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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Malik Zafar-Ul-Islam and 3 others vs Abdul Azeem Lateef and 2 others2017 YLR 1509, 2017 PLJ Lahore 616 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Walt Muhammad etc vs Ac/SDM and Collector Saddar Sub-2017 CLC 1637, 2017 PLJ Quetta 17 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Tariq Mahmood, etc. vs Ghulam.Ahmed and others2017 PLJ SC 653 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-06-05
  pre-emption suitzar-e-soimstatutory depositextension of timeplaint rejectionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from an order of the Lahore High Court whereby a pre-emption suit dismissed by the Additional District Judge for failure to deposit zar-e-soim within thirty days under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 was restored and remanded for a fresh trial. The core legal question concerns whether the thirty-day period for depositing zar-e-soim under Section 24 of the Act is mandatory, reckoned from the date of filing the suit, and whether a court has the jurisdiction to extend this period beyond thirty days. The Supreme Court examined the rival contentions regarding the computation of the statutory period and the consequences of non-compliance under Section 24(2) of the Act. The judgment engages with statutory interpretation concerning mandatory pre-emption deposits and judicial discretion in extending time for such deposits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period of 30 days for depositing zar-e-soim under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 is to be reckoned from the date of filing the suit?
  • Does a court have the jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing zar-e-soim beyond the statutory period of 30 days?
  • What are the consequences under Section 24 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 if a pre-emptor fails to deposit the zar-e-soim within the stipulated period?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Tariq Mahmood, etc vs Ghulam Ahmed and others2017 P.S.C. 1239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-06-05
  pre-emptionzar-e-soimstatutory limitationfiling of suitActus curiae neminem gravabitdismissal of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the respondent failed to deposit the zar-e-soim (one-third of the sale price) within the statutory period. The core legal question was whether the thirty-day period for depositing zar-e-soim under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 commences from the date of filing the suit or its formal registration, and whether the court possesses the discretion to extend this period beyond thirty days. The Supreme Court held that the thirty-day period must be reckoned from the date of filing the plaint, as defined by the presentation of the document to the court. The Court affirmed that the statutory limit of thirty days is absolute, and trial courts lack the jurisdiction to extend this period. While acknowledging the principle that an act of the court should not prejudice any party, the Court clarified that this principle cannot be used to circumvent the mandatory statutory embargo on extending the time for deposit beyond the thirty-day limit. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the respondent's suit for failure to comply with the mandatory deposit requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Does the thirty-day period for depositing zar-e-soim under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1991 commence from the date of filing the suit or the date of its formal registration?
  • Does a trial court have the discretion to extend the thirty-day statutory period for the deposit of zar-e-soim in a pre-emption suit?
  • Can the principle that an act of the court shall prejudice no man be invoked to extend the statutory time limit for the deposit of zar-e-soim beyond thirty days?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Tariq Mahmood and others vs Ghulam Ahmed and others2017 PLJ SC 653, 2017 PLD Supreme Court 674, 2017 P.S.C. 1239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-06-05
  pre-emption suitzar-e-soimdeposit of sale pricestatutory periodextension of timefiling of suitActus curiae neminem gravabitsuit dismissalconstitutional jurisdictioninterpretation of statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that restored and remanded a pre-emption suit. The core legal question revolved around the interpretation of Section 24 of "the Act, 1991," specifically concerning the mandatory deposit of zar-e-soim (one-third of the sale price). The Supreme Court examined when the 30-day period for this deposit commences and whether courts possess discretion to extend this period. The Court held that the 30-day period for depositing zar-e-soim begins from the date of "filing of the suit," which refers to the presentation of the plaint, not its formal registration or the date of a court order directing the deposit. It was further held that the court has no power or discretion to extend this 30-day period beyond its statutory limit. While a court's omission to direct the deposit can be remedied under the principle Actus curiae neminem gravabit, any such remedy must still adhere to the 30-day maximum from the date of filing. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the pre-emption suit, finding that the extension granted by the trial court beyond the statutory 30 days was unsustainable.

  Read full judgment →
• Malik Sohail Aslam vs Superintendent of Police (Operation), Lahore2017 YLR 1548 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-05
  Intra Court AppealEx-Officio Justice of Peaceregistration of FIRdishonoured chequecognizable offencecriminal liabilityconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers whereby a constitutional petition against the direction of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for the registration of a criminal case was allowed. The core legal question revolves around the legality of the order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, directing the registration of a case based on dishonoured cheques. The Lahore High Court held that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace rightly exercised discretion in issuing directions for recording an FIR when the application disclosed a cognizable offence regarding the issuance of dishonoured cheques. The Court established that an SHO cannot hold a preliminary inquiry into the truth or falsity of information before recording an FIR, and that the existence of a civil or business dispute does not bar criminal proceedings if a cognizable offence like Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is prima facie made out. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Single Bench order was set aside, and the order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace issue directions to the police for the registration of a criminal case under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an officer in charge of a police station can hold an inquiry into the truth or falsity of information before recording an FIR?
  • Does the issuance of a cheque in respect of a financial obligation attract criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when dishonoured?
  • Can a constitutional petition successfully impugn an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace that directs the recording of a criminal case for a prima facie cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Shaukat Ali vs Superintendent of Police Model Town, Circle, Lahore and 4 others2017 PLJ Lahore 479 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Shafaqat Hussain vs Chief Election Commissioner, Punjab and 52017 MLD 856 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-29Read full judgment →
• Malik Sajjad Amin vs Mst. Shagufta Mazhar and 4 others2017 YLR 735 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
• Malik Sajid Ismaeel and others vs The State and others2017 MLD 446 · Lahore High Court · 2016-03-10
  pre-arrest bailpoisoningmedical evidenceDiyatmala fidecriminal investigationtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by several accused persons in a case involving allegations of poisoning registered under FIR No. 259/2015. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the medical evidence and the nature of the offense charged under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail for all petitioners. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the medical evidence failed to detect poison or violence, and the cause of death remained unascertained, directly contradicting the complainant's oral allegations. Furthermore, the court emphasized that since the offense under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is punishable by Diyat rather than life imprisonment or death, the petitioners' liberty should not be curtailed based solely on allegations. The court also highlighted that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation, and the lack of motive, combined with contradictory medical evidence, suggested potential mala fide on the part of the complainant. These findings remain tentative, allowing the trial court to decide the case independently.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of medical evidence confirming the cause of death justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the alleged offense is punishable by Diyat rather than life imprisonment or death?
  • Can the court grant pre-arrest bail when the complainant's allegations are prima facie contradicted by medical reports?
  • Does the cooperation of an accused with the investigation process support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Riaz Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Public Health and 14 others2017 YLR 962 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-13Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Usman vs Justice of Peace/Asj, Chiniot and others2017 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-06
  constitutional petitionregistration of FIRJustice of Peacecognizable offenceShajjah-i-Mudihahcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the ex-officio Justice of Peace, Chiniot, which dismissed the petitioner's application under sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking the registration of a criminal case regarding a land dispute and physical injuries. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace was justified in refusing to direct the registration of a First Information Report based on civil disputes and prior criminal record of the petitioner, despite the disclosure of a cognizable offence involving an injury declared as Shajjah-i-Mudihah. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was perverse for failing to consider the legal aspects, emphasizing that the commission of a cognizable offence mandates police action under the law and that prior criminal cases do not disqualify a citizen from seeking criminal law remedies. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and authorities were directed to proceed in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the ex-officio Justice of Peace can refuse to direct the registration of a criminal case when the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • Does the pendency of civil proceedings or a prior criminal record disqualify a person from seeking the registration of a criminal case?
  • Is the Station House Officer under a legal obligation to proceed under section 154 or 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 upon receiving information of an offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Shahid & another vs Election Tribunal Gujranwala &2017 LHC 4162 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Hashim Awan and another vs Chief Secretary2017 PLC (C.S.) 1085 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-26
  writ petitionnon-statutory rulesmaster and servantretrospective notificationpensionary benefitscorporate employees
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by retired employees of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation (PRTC) challenging orders refusing them pensionary benefits including ad hoc relief, annual increments, and move-over under a 2002 Finance Department notification. The core legal questions involved whether employees governed by non-statutory corporate rules can invoke writ jurisdiction and whether a government notification can be applied retrospectively to employees who retired prior to its cut-off date. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the rules of the PRTC are non-statutory, thereby rendering the constitutional writ petition incompetent under the principle of master and servant. Furthermore, the court held that notifications operate prospectively and cannot benefit employees who retired years prior to the specified cut-off date. The key principles laid down are that employees of corporations lacking statutory rules cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for individual employment grievances, and that subordinate policy notifications cannot have retrospective application to impair past settlements.

  Questions settled

  • Are the service rules of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation statutory in nature?
  • Is a constitutional writ petition competent for the enforcement of employment terms governed by non-statutory rules?
  • Can a government notification regarding financial benefits operate retrospectively to cover employees who retired prior to its cut-off date?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of corporations lacking statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ashraf vs Director Excise and Taxation, Motor2017 YLR 1136 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
• Malik Masood Iqbal. vs Osama Mehmood, etc.2017 PLJ Lahore 597 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Masood Iqbal vs Osama Mehmood, etc2017 PLJ Lahore 597, 2017 LHC 961 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial, Ex-Mpa vs The State and another2017 PLJ Lahore 781, 2017 PLD Lahore 683 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Iqbal Ahmad Langrial, Ex-Mpa vs The State & another2017 PLJ Lahore 781 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Haq Nawaz, Mushraf vs Sher Ghazi and 6 others2017 YLR 2390 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-10-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Haq Nawaz, Muhammad Saleem vs The State (ANF Gilgit)2017 YLR 1311 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-06-23Read full judgment →
• Malik Faisal Imran vs Federation of Pakistan etc2017 LHC 4478 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-25Read full judgment →
• Malik Ejaz Ahmed vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2017 LHC 762 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Brothers Cotton Ginning Pressing and Oil Mills through Sole2017 MLD 467 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Bilal Ahmad Khan vs Chairman, Gandhara University, Danish2017 PLJ Peshawar 253 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Bashir Ahmed, etc. vs The Federal Government of Pakistan, through Secretary Cabinet Division, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad, etc2017 IHC 234 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
• Malik Bahadur Sher Khan vs Haji Shah Alam and others2017 PLJ SC 462, 2017 SCMR 902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-07
  Specific performanceAgreement to sellTime is of the essencePleadings and proofSecundum allegata et probataConcurrent findingsMisreading of evidenceLand disputeContract lawAppeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment dismissing a revision petition concerning a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The core legal questions addressed were whether time was of the essence in the agreement, the admissibility of evidence contradicting pleadings, and the weight of concurrent findings by lower courts based on misappraisal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower courts' judgments. It held that time was of the essence in the contract, especially considering the specified performance period and the economic realities of fluctuating land prices. The Court reiterated the principle that evidence constituting an outright departure from the averments in the plaint cannot be led or considered (secundum allegata et probata). While denying specific performance, the Court directed the appellant to pay an enhanced amount to the respondent, acknowledging the appellant's retention of the initial payment and the decrease in rupee value.

  Read full judgment →
• Malik Ashfaq Ahmad vs Punjab Cooperatives Board for Liquidation2017 MLD 439 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Abid Hussain vs Returning Officer, Wards 1 to 47 Municipal2017 P.S.C. 252 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Local Bodies Electionsreserved seatworker definitionnomination paperseligibility criteriastatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the eligibility of a candidate for a reserved 'worker' seat in the Local Bodies Elections, 2016. The core legal question was whether a person engaged in the business of LPG dealership and holding the office of President of an LPG Union qualifies as a 'worker' under the definition provided in the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013. The Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner's nomination papers, finding that his status as a businessman and distributor did not align with the statutory definition of a worker, a decision upheld by the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the definition of 'worker' under Section 2(mmm) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, is restricted to persons directly engaged in physical work or dependent on personal labour for subsistence, or those defined as workers under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Court affirmed that a businessman or trader does not qualify for such reserved seats, and since the petitioner did not deny his status as an LPG dealer, he was ineligible.

  Questions settled

  • Does a person engaged in the business of LPG dealership and holding the office of President of a trade union qualify as a 'worker' under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013?
  • What is the scope of the definition of 'worker' as provided in Section 2(mmm) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013?
  • Can a businessman or trader contest an election on a seat reserved for a 'worker' under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Abid Hussain vs Returning Officer, Wards 1 to 47 Municipal2017 P.S.C. 252, 2017 PLJ SC 100, 2017 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-16
  reserved seatworker definitionnomination paperselection disputelocal government electiondisqualificationstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for a reserved 'worker' seat in the Municipal Committee, Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether a candidate engaged in the business of LPG dealership and serving as the President of an LPG Union qualifies as a "worker" under the relevant local government legislation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower authorities' decisions to reject the nomination. The Court held that the petitioner, being a businessman and trader, did not meet the statutory definition of a "worker." The Court clarified that the definition of "worker" under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, is restricted to persons directly engaged in physical work or dependent on personal labor for subsistence, or those falling under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. It emphasized that businessmen or traders do not qualify for reserved worker seats, and the status of the candidate is subject to scrutiny at the nomination stage, rather than being deferred to post-election proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a person engaged in the business of LPG dealership qualify as a 'worker' for the purpose of contesting a reserved seat under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013?
  • Is the status of a candidate for a reserved 'worker' seat subject to scrutiny at the nomination stage?
  • What is the legal definition of 'worker' under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Abid Hussain vs Returning Officer, Wards 1 to 47 Municipal2017 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-11-16
  worker reserved seatnomination paperslocal bodies electionsLPG distributordefinition of workerelection dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's nomination papers for a reserved seat of 'Worker' in the Local Bodies Elections, 2016. The core legal question is whether an LPG dealer and distributor, who also serves as the President of the LPG Union and holds a National Tax Number, qualifies as a 'worker' under section 2(mmm) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, being a businessman and trader who is not directly engaged in physical work for subsistence living nor covered under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, does not meet the statutory definition of a 'worker'. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that a person engaged in commercial business and trade cannot claim the status of a worker to contest elections on a reserved labour seat.

  Questions settled

  • Does an LPG dealer and distributor qualify as a 'worker' under section 2(mmm) of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013?
  • Whether a businessman holding a National Tax Number and heading a traders' union can contest an election on a reserved seat for workers?
  • Does summary rejection of nomination papers for lacking the qualifications of a worker violate the right to contest local government elections?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai vs Muhammad Akram and others2017 CLC 901 · Lahore High Court · 2016-06-01Read full judgment →
• Maliha Hussain vs Additional District Judge-v and another2017 MLD 485 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-31
  interim custodyvisitation rightsFamily Courtmaintainability of appealconstitutional jurisdictionGuardians and Wards Actinterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate court's order that modified an interim custody and visitation arrangement established by the Family Court. The primary legal question was whether an appeal is maintainable against an interim order passed by a Family Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, given the bar under Section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The High Court held that the appellate court acted coram non judice by entertaining the appeal, as Section 14(3) explicitly prohibits appeals against interim orders. The Court emphasized that interim orders in family matters are not final verdicts and are not subject to appeal, revision, or review. The Court reaffirmed that constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass statutory bars on appeals against interlocutory orders, as this leads to fragmentary litigation and hinders fair play. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order for lack of jurisdiction, directing the trial court to expedite the final adjudication of the matter. The principle established is that statutory prohibitions against appeals from interim orders must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie against an interim order passed by a Family Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  • Can a party raise a jurisdictional objection regarding the maintainability of an appeal for the first time before the High Court?
  • Should the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with an interlocutory order passed by a subordinate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Malian Bench Multan] Riaz Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 139 · Lahore High Court · 2016-11-14Read full judgment →
• Malang vs The State2017 MLD 303 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-04-07
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryprohibitory clauseindependent witnessessearch and seizureprocedural irregularities
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after the Sessions Judge, Astore, declined his application regarding FIR No. 01/2016, registered under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The prosecution alleged recovery of 500 grams of Charas from the petitioner's shop. The petitioner contended that the search was conducted without a warrant in a populated area without independent witnesses, and that the offense, carrying a maximum sentence of seven years, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 allows for the exclusion of private witnesses, it does not grant police unbridled discretion to ignore procedural safeguards, especially when no urgency existed. Finding that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and noting the petitioner was not a habitual offender, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that non-association of independent witnesses favors the accused at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of independent witnesses during a narcotics recovery in a populated area entitle an accused to bail?
  • Does an offense carrying a maximum punishment of seven years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the police search a premises without a warrant or following codal formalities simply by relying on the exclusion of private witnesses under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Malak Naz vs Board of Governors through Secretary and 4 others2017 CLC 256 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-22
  writ of quo-warrantoconstitutional jurisdictionpublic officeprivate educational institutionwrit maintainabilityArticle 199service matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of the Principal of Edwardes College, Peshawar, seeking a writ of quo-warranto on the grounds of procedural irregularity and political maneuvering. The core legal question was whether Edwardes College constitutes a "person" performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province, thereby subjecting its appointments to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, as Edwardes College is a private educational institution, neither created by statute nor under the administrative or financial control of the government. Consequently, the Principal does not hold a "public office," rendering the writ of quo-warranto inapplicable. The Court affirmed the principle that for an organization to be considered a "person" under Article 199, it must perform functions involving sovereign or public power, be substantially controlled by the government, and receive the bulk of its funding from the State. Absent these criteria, the institution remains outside the scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a private educational institution that receives no government funding considered a "person" performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the Principal of a private college, not established by statute or government control, hold a "public office" subject to a writ of quo-warranto?
  • What are the primary tests for determining whether an organization performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province for the purpose of constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Malak Abdullah Khan vs Muhammad Rasool Khan2017 PHC 1037 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
• Mal Pakistan Ltd. through Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary2017 CLC 1204 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
• Major Pervez Iqbal vs Muhammad Akram Almas, etc.2017 SCP · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-10
  tax recoveryauction salecollateral proceedingsIncome Tax Rules 1982Section 12(2) CPCtax defaulterwrit of mandamus
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order dismissing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought to set aside a previous judgment directing the issuance of a sale certificate for property auctioned to recover tax arrears. The core legal question is whether a tax defaulter, having failed to utilize the specific remedies provided under the Income Tax Rules, 1982, can subsequently challenge an auction sale through collateral proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant could not invoke collateral proceedings after failing to challenge the auction within the statutory timelines and forums established by the Income Tax Rules, 1982. The Court affirmed that the Income Tax Rules, 1982 constitute a self-contained code for tax recovery and auction challenges. Consequently, where a special law provides an elaborate mechanism for challenging actions, recourse to general law or collateral proceedings is impermissible. Furthermore, alleged irregularities in the conduct of a sale do not vitiate the sale if statutory remedies are not timely pursued.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tax defaulter challenge an auction sale through collateral proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after failing to utilize the remedies provided under the Income Tax Rules, 1982?
  • Does the Income Tax Rules, 1982 constitute a self-contained code for the recovery of tax arrears and the challenging of auction sales?
  • Can an auction sale be challenged on the ground of irregularity if the statutory conditions for setting aside the sale were not met?
  Read full judgment →
• Major S D Singh Medical College and Hospital & Anr vs Union of India2017 SCInd 1318 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-09-12Read full judgment →
• Major (Retd.) Pervez Iqbal vs Muhammad Akram Almas and others2017 SCMR 831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-01-10
  tax recoveryauction salesale certificateSection 12(2) CPCcollateral challengeself-contained codespecial lawtax defaulterwrit of mandamus
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal arose from the Lahore High Court's dismissal of an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant, an adjudged tax defaulter, placed his immovable property at the disposal of the Tax Recovery Officer to secure his release from arrest. The property was subsequently auctioned to recover tax arrears, and Respondent No. 1 emerged as the successful bidder, depositing the full amount. When authorities delayed issuing the sale certificate, Respondent No. 1 obtained a writ of mandamus, which the appellant later challenged under Section 12(2), CPC alleging fraud and lack of notice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that Chapter IX of the Income Tax Rules 1982 constitutes a complete and self-contained code governing attachment, auction, sale confirmation, and statutory remedies (including appeals, revisions, and reviews). Because special law provides an elaborate mechanism to challenge auction proceedings, a defaulter who fails to avail statutory remedies cannot mount a collateral challenge under general procedural law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an auction sale conducted under the Income Tax Rules 1982 be challenged through collateral proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 instead of availing the statutory remedies provided in the special law?
  • Whether objections raised by a third-party department regarding property mutation can be treated as a valid application to set aside an auction sale under Rules 149 and 150 of the Income Tax Rules 1982 without satisfying the mandatory pre-deposit conditions?
  • Does an irregularity in publishing or conducting an auction sale vitiate the sale of immovable property under the Income Tax Rules 1982 where the tax defaulter consented in writing to the attachment and sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Majid Hussain vs Farrah Naz and others2017 YLR 84 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-09-05Read full judgment →
• Majeed and Sons Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. (In C.P. 2532/15) Shanghai IndustriesPTCL 2017 CL. 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-09-18
  customs dutyregulatory dutymultilateral trade agreementtreaty enforcementstatutory interpretationGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trademunicipal law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh High Court regarding the interpretation of customs duties under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the cumulative incidence of customs duties levied under subsections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969, exceeded the rates agreed upon by the Government of Pakistan under multilateral trade agreements, specifically referencing Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The petitioners argued that duties exceeding these agreed rates were invalid. The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 18(5) of the Customs Act, 1969, is clear and unambiguous, and that the regulatory duties imposed did not exceed the bound rates prescribed in the relevant tariff tables. The Court affirmed that international treaties or agreements, whether bilateral or multilateral, cannot override or alter express statutory provisions unless they have been incorporated into domestic law through specific legislation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the challenge to the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can an international treaty or agreement be enforced by a court in Pakistan if it has not been incorporated into domestic law through legislation?
  • Does the proviso to Section 18(5) of the Customs Act 1969 allow for the inclusion of bilateral agreements within the scope of 'multilateral trade agreements'?
  • Are courts empowered to repair legislative omissions or blunders in a statute?
  • Does the cumulative incidence of customs duties under Section 18 of the Customs Act 1969 exceed the rates agreed to by the Government of Pakistan under multilateral trade agreements?
  Read full judgment →
• Maj. Rtd. Tariq Lodhi vs Mst. Khalida Jilanni and others2017 SHC 312 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-10Read full judgment →
• Maj. (Rtd.) Majid Hussain, Director Estate, Mirpur University of Scince and Technology (Must), Mirpur and 52 others vs Vice-Chancellor Mirpur University of Science and Technology (Must) Mirpur and 49 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 878 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-05-17
  contract employeesregularizationpublic officeequality before lawtransparent selection processadvertisement of vacanciesfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court, whereby a writ petition filed by the appellants seeking regularization of their contract appointments at the Mirpur University of Science and Technology (MUST) was dismissed. The core legal question revolves around whether employees appointed on a temporary or contract basis against public office without advertising vacancies can claim permanent regularization as a matter of right. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that permanent appointments or regularizations against public offices or statutory bodies must be made through an open, transparent competitive selection process based on merit, which requires prior advertisement of vacancies as a precondition under the constitutional guarantee of equality before law. The Court ruled that back-door entries and regularizations of contract employees without open competition violate fundamental rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that contract appointees have no vested right to regularization without going through the prescribed selection process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees appointed on a contract basis against public offices can claim permanent regularization as a matter of right without undergoing an open competitive selection process?
  • Does the constitutional guarantee of equality before law necessitate the advertisement of vacancies and determination of merit through a transparent selection process for appointments to public offices?
  • Can residuary relaxation powers under university statutes be adopted as a general rule to regularize contract appointments made without advertisement?
  • Does the non-filing of a counter affidavit by respondents in constitutional petitions amount to a complete admission of the petitioner's case on facts and law?
  Read full judgment →
• Maj. (R) Muhammad Iqbal Hussain through Attorney vs Col. (R) Sadiq2017 YLR 2105 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mahmood vs S.P. Kotli and 2 others2017 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 13 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-02-24
  quashment of FIRinherent jurisdictionabuse of processpreliminary stageSection 561-A Cr.P.C.criminal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of an FIR registered against the petitioner for abduction and related offences, primarily on the ground that the complainant’s claim of marriage was false, as evidenced by a pending suit for jactitation of marriage. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings at a preliminary stage where no evidence has been recorded. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that inherent powers are designed to prevent the abuse of court process, not to stifle legitimate prosecutions. It established that where an FIR contains specific allegations that, if taken at face value, constitute an offence, the Court will not embark on an inquiry into the truth or falsity of those allegations at the pre-trial stage. The determination of guilt or innocence is the exclusive province of the trial court after evidence is adduced. Consequently, the petitioner was granted liberty to seek relief before the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at the appropriate stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash an FIR under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at a preliminary stage before evidence is recorded?
  • Is an FIR liable to be quashed simply because the accused claims the allegations are false or that a civil dispute exists?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for an accused seeking the termination of criminal proceedings when no evidence has yet been recorded by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahfooz Khan and others vs Secretary, Aviation Division and others2017 IHC 200 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-06-21
  up-gradation of postsproforma promotionAirport Security Forceretrospective promotionFundamental Rulescivil service lawadministrative delayconditional concurrence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired employees of the Airport Security Force (A.S.F.), filed this writ petition seeking up-gradation of their posts with effect from 12.03.2015, the date the Finance Division granted conditional concurrence for such up-gradation. The petitioners argued that administrative delays in amending the recruitment rules deprived them of timely promotion. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the up-gradation of posts was subject to specific conditions, including the amendment of recruitment rules, which were not satisfied until 05.08.2016. Consequently, no up-graded posts existed prior to that date against which the petitioners could have been promoted. The Court affirmed that up-gradation is a policy matter, distinct from promotion, and does not confer an automatic right to the incumbent. Furthermore, the Court held that proforma promotion under the proviso to FR-17(1) requires the appointing authority's satisfaction, which the petitioners failed to seek through the proper administrative channels. The Court concluded that in the absence of existing up-graded posts and a selection process, the petitioners' claim for retrospective benefits was legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conditional concurrence of the Finance Division for the up-gradation of posts create a vested right for incumbents to claim up-gradation from the date of such concurrence?
  • Is up-gradation of a post synonymous with the automatic promotion of its incumbent?
  • Can a civil servant claim proforma promotion under the proviso to FR-17(1) without first approaching the competent authority?
  • Does the delay in amending recruitment rules entitle an employee to retrospective up-gradation of their post?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob-Ur Rehman vs Deputy District Education Officer (Ee-M)2017 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 152 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  service tribunalremoval from servicewillful absenceregular inquirydepartmental appealdisciplinary proceedingsmajor penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, by a Naib Qasid who was removed from service following allegations of willful absence from duty, challenging a letter by the Deputy District Education Officer seeking review of an appellate order that had set aside the removal and ordered a de novo inquiry. The core legal question was whether a subordinate authority can seek review of an appellate order and whether a regular inquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty when material allegations are denied. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that the subordinate authority acted in excess of jurisdiction by attempting to override a lawful appellate order and that holding a regular inquiry is a legal necessity when a civil servant denies charges involving factual controversies. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, reinstated the appellant, and remanded the matter for a de novo regular inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether holding a regular inquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty when the accused civil servant denies the material allegations?
  • Can a competent authority seek review of a departmental appellate order passed under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
  • What are the powers of an appellate authority under Section 16(2) of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006?
  • Is a subordinate authority bound to comply with the directions of a departmental appellate authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ali alias Maqbali and another vs Arbab Athar Khan and 32017 CLC 874, 2017 PLJ Peshawar 240 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-19
  demarcation proceedingsrevenue hierarchyrecovery of possessionland revenue rulesconstitutional petitionjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders of the revenue hierarchy regarding demarcation proceedings and the execution of a demarcation report. The core legal question revolves around whether the District Officer Revenue and Estate/Collector was competent to entertain an application for recovery of possession and direct handing over possession under Rules 67-A and 67-B of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Peshawar High Court held that Rules 67-A and 67-B were introduced via a Punjab amendment in 1973, subsequent to the dissolution of West Pakistan, and have not been adopted or framed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Board of Revenue. Consequently, in the absence of enabling rules framed under Section 122(2) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the orders passed by the revenue authorities for the eviction of the petitioners and handing over possession were illegal, without jurisdiction, and set aside. The court emphasized that laws or amendments of another province not adopted by statutory instrument cannot be applied.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Rules 67-A and 67-B of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 are applicable in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?
  • Is the Collector competent to order eviction and recovery of possession under Section 122 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 without enabling rules framed by the provincial Board of Revenue?
  • Are orders passed by revenue authorities without jurisdiction amenable to judicial review under writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Alam and another vs Liaqat Ali and 4 others2017 MLD 1874 · Lahore High Court · 2016-02-02
  specific performanceagreement to sellscribe as attesting witnessmarginal witnessescivil revisionconcurrent findingsQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question revolved around whether the scribe of an agreement can act as a substitute for a marginal/attesting witness to fulfill the mandatory statutory requirements of proof and attestation. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a scribe cannot under any circumstances replace an attesting witness unless they have signed the document specifically in the capacity of an attesting witness rather than merely as a writer. The key principle laid down is that the evidence of a scribe cannot displace the mandatory statutory requirement of calling attesting witnesses under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction absent any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Can the scribe of a document act as a substitute for a marginal or attesting witness?
  • Whether a scribe signing in the capacity of a writer fulfills the mandatory requirement of attestation under the law?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in civil revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Maersk Pakistan Limited through duly Authorised Attorney vs Pakistan2017 PLC 176 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-11
  unfair labour practiceinterlocutory orderreinstatementwrit jurisdictionNIRCtermination of servicestatus quo ante
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order dated 05.09.2014 passed by a single member bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which suspended the termination of the respondents' employment during the pendency of proceedings regarding alleged unfair labour practices. The core legal question was whether the NIRC, under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, possesses the jurisdiction to pass an interlocutory order effectively reinstating employees whose services have already been terminated, in the absence of a final finding of unfair labour practice. The Court held that while the NIRC has powers to prevent apprehended unfair labour practices under Regulation 32(2), it cannot grant reinstatement through an interlocutory order when the act of termination has already occurred, as such power is consequential to a final finding of guilt. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the NIRC for a fresh decision on the application after providing both parties an opportunity to be heard, emphasizing that the Commission must properly address the jurisdictional limits and the grounds for termination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have the power to order the reinstatement of an employee through an interlocutory order before a final finding of unfair labour practice?
  • Is the power to direct reinstatement under the Industrial Relations laws independent or merely consequential to a finding of guilt?
  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an interlocutory order of the NIRC if that order was passed without jurisdiction?
  • Does Regulation 32(2) of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, authorize the Commission to pass protective orders when an unfair labour practice has already been committed?
  Read full judgment →
• Madha Medical College and Research Instt. THR. Its Managing2017 SCInd 1325 · Supreme Court of India · 2017-09-12Read full judgment →
• M.E.F.T. Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through CEO/Chairman vs Gilgitbaltistan2017 MLD 761 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-05-24Read full judgment →
• M.A. Industries 105 Industrial, Multan vs C.I.R., R.T.O., Multan2017P T D (Trib.) 1836 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-03-01Read full judgment →
• M. Yousuf Adil Saleem & Co vs Director (MSRD) Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2017 CLD 784 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2015-03-16Read full judgment →
• M. Wahid Butt vs S.N.G.P.L., etc.2017 KLR Labour & Service Cases 116 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2017-01-16
  grievance petitiongrievance noticemandatory requirementdepartmental appealmaintainabilityrecording evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a grievance petition initially instituted before the Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, and subsequently summoned by the National Industrial Relations Commission upon the petitioner's application. The core legal question was whether the mandatory grievance notice required prior to filing a grievance petition under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 could legally be substituted by a departmental appeal. The respondents raised an objection that the petitioner failed to serve the statutory grievance notice, rendering the petition non-maintainable, whereas the petitioner contended that his departmental appeal served as a valid substitute. The Commission held that serving a grievance notice under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 is a mandatory prerequisite, and under the law, a departmental appeal cannot be substituted or treated as a statutory grievance notice. Consequently, recording evidence would be a futile exercise, and the grievance petition was dismissed as non-maintainable without any order as to costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service of a grievance notice under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 is a mandatory prerequisite for filing a grievance petition?
  • Can a departmental appeal be substituted for and treated as a statutory grievance notice under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002?
  • Is a grievance petition maintainable where the petitioner fails to serve the required statutory grievance notice prior to filing?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Wahid Butt vs S.N.G.P.L., etc2017 KLR Labour & Service Cases 119 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2017-01-15
  grievance noticedepartmental appealindustrial relationsgrievance petitionmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves a grievance petition filed by the petitioner under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, initially before the Labour Court and later transferred. The core legal question is whether a departmental appeal can be substituted and considered as a mandatory grievance notice under the law before filing a grievance petition. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that the petitioner failed to serve the mandatory grievance notice and that a departmental appeal cannot be legally substituted as a grievance notice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as non-maintainable without the need for recording evidence. The key principle laid down is that serving a statutory grievance notice is a mandatory precondition, and a departmental appeal cannot substitute for the same.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental appeal can be substituted and considered as a mandatory grievance notice under Section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  • Is the service of a grievance notice mandatory before filing a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Shah Sons Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad2017 PTD 1651 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2017-05-19Read full judgment →
• M. Maqbool & Company. vs Govt.of Punjab, etc2017 LHC 1954 · Lahore High Court · 2017-03-27Read full judgment →
• M. Javed vs The State & others2017 SC AJK 457 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-12-15Read full judgment →
• M. Aslam through L.Rs. and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and 52017 YLR 2447 · Lahore High Court · 2015-05-21Read full judgment →
• M. Amin and others vs Member Customs and others2017 PTD 1654 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• M Uhammad Arif vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Lahore) 859 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-23
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtcapital punishmentcriminal appealrapemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed upon the appellant for the murder, rape, and abduction of a minor child. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the testimony of last seen, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of the victim's clothing. The core legal question was whether these circumstances, when viewed collectively, provided sufficient proof to sustain a capital conviction. Upon review, the Court found the prosecution's evidence riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. The last seen evidence was deemed unreliable due to unexplained delays in recording witness statements and conflicting accounts. The recovery of the victim's clothes appeared fabricated, and the extra-judicial confession lacked the necessary corroboration from independent sources. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the death sentence was not confirmed. The judgment reaffirms that last seen evidence and extra-judicial confessions are weak types of evidence requiring strong corroboration, and that any reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is last seen evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delay in recording a witness's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be based on an extra-judicial confession that lacks strong corroborating evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of contradictory evidence regarding the recovery of incriminating items?
  Read full judgment →
• Lutfullah and another vs Shahid Inayat2017 YLR 1622 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-23Read full judgment →
• Lutaf Hussain s/o Shair Muhammad r/o Chak No.479, Kashmir Colony,2017 SC AJK 346 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Luqman Ali vs The State and 2 othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 177, 2017 CLD 745 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-07Read full judgment →
• Luqman Ali vs State and 2 othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 177 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-07
  superdariinterim custody of vehiclecriminal breach of trustpresumption of correctnessjudicial proceedingsbanking court decreeownership dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 561-A read with Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging orders of the Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, which had dismissed the petitioner's application for the return of a motorcar (superdari) involved in a case under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who held a decree from a Banking Court declaring him entitled to the vehicle upon payment of dues, was entitled to interim custody (superdari) over a rival claimant who lacked comparable judicial documentation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the vehicle's custody, emphasizing that judicial proceedings and documents produced therein carry a strong presumption of correctness under Article 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s documentary evidence, supported by a Banking Court decree and a bank-issued clearance certificate, outweighed the rival claimant's undocumented assertion of ownership. Consequently, the Court granted the petition, directing the release of the vehicle on superdari subject to security bonds and specific undertakings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judicial decree from a Banking Court regarding the ownership of a vehicle create a strong presumption of title for the purpose of superdari?
  • Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant superdari when lower courts have declined to determine title?
  • Is a document produced in previous judicial proceedings entitled to a presumption of genuineness under Article 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Lung Fung Chinese Restaurant, etc vs Punjab Food Authority, etc.2017 KLR Civil Cases 103 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-27Read full judgment →
• Lung Fung Chinese Restaurant through Atiq Ahmed and 2 otherss vs Punjab Food Authority through Secretary and 6 others2017 PLD Lahore 545 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-27Read full judgment →
• Lung Fung Chinese Restaurant etc. vs Punjab Food Authority etc.2017 KLR Civil Cases 103, 2017 PLD Lahore 545, 2017 PLJ Lahore 574, 2017 LHC · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-27Read full judgment →
• Lung Fung Chinese Restaurant etc. vs Punjab Food Authority etc2017 PLJ Lahore 574 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-27Read full judgment →
• Lubna Hameed and others vs Controller of Examinations, Khyber2017 MLD 102 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-09Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs The State and others-2017 MLD 1415 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-16
  criminal appealpolice encountercommon objectunlawful assemblybenefit of the doubtmurderanti-terrorismacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for murder, attempt to murder, assault on public servants, unlawful assembly, and under the Anti-Terrorism Act following a police encounter in which a constable was killed. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the appellant's active participation, common object, and criminal liability beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given that no specific overt act was attributed to him, nothing was recovered from his possession, and he was not placed at the scene by the site plans. The Lahore High Court held that mere presence or association with members of an unlawful assembly is insufficient to establish criminal liability without proof of shared intent or knowledge, and that the prosecution's case suffered from serious doubts. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, laying down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere presence or association with members of an unlawful assembly is sufficient per se to hold an individual criminally liable for offences committed by others without proof of shared intent?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding their guilt in a prudent mind?
  • Does the absence of any specific overt act or recovery from an accused during a police encounter warrant their acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) LTH JV (2) Mr. Bilal A. Khwaja vs Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority &2017 IHC 154, 2021 PCTLR 1420, 2021 [M] CLR 1627 · Islamabad High Court
  Dispute Review Boardarbitrator misconductinterim injunctionnatural justicecivil court jurisdictionimpartialityquasi-judicial proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an Intra-Court Appeal against an order restraining a Dispute Review Board (DRB) member from acting in that capacity due to alleged misconduct. The core legal question was whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to restrain a DRB member from performing their duties when the contract is silent on the removal procedure, and whether such a member's conduct—specifically sharing draft decisions via email—constitutes a breach of impartiality and confidentiality obligations. The Court held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to entertain such a suit, as the right to a fair and impartial adjudicator is a civil right. The Court affirmed the restraining order, ruling that the member's admitted conduct of sharing draft decisions violated the fundamental principles of natural justice, impartiality, and confidentiality required of quasi-judicial bodies. The key principle laid down is that where a contract provides no mechanism for the removal of an adjudicator who has demonstrably breached the duty of impartiality, the Court may exercise its inherent powers to intervene to prevent a miscarriage of justice and avoid the multiplicity of proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the removal of a Dispute Review Board member when the underlying contract is silent on the removal procedure?
  • Does the sharing of draft decisions by a Dispute Review Board member with parties or third parties before the finalization of the decision constitute misconduct?
  • Can a court grant an injunction to restrain a Dispute Review Board member from acting if their conduct creates a reasonable apprehension of bias?
  • Is the principle of 'nemo judex in causa sua' applicable to the proceedings of a Dispute Review Board?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. Nasir Malik vs Additional District Judge, Lahore, etcK.L.R. 2017 SC 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-07-14
  maintenance allowanceenhancement of maintenancefamily courtex parte proceedingsminors' welfare
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition challenging family court proceedings regarding the enhancement of maintenance allowance. The core legal question concerned whether maintenance allowance previously decreed for minors could be enhanced based on rising inflation, school expenses, and improved financial status of the father, and whether ex parte proceedings were validly conducted. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the father, serving in the military, had sufficient means and that minors were entitled to maintenance reflecting current economic realities and educational needs. The key principle laid down is that the father's obligation to maintain his children is commensurate with his financial capacity and changing socio-economic conditions, allowing for the enhancement of maintenance allowance to meet the reasonable educational and living necessities of growing children.

  Questions settled

  • Can a maintenance allowance fixed by a family court decree be subsequently enhanced on the grounds of rising inflation and growing educational needs of minors?
  • Whether a family court can proceed ex parte against a judgment-debtor who fails to appear despite due service of summons and publication?
  • Is a father legally and morally bound to increase the maintenance allowance of his children in proportion to his improved financial status and salary increments?
  Read full judgment →
• lrfanullah Khan Marwat vs M. Abdul Rauf Siddiqui & others2017 [M] C.L.R. 967 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-11
  election petitionvoid electionNADRA verificationcorrupt practicesinvalid votesvoter identificationmaterially affected
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Election Tribunal, Karachi, which declared the election of the appellant to the Provincial Assembly constituency PS-114, Karachi, void as a whole under the Representation of the People Act 1976. The runner-up candidate (Respondent No. 1) had challenged the election alleging corrupt practices, rigging, and harassment. Although direct evidence of corrupt practices was limited to six polling stations, a NADRA verification report, obtained with the consent of both parties, revealed that over 18,000 votes were invalid due to missing or invalid CNIC numbers, duplicate votes, and failed fingerprint authentications. The appellant argued that his victory margin of 6,826 votes remained unaffected if only the six polling stations were excluded. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 70 of the Representation of the People Act 1976, an election can be declared void as a whole either due to extensive corrupt practices or where non-compliance with statutory provisions by election staff materially affects the result. Since the number of invalid votes vastly exceeded the victory margin, the result was materially affected.

  Questions settled

  • Can an election be declared void as a whole under Section 70 of the Representation of the People Act 1976 if corrupt practices are proven only in a limited number of polling stations but widespread statutory non-compliance is shown?
  • Does the presence of invalid or missing CNIC numbers on counterfoils, exceeding the victory margin of the returned candidate, satisfy the test of the election result being 'materially affected'?
  • Can a party challenge the validity of a NADRA verification report on appeal if they had previously consented to the verification process before the Election Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• lqbal Hussain vs General Manager Southern Telecom Region-II and others2017 P.S.C. 1281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-15
  civil servant statusPTCL employeesFederal Service Tribunal jurisdictionstatutory protection of serviceConstitutional jurisdictiontransfer of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the legal status of employees transferred from the Pakistan Telecommunication and Telegraph Department to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL). The core legal question was whether these employees, despite having their terms and conditions of service protected by statute, retain the status of civil servants and thus possess the right to approach the Federal Service Tribunal for grievances. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established by a five-member bench in PTCL v. Masood Ahmed Bhatti (2016 SCMR 1362), held that upon transfer to the Corporation and subsequently to the Company, these individuals ceased to be civil servants. The Court affirmed that while the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 protect their terms and conditions, this protection does not confer civil servant status. Consequently, the Court ruled that such employees cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal; instead, they must seek redress for violations of their statutory terms and conditions through the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Do employees transferred from the Pakistan Telecommunication and Telegraph Department to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited retain the status of civil servants?
  • Can employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal for service-related grievances?
  • Is the violation of statutory terms and conditions of service for transferred PTCL employees amenable to the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• lqbal Begum vs Faiz Muhammad, etcK.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 241 · Lahore High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
• Lowick Rose LLP (in Liquidation) vs Swynson Ltd. and another2017 SCMR 907 · Supreme Court of United KingdomRead full judgment →
• Loretta Iqbal and 33 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief2017 PLC (C.S.) 1033 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-02
  service lawvested rightlocus poenitentiaesalary arrearscivil servantrecruitment processconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the Sindh Teachers Education Development Authority (STEDA), filed a constitutional petition seeking the payment of their outstanding salaries. The respondents had withheld salaries, subsequently mandating that petitioners in BPS-06 to BPS-16 undergo a written test, despite their prior appointment through a completed selection process. The core legal question was whether an employer could retrospectively impose a new condition of service, such as a written test, on employees already appointed through a valid selection process to justify withholding salaries. The Court held that the retrospective requirement was unlawful, noting that the selection process had been approved by the competent authority and that the petitioners had acquired a vested right to their employment. Invoking the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, the Court ruled that once a right has accrued to a civil servant following the completion of all codal formalities, it cannot be withdrawn based on the whims of executive functionaries. Consequently, the Court set aside the decision to conduct the belated written test and directed the respondents to release the petitioners' salaries and arrears.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer retrospectively impose a written test requirement on employees already appointed through a completed selection process?
  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae prevent an authority from withdrawing a vested right of employment once codal formalities are completed?
  • Are public functionaries obligated to ensure the payment of salaries to employees whose appointments were approved by the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Linkdotnet Telecom vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 CLC 105 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-18Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Zaman Khan and others vs Mst. Tazeem Akhtar and others2017 YLR 150 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-23
  succession certificatesummary proceedingsprima facie titleintricate questions of factmarital status disputerevocation of certificatesurety bonds
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular appeal challenged the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Haripur, which granted a succession certificate to the respondent, Mst. Tazeem Akhtar, despite the pendency of a civil suit regarding her marital status. The appellants, claiming the respondent was divorced, argued that the certificate could not be issued without resolving this dispute. The core legal question was whether a succession certificate could be granted in summary proceedings when the applicant's status is contested by an intricate question of fact. The Peshawar High Court upheld the impugned order, ruling that under Section 373(3) of the Succession Act, 1925, a judge may grant a certificate to the person appearing to have prima facie the best title, notwithstanding complex disputes. The Court emphasized that summary proceedings are not meant to resolve intricate title issues, which remain the domain of a regular civil suit. The holding established that a succession certificate is provisional and subject to revocation under Section 383 of the Succession Act, 1925, if a competent court later determines the marital status differently, provided adequate safeguards like surety bonds are in place.

  Questions settled

  • Can a succession certificate be granted in summary proceedings when there is a dispute regarding the marital status of the applicant?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit for declaration bar the issuance of a succession certificate under the Succession Act, 1925?
  • What is the scope of a judge's power under Section 373(3) of the Succession Act, 1925, when faced with intricate questions of fact?
  • Can a succession certificate be revoked if a competent court subsequently determines the rights of the parties differently?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Khan vs Mst Bakhat Bibi and Others2017 PHC 1250 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs Muhammad Rasheed Khan and 7 others2017 PLJ AJ&K 78, 2017 MLD 682 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-12-06Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Mir, vs The Addl. Sessions Judge, Etc.,2017 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2017-02-10
  Muslim Family Laws Ordinanceright of appealrevisional jurisdictionCode of Criminal Procedurepolygamymagisterial trialspecial law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a conviction under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The ASJ held that because the Ordinance does not explicitly provide a right of appeal, the appeal was not maintainable. The core legal question was whether a conviction under a special law, where the trial was conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC), is subject to appellate or revisional jurisdiction. The High Court held that the ASJ erred in dismissing the appeal. The Court reasoned that since the trial was conducted under the CrPC, the appellate and revisional provisions of the CrPC apply to the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court established that even if a specific right of appeal were absent, the Sessions Judge possesses revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439-A of the CrPC to examine the legality of the Magistrate's order. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the ASJ to decide the appeal on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of an express right of appeal in the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, preclude an appeal against a conviction under Section 6(5) of that Ordinance?
  • Are proceedings conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for offences under special laws subject to the appellate and revisional provisions of the Code?
  • Does a Sessions Judge have revisional jurisdiction under Sections 435 and 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, over the proceedings of an Executive Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and others---Appellants vs The State and others---2017 P Cr. L J 1703 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-10
  murder referencecapital punishmentbenefit of the doubtocular accountmedical evidence contradictiondelayed FIRcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arises from a judgment wherein six appellants were convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302(b) read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside convictions under Sections 148 and 324, while sixteen co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question involved the reliability of the eyewitness accounts, the veracity of the First Information Report, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the meticulous and graphic precision of the prosecution case, the timing anomalies surrounding the registration of the FIR, interpolation in documents, and the implausibility of the assault occurring in the presence of a police contingent rendered the prosecution narrative doubtful and exaggerated. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, set aside their convictions and death sentences, and dismissed the complainant's appeal against acquittal. The key principle laid down is that testimonial renditions and meticulous details must satisfy the test of human probability, and where a prosecution case is exaggerated and suffers from material contradictions, capital punishment cannot safely be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eyewitness account characterized by unnatural precision and inconsistency with medical evidence can form the basis of a capital conviction?
  • Does the registration of an FIR for murder prior to the death of the injured victim cast serious doubt on the prosecution's timeline?
  • Is the presence of an injured witness alone sufficient to certify the absolute truth of a highly exaggerated prosecution case?
  • Whether convictions can be sustained when material interpolations are found in the foundational documents of the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and 2 others vs The State2017 YLR 283 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-17
  murderdeath sentencebenefit of the doubtsubstitutioneyewitness credibilitycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the conviction and death sentence of three appellants for the murder of the deceased, who was brutally attacked and killed on his way to court. The core legal question involved the reliability of the eyewitness accounts, the possibility of false implication through substitution due to deep-rooted previous enmity, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses was highly doubtful, the medical evidence contradicted the prompt lodging of the First Information Report through the injured victim, and the circumstances pointed towards non-deliberate substitution based on suspicion. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, set aside their convictions and death sentences, acquitted them of the charges, and dismissed the connected appeal seeking to reverse the acquittal of co-accused. The key legal principles laid down relate to the evaluation of eyewitness testimony in cases of gruesome violence, the psychological and practical reality of substitution in criminal cases driven by vendettas, and the necessity of foolproof corroboration when foundational testimonies are rendered unsafe.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of related eyewitnesses can sustain a murder conviction when their presence at the scene is rendered doubtful?
  • Can the principle of substitution of real offenders by scapegoats apply in cases involving deep-rooted previous enmity and suspicion-based accusations?
  • Whether death sentences can be maintained when material contradictions exist between ocular accounts and medical evidence regarding the dying victim's condition?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Liaqat Ali alias Liaqi (2) The State vs (1) The State and another (2) Liaqat2017 LHC 4078 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-06
  murder referencedeath sentencebenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidence contradictionjudicial noticemotive unprovedacquittal of co-accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant awarded under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising out of a murder trial, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the presence of eyewitnesses during twilight hours without a source of light, the conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony, an unexplained delay in conducting the post-mortem examination, and the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive after a co-accused was acquitted on the same set of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the cumulative effect of these infirmities, including the lack of independent corroboration following the co-accused's acquittal and material contradictions, created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. The court consequently allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant on the benefit of doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for a capital crime can be sustained when the ocular account is found unreliable and contradicts the medical evidence?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the same set of evidence require independent corroboration before convicting the remaining accused?
  • Whether the failure to prove the set-up motive creates a dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a court take judicial notice of the time of sunset and prevailing darkness at the time of an occurrence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• LESCO/WAPDA vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, etc.2017 LHC 364 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
• LESCO through Chief Executive, Lahore and 4 others vs Muhammad2017 PLJ Lahore 499 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
• Lehrasab Khalid and others vs Government of Punjab through Secretary2017 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 183 · Punjab Service Tribunal
  advance incrementsdepartmental appealexhaustion of remedieslimitation periodservice tribunalcivil servanthigher qualification
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves service appeals transferred from the Lahore High Court regarding the claim of government teachers for advance increments based on higher qualifications under a 1983 notification. The core legal questions concern the maintainability of service appeals filed directly without exhausting departmental remedies, the requirement of fulfilling statutory preconditions under civil servants legislation, and whether time spent pursuing writ petitions in the High Court extends the period of limitation for approaching the service tribunal. The Punjab Service Tribunal held that filing a departmental appeal, review, or representation before the competent authority within the stipulated time is a mandatory precondition under Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and that approaching the High Court via writ petitions does not excuse the failure to follow the prescribed statutory procedure or extend the limitation period. Consequently, the service appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether filing a departmental appeal or representation is a mandatory precondition before approaching the Punjab Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Does the time spent pursuing a writ petition before the High Court extend the period of limitation for filing a service appeal?
  • Are civil servants entitled to claim advance increments for higher qualifications without fulfilling the procedural requirements and exhausting departmental remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• Lawyers Foundation for Justice vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 CLC 1066 · Lahore High Court · 2017-04-17Read full judgment →
• Latif Ullah and others vs Mst. Sakeena and others2017 PHC 1156 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-17Read full judgment →
• Lateef Anwar vs Khalid Mahmood Khattak2017 PHC 772 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-18Read full judgment →
• Larik Mal vs The State2017 YLR 1166 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-02-06
  unlicensed weaponrecovery witnessmandatory provisionspossessioncriminal appealCode of Criminal Procedure 1898Arms Ordinance 1965
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 13-e of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for the possession of an unlicensed Kalashnikov. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the failure to associate independent witnesses as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the recovery from a joint residential house constitutes 'possession' under the Arms Ordinance. The Court held that the prosecution's failure to secure independent witnesses from the locality, despite the availability of the public, rendered the recovery doubtful and violated the mandatory safeguards of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that possession requires both physical control and a mental element, which was not established in the context of a joint family residence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The key principle laid down is that the requirements of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are mandatory to prevent police manipulation, and recoveries made in violation thereof, without justifiable cause, lack evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Is the association of independent witnesses mandatory under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during a recovery by police?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon from a joint family house automatically establish 'possession' under the Arms Ordinance 1965?
  • Can a conviction for illegal possession of a weapon be sustained when the prosecution fails to make any effort to join public witnesses despite their availability?
  Read full judgment →
• Larif vs The State and another2017 MLD 1063 · Lahore High Court · 2016-10-03
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaytrial delaydilatory tacticscriminal procedurebail refusalconduct of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 436, 148, 149, 109, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought relief primarily on the ground of statutory delay, asserting that the trial had not concluded within the prescribed period. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the passage of the statutory time limit despite the trial's ongoing status. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the delay in the trial was directly attributable to the conduct of the accused and the defence, who repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. The court affirmed the principle that the statutory right to bail based on trial delay is not absolute; where the accused actively contributes to trial delays through dilatory tactics or non-cooperation, the court may exercise its discretion to deny bail, as the statutory benefit is intended to protect against prosecution-led delays, not those caused by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused claim bail on the ground of statutory delay if the trial delay is attributable to the conduct of the accused?
  • Does the failure of the defence to cross-examine prosecution witnesses constitute a valid ground for denying bail based on statutory delay?
  • Is the statutory right to bail under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, absolute regardless of the accused's conduct during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector, M-1 Bara Banda, Noshehra etc vs Khana Gul2017 PHC 864 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-28Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector, etc vs Zahir Shah, etc2017 [M] C.L.R. 447 · Lahore High Court · 2016-05-04Read full judgment →
• Lalzada vs The State and another2017 YLR 898 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-10Read full judgment →