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.

• ATTA MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD BAKHSH2004 PLD 300 · Lahore High Court · 2003-12-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus BARKAT ALI2004 PLD 21 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• GHULAM ABBAS Versus MANZOOR AHMED2004 PLD 125 · Lahore High Court · 2003-11-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus RIAZ MAHMOOD2004 PLD 115 · Lahore High Court · 2003-10-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ARIF SAIGOL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2003 PLD 733 · Lahore High Court · 2003-06-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. NARGIS MOEEN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2003 PLD 730 · Lahore High Court · 2003-06-02Read full judgment →
• Malik ASGHAR Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2003 PLD 73 · Lahore High Court · 2002-12-10
  freedom of traderoute franchisemotor vehicle ordinancemonopolyregulatory powerpublic transportconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved several consolidated writ petitions challenging the vires of Section 69-A of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965, which authorized the Punjab Government to grant exclusive route franchises for public transport, thereby cancelling existing route permits. The core legal questions were whether this provision violated the fundamental right to freedom of trade under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by creating an illegal monopoly, and whether the government could restrict the use of public roads for commercial purposes. The Court held that Section 69-A is a valid regulatory provision. It affirmed that the power to regulate a trade, particularly through a licensing system, inherently includes the power to restrict or prohibit certain activities in the public interest. The Court distinguished between the general right to use a public road and the right to use it for commercial purposes, which is subject to state regulation. The key principle laid down is that the state may impose reasonable restrictions on commercial transport to ensure public welfare, and such regulation does not constitute an unconstitutional monopoly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of a franchise for public transport routes under Section 69-A of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 constitute an illegal monopoly?
  • Does the power to regulate a trade under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include the power to prohibit or restrict commercial activities?
  • Can the government restrict the use of public roads for commercial transport purposes without violating fundamental rights?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to examine the validity of a law on the touchstone of Article 2A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• ASGHAR ALI Versus THE STATE2003 PLD 571 · Lahore High Court · 2003-03-03
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtmedical evidence contradictionocular accountdeath sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and others attacked the deceased and complainant party, firing from rooftops and later chasing the victims. The trial court disbelieved the first part of the incident but convicted the appellant based on the second part. Upon review, the High Court observed that the prosecution’s narrative was inherently improbable, noting that the complainant and deceased could have easily escaped or taken shelter given the alleged sequence of events. Crucially, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account; the presence of burning around the entry wound indicated a very close-range shot, whereas the prosecution alleged firing from a significant distance. Furthermore, investigative reports suggested a different perpetrator, Akhtar, was responsible. The Court held that when the prosecution's story is contradicted by medical evidence and investigative findings, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, finding the prosecution's case to be a fabrication designed to implicate multiple persons.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of burning around a gunshot wound contradict an ocular account alleging firing from a long distance?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's version of the incident is contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Is an appellate court justified in acquitting an accused when the prosecution's narrative of the crime is found to be fabricated?
  Read full judgment →
• GHULAM SHABBIR Versus THE STATE2003 PLD 559 · Lahore High Court · 2003-02-10
  grave and sudden provocationchance witnessesmurdercriminal appealdeath sentence confirmationmitigation of sentenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Ghulam Shabbir, for the murder of Nazar Hussain under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of premeditated murder, or if the appellant’s defense of grave and sudden provocation—stemming from finding the deceased in a compromising position with his sister-in-law—was credible. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution witnesses were "chance witnesses" whose testimony lacked reliability. Consequently, the Court accepted the appellant’s version of events, finding that the incident occurred due to grave and sudden provocation. The Court modified the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and setting aside the compensation order. The key principle laid down is that where an accused acts under grave and sudden provocation upon discovering the deceased in an immoral act, the conviction should be mitigated, and compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased is generally not warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be modified to Section 302(c) when the accused acts under grave and sudden provocation?
  • Are witnesses who claim to have arrived at the scene of a crime by chance considered reliable in the absence of corroborating evidence?
  • Is compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory when the accused kills under grave and sudden provocation involving immoral acts?
  • Does the discovery of a relative in a compromising position constitute sufficient grounds for the defense of grave and sudden provocation?
  Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN LAWYERS FORUM Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2003 PLD 461 · Lahore High Court · 2003-04-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF2003 PLD 413 · Lahore High Court · 2003-02-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus THE STATE2003 PLD 270 · Lahore High Court · 2003-01-15
  dying declarationmurderbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencemedical evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for setting his wife on fire and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, alongside a connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of an oral dying declaration recorded by a police officer without obtaining a medical fitness certificate or thumb-impression due to burn injuries, and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the dying declaration was highly doubtful, unverified by medical personnel, and unsupported by credible eye-witness testimony. The court established that a dying declaration recorded by a police officer without medical fitness certification, and where the maker's hands were severely burnt, is a weak piece of evidence that cannot solely form the basis of a safe conviction. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the revision petition was disposed of as infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration recorded by a police officer without obtaining a medical certificate of fitness?
  • Whether a dying declaration is reliable when the medical evidence shows that the deceased's hands were severely burnt and no thumb-impression could be affixed?
  • Does the recording of a dying declaration by a police officer instead of a Magistrate diminish its evidentiary value?
  • Is the testimony of a related and distant eye-witness sufficient to convict an accused when it contradicts natural human conduct and physical circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus Mst. NASREEN AKHTAR2003 PLD 260 · Lahore High Court · 2003-01-24Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus SHAMIM AHMAD KHAN2003 PLD 245 · Lahore High Court · 2002-09-19Read full judgment →
• ZAHOOR AHMAD Versus Mst. IRSHAD BEGUM2003 PLD 194 · Lahore High Court · 2002-05-20Read full judgment →
• FRIENDS ASSOCIATES (RECD.) Versus BINN BAK INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED2003 PLD 17 · Lahore High Court · 2002-05-14Read full judgment →
• GHULAM DIN Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR EXERCISING POWERS OF ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER2003 PLD 1024 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• DR. FAROOQ SATTAR Versus THE STATE2002 PLD 95 · Lahore High Court · 2001-09-13
  accountability courtmisuse of authorityburden of proofoctroi contractcorruptioncriminal appealNational Accountability Bureau Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant, a former Minister, for corruption under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, regarding the alleged misuse of authority in awarding an octroi collection contract. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s involvement in the contract, specifically the inclusion of "Port Bin Qasim" for octroi collection, constituted a corrupt practice causing financial loss to the state. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any misuse of authority, as the contract terms were consistent with past practices and the contract itself had been declared valid by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the conviction was set aside. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must first discharge its initial burden of proving a prima facie case of "misuse of authority" before the burden of proof shifts to the accused under Section 14(d) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. Mere allegations or the filing of a reference do not create a presumption of guilt, and the prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offense first.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere filing of a reference under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 create a presumption of guilt against the accused?
  • At what stage does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 14(d) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can a public official be held liable for misuse of authority when the contract in question was awarded in accordance with established past practices?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus BASHIR AHMAD2002 PLD 88 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-09Read full judgment →
• MALIK ZAFAR YOUSAF Versus THE STATE2002 PLD 84 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-29
  criminal revisiontransfer of caseanti-terrorism courtjurisdiction of magistratesessions courtchallanconcurrent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Islamabad, whereby a case arising out of FIR No. 157 of 1998, previously pending before the Special Court Anti-Terrorism, was entrusted to an Additional Sessions Judge upon an amendment excluding the case from anti-terrorism jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the case should have been sent to a Magistrate or an Additional Sessions Judge for trial, given the concurrent jurisdiction of both courts, and whether the Sessions Judge erred in bypassing the initial scrutiny of a Magistrate. The Lahore High Court held that propriety and the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure demand that when jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court is ousted, the case must first go to the Ilaqa Magistrate to apply his mind and decide whether the case should be tried by the Magistrate himself or committed to the Sessions Court. The revision petition was accepted and the case was remitted to the Ilaqa Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case removed from the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court must be sent first to an Ilaqa Magistrate for evaluation under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Does a Sessions Judge err by directly entrusting a challan case to an Additional Sessions Judge without the Magistrate applying his mind to the appropriate trial forum?
  • What is the procedure to be followed when the schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act is amended to oust the jurisdiction of the Special Court over a pending case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ HUSSAIN Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL, FAISALABAD2002 PLD 78 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-25Read full judgment →
• BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO Versus THE STATE2002 PLD 74 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-08
  maintainability of appealtrial in absentiaabscondersurrender before courtNAB Ordinanceright of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two preliminary questions regarding the maintainability of an appeal filed against the conviction of Begum Nusrat Bhutto by the Accountability Court under section 31-A of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The core legal questions were whether a third person can file an appeal on behalf of an incapacitated or unsound convict, and whether an absconding convict can maintain an appeal without surrendering to custody. The Lahore High Court held that under section 32 of the Ordinance, only the aggrieved convict or the Prosecutor General can file an appeal, meaning a third party or relative cannot execute a power of attorney or file on their behalf. Furthermore, an appellant who is a fugitive from law and has not surrendered cannot maintain an appeal unless trial absence was specifically permitted by the court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with the observation that the convict may file an appeal upon regaining normalcy subject to limitation and proper medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a third person or relative can file an appeal on behalf of a convict who is of unsound mind or seriously ill?
  • Can an absconding convict file an appeal without surrendering before the Court or Jail Authorities?
  • Does the right to file an appeal under section 32 of the NAB Ordinance fall within substantive law rather than procedural law?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHID MEHMOOD Versus PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL2002 PLD 67 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-11Read full judgment →
• MANZOOR AHMAD Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE2002 PLD 62 · Lahore High Court · 2001-05-09Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD MAHBOOB alias BOOBA Versus THE STATE2002 PLD 587 · Lahore High Court · 2002-08-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus SHAHRA2002 PLD 58 · Lahore High Court · 2001-07-25Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA2002 PLD 56 · Lahore High Court · 2001-06-22Read full judgment →
• Mrs. ANJUM IRFAN Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2002 PLD 555 · Lahore High Court · 2002-06-14Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus ELLAHI BUX2002 PLD 48 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus THE STATE2002 PLD 444 · Lahore High Court · 2002-06-03
  honour killingQatl-e-Amdcompromise of offencejudicial discretionTazircapital punishmentdeterrencegender-based violence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the triple murder of his daughter, her husband, and their infant child. The core legal question concerns whether a compromise reached between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased mandates acquittal or sentence mitigation under Section 338-E of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal and rejected the compromise, confirming the death sentence. The court held that while the law allows for the compounding of murder offences, the court retains judicial discretion under Section 338-E to refuse acquittal, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes, acts committed in the name of honour, or those striking at the fundamentals of civil society. The court emphasized that such murders, often rooted in gender bias and male chauvinism, require a deterrent judicial response. It established that the judiciary must not act as a passive observer but as a catalyst for social change, ensuring that leniency does not endorse or perpetuate violent social aberrations.

  Questions settled

  • Does a compromise between the parties in a murder case mandate an automatic acquittal by the court?
  • Can a court refuse to accept a compromise in a murder case under Section 338-E of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a murder committed in the name of honour a valid ground for the court to deny the compounding of an offence?
  • Does the court have the discretion to award Tazir punishment even after a compromise has been reached between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLAH DITTA Versus THE STATE2002 PLD 406 · Lahore High Court · 2002-03-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ Versus THE STATE2002 PLD 36 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-29
  post-arrest bailillicit armsstatutory interpretationspecial law vs general lawsurrender of illicit armsbailable offenceprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act, 1991, for possession of an unlicensed firearm. The core legal question is whether Section 7 of the 1991 Act applies to all cases of illicit arms possession, or if it is limited to instances where a person failed to surrender arms possessed on or before the government-notified target date. The Court held that the 1991 Act is a special law intended to provide a grace period and indemnity for surrendering existing illicit arms; it does not supersede the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, which remains the general law governing arms possession. The Court ruled that Section 7 of the 1991 Act is only triggered if the prosecution can establish that the accused possessed the weapon on or before the target date and failed to surrender it. Absent such evidence, the offence falls under the 1965 Ordinance, which is bailable. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the State cannot invoke the 1991 Act to deny bail for offences properly triable under the bailable provisions of the 1965 Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991 supersede the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 regarding the possession of unlicensed weapons?
  • Is the offence of possessing illicit arms under Section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991 applicable to weapons acquired after the government-notified target date?
  • Must the prosecution prove possession of illicit arms on or before the target date to secure a conviction under Section 7 of the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991?
  • Does the failure to surrender illicit arms under the Surrender of Illicit Arms Act 1991 constitute an independent offence regardless of the date of acquisition?
  Read full judgment →
• MUKHTIAR MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE2002 PLD 33 · Lahore High Court · 2001-08-28
  car theftanti-terrorism actcivil commotionvehicle liftingalteration of chargecriminal attempt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court No. II Anti-Terrorism, Rawalpindi, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 7-B of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for attempting to steal a parked vehicle. The core legal question was whether an attempt to steal a parked car without snatching or lifting it constitutes an act of civil commotion under the Anti-Terrorism Act or simple theft under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case lacked the elements of car-lifting or snatching, which require the presence of occupants and force, and that the offence fell squarely under section 381-A read with section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code rather than the Anti-Terrorism Act. The Court laid down the principle that the same set of facts involving a parked vehicle theft cannot simultaneously sustain a charge under the Anti-Terrorism Act and section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code when the statutory definition of civil commotion—such as vehicle lifting or snatching—is not met.

  Questions settled

  • Does an attempt to steal a parked vehicle without force or occupants constitute civil commotion under section 7-B of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can an accused be convicted under both the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an attempted vehicle theft that lacks the elements of car-lifting or snatching?
  • How should an incomplete theft of a motor vehicle be charged when the culprits flee before successfully removing the vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik MUHAMMAD MAJEED Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2002 PLD 290 · Lahore High Court · 2001-09-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. IRFANA SHAHEEN Versus ABID WAHEED2002 PLD 283 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-02
  habeas corpuscustody of minoradopted childHazanatIslamic lawabandoned childfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two criminal miscellaneous petitions involving the custody of adopted and abandoned minor children under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the right of custody of an adopted child in Islamic law and whether adoptive mothers possess a preferential right of Hazanat equivalent to that concerning biological children upon the dissolution of marriage or adoption regularization. The court held that adoptive mothers who have willingly participated in the adoption of a child or undertaken the care of an abandoned child are entitled to the custody of the minor in exercise of the right of Hazanat, and that institutions such as Gehwara cannot arbitrarily deprive them of such custody. The key principle laid down is that the female partner in an adoption or a voluntary custodian of an abandoned child has the primary right to custody, mirroring maternal rights under Islamic law, provided the welfare of the minor is safeguarded and appropriate undertakings are furnished.

  Questions settled

  • Does an adoptive mother have the right to custody of an adopted minor child under the principle of Hazanat upon the dissolution of marriage?
  • Can an official institution like Gehwara deprive a person who has willingly adopted an abandoned child of the child's custody without lawful justification?
  • Are the powers under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exercisable in cases of illegal and improper custody of adopted minors?
  • What is the extent of preferential custody rights of female adoptive parents regarding destitute and abandoned children under Islamic jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• HAKIM ALI Versus MEMBER POWER, WAPDA2002 PLD 28 · Lahore High Court · 2001-05-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs ALLIED GROUP VENTURES2002 PLD 274 · Lahore High Court · 2002-02-26Read full judgment →
• RAJA JAVED KIANI Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL2002 PLD 227 · Lahore High Court · 2002-01-18Read full judgment →
• AHMED NAWAZ Versus HAJI ALLAH DITTA2002 PLD 19 · Lahore High Court
  Anti-Terrorism Actdiminished liabilityretrospective applicationcriminal appealpolice encountersentencingPPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction by a Special Anti-Terrorism Court regarding an incident occurring in 1992. The core legal questions were whether an offense committed prior to the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 could be punished under its provisions, and whether the conviction under Section 302-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was sustainable given the circumstances. The Court held that while the trial could proceed under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, the substantive punishment must be governed by the law in force at the time of the offense. Consequently, the conviction under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was set aside. Furthermore, finding evidence of diminished liability due to provocation and lack of premeditation, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302-B to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence accordingly. The judgment establishes that when a statute is applied retrospectively for trial purposes, the punishment must remain consistent with the law applicable at the time of the offense, and diminished liability applies where circumstances show provocation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offense committed before the commencement of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 be punished under the provisions of that Act?
  • Does the conviction under Section 302-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply when the circumstances indicate diminished liability?
  • Is a court authorized to alter a conviction to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on evidence of provocation and loss of self-control?
  Read full judgment →
• ANEES-UR-REHMAN Versus THE STATE2002 PLD 110 · Lahore High Court · 2001-10-02
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidenceFIR sanctitysectarian biasdishonest investigationmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction and death sentence for murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the credibility of ocular witnesses, the timing of the FIR, and the integrity of the investigation. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of the doubt. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case because the ocular witnesses were unreliable, having made significant improvements to their statements and displaying sectarian bias. The court further determined that the FIR had lost its sanctity as it appeared to be recorded after the investigation had already commenced. Additionally, the court ruled that motive, being a double-edged sword, could not corroborate the case, and that a dishonest investigation, coupled with the failure to produce independent witnesses, rendered the prosecution's evidence insufficient to sustain a conviction, especially when the same evidence was disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular evidence has been disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused without strong independent corroboration?
  • Does an FIR lose its sanctity if it is recorded after the investigation has already commenced?
  • Can motive serve as a corroborative piece of evidence when the prosecution fails to prove the primary case?
  • Is a supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 equivalent to an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• SAEED AHMAD SUKHERA Versus DISTRICT COUNSIL, SHEIKHUPURA2001 PLD 402 · Lahore High Court · 2001-05-03Read full judgment →
• KOHINOOR TEXTILES MILLS LTD. Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD2001 PLD 379 · Lahore High Court · 2001-05-15Read full judgment →
• MESSRS PUNJAB BEVERAGE COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, C.B.R. HOUSE AND 4 OTHERS2001 PLD 326 · Lahore High Court · 2001-01-30Read full judgment →
• AMJAD HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS Versus THE STATE2001 PLD 315 · Lahore High Court · 2001-01-24
  QisasItlaf-i-UdwArshTa'zirabetmentfirearm injuryamputationsentencing modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision arise from a joint judgment convicting the appellants for offences including Itlaf-i-Udw and hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a firearm attack that resulted in the amputation of the victim's leg. The core legal questions involve the sustainability of convictions for abetment, the executability of Qisas for an amputation resulting from composite firearm injuries, and the apportionment of Arsh where multiple assailants contribute to an injury. The Lahore High Court held that vague threats do not constitute abetment, that Qisas is not executable when an amputation cannot be conclusively attributed to a single offender or replicated with identical force, and modified the sentence to imprisonment as Ta'zir along with the payment of Arsh. The key legal principles laid down are that liability for Qisas requires strict proof of direct causation by the offender, and where Qisas is unexecutable due to multiple actors or weapon limitations, courts must impose alternate punishments of imprisonment and Arsh.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere threat to a third party to effect a compromise amount to abetment of an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether Qisas by way of amputation of a limb can be ordered when the amputation results from composite firearm injuries inflicted by multiple persons?
  • Is the punishment of Qisas executable if the exact weapon and force used cannot be replicated to cause similar hurt?
  • What is the alternate punishment under section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when Qisas for Itlaf-i-Udw is not executable?
  Read full judgment →
• IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN Versus PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER AND 5 OTHERS2001 PLD 256 · Lahore High Court · 2001-01-25Read full judgment →
• MST. SOOBAN BIBI AND 3 OTHERS Versus MST. KHATOON AND 3 OTHERS2001 PLD 245 · Lahore High Court · 2001-01-10Read full judgment →
• BUSHRA BIBI Versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT BAHAWALPUR2000 PLD 95 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-20Read full judgment →
• NAZIR YASIN Versus YASIN FARHAT2000 PLD 594 · Lahore High Court · 2000-06-30
  bigamyChristian marriagemonogamyvoid marriagecriminal appealdissolution of marriagestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by a Magistrate in a case involving a charge of bigamy under Section 494, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant, a Christian woman, alleged that her husband contracted a second marriage without dissolving their existing marriage. The core legal question was whether, under Christian law and the relevant statutes, a Christian man may enter into a second marriage while his first marriage subsists. The Court, relying on the expert testimony of the Bishop of Lahore and statutory provisions, held that Christian marriage is strictly monogamous and that a second marriage contracted without the dissolution of the first is void. The Court concluded that the respondent's act of marrying a second time while his first wife was living constituted the offence of bigamy. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal, convicted the respondent under Section 494, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second marriage contracted by a Christian man during the subsistence of his first marriage void under Pakistani law?
  • Does the Christian Marriage Act 1872 permit polygamy for Christian men?
  • Can a Christian man be convicted under Section 494 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for contracting a second marriage without divorcing his first wife?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHIDA FAISAL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2000 PLD 508 · Lahore High Court · 2000-06-14Read full judgment →
• ATA ULLAH Versus THE STATE2000 PLD 364 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-03
  post-arrest bailQadiani groupplace of worshipdeception of Muslimsprohibitory clauseoffence against societyanti-Islamic activities
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from an application for post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 298-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging that the petitioner, belonging to the Qadiani Group, constructed a place of worship resembling a traditional Muslim mosque with minarets and arches. The core legal questions involved whether constructing a worship place resembling a Muslim mosque constitutes an offence under section 298-B(1)(d) or 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether bail should be withheld in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the act is directed against society and the accused refuses to modify the structure. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that prima facie the construction of a building resembling a Muslim mosque by a non-Muslim creates a possibility of deception and outrages the religious feelings of Muslims. The court laid down that offences creating communal unrest and affecting society as a whole constitute exceptional circumstances justifying the refusal of bail even if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, particularly where the accused's conduct demonstrates a continuous commission of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the construction of a place of worship by a member of the Qadiani Group in the form of a traditional Muslim mosque constitute an offence under Section 298-B(1)(d) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can bail be refused in a non-bailable offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that the offence is directed against society as a whole?
  • Does the registration of a First Information Report require prior formal recording as a condition precedent in cognizable offences?
  • Whether the refusal of an accused to modify an allegedly offending structure is a relevant consideration in adjudicating a post-arrest bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD WALAYAT Versus MAQSOODAN BIBI2000 PLD 359 · Lahore High Court · 2000-02-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ2000 PLD 306 · Lahore High Court · 1999-11-15Read full judgment →
• SYED BHAIS (PVT) LTD Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT2000 PLD 20 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-16Read full judgment →
• MAJID BUKHARI Versus THE STATE2000 PLD 108 · Lahore High Court · 1999-08-13
  Customs Actheroin smugglingmandatory vs directory provisionsillegal searchinvestigation irregularitiesright to be searched before magistrate
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 for smuggling heroin and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. On appeal, the appellant's counsel did not challenge the conviction on merits but argued that the failure of the Customs official to inform the appellant of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate under section 159(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 rendered the search illegal and vitiated the trial. The core legal question was whether the provisions of section 159(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 are mandatory or directory, and whether non-compliance vitiates a subsequent trial. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of section 159(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 are directory in nature, akin to section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and procedural lapses or irregularities during investigation do not vitiate an otherwise valid trial or warrant acquittal where the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 159(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 are mandatory or directory in nature?
  • Does a failure by the customs officer to inform an accused of their right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate vitiate the subsequent trial?
  • Can an accused escape criminal liability solely on the basis of procedural defects or irregularities committed during the investigation stage?
  • Are the requirements of section 159 of the Customs Act, 1969 comparable to those of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAVED Versus THE STATE1999 PLD 487 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
• RIAZ HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD SAEED ANWAR1999 PLD 35 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-05Read full judgment →
• ANAYAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB1999 PLD 328 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-28Read full judgment →
• AAMIR IQBA Versus THE STATE1999 PLD 262 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-09Read full judgment →
• THE STATE Versus DILDAR, AHMAD ADVOCATE1999 PLD 156 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-06Read full judgment →
• THE STATE Versus SAMI ULLAH1999 PLD 131 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
• HUDABIYA ENGG. (PVT) LTD. Versus PAKISTAN1998 PLD 90 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-15Read full judgment →
• PERVAIZ KHAN Versus THE STATE1998 PLD 84 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-19Read full judgment →
• SELECT SPORTS A.S. CO. Versus TEMPO ENTERPRISES1998 PLD 69 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAQUB Versus THE STATE1998 PLD 523 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-16Read full judgment →
• ANEES AHMAD Versus UZMA1998 PLD 52 · Lahore High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• MASOOD-UL-HASSAN Versus HABIB UR REHMAN1998 PLD 517 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus AZIZ ASLAM1998 PLD 411 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-16Read full judgment →
• MOHSIN ATTA Versus THE STATE1998 PLD 401 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-22Read full judgment →
• IMAM DI Versus THE STATE1998 PLD 383 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• RIAZ Versus STATION HOUSE OFFICER1998 PLD 35 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-13Read full judgment →
• KANIZ MARYAM Versus ZAIBUN NISA1998 PLD 342 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
• INAM ULLAH RASHID Versus THE STATE1998 PLD 318 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
• JANAT BIBI Versus THE STATE1998 PLD 316 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHIQ Versus THE STATE1998 PLD 307 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-17Read full judgment →
• ARSHAD MAHMOOD Versus GOVT. OF PAKISTAN1998 PLD 152 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• ABDUL SATTAR Versus AFZAAL HUSSAIN1998 PLD 149 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
• SIKANDAR MAHMOOD Versus SAEED HASSAN1998 PLD 118 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus THE STATE1997 PLD 689 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-15Read full judgment →
• HAMEED AHMAD AYYAZ Versus GOVT. OF PUNJAB1997 PLD 434 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• JAMILA BIBI Versus MIAN KHAN1997 PLD 417 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
• ABDUL WAHEED Versus ASMA JEHANGIR1997 PLD 301 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-10Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQA Versus THE STATE1997 PLD 213 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWA Versus THE STATE1997 PLD 202 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
• ABDUL JABBAR Versus THE STATE1997 PLD 172 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• ANJUMAN-E-ISLAMIA Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNUS1997 PLD 153 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TAHIR KHAN Versus SARDARAN BIBI1997 PLD 122 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
• AHMAD YAR Versus THE STATE1997 PLD 110 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• BIBI Versus GHULAM RASOOL1997 PLD 108 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
• MAHANDAN Versus ABDUL GHANI1996 PLD 77 · Lahore High Court · 1995-12-18Read full judgment →
• KHALID IQBAL Versus THE STATE1996 PLD 72 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
• GHULAM YASIN Versus SHAH NAWAZ1996 PLD 695 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-18Read full judgment →
• ANILA Versus MUHAMMAD MUNIR1996 PLD 65 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
• AMEER BANO Versus S.E.HIGHWAYS1996 PLD 592 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• FAROOQ AHMAD KHAN LAGHARI Versus NAWAZ SHARIF1996 PLD 512 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-21Read full judgment →
• HAMIDA BIBI Versus ABDUL MAJID1996 PLD 507 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• HUSSAIN BIBI Versus SALEH MUHAMMAD1996 PLD 50 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
• RASHID AHMAD Versus THE STATE1996 PLD 468 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHALID JAMSHED Versus MALIK GODHA1996 PLD 462 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE1996 PLD 46 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• MAJID NAZAM Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID1996 PLD 410 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →