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.
- Noor Habib vs The State and others1999 P Cr. L J 990 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-04Read full judgment →
- Nisar Khan and another vs The State and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1884 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
- Nisar Ahmad alias Nisar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1066 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-23Read full judgment →
- Nek Muhammad vs The State and others1999 YLR 132 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-21Read full judgment →
- Nazar Jan vs State and another1999 YLR 1471 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-11Read full judgment →
- Nazar Gul vs Sessions Judge and others1999 PLD Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-04Read full judgment →
- Nazar Din vs The State1999 YLR 1292 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
- Nayeem Nawaz and 4 others vs N.-W.F.P. Small Industries Development1999 PLC (C.S.) 1024 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
- Nawabzada Bakht Jehan Zaib Khan Alias Taimor Khan And Another vs Abdul Hamid Marwat, Excise and Taxation Officer, Peshawar And 5 Other1999 CLC 13 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
- Nauroz KHAN/Accused vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 698 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Nauroz Khan, who was charged under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail despite being named in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) for effective firing, having absconded for over four years, and facing proceedings under sections 87, 88, 204, and 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the accused was not entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the accused was directly charged with firing at the deceased, supported by medical evidence showing multiple firearm wounds, and his prolonged abscondence despite legal proceedings created reasonable grounds to believe he was guilty of an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that an accused who absconds for a significant period following a direct charge in an F.I.R. for a heinous crime, where medical evidence corroborates the allegations, is generally disentitled to the concession of bail.
Questions settled- Does the abscondence of an accused for a significant period after being named in an F.I.R. constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when medical evidence corroborates the allegation of effective firing?
- Can bail be granted to an accused charged with an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment when there are reasonable grounds to believe in their guilt?
- Niamat Khan vs The State and another1999 YLR 2461 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-08Read full judgment →
- Nasreen Khilji vs The State and others1999 MLD 1650 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
- Nasir Khan vs Asif and another1999 YLR 2478 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-28Read full judgment →
- Najeebullah and 2 others vs The State and another1999 YLR 2384 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
- Nadir Khan vs The State1999 YLR 1405 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
- Niamat Ullah vs Zulfiqar Ali and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 883 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-23Read full judgment →
- Musharaf Khan vs Collector, Land Acquisition1999 MLD 2668 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
- Murad Ali alias Pappu vs The State and another1999 YLR 2497 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
- Municipal Committee, Bannu through Administrator vs Nazar Jan and 31999 YLR 154 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Shah vs The State1999 YLR 1625 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-14Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Khan and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 335 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mumt Az Ahmed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1079 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
- Mukammil Shah vs The State1999 YLR 2225 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zubair And 4 Others vs Muhammad Zamir And 11 Other1999 CLC 2045 · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Through this constitutional petition, the petitioners challenged the orders dated 03-11-1996 and 24-10-1997 passed by the lower courts, whereby their evidence was closed under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and their revision petition was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in closing the petitioners' evidence and rejecting their application to summon a witness due to repeated adjournments and failure to produce evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners exhibited a lack of interest and employed delaying tactics, and therefore the trial court rightly invoked the penal provisions of Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court laid down the principle that in its writ jurisdiction, it cannot interfere with orders competently passed by courts of competent jurisdiction where the conduct of the party shows deliberate delay.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court is justified in closing evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a party fails to produce evidence despite opportunities?
- Can the High Court interfere in its writ jurisdiction with orders competently passed by subordinate courts regarding the closure of evidence?
- Muhammad Zaman vs The State1999 YLR 591 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 797 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman vs Ghulam Haider Khan and anothers1999 MLD 1266 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zahoor vs Muhammad Yonus and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1050 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ali vs The State1999 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younis vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1640 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Suleman vs Muhammad Nazir and 2 others1999 YLR 2053 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sher and 2 others vs Mst. Sultana and another1999 YLR 2248 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sharif and others vs Land Acquisition Collector and others1999 YLR 1017 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Shafique vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 830 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of a customs clearing agent for narcotics smuggling. The core legal question is whether a shipping agent, whose role is limited to filing shipping documents, can be held criminally liable for contraband discovered within a shipment owned by a third party. The Peshawar High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The court held that a shipping agent's role is purely facilitative and technical; without evidence of possession or domain over the contraband, the agent cannot be held criminally liable for the contents of a shipment owned by another party. The court emphasized that linking a shipping agent to a crime while acquitting the actual exporter is speculative and lacks legal basis. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a nexus between the appellant and the commission of the offence. The conviction was deemed based on a misrepresentation of evidence, as the agent's act of filing a shipping bill does not equate to possession or knowledge of the illicit goods contained within the client's consignment.
Questions settled- Can a customs clearing agent be held criminally liable for contraband found in a shipment solely based on the filing of shipping documents?
- Does the presentation of a shipping bill by an agent constitute legal possession or domain over the goods contained within a shipment?
- Is the non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to a prosecution case where the recovery of contraband is not disputed?
- Muhammad Sayal vs Hussain Abad and another1999 YLR 348 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Salim vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 151 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Salim vs Muhammad Ashraf Khan and another1999 YLR 100 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saleem vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1315 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sagheer and 2 others vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 962 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saeed and 2 others vs Haji Pirdad Khan and another1999 YLR 2518 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rahim vs Abdul Baqi1999 PLD Peshawar 52 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nisar vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1999 MLD 2510 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz and 3 others vs The State and another1999 YLR 1713 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naeem Khan vs Cap. (Retd.) Muhammad Yousaf, Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Peshawar and 4 others1999 YLR 2064 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mashal vs The State1999 YLR 1585 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Janan vs The State and another1999 YLR 1926 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq vs Ghafoor Khan1999 YLR 1956 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a suit for declaration challenging the validity of Mutation No. 6906, alleging it was fraudulent and that the vendor, a Pardanasheen lady, never executed the sale. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, finding the transaction genuine. In this revision petition, the petitioners contended that the mutation was void due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 and that the Girdawar Circle lacked authority to record statements. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the evidence sufficiently proved the transaction's validity. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court clarified that while Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 prescribes procedures for revenue staff, non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the underlying transaction, as mutations are primarily for fiscal purposes and do not create title. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Girdawar Circle’s role in recording statements did not vitiate the process, as the actual attestation was performed by a competent Revenue Officer.
Questions settled- Does non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 42 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 invalidate a mutation?
- Do mutations create title in immovable property?
- Can a Girdawar Circle record the statement of a vendor for the purpose of mutation?
- Does the relationship of a witness to a party automatically discredit their testimony in the absence of hostility?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Jehanzeb Khan1999 MLD 2475 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ihsan vs Government of Pakistan through Federal1999 MLD 1145 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hussain vs Azhar Taqveem and others1999 YLR 2280 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Durwaish vs Haji Muhammad Hussain Alias Haji Gul And 71999 CLC 106 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil revision petitions arising from a suit for declaration and cancellation of a registered sale deed and a mutation entry. The core legal question was whether a registered sale deed, being over thirty years old, attracts the presumption of genuineness under Article 100 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, thereby dispensing with the requirement to prove its execution under Article 79. The court held that the registered sale deed, having come from proper custody and exceeding thirty years in age, is presumed genuine under Article 100, shifting the burden to the plaintiffs to rebut it, which they failed to do. Consequently, the court upheld the validity of the sale deed. Regarding the mutation, the court affirmed its cancellation as it failed to conform to the registered deed. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments regarding limitation and the failure to seek consequential relief under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, noting that the latter objection was not raised at the trial stage and that the suit for cancellation of mutation did not necessitate such relief.
Questions settled- Does the presumption of genuineness under Article 100 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, dispense with the requirement to prove the execution of a document under Article 79?
- Can a suit be dismissed for failure to seek consequential relief under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, if the objection was not raised before the trial court?
- Does a mutation entry that fails to conform to the underlying registered sale deed warrant cancellation?
- Does the allegation of fraud and lack of knowledge regarding a registered deed extend the limitation period for filing a suit for declaration?
- Muhammad Aziz vs The State and another1999 YLR 1621 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 837 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Asghar alias Pappu vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1575 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge, Tank, on September 14, 1998, under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The appellant was convicted for the alleged possession of a hand grenade and four grams of Charas, resulting in a five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence and forfeiture of property. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether a conviction can be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce the alleged case property before the trial court. Upon review, the High Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce or exhibit the case property during the trial proceedings. The Court held that a conviction cannot be legally sustained in the absence of the production of the case property, as such an omission renders the trial court's judgment perverse and arbitrary. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, ordering the immediate release of the appellant. The key principle laid down is that the production and exhibition of case property are essential prerequisites for a valid conviction in criminal trials.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained if the prosecution fails to produce the case property in court?
- Is a judgment that ignores the absence of case property considered perverse and arbitrary?
- Does the failure to exhibit case property vitiate a conviction under the Explosive Substances Act 1908?
- Muhammad Arif vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 707 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a criminal revision for the enhancement of sentence. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value and reliability of a dying declaration, and the impact of medical contradictions on the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the natural presence of the alleged eye-witness, and that the dying declaration lacked sanctity and truth due to physical impossibilities revealed by the medical report and active prompting by relatives present at the hospital. The court laid down the principle that a dying declaration loses its evidentiary value and cannot form the basis of a conviction if it is contradicted by physical or scientific phenomena, or if it is shown to be the result of prompting by interested relatives in attendance. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the revision petition for enhancement was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of a dying declaration that is contradicted by medical and physical evidence?
- What is the evidentiary value of a dying declaration made in the presence of relatives who prompted the naming of the accused?
- Does the unexplained failure of an alleged eye-witness to report the incident at a nearby police post render their presence doubtful?
- How does pitch-dark visibility prior to sunrise affect the credibility of identification in a criminal case?
- Muhammad Aqeel vs Fayaz Hussain and 2 others1999 MLD 1506 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Anis vs Pervez Muzammil Khan and others1999 P Cr. L J 828 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Amir Khan vs Ialik Salahuddin and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1354 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram alias Ladq vs The Statel.1999 YLR 1613 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal vs Aslam and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 799 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zojan through her Legal Heirs and others vs Muhammad Hassan and others1999 MLD 2096 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-08-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zakia Begum vs District Magistrate, Charsadda and others1999 P Cr. L J 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Taj Mohala vs Shamsurrehman and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 385 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Safia Begum vs Shaukat Khan and others1999 YLR 2653 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Robina and anothers vs Inam Khan and anothers1999 PLD Peshawar 14 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Riaz Bibi vs Sardar and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 1323 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge, Haripur, in a case registered under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the murder of the petitioner's husband. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail confirmed in a murder case involving circumstantial evidence and allegations of mala fides should be cancelled, and whether motive alone or belated last-seen evidence can displace a finding of mala fides. The Peshawar High Court held that pre-arrest bail was rightly granted and dismissed the cancellation petition. The court laid down the principles that pre-arrest bail is not absolutely barred in murder cases if mala fides or ulterior motives by the police or complainant are established; that last-seen evidence must be in close temporal proximity to the crime to hold weight; and that motive, even if strong, cannot be substituted for substantive evidence or serve as a sole ground to deny or recall bail.
Questions settled- Is there an absolute bar against granting pre-arrest bail to an accused charged in a murder case?
- Can belated last-seen evidence alone establish sufficient connection between an accused and a murder for the purpose of denying bail?
- Can motive alone serve as a substitute for substantive evidence to refuse or cancel bail?
- What are the differentiating considerations for the cancellation of bail once already granted by a competent court?
- Mst. Najma Parveen vs Hakeemullah1999 YLR 1072 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mastari vs Noor Nawaz alias Noor Niaz1999 P Cr. L J 616 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a bail cancellation petition filed by the widow of the deceased against an order granting post-arrest bail to the respondent-accused who was charged with murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved whether the trial court correctly evaluated the merits of the case at the bail stage and whether prolonged absconsion disentitles an accused from seeking bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the impugned bail-granting order was perverse as it amounted to a deep and premature appreciation of the prosecution case, which is impermissible at the bail stage. Furthermore, the court held that deliberate and prolonged absconsion of over four years disentitles an accused from the concession of bail, regardless of the merits, as absconders forfeit normal procedural rights. Consequently, the High Court set aside the bail order, recalled the bail, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Questions settled- Does a prolonged and unexplained absconsion disentitle an accused person from the concession of bail regardless of the merits of the case?
- Is it permissible for a court to conduct a deep and thorough appreciation of the prosecution evidence while disposing of a bail petition?
- What is the applicable limitation period for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
- Are officers of the Federal Investigation Agency competent and authorized under the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 to file criminal appeals on behalf of the government?
- Mst. Kholgai Zara vs Madar Khan and others1999 YLR 2538 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hussan Zeba vs The State1999 YLR 2555 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hassan Pari and anothers vs Federal Government through Secretary1999 MLD 2324 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Gul Rangeena vs Khushal Khan1999 CLC 831 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a suit for possession through pre-emption concerning agricultural land. The core legal questions involved the validity of the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat, the impact of the vendee’s improved status as a co-sharer during the suit's pendency, and whether the pre-emptor possessed a superior right of pre-emption over the vendee. The Peshawar High Court held that the pre-emptor failed to perform a valid Talb-e-Muwathibat, as the evidence regarding the date and performance of the demand was significantly discrepant from the plaint. Furthermore, the Court determined that the vendee had attained the status of a co-sharer through inheritance, thereby acquiring a superior right of pre-emption. Additionally, the Court found that the pre-emptor’s right did not extend to one of the Khasra numbers in the disputed sale, further strengthening the vendee's position. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate decree and dismissed the pre-emption suit. The judgment establishes that a pre-emptor must strictly prove the performance of Talb-e-Muwathibat and that a vendee can defeat a pre-emption claim by improving their status to that of a co-sharer during the pendency of the suit.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between the date of Talb-e-Muwathibat alleged in the plaint and the date established in evidence invalidate the pre-emption claim?
- Can a vendee defeat a pre-emption suit by acquiring the status of a co-sharer during the pendency of the litigation?
- Does a pre-emptor possess a superior right of pre-emption if the property in question is not contiguous to the pre-emptor's land?
- Can a purchaser who acquired land for house construction under an exemption from pre-emption later use that same land to claim co-sharership for pre-emption purposes?
- Mst. Baram Posh Bibi and 7 others vs Pir Muhammad Khan and 7 others1999 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Badree Jamala vs Mst. Bibi Zuhra and another1999 YLR 2389 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-09-09Read full judgment →
- Momeen Khan and anothers vs Zaib Ullah Khan and anothers1999 MLD 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-02Read full judgment →
- Mohabat Khan and 5 others vs Sahib Gul and 10 others1999 P Cr. L J 359 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-09Read full judgment →
- Moeenuddin vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 810 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arises out of an order passed by the learned Judge Special Court, Bannu, refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner Moeenuddin, who was charged along with others under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code in connection with an incident resulting in a murder and injuries. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether bail should be granted when two cross-versions of the same incident are presented by rival parties, leaving the identity of the aggressor in doubt at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that where an occurrence gives rise to conflicting versions and neither party fully accounts for the injuries sustained by the other, the matter falls squarely within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that counter-versions of the same incident, where both sides sustain injuries or casualties, generally warrant the grant of bail pending trial on the ground of further inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted when an incident gives rise to two conflicting versions involving casualties on both sides?
- Does a case involving cross-versions of the same occurrence fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Miss Nusrat Yasmeen vs N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission through Chairman, Peshawar and 2 others1999 MLD 1120 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-24Read full judgment →
- Miscellaneous Muhammad Ashraf vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1668 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mirza Tayar and 12 others vs Syed Jan and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 746 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-16Read full judgment →
- Mir Zakam and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 927 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-12Read full judgment →
- Mir Kawaz Khan and 2 others vs Dilnawaz Khan and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 61 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
- Mir Hussain vs Mst. Nasim Akhtar1999 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mir Baz Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary (Education)1999 PLC (C.S.) 1070 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
- Mir Ali Khan vs The State1999 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
- Mir Alam Khan vs Chairman, WAPDA and others1999 MLD 2107 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-02Read full judgment →
- Mianwar Khan and another vs Abdur Rashid and another1999 YLR 2515 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
- Miangul Shahzada Jahanzeb through Legal Heirs and anothers vs Deputy1999 MLD 1107 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mian Munfar Ali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 369 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-01Read full judgment →
- Mian Gul Shahzada Jahanzeb Through Legal Heirs And Another vs Deputy1999 CLC 1278 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs Nadeem Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chairman, Ashfaq1999 PTD 1912 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court by Messrs Nadeem Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. seeking the refund of sales tax recovered by the department, arguing that the recovery was time-barred under section 6 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal questions involved the scope of sales tax exemption under Notification No. SRO 529(1)/88 for manufactured goods versus imported goods, and whether the limitation period for recovering unlevied or short-levied sales tax is governed by section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 or section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Court held that SRO 529(1)/88 applies exclusively to goods produced or manufactured locally within specified regions and not to imported goods, rendering the petitioner's claim an ill-gotten benefit obtained through mala fide reliance. The Court further held that recovery under abnormal circumstances such as short-levy or erroneous non-levy of sales tax is governed exclusively by section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, rather than section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 or section 6 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as the recovery was validly made within the statutory period.
Questions settled- Does Notification No. SRO 529(1)/88 provide sales tax exemption on imported goods or only on locally produced and manufactured goods?
- Whether the recovery of sales tax not levied or short-levied due to special circumstances is governed by section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 or section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
- Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 be maintained for the refund of money where questions of limitation involve mixed questions of law and facts best suited for a civil suit?
- Does section 6 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 govern the substantive recovery procedure for abnormal non-levies or merely the time and manner of normal recovery?
- Messrs Khawaja International (Pvt.) Limited through Manager vs Central Board of Revenue through Chairman, Islamabad and 5 others1999 MLD 1129 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Hotel Summer Retreat, Nathiagali through Managing Partner vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, C&W Department Peshawar and 5 others1999 MLD 2418 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking to declare unlawful the attempts of the respondent authorities to negotiate the highest bid for a hotel lease submitted by the petitioner with a third party who had not participated in the bidding process. The core legal question was whether public functionaries could bypass a transparent tender process and negotiate the highest bid with a non-participant based on a civil court order that was neither disclosed in the tender notice nor made a condition of the bidding. The Peshawar High Court held that public authorities are bound to act fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the published terms of a tender, and that attempting to entertain a non-participant through a clandestine mechanism violates these principles. The court laid down the principle that a tenderer who submits the highest bid under a sealed tender process acquires a sufficient personal interest to qualify as an aggrieved person under Article 199 of the Constitution, enabling them to challenge arbitrary administrative deviations from the advertised terms.
Questions settled- Does a participant who submits the highest bid in a sealed tender process have the locus standi as an aggrieved person under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge arbitrary administrative negotiations with a non-participant?
- Can public authorities negotiate a lease bid with a person who failed to participate in the open tendering process based on an undisclosed civil court order?
- Whether the failure of a tender notice to disclose a prior court order regarding lease negotiations invalidates subsequent administrative attempts to alter the bidding outcome to the detriment of the highest bidder?
- Messrs Heavy Electrical Complex Through Deputy General Manager1999 CLC 790 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal (F.A.O.) was filed before the Peshawar High Court against an interlocutory order passed by a Senior Civil Judge rejecting an application for interim status quo in a suit challenging the demand of development charges by the Sarhad Development Authority. The core legal question was whether the requirement of serving a pre-presentation notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory, and whether an appeal can be entertained without it. The Court held that the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 3, C.P.C., are mandatory, and non-compliance with the requirement to serve notice upon the respondent before presenting an appeal against an interlocutory order is fatal to the maintainability of the appeal. The Court further held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case on merits, having previously undertaken to clear dues and being bound by the provisional allotment order. Consequently, the appeal and civil miscellaneous application were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement of giving notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before presenting an appeal against an interlocutory order is mandatory?
- Does non-compliance with Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render an appeal against an interlocutory order unmaintainable?
- Can an appellant establish a prima facie case for interim relief when documentary evidence shows an acknowledgment of liability to pay the disputed dues?
- Messrs Frontier Ceramics vs Government of Pakistan and others1999 PTD 4126 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Peshawar High Court disposes of Writ Petitions Nos. 1122 and 1189 of 1995, which challenged the refusal of tax authorities to grant sales tax exemption under Notification S.R.O. 529(1)/88 and contested a subsequent explanatory notification defining the term "set up" (S.R.O. 857(1)/88), alongside an order of the President of Pakistan setting aside recommendations of the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman). The core legal questions involved the interpretation of the term "set up" for tax exemption purposes, whether commercial/trial production predated the cut-off date of July 1, 1988, the jurisdictional limits of the Wafaqi Mohtasib to strike down statutory notifications, and the maintainability of a representation by the Central Board of Revenue before the President under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983. The Court held that the petitioner unit was established and went into commercial production well before the cut-off date, rendering it ineligible for the exemption, and that the Wafaqi Mohtasib lacked jurisdiction to annul statutory notifications. The Court established that in the absence of a statutory definition, "set up" means when an industrial unit is ready to commence business or production, and that the Wafaqi Mohtasib's mandate is restricted to investigating administrative maladministration rather than evaluating the vires of legislative or statutory instruments.
Questions settled- What is the legal meaning and interpretation of the expression "set up" when left undefined in a fiscal statute?
- Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib possess the jurisdiction and authority to declare a lawfully issued statutory notification or S.R.O. as void, illegal, or perverse?
- Whether an industrial unit that commenced commercial or trial production and marketed goods prior to the specified cut-off date is entitled to sales tax exemption under Notification S.R.O. 529(1)/88?
- Does the Central Board of Revenue qualify as an "aggrieved person" entitled to file a representation before the President of Pakistan against the recommendations of the Wafaqi Mohtasib under Article 32 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983?
- Messrs China Petroleum Engineeringconstruction Corporation1999 CLC 117 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The appellant challenged the trial court's rejection of its application, which was filed over a year after the decree was passed. The core legal question was whether the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree is governed by Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908, which prescribes a thirty-day period, or the residuary Article 181 of the same Act, which allows for three years. The Court held that Article 164 specifically governs applications to set aside ex parte decrees, rendering the residuary Article 181 inapplicable. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the application was time-barred, as it was filed well beyond the thirty-day limit. The key principle laid down is that where a specific limitation period is provided by statute for a particular remedy, the residuary provision cannot be invoked to extend that period. The appeal was dismissed in limine as the lower courts' orders were found to be neither arbitrary nor perverse.
Questions settled- Does Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 or the residuary Article 181 apply to an application for setting aside an ex parte decree?
- Is an application for setting aside an ex parte decree filed after one year barred by limitation?
- Can the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 be invoked when a specific limitation period is provided elsewhere in the Act?
- Messrs Ali Match Industries Ltd through Managing Director and 3 others1999 MLD 2127 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from execution proceedings wherein a money decree was passed against the appellant, and the executing property was auctioned and confirmed. The core legal questions involve the mandatory nature of issuing notices and attaching mortgaged property prior to auction, the requirement of depositing a percentage of auction money under Order XXI, Rule 90, and the effect of conducting auctions without deciding pending objections. The Peshawar High Court held that issuing a proclamation notice to the judgment-debtor under Order XXI, Rule 66 is mandatory, that mortgage and attachment are distinct legal phenomena necessitating attachment prior to sale even for mortgaged properties, and that the deposit of up to 20% under Order XXI, Rule 90 can only be invoked upon a specific court order. The court ruled that conducting auctions without deciding objection petitions or serving notices constitutes material irregularity, setting aside the auction proceedings and confirmation as void and illegal.
Questions settled- Is the issuance of notice and proclamation to the judgment-debtor mandatory before conducting a public auction under Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an objection petition under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed for failure to deposit up to 20% of the auction money without a specific prior direction from the executing court?
- Does a property already mortgaged with a decree-holder bank require formal attachment by the executing court prior to being put up for public auction?
- Can auction proceedings be validly conducted while an objection petition filed by an interested party remains undecided by the executing court?
- Mehrab Ghulam vs The State1999 YLR 1353 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mastan Shah vs Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bannu and 21999 P Cr. L J 469 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bannu, setting aside the release of the petitioner on personal bond under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the investigation of a scheduled offence under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. The core legal questions involved whether an Investigating Officer can exercise powers under Section 169, Cr.P.C. during the investigation of a scheduled offence and whether a Special Court can interfere with or control the course of investigation at a preliminary stage before taking cognizance. The Peshawar High Court held that the Investigating Officer retains powers under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, including the discretion to release an accused under Section 169, Cr.P.C., and that a Special Court cannot prematurely interfere in the investigation before the submission of the challan and taking formal cognizance. The court laid down the principle that the distinct phases of investigation, inquiry, and trial must operate within their well-demarcated spheres without undue premature interference by the judiciary.
Questions settled- Whether an Investigating Officer while investigating a scheduled offence can exercise powers under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for releasing an accused person against whom evidence is deficient?
- Can a Special Court control or interfere with the course of a police investigation at a preliminary stage before the submission of the challan?
- At what stage is a Special Court empowered to examine the release or discharge of an accused made by the police during the investigation?
- Does the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 oust the general powers of the police to investigate offences under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Masta Mir vs The State1999 YLR 2293 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-28Read full judgment →