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. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• Nazir Ahmad Versus The State2002 PCRLJ 149 · Peshawar High Court · 2001-09-11
  circumstantial evidencemurder referencerecovery of weapontainted investigationidentification paradecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the alleged recovery of a crime weapon and the appellant's apprehension following a chase. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The Court identified significant discrepancies in the investigation, including inconsistent timings between the initial report (Murasila) and the medical report, unreliable recovery of the weapon where the attesting witness contradicted the Investigating Officer, and a failure to conduct a test identification parade. Furthermore, procedural errors during the examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 undermined the conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that where circumstantial evidence is disjointed and investigation is tainted, conviction cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between the testimony of an attesting witness and the Investigating Officer regarding the recovery of a weapon render the recovery unreliable?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the initial report (Murasila) is inconsistent with the medical report regarding the time of death?
  • Does the failure to conduct a test identification parade in a case of circumstantial evidence where identity is contested vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be upheld when the trial court commits material errors in the examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Wasal Khan Versus Inayat Ullah2002 PCRLJ 1476 · Peshawar High Court
  quashmentdispute concerning landattachment of propertytenant holding overpossessionejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of an impugned appellate order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had ordered the attachment of disputed land under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite dismissing the respondent's complaint under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether attachment under section 146 is warranted when the tenant's possession within the statutory two-month period is admitted, and the landlord's remedy for an expired lease lies elsewhere. The Peshawar High Court held that since the petitioner's possession as a lessee within the requisite period was admitted, proceedings under section 145 were misconceived, and the proper course for ejectment of such a tenant was under the relevant tenancy law. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition and quashed the appellate court's order regarding the attachment of the disputed land and auctioning of standing crops. The key principle laid down is that section 145 and 146 proceedings cannot be utilized to circumvent the prescribed legal procedure for the ejectment of a tenant holding over after the expiry of a lease.

  Questions settled

  • Can proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be initiated against a tenant whose lease has expired?
  • Whether attachment under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is justified when possession within the statutory period is admitted?
  • Is a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 maintainable against an illegal order of attachment passed by an appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Jalal Khan Versus The State2002 PCRLJ 1457 · Peshawar High Court · 2002-04-24
  Qatl-i-Amddying declarationlife imprisonmentcompensation to legal heirsenhancement of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a criminal appeal and a connected quashment petition against a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-i-Amd and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether the statement recorded from the injured victim in the hospital could reliably serve as a dying declaration to sustain conviction, and whether fine could be imposed alongside a sentence under Section 302 PPC following statutory amendments. The High Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the victim's statement was amply corroborated by eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and prompt recording. The court further held that following statutory amendments to Section 302 PPC, the imposition of a fine is impermissible, whereas payment of compensation under Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 remains mandatory. Consequently, the High Court set aside the sentence of fine, converted it into mandatory compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C., and dismissed both the appeal and the petition for enhancement of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded from an injured victim before death serve as a reliable dying declaration to sustain a murder conviction when corroborated by eye-witnesses and medical evidence?
  • Is the court empowered to impose a fine under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after its amendment?
  • Is the award of compensation to legal heirs under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory upon conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad Versus Executive Magistrate2001 PCRLJ 745 · Peshawar High Court · 2001-01-17
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictioncivil disputeexecutive magistrate jurisdictionland mutationfraudulent mutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an order passed by an Executive Magistrate. The core dispute arose from a complaint filed by a private party alleging fraudulent attestation of a land mutation (Mutation No. 1622). The Executive Magistrate conducted an inquiry, cancelled the mutation, and directed the complainant to lodge an F.I.R. against the petitioners under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing it was passed without lawful authority. The High Court held that the dispute regarding the validity of the land mutation was essentially civil in nature and was already the subject of a pending civil suit before a Civil Judge. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Executive Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or adjudicate upon the validity of the mutation. The impugned order was declared illegal, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect, establishing the principle that Executive Magistrates cannot usurp the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters involving property disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Executive Magistrate have the jurisdiction to cancel a land mutation while a civil suit regarding the same property is pending?
  • Can an Executive Magistrate adjudicate upon disputes that are essentially civil in nature?
  • Is an order passed by an Executive Magistrate regarding the cancellation of a land mutation valid if the matter is sub judice before a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Versus The State2001 PCRLJ 1420 · Peshawar High Court · 2001-04-16
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationprinciple of consistencysupplementary statementdeep appreciation of evidencetracking dogscriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected criminal petitions before the Peshawar High Court: a bail application by the petitioner, Muhammad Saleem, and a cross-application by the complainant seeking cancellation of bail previously granted to co-accused Ali Sher and Muhammad Siddique. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being implicated in supplementary statements and identified by tracking dogs, and whether the bail granted to the co-accused should be cancelled. The Court held that the petitioner was prima facie connected to the crime, noting that deep appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the 'principle of consistency,' distinguishing his role from the co-accused. Furthermore, the Court upheld the bail of the co-accused, ruling that the cancellation of bail requires showing that the initial order was patently illegal or resulted in a miscarriage of justice, which was not established. The key principle laid down is that bail cancellation requires substantial grounds, and an accused's liberty, once granted by a lower court, should not be interfered with lightly.

  Questions settled

  • Can the court undertake deep appreciation of evidence at the stage of bail?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when the role attributed to the accused is distinguishable from co-accused already on bail?
  • What is the threshold for cancelling bail once it has been granted by a lower court?
  • Is mere ailment or heart trouble sufficient grounds for bail when the accused is prima facie linked to a serious crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain Versus State2000 PCRLJ 953 · Peshawar High Court
  narcotics controlbailinvestigation authorizationprohibition enforcementcriminal procedureheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arose from the rejection of a bail application by the lower forums regarding a case registered under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner, Shaukat Hussain, was arrested for the alleged possession of 12 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the investigation was conducted by an officer not authorized to do so. The Peshawar High Court observed that the Inspector who initiated the case and conducted the investigation had not been authorized by the Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter. Relying on the precedent established in Mahboob Ali alias Booba v. The State, the Court held that the lack of proper authorization for the investigation rendered the petitioner's case arguable for the purpose of bail, regardless of the quantity of contraband recovered. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to the provision of sureties to the satisfaction of the relevant Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the lack of authorization by a Superintendent of Police for an officer to investigate a narcotics case make a bail application arguable?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail if the investigation of the alleged offence was conducted by an unauthorized police officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf, Versus State2000 PCRLJ 917 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-12-17
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionexclusive possessionstatutory bar on bailControl of Narcotic Substances ActProhibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of 1200 grams of Charas and a pistol from his residence, registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and the Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions were whether the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 or the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Order 1979 applied to the possession of narcotics, and whether the statutory bar on bail under the Act of 1997 precluded the court from granting relief. The Court held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding bail remain applicable despite the restrictions in the Act of 1997, particularly when the prosecution's case regarding exclusive possession and the specific statutory application remains to be proven at trial. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that the bar on bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 is not absolute, and courts retain the discretion to grant bail in appropriate cases, especially where the prosecution's evidence regarding exclusive possession is contested.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory bar on bail under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 completely exclude the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding bail?
  • Is the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 or the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Order 1979 applicable to simple possession of narcotics?
  • Can bail be granted when the recovery of narcotics is made from a shared residence rather than the exclusive possession of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali Alias Maqbali Versus The State2000 PCRLJ 823 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-10-21
  murderocular evidenceballistic reportabscondenceinterested witnesscorroborative evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the ocular witnesses were interested, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and the ballistic evidence was unreliable due to a delayed forensic analysis. The complainant filed a revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence. The Court held that the ocular witnesses were natural witnesses present at the scene due to their return from a funeral, and their testimony was consistent and credible. The Court affirmed that the absence of prior enmity negated the likelihood of false implication. Regarding the ballistic evidence, the Court ruled that a delay in sending crime empties to the forensic laboratory does not invalidate the report absent evidence of tampering with the seals, which was not established here. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, the appellant's abscondence, and the matching of the recovered weapon with the crime empties. Both the appeal and the revision petition were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending crime empties to a forensic laboratory automatically invalidate the ballistic report?
  • Can the testimony of relatives of a deceased be discarded solely on the ground that they are interested witnesses?
  • Is abscondence of an accused a corroborative circumstance in a murder trial?
  • Does the absence of prior enmity between parties reduce the likelihood of false implication in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Versus State1999 PCRLJ 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus State1999 PCRLJ 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-08-31Read full judgment →
• Waheed Gul Versus Saida Jan1998 PCRLJ 3 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Versus The State1997 PCRLJ 960 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zaman Versus Bilqiaz Khan1997 PCRLJ 957 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
• Younus Warind Versus Nazir Ahmed Siddiqui1997 PCRLJ 549 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
• The State Versus Muhammad Yaqoob1997 PCRLJ 528 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-16Read full judgment →
• Zaley Mir Alias Zaley Versus The State1997 PCRLJ 510 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dost Ali Khan Versus The State1997 PCRLJ 505 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mashal Khan Versus The State1997 PCRLJ 478 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israil Khan Versus Niamat Ali Khan1997 PCRLJ 454 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-14Read full judgment →
• Kachkol Versus The State1997 PCRLJ 352 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-11-22Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman Versus The State1997 PCRLJ 1930 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-12Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Versus The State1997 PCRLJ 178 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad Versus Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi1997 PCRLJ 175 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
• Ilam Jan Versus The State1997 PCRLJ 169 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zafrana Versus The State1997 PCRLJ 163 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Versus The State1997 PCRLJ 110 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Janas Khan Versus The State1996 PCRLJ 958 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Zahid Saleem Versus Zain-Ul-Abideen1996 PCRLJ 955 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
• Abbas Haider Gilani Versus Azad Kashmir University1996 PCRLJ 1377 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• DR. Shah Versus The State1996 PCRLJ 1359 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus The State1995 PCRLJ 455 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas Versus The State1995 PCRLJ 1759 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq Versus State1994 PCRLJ 814 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• Wakeel Khan Versus The State1994 PCRLJ 2525 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-02Read full judgment →
• Bahadar Khan Versus Abdul Subhan1994 PCRLJ 2523 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus State1994 PCRLJ 2368 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• State Versus Musa Khan1994 PCRLJ 2354 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus Fazil1994 PCRLJ 2288 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-16Read full judgment →
• Zaib Versus The State1994 PCRLJ 2286 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
• Fateh Jang Versus Punjab Election Commissioner, Lahore1994 PCRLJ 2285 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muazzam Iqbal, Advocate, President, Wattan Party, Punjab Versus Punjab Government1994 PCRLJ 2265 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
• Fazal Dad Versus Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Lahore1994 PCRLJ 1656 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-02-10Read full judgment →
• Baozira Versus Said Farooq1994 PCRLJ 1427 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• Shuja Ullah Versus State1994 PCRLJ 1065 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Alias Shano Versus The State Muhammad Karim Anjum , Muhammad Ibrahim Khan Alizai1991 PCRLJ 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad Khan Versus The State1991 PCRLJ 65 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-05Read full judgment →
• Nekam Khan Versus The State1991 PCRLJ 2212 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-08-04Read full judgment →
• Hakim Khan Versus The State1991 PCRLJ 218 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
• Fazli Rabbi Versus The State1991 PCRLJ 212 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-08-13Read full judgment →
• Asal Khan Versus The State1990 PCRLJ 449 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Versus State1990 PCRLJ 419 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
• Faridullah Shah Versus State1990 PCRLJ 1945 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-21Read full judgment →
• Faridullah Alias Farid Versus State1990 PCRLJ 1937 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamim Versus Ali Gohar1990 PCRLJ 1932 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
• Shadi Khan Versus Matiullah1989 PCRLJ 2253 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Zarin Khan Versus State1989 PCRLJ 2176 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher Versus State1989 PCRLJ 2157 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Mehr Din Versus State1989 PCRLJ 1535 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
• Mubarakur Rehman Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 966 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-02-20Read full judgment →
• Dil Nawaz Khan Versus The State S. Zafar Abbas Zaidi , Haji Sadullah Khan Nlian Khel1988 PCRLJ 949 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-01-23Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad Versus The State Tasleem Hussain , Shahabud Din1988 PCRLJ 598 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-12Read full judgment →
• Zafaran Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 597 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-09-23Read full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Haider Zaidi Versus The State Tasleem Hussain , Mian Muhammad Ajmal. Asstt.1988 PCRLJ 594 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-26Read full judgment →
• Hidayatur Rehman Alias Kaki Jan Versus Samiullah Khan1988 PCRLJ 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-10-07Read full judgment →
• The State Versus Sadro and 2 Others1988 PCRLJ 455 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan Versus The State Jehanzeb Rahim , S. Ibne Ali, A.G.1988 PCRLJ 447 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-12-09Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman and 2 Others Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 440 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 2281 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
• Tamas Khan Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 2277 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ashraf Versus The State and 3 Others1988 PCRLJ 2268 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
• The State Versus Aman Ullah1988 PCRLJ 2056 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
• Saeedullah Alias Bacha Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-10-27Read full judgment →
• Darya Khan and 3 Others Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1560 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sajawal. Sarwar Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1558 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hidayatullah Versus Sarwar Jan1988 PCRLJ 1555 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-02-17Read full judgment →
• Shafique Sajid Versus The State Asadullah Khan , Mir Rehman Khan, A.A.G.1988 PCRLJ 1553 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mohammad Karim and 3 Others Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1543 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-03-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1539 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State Versus Farid Alias Kala1988 PCRLJ 1529 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-02-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1523 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muslim Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1473 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-04-23Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman and 3 Others Versus The State Mufti Muhammad Idrees, Ghulam Mustafa Swati , Khawaja Nazir Ahmed,, Muhammad Akbar Khan, Anwar Khurshid Turk1988 PCRLJ 1470 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
• Kala Khan Versus The State1988 PCRLJ 1468 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-03-30Read full judgment →
• Ashoor Gul Versus Muhammad Jan and 2 Others1988 PCRLJ 134 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-11-07Read full judgment →
• Adil Versus The State Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar , Khawaja Nazir Ahmad Khan, M.E. Hayat Khan1988 PCRLJ 1090 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-05-31Read full judgment →
• Versus Khan Afsar , Syed Sabir Hussain Shah1987 PCRLJ 2380 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
• Aqal Khan Versus Sherzada1987 PCRLJ 1154 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-14Read full judgment →
• Bahawal Khan Versus The State Malik Hamesh Gul Khan , Haji Saadullah Khan, Asstt. A.G1986 PCRLJ 2906 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar Khan Versus The State1986 PCRLJ 2900 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Versus Master Muhammad Ashraf1985 PCRLJ 803 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
• Haibat Khan Versus Haji Nawaz Khan1985 PCRLJ 799 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan Versus The State1985 PCRLJ 792 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Versus The State1985 PCRLJ 790 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal Versus The State1985 PCRLJ 2619 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Versus Muhammad Aslam1984 PCRLJ 2394 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman Versus State1983 PCRLJ 719 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-04-07Read full judgment →
• Khalil-Ur-Rehman Versus Ibrahim1983 PCRLJ 717 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Amir Khan Versus The State1982 PCRLJ 436 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Din Versus State1980 PCRLJ 985 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Versus Ahmad Hanif1980 PCRLJ 905 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-06Read full judgment →