or maintained by the High Court. The Court clarified that the power to grant leave to appeal is a prerogative of the Supreme Court, and the High Court’s authority under Section 426(2B) is triggered upon such leave being granted. The objection raised by the prosecution regarding the competency of these applications was overruled, and the petitions were remanded for decision on merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the power to suspend a sentence under Section 426(2B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the Supreme Court has granted special leave to appeal?
  • Is the High Court's power to suspend a sentence under Section 426(2B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited only to cases where the High Court grants a certificate of fitness for appeal?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's authority to grant bail to a convict pending an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar AYAZ SADIQ Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN2014 PLD 531 · Lahore High Court · 2014-05-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus ZARINA BIBI2014 PLD 429 · Lahore High Court · 2013-06-20Read full judgment →
• Syed FEROZ SHAH GILLANI Versus F.O.P.2014 PLD 210 · Lahore High Court · 2014-01-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus State2014 PLD 194 · Lahore High Court · 2013-10-11
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailleave to appealinfirmityappellate jurisdictioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail pending an appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioner had been convicted by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the High Court, on appeal, set aside that conviction and instead convicted him under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Both the petitioner and the complainant were granted leave to appeal by the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to suspend the sentence and grant bail under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. The Court held that the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court did not automatically restore the trial court's judgment or set aside the High Court's judgment. Finding the petitioner, aged over 60 and infirm, eligible for relief, the Court suspended the sentence and granted bail pending the final disposal of the appeal by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail when leave to appeal has been granted by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court automatically restore the trial court's judgment or set aside the High Court's appellate judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZAM Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN2013 PLD 73 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-03Read full judgment →
• ZIA ULLAH MALIK Versus NADEEM BAIG2013 PLD 69 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-17Read full judgment →
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD AKRAM2013 PLD 627 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. NADIA BIBI Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE2013 PLD 41 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-23Read full judgment →
• TANVEER AHMAD KHAN Versus REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE2013 PLD 386 · Lahore High Court · 2013-01-16
  selection poststructured discretionspeaking orderpromotionservice appealhigh court establishment rulessupersessionmeritocracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed under Rule 24 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules against the promotion order of the Chief Justice promoting certain court officers as Deputy Registrars (BS-19) while superseding the appellant, a senior Reader. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of an appeal against a promotion order passed by the Chief Justice, the necessity of structured objective criteria and reasons for filling selection posts, and the proper scope of Rule 26 regarding the Chief Justice's overriding powers. The Lahore High Court held that appeals lie against orders of appointment, promotion, and seniority under Rule 20, overruling a prior conflicting precedent. The Court held that selection posts must be filled on merit through structured, rational, and objective criteria, and promotion orders must be speaking orders containing reasons pursuant to section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It further held that Rule 26 is an exceptional, sparing power restricted to special circumstances and cannot bypass the consideration of all eligible officers in the talent pool. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the promotion of respondent No.4 and granting promotion to the appellant without back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal is maintainable under Rule 24 against promotion orders passed under Rule 7 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules?
  • Does the power of the Chief Justice under Rule 26 of the High Court Establishment Rules permit bypassing the regular selection process and ignoring eligible officers in the talent pool?
  • Are selection posts required to be filled on the basis of a structured, rational, and objective criteria accompanied by a speaking order giving reasons?
  • What is the legal scope and extent of invoking Rule 26 of the High Court Establishment Rules in administrative appointments and promotions?
  Read full judgment →
• Barrister SARDAR MUHAMMAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2013 PLD 343 · Lahore High Court · 2013-01-15
  writ of quo warrantoterritorial jurisdictionconflict of interestregulatory authorityPakistan Telecommunication Authoritycivil servantRules of Business 1973judicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses constitutional petitions challenging the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Member and Chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). The core legal questions involved the legality of the recruitment process, the application of Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 for such appointments, the extent of the court's territorial jurisdiction in issuing a writ of quo warranto, and the statutory disqualification arising from a conflict of interest under Section 3(4) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. The Lahore High Court held that the appointment was made in blatant disregard of established recruitment procedures, bypassing open advertisement, selection committees, and required profiles, and that Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act does not override the specific qualifications and statutory procedures for regulatory bodies. The court further held that respondent No. 5's recent tenure as Chairman of PTCL constituted a clear conflict of interest under Section 3(4). Consequently, the court declared the notifications of appointment to be without lawful authority and set them aside, laying down principles emphasizing transparency, merit, adherence to the Rules of Business, 1973, and the institutional independence of regulatory authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto against the holder of a public office that exercises nation-wide jurisdiction?
  • Can a civil servant be appointed as a Member or Chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through transfer under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, without following the prescribed statutory recruitment procedure?
  • Does a former Chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited suffer from a conflict of interest under Section 3(4) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, rendering him ineligible for appointment as Member or Chairman of the PTA?
  • Is a person challenging a public appointment through a writ of quo warranto required to be an aggrieved person under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• MATLOOB RABBANI Versus MANZOORAN BEGUM2013 PLD 333 · Lahore High Court · 2013-01-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus PRESIDENT, P.C. BANK, LAHORE2013 PLD 305 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-30Read full judgment →
• NOOR Versus Mst. SATTAN2013 PLD 30 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-01Read full judgment →
• FAIZ AHMAD Versus AHMAD KHAN2013 PLD 234 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-18Read full judgment →
• PIONEER CEMENT LIMITED Versus FECTO CEMENT LIMITED2013 PLD 110 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-28Read full judgment →
• ROBEENA SHAHEEN Versus MUHAMMAD MUNIR AHMAD2013 PLD 106 · Lahore High Court · 2012-10-05Read full judgment →
• ZAFAR ALI Versus State2012 PLD 73 · Lahore High Court · 2011-05-03
  surety bondforfeiture of bondbail bondabsconding accusedpenaltycriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah, whereby a full penalty of Rs.3,00,000 was imposed upon the petitioner as a surety after the accused absented himself from the trial. The core legal question revolves around whether a surety can be penalized under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without being granted adequate opportunity to produce the absconding accused, and whether subsequent production of the accused absolves the surety from the penalty. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of Section 514 are meant to secure the attendance of the accused rather than act as a commercial recovery trap, and where a surety makes genuine efforts and succeeds in producing the accused before the court, the forfeiture and imposition of heavy penalties are unwarranted. The court established the principle that trial courts must afford sureties a reasonable opportunity to procure the attendance of absconding accused persons, and the subsequent production of the accused nullifies the justification for enforcing the surety bond penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can forfeit a surety bond and impose a penalty without granting a reasonable opportunity to the surety to produce the accused?
  • Does the subsequent production of the absconding accused by the surety absolve the surety from the penalty under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can provisions relating to the forfeiture of surety bonds be used as a recovery mechanism or a trap against a surety?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik ALLAH YAR KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2012 PLD 536 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-11Read full judgment →
• SYED BHAIS (PVT.) LTD. Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Local Government2012 PLD 52 · Lahore High Court · 2011-07-07Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus HABIB BANK LTD.2012 PLD 370 · Lahore High Court · 2012-02-01Read full judgment →
• ALAM DIN Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN2012 PLD 279 · Lahore High Court · 2011-11-16Read full judgment →
• Rana JAHANGIR KHAN Versus MANZOOR AHMAD2012 PLD 204 · Lahore High Court · 2012-01-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN2012 PLD 125 · Lahore High Court · 2011-07-25Read full judgment →
• MUTALI Versus KHIZAR HAYAT2012 PLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-13Read full judgment →
• SAMINA KANWAL Versus DIRECTOR PUNJAB FORESTRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, FAISALABAD2011 PLD 563 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-09Read full judgment →
• Rana NASARULLAH Versus State2011 PLD 544 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-02
  suspension of sentencestatutory delaydangerous criminalnarcotics traffickingcharaspost-conviction bailControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the suspension of the petitioner's sentence of imprisonment for life and fine imposed under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, based on the statutory delay in the decision of his appeal beyond two years. The core legal question was whether a first-time offender convicted of a large-scale narcotics offense falls within the exclusion proviso of section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal', thus disqualifying him from the suspension of sentence. The Lahore High Court held that although the petitioner had no previous criminal history and was not a hardened or desperate criminal, his possession and trafficking of a huge quantity of 15 kilograms of charas brought him within the definition of a 'dangerous criminal' due to the devastating societal impact of drug trafficking on the public and youth. The petition for suspension of sentence was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a first offender convicted of a narcotics offense can be classified as a dangerous criminal under the proviso to section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does possession of a large quantity of charas disentitle a convict from the benefit of suspension of sentence on the ground of statutory delay in the decision of the appeal?
  • What are the distinct characteristics of hardened, desperate, and dangerous criminals for the purpose of section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TANVEER Versus MUHAMMAD JAMIL2011 PLD 511 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAHIMYAR KHAN2011 PLD 497 · Lahore High Court · 2011-05-02Read full judgment →
• FARAZ AHMAD BHUTTA Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE2011 PLD 483 · Lahore High Court · 2011-05-31Read full judgment →
• AKHTAR ALI Versus MUHAMMAD SHOIAB AHMAD M. Akhtar Ali Chaudhry2011 PLD 46 · Lahore High Court · 2009-09-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. RAZIA BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD SHAREEF2011 PLD 450 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus Sh. MUHAMMAD ANWAR2011 PLD 446 · Lahore High Court · 2011-06-01Read full judgment →
• SHER MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL2011 PLD 412 · Lahore High Court · 2011-02-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAZHAR IQBAL Versus State2011 PLD 306 · Lahore High Court · 2010-12-20
  bail cancellationpre-arrest baildishonour of chequeloan repaymentconcurrent remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent in a case registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the dishonour of cheques issued against a loan facility. The core legal question was whether a complainant-bank is debarred from registering a criminal case under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 simply because an alternate remedy exists under section 20 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The Lahore High Court held that a complainant has the prerogative to choose a more efficacious and speedy remedy, and criminal proceedings under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can run concurrently with remedies under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. Finding that the ingredients of section 489-F were met and that the trial court misexercised its discretion in granting pre-arrest bail without establishing mala fides or ill will on the part of the complainant, the court accepted the petition and cancelled the respondent's bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bank is debarred from registering a criminal case under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a remedy is available under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can criminal proceedings under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 run side by side with proceedings under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail granted by a lower court can be cancelled when the ingredients of section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are prima facie met and no mala fides of the complainant are shown?
  Read full judgment →
• TANVEER SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2011 PLD 292 · Lahore High Court · 2011-01-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. AMEER BEGUM Versus ABID HUSSAIN (MINOR)2011 PLD 284 · Lahore High Court · 2010-12-13Read full judgment →
• KAREEM BAKHSH Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD2011 PLD 249 · Lahore High Court · 2010-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. HUMAIRA NOREEN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE2011 PLD 225 · Lahore High Court · 2010-12-23Read full judgment →
• MAQBOOL AHMED Versus FARYAD ALI2011 PLD 217 · Lahore High Court · 2011-03-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL2011 PLD 149 · Lahore High Court · 2010-10-27Read full judgment →
• NAZAR MUHAMMAD CHOOHAN Versus Dr. FAIZA ASGHAR2011 PLD 115 · Lahore High Court · 2010-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mian MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF Versus State2010 PLD 81 · Lahore High Court · 2009-06-26
  assets beyond known sources of incomefair trialdue process of lawright to counselno evidenceacquittalaccountability courtbenami transactioncondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellant under Section 10 read with Section 9(a)(v) and 9(a)(iv) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, for holding assets beyond known sources of income and benami purchase of a helicopter. The core legal questions involved whether the trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of due process, whether fundamental rights under the Constitution were violated by denying adequate time to prepare a defense, and whether the prosecution established its case with sufficient evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the trial was conducted with unholy haste in violation of the right to a fair trial and due process, and that the conviction was based on 'no evidence' as the prosecution failed to establish any financial contribution or ownership by the appellant. The court laid down the principle that a criminal conviction cannot be sustained without tangible direct or indirect evidence, and that conducting a trial in denial of fundamental constitutional rights renders the proceedings and judgment a nullity in the eye of the law. The appeal was accepted and the appellant acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial conducted in undue haste without affording adequate opportunity to consult counsel and prepare a defense violates the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process?
  • Can a conviction under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, be sustained in the absence of direct or indirect evidence establishing the charges?
  • Whether the provisions of Section 14 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, regarding the presumption of guilt can be invoked without fulfilling the mandatory pre-conditions?
  • Whether long delay in filing an appeal can be condoned when the appellant was forced into exile and denied access to courts under extraordinary political circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMAD BHATTI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR through Secretary2010 PLD 697 · Lahore High Court · 2010-07-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAMEEL Versus AMIR YAR2010 PLD 583 · Lahore High Court · 2010-08-20Read full judgment →
• Rao DIL JAN KHAN Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS2010 PLD 413 · Lahore High Court · 2010-05-26Read full judgment →
• DEWAN PETROLEUM (PVT.) Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2010 PLD 404 · Lahore High Court · 2010-07-14Read full judgment →
• MUNAWAR HUSSAIN Versus State2010 PLD 39 · Lahore High Court · 2009-05-14
  pre-arrest bailquashment of FIRfraudulent mutationcase diary leakageland fraudpatwari
  Summary & questions settled

  This order disposes of two petitions for pre-arrest bail and a writ petition seeking the quashment of a First Information Report (FIR). The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, including a Patwari, fraudulently attested a mutation of land purportedly gifted by a deceased individual, without verifying his identity card, and subsequently transferred the land through successive gifts to close relatives. The petitioners argued that they were innocent, that the complainant had altered the deceased's death certificate, and that a previous investigating officer had declared them innocent in a case diary. The High Court observed that the considerations for pre-arrest bail are distinct from post-arrest bail and found no grounds to grant pre-arrest bail. The Court dismissed both the bail petitions and the writ petition for quashment. Crucially, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police (Investigation) to probe how a photocopy of the confidential police case diary was leaked to the petitioners and how the previous investigator had declared them innocent.

  Questions settled

  • Are the legal considerations for the grant of pre-arrest bail different from those for post-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted where there is an allegation of fraudulent land mutation without proper identification of the donor?
  • What action can the High Court take when confidential police case diaries are leaked to accused persons during an investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• MAJID KHAN Versus Mst. NASEEM BIBI2010 PLD 389 · Lahore High Court · 2010-06-17Read full judgment →
• SAIFULLAH Versus MEHR MUHAMMAD2010 PLD 341 · Lahore High Court · 2010-05-17Read full judgment →
• State Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB2010 PLD 326 · Lahore High Court · 2010-05-12Read full judgment →
• Malik MUHAMMAD SHOAIB BHUTTA, EDITOR, DAILY TULOU, ISLAMABAD Versus ABDUL AZIZ MOHMAND2010 PLD 300 · Lahore High Court · 2010-03-25
  defamationaggrieved personprivate complaintjuristic personreputationcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, dismissing the petitioner's application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking dismissal of a private complaint for defamation. The complaint was filed by the Resident Manager of the Jang Group of Newspapers under sections 499, 500, 501, 502, and 502-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging a vilification campaign by the petitioner, editor of Daily Tulou. The core legal question was whether the complainant, as an employee and manager of the corporate group, qualified as an 'aggrieved person' under section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to maintain a defamation complaint. The Lahore High Court held that a company or corporate body possesses reputation, and whether a person is an 'aggrieved person' depends on the facts and circumstances, determining that the complainant made out a prima facie case of being directly or indirectly affected and aggrieved. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Who qualifies as an aggrieved person under section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to file a complaint for defamation?
  • Can a company or corporate body maintain a private complaint for defamation under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the publication of defamatory material against a corporate group and its management afford a manager standing to file a criminal complaint?
  • What constitutes an injury to reputation in the context of the offense of defamation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. KALSOOM BIBI Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE2010 PLD 265 · Lahore High Court · 2010-03-05Read full judgment →
• ALLAH YAR Versus HUSSAIN ALI2009 PLD 87 · Lahore High Court · 2008-06-20
  withdrawal of prosecutionanti-corruptioncognizanceexecutive interferencerevision petitionsupervisory jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, whereby permission was granted to withdraw the prosecution against an accused facing charges under sections 409 and 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, following an executive cancellation of the case by the District Police Officer. The core legal question was whether a trial court can mechanically permit the withdrawal of prosecution or cancel a case based on executive directives after taking judicial cognizance. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted illegally and mechanically by permitting the withdrawal of the case based on an executive opinion without independently satisfying itself or analyzing the merits of the case in light of established judicial dictums. The Court established the principle that once a court takes cognizance of an offence, the prosecution cannot be withdrawn or the case cancelled merely on the dictation or opinion of an executive authority, and the trial court must exercise its supervisory judicial discretion responsibly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court permit the withdrawal of prosecution merely on the basis of an executive cancellation of the case by police or district authorities?
  • What is the extent of a trial court's supervisory jurisdiction when a public prosecutor applies for the withdrawal of a criminal case?
  • Does an executive opinion or cancellation order prevail over judicial cognizance taken by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption?
  Read full judgment →
• JAVED IQBAL Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM2009 PLD 82 · Lahore High Court · 2008-10-07Read full judgment →
• Dr. ZIA-UR-REHMAN KHAN Versus Dr. ATIQ-UR-RAHMAN KHAN2009 PLD 641 · Lahore High Court · 2009-06-22Read full judgment →
• KHURSHEED BEGUM Versus INAM-UR-REHMAN KHAN2009 PLD 552 · Lahore High Court · 2009-05-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KALEEM ASIF Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE2009 PLD 484 · Lahore High Court · 2009-04-08Read full judgment →
• AFTAB AHMAD KHAN Versus GHAFOOR AHMAD2009 PLD 473 · Lahore High Court · 2009-04-30Read full judgment →
• YOUNAS SIDDIQUE Versus Mst. TAHIRA JABFEN2009 PLD 469 · Lahore High Court · 2009-04-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA ANSARI2009 PLD 467 · Lahore High Court · 2009-04-29Read full judgment →
• ABID SHAH Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE SHEIKHUPURA2009 PLD 444 · Lahore High Court · 2009-01-21
  issuance of processprivate complaintprima facie casesufficient groundscriminal revisionpreliminary inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge issuing bailable warrants against the petitioners following a private complaint. The core legal question involved whether the trial court committed any illegality or irregularity under Sections 203 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in issuing process upon finding a prima facie case after a preliminary inquiry conducted by a Judicial Magistrate, notwithstanding a prior police cancellation report. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted lawfully, as sufficient grounds for proceeding existed based on the initial evidence and inquiry report, and that courts are not expected to examine material minutely at the stage of issuing process. The key principle laid down is that the existence of a prima facie case for issuing process under Section 204 requires only that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, distinct from the thorough appraisal of evidence required at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can issue process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after considering a preliminary inquiry report and the statement of the complainant?
  • Does the requirement of sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to offences not specifically enumerated therein?
  • Is a court expected to examine material minutely at the stage of issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →