Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Amin-Ud-Din Ahmad, Project Director, Kohat Development Authority2000 PLC (C.S.) 166 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by employees of the Provincial Urban Development Board (PUDB) challenging the retrospective regularisation and subsequent seniority of respondent No. 1 in BPS-18, as well as his promotion to BPS-19. The petitioners, who were promoted to BPS-18 on a regular basis in 1989 and 1990, argued that respondent No. 1's ad hoc appointment in 1986 could not be regularised with retrospective effect from 1988 under the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Regularisation of Ad hoc Services) Act, 1988, as he was not a civil servant and the Act only allowed prospective regularisation. The respondents contended that a previous writ petition on the same subject-matter had been withdrawn, creating an estoppel. The High Court held that the principle of estoppel or limitation does not apply to illegal acts, which remain illegal. The Court ruled that even if the Regularisation Act applied, respondent No. 1 would rank junior to those already regularly appointed. Consequently, the petition was partially allowed, declaring the petitioners senior to respondent No. 1 and directing their consideration for promotion to BPS-19.
Questions settled- Can the services of an employee who is not a civil servant be regularised with retrospective effect under the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Regularisation of Ad hoc Services) Act, 1988?
- Does the withdrawal of a previous writ petition filed by an officers' association bar individual employees from filing a subsequent writ petition to challenge their seniority?
- Does the principle of estoppel or limitation apply to validate an illegal act of retrospective regularisation by an authority?
- Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited through General Manager and 2 others vs Qazi Tariq Javed and 2 others2000 PLC 241 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-writ petitions challenging orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the dismissal of a bank employee. The core legal question was whether, under Section 25-A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, a Labour Court possesses the jurisdiction to re-examine the facts of a domestic inquiry or is restricted solely to reviewing procedural legality. The Court held that the Labour Court is empowered to act as a tribunal of facts, with the authority to go behind a dismissal order to determine if it was justified on both merits and law. The Court affirmed that the Labour Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside the dismissal after finding the charge of misappropriation was not established. Furthermore, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the denial of full back benefits, noting that the employee’s admitted lapses in cash handling justified a partial rather than full award. The principle established is that Section 25-A(5) grants Labour Courts wide powers to adjudicate grievances by reviewing all facts, not merely procedural compliance.
Questions settled- Does a Labour Court have the jurisdiction to re-examine the facts of a domestic inquiry under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Is a Labour Court limited to reviewing the procedural legality of a domestic inquiry or can it adjudicate on the merits of the findings?
- Can a Labour Court award partial back benefits to a reinstated employee based on the specific circumstances of the case?
- Ahmed Zia alias Bobi and anothers vs Malik Safi Ullah and anothers2000 P Cr. L J 1378 · Peshawar High Court · 2000-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a criminal miscellaneous application filed by two petitioners, convicted under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life, seeking suspension of their sentences and release on bail under section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the lapse of two years without their appeal being decided. The core legal question is whether the statutory provision directing the appellate court to release a convict on bail after the expiry of two years is mandatory or subject to judicial discretion, and whether it applies when a revision petition for the enhancement of sentence to death is pending. The Peshawar High Court held that the discretionary power of the appellate court is not altogether taken away, as the statute permits the court to decline relief for reasons to be recorded in writing, and noted that provisions of section 426(1-A) do not apply to cases involving a potential punishment of death. The petition for suspension of sentence was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require the mandatory release of a convict on bail after the expiry of two years?
- Does the pendency of a revision petition for the enhancement of a sentence to death affect the applicability of section 426(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the appellate court retain discretionary power to decline the suspension of a sentence after recording reasons in writing?
- Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan through Manager, ADBP, Mansehra Branch, Abbottabad vs Muhammad Farooq and anothers2000 YLR 2364 · Peshawar High Court · 2000-03-29Read full judgment →
- Afsar Ali vs The State and anothers2000 P Cr. L J 1903 · Peshawar High Court · 2000-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a bail application filed by Afsar Ali, a Junior Clerk in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Swabi, who sought post-arrest bail after being refused by the lower forum. The accused was charged under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, pursuant to an F.I.R. registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment for allegedly accepting a bribe. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the tentative assessment of the record, the lack of clarity regarding his role in distributing flour quotas, visible tampering over recovery memos, and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage due to serious documentary controversies regarding recovery memos and the undetermined role of the accused, coupled with the fact that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause and the petitioner was a government servant unlikely to abscond. The Court laid down the principle that where recovery memos bear visible tampering and the accused's official responsibility remains doubtful, further inquiry into his guilt warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when there is visible tampering over recovery memos?
- Does an offence under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted to a government servant when his role in the alleged crime requires further determination at trial and he is not likely to abscond?
- Adam Khan vs The State2000 PLD Peshawar 3 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge, Lakki, under the Arms Ordinance. The appellant was convicted for the alleged possession of an unlicensed .30 bore pistol, which the police claimed to have recovered from him during a pursuit. The appellant denied the recovery, asserting that the weapon was actually recovered from another individual. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the nature and bore of the recovered weapon to sustain a conviction under the Arms Ordinance. Upon review, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce an arms expert report or a report from the police armourer to verify the bore or the nature of the weapon. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge, with the Court emphasizing the necessity of expert verification in arms possession cases.
Questions settled- Is a conviction under the Arms Ordinance sustainable when the prosecution fails to produce an expert report regarding the nature and bore of the recovered weapon?
- Does the absence of an armourer's report regarding the weapon's specifications constitute a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case for illegal arms possession?
- Abdur Rehman vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 915 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, concerning the recovery of 1200 grams of opium and 6.3 kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the heavy quantity of contraband and the restrictive provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Peshawar High Court held that since the offense carried a punishment of death or life imprisonment due to the huge quantity of narcotics exceeding one kilogram, and in view of the bar contained in section 51 of the Act, the petitioner could not be released on bail. The court laid down the principle that bail in narcotic cases involving capital punishment or life imprisonment is prohibited under section 51, and allegations of mala fide and false implication cannot be deeply examined at the bail stage and are instead matters for trial.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when the recovered contraband exceeds one kilogram and is punishable with death or life imprisonment?
- Can the plea of mala fide and false implication be determined at the pre-trial bail stage?
- Whether the restrictive provisions of section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 override the general provisions of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Abdur Rehman alias Khan vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 910 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the recovery of 4,000 grams of Charas and 100 grams of heroin powder from his possession. The petitioner, having been denied bail by the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, sought relief from the High Court, asserting innocence and false implication. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidence on record and the findings of the lower courts. The High Court, upon a tentative assessment of the record, upheld the lower court's decision to refuse bail. The Court held that the recovery of the contraband, supported by the Chemical Examiner's report, provided sufficient grounds to believe the petitioner was connected to the offense. Consequently, the Court found no justification to interfere with the judicious exercise of discretion by the Special Court, emphasizing that the statutory conditions for refusing bail were satisfied. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Does the recovery of a significant quantity of narcotics, supported by a chemical examiner's report, constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail?
- Should a High Court interfere with the discretion exercised by a Special Court in refusing bail when the order is well-reasoned?
- Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when the record provides sufficient material to connect the accused to the offense charged?
- Abdur Rashid vs Noor Zada and anothers2000 P Cr. L J 402 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 302, 404, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder and misappropriation, resulting in life imprisonment, alongside a connected criminal revision. The core legal questions concern the credibility of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of an exculpatory confessional statement, the impact of omissions in the First Information Report, and the relevance of abscondence and weapon recoveries. The Peshawar High Court held that the eyewitness accounts were natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence, prompt reporting, and surrounding circumstances, notwithstanding minor omissions in the initial report. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that credible ocular testimony inspiring confidence requires minimal corroboration, and dismissed both the appeal and the connected revision.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony of related and independent witnesses can be relied upon without major contradictions?
- Can an exculpatory confessional statement be used to corroborate the prosecution's case regarding the presence of accused persons?
- Does an omission in the First Information Report regarding a specific recovered item vitiate the entire prosecution case?
- What is the evidentiary value of abscondence when coupled with other strong incriminating evidence?
- Abdur Rashid and 12 others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner/Deputy2000 MLD 1726 · Peshawar High Court · 2000-05-26Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Khan vs Zulfiqar Ali2000 CLC 353 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-10-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf and anothers vs Messrs Mifatah Uddin Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.2000 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 2000-03-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jalil vs Mst. Nusrat Begum and others2000 CLC 1680 · Peshawar High Court · 2000-03-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and anothers vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 935 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by petitioners charged with an offence under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The primary legal questions were whether the failure to comply with the search witness requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, entitles the accused to bail, and whether advanced age alone constitutes sufficient grounds for bail. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to bail. Regarding the first issue, the Court ruled that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is inapplicable to searches conducted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, due to the specific exclusionary provision in Section 25 of the latter Act. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 103 does not apply to searches of vehicles or locations outside inhabited localities. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that old age, by itself, does not automatically entitle an accused to bail unless accompanied by sickness or infirmity as contemplated by the proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Questions settled- Does the failure to associate independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, invalidate a search conducted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Does Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to the search of a moving vehicle?
- Is old age by itself a sufficient ground for the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Abdul Bari vs Dil Afroz2000 MLD 1879 · Peshawar High Court · 2000-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from an order passed by the Additional District Judge upholding the trial court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and recovery of royalty based on an agreement. The core legal question concerned the proper appellate forum for challenging interlocutory orders where the plaint was valued at Rs. 19,22,800. The court held that under Section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 and Section 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, appellate jurisdiction is determined by the valuation fixed in the plaint, meaning the appeal against the interlocutory order lay before the High Court rather than the District Judge. Consequently, the appellate order passed by the District Judge was held to be without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The principle laid down is that the forum of appeal for interlocutory orders is governed by the valuation in the plaint, and filing an appeal in the wrong forum renders the resulting appellate decision a nullity, leaving the original trial court order final if the proper forum is no longer accessible due to limitation.
Questions settled- How is the appellate forum for challenging interlocutory orders determined under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962?
- Whether an appeal against an interlocutory order in a suit valued at Rs. 19,22,800 lies before the District Judge or the High Court?
- What is the legal status of an appellate order passed by a forum that lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal?
- Abdul Aziz and others vs Muhammad Miskeen and 8 others2000 MLD 1855 · Peshawar High Court · 2000-05-05Read full judgment →
- Zar Badshah vs Samiullah and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 915 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-06Read full judgment →
- Zahid Latif vs Muhammad Hamid and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-11Read full judgment →
- Wisal Muhammad Khan vs Faiz Gul,Naibtehsildar and others1999 MLD 1163 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-17Read full judgment →
- Wall Muhammad vs The State1999 YLR 2525 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-19Read full judgment →
- Wali Shah vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 558 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
- Wajid Hussain vs The State and another1999 YLR 1602 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-08-20Read full judgment →
- Vector Joseph vs Muhammad Amin1999 CLC 1676 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-07Read full judgment →
- University of Peshawar vs Malik Naaz1999 PLC (C.S.) 1088 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-14Read full judgment →
- United Bank Ltd. through attorney and 4 others vs Syed Mansoor Ahmad1999 MLD 2490 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-18Read full judgment →
- Umer Zaman vs The State and others1999 MLD 1921 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-13Read full judgment →
- Umar Farooq and anothers vs Mst. Shagufta Nasreen and anothers1999 MLD 703 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
- The State vs Sharif Khan1999 MLD 1612 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
- The State vs Rahim Gul1999 P Cr. L J 1087 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the State challenges the acquittal of the respondent, Rahim Gul, for murder. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or manifestly wrong based on the evidence presented, specifically the dying declaration, motive, and the accused's abscondence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal. The Court held that the dying declaration was unreliable as it failed the test of being intrinsically true; it was materially inconsistent with the acquittal of the co-accused, Zafar Khan, and the physical distance between the parties rendered the alleged command implausible. Furthermore, the ocular testimony was rejected as unreliable, and the motive was not directly linked to the deceased. The Court reiterated that a dying declaration is a weak piece of evidence, not subject to cross-examination, and requires strict scrutiny. It emphasized that in an appeal against acquittal, interference is only warranted if the impugned judgment is perverse, illogical, or manifestly wrong, which was not established in this case.
Questions settled- What are the tests for determining the genuineness of a dying declaration?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
- Does the abscondence of an accused person automatically establish guilt in the absence of other corroborative evidence?
- Can a dying declaration be relied upon if it is inconsistent with the acquittal of a co-accused mentioned in the same declaration?
- The Collector of Customs vs Muhammad Akram1999 PLD Peshawar 33 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Peshawar High Court disposes of a batch of First Appeal from Orders (F.A.O. Nos. 29 and 30 to 45 of 1998) arising from an order of the Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal questions involved the legality of a search and seizure operation conducted by customs officials for alleged smuggled goods, the applicability and distinction between sections 162 and 163 of the Customs Act 1969, and whether questions of law were properly raised in the appeals. The Court held that the search was illegal and without lawful authority because an application for a search warrant was improperly made to an Executive Magistrate rather than a Judicial Magistrate under section 162, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for a warrantless search under section 163 were not fulfilled. The ratio decidendi established is that provisions for search and seizure under the Customs Act 1969 are distinct and independent, cannot be interchanged, and must be strictly complied with in the prescribed manner, failing which the entire search and subsequent proceedings become legally void under the principle that a thing required by law to be done in a particular manner must be done in that manner or not at all.
Questions settled- Whether an application for a search warrant made to an Executive Magistrate instead of a Judicial Magistrate complies with section 162 of the Customs Act 1969?
- Can the provisions of section 162 and section 163 of the Customs Act 1969 be interchanged interchangeably by customs authorities during a raid?
- Does failure to comply with the mandatory written statement requirements under section 163 of the Customs Act 1969 render a search illegal?
- Is it mandatory to formulate questions of law explicitly in question form within the memo of appeal under section 196 of the Customs Act 1969?
- Tam Eez Khan vs Mirsal Khan and another1999 YLR 2393 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-17Read full judgment →
- Tahir and another vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 942 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
- Syed Munawar Shah and others vs Collector and others1999 MLD 2434 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
- Syed Muddasar Shah/ vs Managing Director, N.W.F.P. Forest1999 MLD 736 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the trial court and the appellate court, which stayed the petitioner's civil suit for declaration and injunction in favor of arbitration proceedings. The petitioner, a contractor, sought to challenge office orders imposing penalties and claiming losses, arguing that the dispute was not arbitrable due to allegations of mala fide and the nature of the claims. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to stay the suit in light of an arbitration clause in the parties' agreement. The High Court upheld the stay, holding that the arbitration clause was comprehensive and covered the disputes in question. The Court emphasized that the primary objective of Section 34 is to minimize litigation by honoring the parties' contractual choice of forum. It clarified that allegations of mala fide or fraud in a plaint do not automatically preclude the invocation of an arbitration clause, and that the discretionary power to stay proceedings should be exercised to promote amicable settlement through agreed-upon arbitration.
Questions settled- Does an allegation of mala fide in a plaint automatically preclude the stay of a civil suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Is the power of a court to stay legal proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 mandatory or discretionary?
- Can a dispute involving the imposition of penalties under a contract be referred to arbitration if the agreement contains a comprehensive arbitration clause?
- Syed Azmat Ali Shah and anothers vs The State and anothers1999 PLD Peshawar 39 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under section 497 and section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the release on bail of two accused persons detained in connection with an FIR registered under section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and subsequently falling under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal questions involved the legality of remands granted by ordinary magistrates instead of the exclusive Special Court, the necessity of the physical production of an accused during remand hearings, and whether prior illegalities or delays in remand and challan submission could be regularised by a subsequent lawful order at a later stage. The Peshawar High Court held that for scheduled offences, the Special Court possesses exclusive original jurisdiction, making remands by ordinary magistrates illegal. It further held that the physical production of the accused at each remand is mandatory, and crucially ruled that subsequent lawful orders cannot cure or regularise prior statutory violations regarding illegal detention. Consequently, the petitioners were admitted to bail.
Questions settled- Whether a Magistrate of the 1st class has jurisdiction to grant remand under section 167 or section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for an offence exclusively triable by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Is the physical production of an accused person before the Magistrate or Court mandatory at the time of seeking a remand?
- Whether subsequent lawful remand orders or trial proceedings can cure and regularise prior prolonged illegal detention and statutory violations committed during the investigative stage?
- Does the failure to submit a challan within the mandatory statutory period entitle the detained accused to the grant of bail?
- Syed Abdur Rehman Shah vs Superintendent of Police, Mansehra And Another1999 CLC 855 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-12Read full judgment →
- Surat Khan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1657 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
- Sultan Sher vs Atlas Khan and anothers1999 MLD 776 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
- Suleman Shah and others vs Nasrullah and others1999 MLD 249 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-29Read full judgment →
- State vs Zafaryab and others1999 YLR 2087 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
- State through AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P.. Peshawar vs Akhtar Munir1999 YLR 2635 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-09Read full judgment →
- State through AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P., Peshawar vs Munir1999 PLD Peshawar 26 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. vs Sarfraz Khan and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1534 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. vs Khandar Ali1999 P Cr. L J 1593 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-09Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General vs Manzoor Hussain1999 P Cr. L J 1150 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-16Read full judgment →
- State through Advocategeneral, N.W.F.P. vs Farid Hussain1999 MLD 485 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
- Sher Shah and anothers vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 503 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
- Sher Shah and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 834 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
- Sher Bahadar vs Haji Ghaffar Ali Khan and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 403 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 497(5) read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks the cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent by the Special Judge, Bannu, in a murder case registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary issue before the Peshawar High Court was whether bail could be granted on the ground of further inquiry merely because two accused were charged with firing Kalashnikovs at the deceased who sustained only a single fatal wound. Reversing the lower court's order, the High Court held that where the accused is directly named and charged in the FIR and witness statements, specific attribution of the fatal injury is not required at the bail stage. Tentative assessment established reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary bail in non-bailable offences must be exercised judiciously, and a deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage.
Questions settled- Does charging two accused for a single fatal injury automatically make the case one of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Can a court conduct a deep appreciation of evidence at the stage of deciding a bail application in a murder case?
- Whether direct nomination in the FIR accompanied by witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. constitutes reasonable grounds to disentitle an accused to bail in a capital offence?
- Sher Ali vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 242 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
- Sher Ahmad Khan vs Naqibullah Khan and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1888 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-24Read full judgment →
- Sharif Khan vs I.G. Police, N.W.F.P. and 6 others1999 MLD 1087 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-08-28Read full judgment →
- Shamraiz and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1700 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
- Shakirullah vs Hidayatullah and 3 others1999 MLD 389 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of a trial court's refusal to decide a pre-emption suit based on a 'Special Oath,' which was subsequently overturned by a revisional court. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in declining to act upon an alleged oral offer and acceptance of an oath that was disputed by the parties and not recorded in the court's order sheet. The High Court held that the trial court's decision was correct. It established that courts must exercise caution regarding 'snap' decisions made during heated arguments or emotional outbursts, as these lack the necessary 'cool deliberation' and piety required for an oath. Because the alleged offer and acceptance were not recorded in the court's proceedings and were contested, the trial court was justified in refusing to dispose of the case on that basis. Consequently, the High Court set aside the revisional court's order, declared subsequent proceedings void, and remanded the case for trial on merits.
Questions settled- Can a court refuse to decide a case on the basis of a special oath if the offer and acceptance were made in the heat of the moment?
- Is a revisional court justified in setting aside a trial court's order that refuses to dispose of a case on a disputed special oath?
- Does the absence of an oath-related entry in the court's order sheet justify a trial court's refusal to act upon an alleged oral offer of oath?
- What is the legal effect of proceedings conducted by a trial court pursuant to an illegal remand order?
- Shakil Ahmed vs Muhammad Rafique and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1137 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-09Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Khan vs The State1999 MLD 1584 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-12Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Mir and others vs Provincial Government and others1999 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition was filed by petitioners against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Civil Judge and the District Judge, Kohat, which had dismissed their suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners, who were tenants-at-will, claimed proprietary ownership over the suit land under Martial Law Regulation No. 115, challenging the revenue entries in favor of the private respondents and the Provincial Government. During the revision proceedings, the petitioners sought withdrawal of their suit with permission to file a fresh one, admitting that their claim did not fall under MLR 115 but under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, and offering to pay the purchase price. The High Court held that the land had not been resumed under MLR 115, and even if resumed, it would revert to the Government rather than entitle tenants to ownership or allotment. Furthermore, a petitioner cannot set up an abandoned or unpleaded case in revision. The revisional jurisdiction is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors or statutory non-compliance, not general errors of law or fact. The revision petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can tenants-at-will claim ownership or allotment of land under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 if the land has not been resumed by the Government?
- Does unresumed land or resumed land under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 automatically confer proprietary rights upon occupying tenants?
- Can a party set up a completely new or abandoned cause of action for the first time in a civil revision petition?
- What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction regarding erroneous conclusions of law or fact compared to appellate jurisdiction?
- Shahzad Mir and anothers vs The Administrator, Municipal1999 PLD Peshawar 50 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-20Read full judgment →
- Shahnaz Bibi vs Gul Khan alias Haji Khan and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 868 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition filed by the petitioner, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, seeking the cancellation of pre-trial bail granted to respondent No. 1, who stands charged under section 10(2) of the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 vide F.I.R. No. 64 dated 29-4-1998 registered at Police Station Gomal University, D.I. Khan. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether bail already granted by the Sessions Court should be cancelled when the case is already ripe for trial or challan has been completed. The Court held that, following the established precedents of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, it is not proper to cancel or recall bail once the case is ripe or trial is about to commence, notwithstanding any infirmities in the initial bail granting order. Consequently, the bail cancellation petition was rejected.
Questions settled- Whether bail once granted should be cancelled when the case is ripe for trial?
- Does the completion of challan and imminent commencement of trial preclude the cancellation of bail?
- Is an appellate or revisional court bound by Supreme Court precedents regarding non-interference with bail when trial is about to commence?
- Shah Zameen vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 256 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-30Read full judgment →
- Shah Wali Khan vs The State and another1999 YLR 1594 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-21Read full judgment →
- Shah Rasool and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-08-25Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz vs Umar Daraz And 9 Other1999 CLC 1883 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision challenges an appellate court order that dismissed the petitioner's suit for lack of jurisdiction. The dispute concerns the transfer of land by the Land Commission to the respondent, which the petitioner alleged was illegal, claiming the land belonged to their predecessor. The core legal question is whether Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 grants Civil Courts jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging orders passed by the Land Commission under Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The Court held that Paragraph 26 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 expressly bars the jurisdiction of all courts, including the High Court and Supreme Court, in matters the Commission is empowered to determine. The ratio established is that where a special tribunal is created by statute to determine rights, its jurisdiction is exclusive, and Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 inherently recognizes this exception. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that administrative errors by such commissions must be corrected through the hierarchy of the commission itself, as per Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897, and that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court by the consent or opinion of administrative officers.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order passed by the Land Commission under Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
- Can the jurisdiction of a Civil Court be conferred or expanded by the consent or opinion of administrative officers?
- Does Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow for the trial of suits where jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred by another statute?
- Can a wrong or unwarranted order passed by a statutory authority be corrected by a Civil Court, or must it be addressed through the authority's own hierarchy?
- Shafiul Mulk vs Chairman, Agriculture Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad And 5 Other1999 CLC 1892 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-15Read full judgment →
- Shabeer Hussain Shah vs The State and another1999 YLR 1334 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
- Seena International Medical College through Dr. Syed Noor Muhammad1999 MLD 2636 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
- Secretary Works, Government of N.W.F.P. and others vs Hisamul Ahmad1999 MLD 818 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-31Read full judgment →
- Sarhad Development Authority, N.-W.F.P. through Project Manager, Galdanian Phosphate Exploration Project, Abbottabad vs Jehanzeb and another1999 PLC 377 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which had dismissed the petitioner's application to set aside an earlier order directing payment of wages and compensation. The petitioner argued that the initial order was passed ex parte and that no appeal lay against such an order. The respondent contended that the order was not ex parte, as the petitioner's defence had been struck off due to failure to produce evidence, and that the order was appealable. The Court held that the order was not ex parte, as it was based on available evidence after the petitioner's defence was struck off for non-prosecution. Consequently, the application to set aside the order was correctly dismissed. The Court further held that the order passed under section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, was appealable under section 17 of the same Act. As an adequate alternative remedy of appeal existed, the Court ruled that the constitutional petition was not maintainable, emphasizing that parties cannot circumvent statutory appellate remedies by invoking writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is an order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936, where the defence was struck off for non-production of evidence, considered an ex parte order?
- Does an appeal lie against an order passed by the authority under section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner?
- Sarfraz Khan vs Ayub Khan and another1999 YLR 2350 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-24Read full judgment →
- Sarfaraz Khan vs The State and another1999 YLR 2341 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
- Sardaraz vs Nazir Muhammad and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1020 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah Khan vs Hassan Khan And Another1999 CLC 1735 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for possession of land through pre-emption, which was initially decreed in favour of the petitioner by the trial Court. On appeal, the District Judge set aside the decree and dismissed the suit on the grounds that the suit was barred by limitation and that the mandatory requirements regarding making Talbs (Talb-e-Muwathibat) in a timely manner had not been fulfilled by the pre-emptor. The petitioner challenged this appellate decision through a revision petition before the Peshawar High Court. The High Court reviewed the record and the detailed reasoning of the lower appellate Court, holding that the appellate court's findings were supported by evidence, free from illegality or material irregularity, and constituted a speaking order. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the dismissal of the pre-emption suit. The key principle laid down is that a pre-emptor must strictly establish the timely making of Talb-e-Muwathibat and file the suit within the statutory period of limitation.
Questions settled- Whether failure to make Talb-e-Muwathibat within the prescribed time renders a pre-emption suit liable to dismissal?
- Is a pre-emption suit barred by time if instituted beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 31 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987?
- Does the High Court interfere in revision with a well-reasoned appellate judgment that suffers from no illegality or material irregularity?
- Sambali Khan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1611 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
- Saleem and others vs Usman Ali1999 YLR 2658 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-25Read full judgment →
- Salahuddin vs Inayat Ullah and another1999 YLR 2109 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
- Sakina vs The State1999 YLR 1732 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
- Sakhawat Ali Shah vs The State1999 YLR 1286 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
- Said Rasool Khan. vs The State and another1999 YLR 2544 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-17Read full judgment →
- Said Nawaz Khan vs Sultan Ahmad and 2 others1999 YLR 2260 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-15Read full judgment →
- Saad Ullah Jan vs The State and another1999 YLR 2262 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
- Rizwanullah and others vs The State1999 MLD 1443 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
- Riazur Rehman vs The State1999 YLR 1366 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-27Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ullah vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 579 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-11Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ullah and another vs Mahi Khan and another1999 YLR 2288 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ali Khan vs Nasim Jan And Another1999 CLC 2082 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
- Raza Hassan vs Chairman, Joint Admission Committee and others1999 MLD 1469 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-16Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Zahid vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 503 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by Raja Muhammad Zahid, a Sub-Inspector of the Cooperative Society, who was charged under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the questionable legality of the raid conducted by the 'Khidmat Committee', the absence of a Magistrate 1st Class supervising the trap, and the plausibility of the petitioner's plea that the recovered amount was received toward loan repayment rather than as a bribe. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for further inquiry, noting material illegalities in the trap proceedings and supporting prima facie evidence for the petitioner's plea. The Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down principles regarding the requirement of Magistrate supervision in corruption traps, the necessity of establishing the exact dialogue during the passing of tainted money, and the lack of lawful authority for 'Khidmat Committees' to conduct raids against civil servants.
Questions settled- Whether a raid and trap conducted by a 'Khidmat Committee' against a civil servant without the supervision of a Magistrate 1st Class is materially illegal?
- Does the receipt of money purportedly towards a loan repayment rather than a bribe constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail?
- Whether 'Khidmat Committees' possess lawful authority under any enactment to organize traps and conduct raids against government servants?
- Rahmat Ali vs Sher Malik and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1897 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-04Read full judgment →
- Rahim Sultan vs The State1999 YLR 2503 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-28Read full judgment →
- Rahim Dad vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 951 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-02Read full judgment →
- Rafiullah vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Education, Peshawar and 20 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 235 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Qudratullah Khan vs State and another1999 YLR 2108 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
- Qimat Hassan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 824 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner, Qimat Hassan, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 2000 grams of Charas. The core legal questions involved whether the search and arrest conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector below the rank of Sub-Inspector vitiates the proceedings under Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, whether a police officer can act as both complainant and investigating officer, and whether bail should be granted when the chemical examiner report is delayed. The Peshawar High Court held that the provisions of Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are directory rather than mandatory, making any deviation an irregularity that does not render the trial illegal, and that a police officer is not legally barred from acting as both complainant and investigating officer unless there is a miscarriage of justice. The court laid down the principle that procedural irregularities by lower-ranking officers in narcotics cases do not automatically entitle an accused to bail, and that heinous drug offenses involving large quantities deny the accused the right to bail.
Questions settled- Whether search and arrest by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector under Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 renders the case illegal?
- Are the provisions of Section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 mandatory or directory in nature?
- Is there any legal prohibition against a police officer acting as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a criminal case?
- Does the non-receipt of a chemical laboratory report in time create a favorable ground for the grant of bail in narcotics cases?
- Qadeem Shah and anothers vs Gul Sher and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 791 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-23Read full judgment →
- Qadar Khan and another vs The State1999 YLR 2059 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-05Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz Khan vs Shah Hanif and anothers1999 MLD 2160 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-28Read full judgment →
- Project Director and 2 others vs Messrs Imad & Co.1999 MLD 2464 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
- Pine Match (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Chairman. vs Central Board Of Revenue And 3 OtherPTCL 1999 CL. 395 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Noor Nabuwwat vs Moulvi Muhammad Noor Ali Khan1999 CLC 1685 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a property dispute between two brothers regarding land gifted by their deceased parents. The parties had entered into an arbitration agreement to resolve the matter, resulting in an award. The core legal question was whether this award could be made a rule of the court. The Peshawar High Court held that the award could not be sustained and dismissed the respondent's application. The court determined that the arbitration agreement was void for uncertainty as it failed to specify the disputed property. Furthermore, the award was invalid because it failed to provide reasons as required by Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940, excluded a necessary party (the sister), and remained unregistered despite involving property exceeding Rs. 100 in value, violating Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Additionally, the court clarified that Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, governs applications to make an award a rule of the court where no formal notice under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, has been issued.
Questions settled- Does an arbitration agreement that fails to specify the subject matter of the dispute satisfy the requirements of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Is an arbitration award that fails to provide reasons for its decision valid under Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Can an arbitration award involving property worth more than Rs. 100 be made a rule of the court if it is not registered under the Registration Act 1908?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to an application to make an arbitration award a rule of the court when no notice under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act 1940 has been served?
- Noor Nab1 vs Glil Rauf Khan and others1999 YLR 2467 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-16Read full judgment →