Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 1812
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram)
Parties: SAJJAD ALI vs THE STATE ETC
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram), officially reported as 2026 LHC 1812. In this matter between SAJJAD ALI and THE STATE ETC, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram) DECISION DATE: 15-01-2026 CASE DETAILS: Crl. Revision-Against Interim Order-PPC 211-25 ============================================================ Form No: HCJD/C-121 ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Crl. Revision No.211 of 2025.
Sajjad Ali. Vs. The State and another. S.No. of order/ proceeding Date of order/ proceeding. Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary.
15.01.2026. Malik Saif -ur-Rehman Kulyar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ch. Tahir Rasool, Advocate for respondent No.2. Jam Waheed Ahmed Bobra, Deputy District Public Prosecutor.
Through this petition, the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dunyapur, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge made an observation that the petitioner was capable of making his defence and, therefore, ordered to proceed with the trial of the case. 2. Brief facts of the case leading upto the filing of the instant petition are that the petitioner was named as an accused in case F.I.R. No.04 of 2025 registered at the Police Station Saddar Dunyapur, District Lodhran in respect of an offence under section 302 P.P.C. and after the investigation of the case, report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned Magistrate concerned on 13.02.2025, who transmitted the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran and the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran, then sent the case for trial to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dunyapur. During the course of the proceedings, charge against the petitioner was framed on 07.03.2025, who denied the same and claimed trial, however, subsequently during the course of trial, an application was submitt ed on behalf of the petitioner seeking his examination with regard to his mental health and upon the said Crl. Revision No.211 of 2025. 2
application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge , vide order dated 21.05.2025, directed that the petitioner be examined by a Medical Board to be constituted by the Medical Superintendent, B.V. Hospital, Bahawalpur with regard to the mental health of the petitioner and subsequently, the petitioner was examined by the Med ical Board and was declared to be a patient of Schizophrenia, where after the learne d Additional Sessions Judge summoned the head of the Medical Board, who had examined the petitioner , and recorded his statement on 25.10.2025 and directed that a further report regarding the health condition of the petitioner be produced before the court, however, said further report was never submitted and on 06.12.2025, the impugned order was passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia, contended that the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was liable to be set -aside being against the facts and the law as it violated the provisions of Section 465 and 467 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 as well as learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor have submitted t hat as the learned Additional Sessions Judge had passed the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 under the provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C. and as the said provision did allow the learned Additional Sessions Judge to pass the said order, therefore, the same was not open to any interference and was legal in all manners. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner , learned counsel for respondent No. 2, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was named as an accused in case F.I.R. No.04 of 2025 registered at the Police Station Saddar Dunyapur, District Lodhran in respect of an offence under section 302 P.P.C. and after the Crl. Revision No.211 of 2025. 3
investigation of the c ase, report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the learned Magistrate concerned on 13.02.2025, who transmitted the same to the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran and the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran, then sent the case for trial to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dunyapur. During the course of the proceedings, charge against the petitioner was framed on 07.03.2025, who denied the same and claimed trial, however, subsequently during the course of trial, an application was submitted on beha lf of the petitioner seeking his examination with regard to his mental health and upon the said application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 21.05.2025, directed that the petitioner be examined by a Medical Board to be constituted b y the Medical Superintendent, B.V. Hospital, Bahawalpur with regard to the mental health of the petitioner and subsequently, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board and was declared to be a patient of Schizophrenia, whereafter the learned Addition al Sessions Judge summoned the head of the Medical Board, who had examined the petitioner, and recorded his statement on 25.10.2025 and directed that a further report regarding the health condition of the petitioner be produced before the court, however, s aid further report was never submitted and on 06.12.2025, the impugned order was passed. As mentioned above, it was on 21.04.2025 when the application was filed on behalf of the petitioner that his mental condition be determined and it was on 21.05.2025 th at the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the Medical Superintendent, B.V. Hospital, Bahawalpur, to get the petitioner examined through a Medical Board, so as to determine his mental health condition and the said report was also submitted. It is also a fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.10.2025 had observed that according to the statement of the Head of the Medical Board, who had examined the petitioner, he was found to be a patient of Schizophrenia and needed Crl. Revision No.211 of 2025. 4
medical treatment . The learned Additional Sessions Judge never declared that the petitioner was of unsound mind and consequently unable to make his defence rather simply recorded that another report be submitted with regard to the mental health of the petitioner on the next date of hearing. In this manner, when even vide order dated 25.10.2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not declared that the petitioner was of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, therefore, provisions of Section 467 Cr.P.C. were not even applicable in this case. 7. Now with regard to the part of the order dated 06.12.2025, according to which the learned Additional Sessions Judge himself examined the petitioner and observed that he was capable of making his defence during the trial, it is observed that though the provisions of Section 465 and 468 Cr.P.C., both allow the learned Additional Sessions Judge to make a prima- facie observation that the accused was of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence or otherwise , however, that observation is to be based upon the facts of each particular case. In this particular case, as initially the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.10.2025 had made an observation that the petitioner appeared to be of unsound mind, therefore, after that observation, the proper course would have been for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have tried the fact of his unsoundness of mind and incapability of m aking his defence as provided under section 465 Cr.P.C. prior to formulating an opinion regarding the mental health of the petitioner contrary to the ealier opinion as formulated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.10.2025, however, it was not done. 8. Now with regard to the subsequent observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in t he order dated 06.12.2025 that the petitioner was capable of making his defence, the said order was passed under section 468 Cr.P.C., Crl. Revision No.211 of 2025. 5
however, the same could not have been done for the simple reason that the provisions of section 468 Cr.P.C. become applicable when an accused is again brought before the Court after having initially been declared incapable of making his defence. In this particula r case , as it was not even initially declared that the petitioner was of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , therefore, the order dated 06.12.2025 could not have been passed while exercising jurisdiction under section 468 Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the above discussion, as initially the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.10.2025 had observed that the petitioner appeared to be of unsound mind, therefore, it is directed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall now firstly try the fact of said unsoundness of mind and incapability of the petitioner to make his defence during the course of trial and record finding in this regard and thereafter proceed with the trial of the case. As much time has been lost due to not following the relevant procedure, therefore, the learned trial court is directed to conclude this matter and resolve the question with regard to whether the petitioner is of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence or otherwise ,while proceeding under section 465 Cr.P.C. , within a period of two months, positively. 10. With the above directions and observations, the instant revision petition is disposed of.
(SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM) JUDGE Saleem Ahmad*
Approved for Reporting
Judge.