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.
- Malik Salah Ud Din And 6 Others vs Collector, Land Acquisition, Peshawar And 3 Other1999 CLC 776 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the prolonged and inordinate delay in land acquisition proceedings initiated under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The land in question was notified for acquisition in 1990 for establishing a primary school, but the proceedings remained inconclusive for over eight years due to a lack of funds and departmental inaction, during which time the landowners sold the property to the petitioners via registered sale deeds. The core legal question was whether compulsory land acquisition proceedings can remain open indefinitely when no statutory time limit is prescribed. The Peshawar High Court held that in the absence of a fixed statutory period, statutory powers affecting property rights must be exercised within a reasonable time, failing which notifications become ineffective and constitute an unreasonable restriction on property rights under Article 23 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notifications and all subsequent proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 can remain operative indefinitely when no specific time limit is prescribed by the statute?
- What constitutes a reasonable time for completing land acquisition proceedings in the absence of explicit statutory timelines?
- Does an inordinate delay in finalizing land acquisition infringe upon the constitutional right to hold and dispose of property under Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be quashed due to prolonged departmental inaction and failure to disburse compensation?
- Malik Ejaz vs Abdul Haleem and others1999 MLD 1315 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for the recovery of money against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the trial court at Mardan possessed the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit where the transaction, contract, and defendants' residence were all based in Lahore, and whether the failure to raise the jurisdictional objection properly at the trial stage precluded appellate review. The High Court held that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the cause of action arose entirely in Lahore, where the contract was executed and the defendants resided. The court rejected the lower courts' reasoning that the non-receipt of goods at Mardan created a cause of action there. Furthermore, the court held that the defendants had timely raised the jurisdictional objection in their written statements, satisfying the requirements of the law. Consequently, the court set aside the lower courts' judgments as coram non judice, ruling that a court lacking jurisdiction cannot pass a valid decree, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
Questions settled- Does a court have territorial jurisdiction over a contract dispute if the contract was executed and the defendants reside outside the court's local limits?
- Can an appellate or revisional court interfere with a judgment if the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction, even if the finding was concurrent?
- Does the non-delivery of goods at a destination create a cause of action for territorial jurisdiction purposes if the contract was formed elsewhere?
- What is the effect of an unpaid seller's right of lien under the Sale of Goods Act 1930 on the delivery of goods?
- Makhadi Gul vs Rabnawaz and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 845 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
- Majeedullah through Legal Heirs vs Sher Ali and others1999 MLD 961 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Khan and another vs Muhammad Zamin and another1999 YLR 1604 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-05Read full judgment →
- Land Acquisition Collector Scarp, Mardan vs Muhammad Said alias1999 YLR 1517 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khyber Wood Processing Co. Ltd., Industrial Estate, Jamrud through Managing Director vs Messrs Sui Northern Gaspipe Lines Ltd. and others1999 YLR 195 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-04Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Anwar vs Province of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 225 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-21Read full judgment →
- Khurram Shahzad and others vs University of Peshawar through Registrar and 4 others1999 MLD 147 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-02Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Waliullah And Others vs Haji Amir Maqsood1999 CLC 400 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-21Read full judgment →
- Khawaj Muhammad vs District Judge, Mansehra and others1999 MLD 2723 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
- Khawaj Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Baland Khan through Legal1999 MLD 2140 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for partition on the ground of res judicata and the bar under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a subsequent suit for partition of jointly owned land, involving property previously litigated upon between the same parties, is barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata when the defendant's title via a registered sale deed had already attained finality in earlier proceedings. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was bound by the final findings of the previous litigation, wherein the validity and extent of the registered sale deed had been conclusively established, and that the petitioner's failure to raise the plea regarding the area's measurement in the former suit attracted the bar of constructive res judicata under Section 11, Explanation IV of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court reaffirmed that parties must bring their whole case forward in the first instance to prevent multiplicity of suits.
Questions settled- Does the principle of constructive res judicata bar a subsequent suit where a party failed to raise available grounds of defense in the former suit?
- Can a plaintiff institute a fresh suit for partition of property when the underlying title and extent of the sale deed have attained finality in previous litigation between the same parties?
- What is the scope and objective of Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding matters that might and ought to have been made ground of defense or attack?
- Khaqan and anothers vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 935 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
- Khaqan and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 198 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
- Khana Jan vs S.H.O. and others1999 MLD 1850 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
- Khaliq Noor vs The State1999 YLR 2331 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
- Khair Nabi vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 210 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
- Kausar Ali alias Kausary vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1999 PLD Peshawar 82 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner through his brother, challenging the legality of an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Charsadda, under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, which was subsequently extended. The core legal question was whether preventive detention under the said Ordinance can be legally justified on the basis of general traditional grounds, pending criminal cases, or acts that are fully covered by the ordinary substantive criminal law of the land. The Peshawar High Court held that preventive detention cannot be invoked for acts that constitute specific offences under ordinary substantive penal statutes and that any detention order must be backed by a living and immediate cause, failing which it reflects mala fide. The Court laid down the principle that the satisfaction required under section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance must be objective and that past or pending criminal cases punishable under ordinary penal laws cannot be used as a proxy for preventive detention.
Questions settled- Whether preventive detention under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 can be ordered on the basis of offences covered by ordinary substantive criminal law?
- Does the registration and pendency of criminal cases furnish a valid legal ground for preventive detention?
- Is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority under section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance open to judicial review for objectivity?
- Kamil Zaman vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1546 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1996, handed down by the Special Court, Bannu, for allegedly possessing charas and opium. The core legal question was whether the failure of the investigating officer to associate public witnesses with the search and seizure, despite having prior information and available persons in adjacent fields, vitiated the recovery under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are mandatory in nature, and in the absence of any explanation or effort by the police to procure respectable local inhabitants as witnesses, the recovery becomes highly doubtful and cannot sustain a conviction. The court laid down the principle that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 without justifiable accounting renders the alleged recovery of contraband unreliable, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding the association of public witnesses mandatory during a search and seizure?
- Does the failure to associate local respectables as recovery witnesses, despite their availability, render the recovery of narcotics doubtful?
- Can a conviction for possession of narcotics be sustained when the prosecution fails to account for non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Kamal vs Sardar Ali and anothers1999 MLD 1053 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-02Read full judgment →
- Kalu Khan vs Inayatur Rehman and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1042 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
- Jumma Khan and 4 others vs The State and another1999 YLR 2305 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-01Read full judgment →
- Jehanzeb Khan and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretarty, Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and 5 others1999 MLD 2505 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging sections 3(4), 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 25, and 26 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management & Disposal) Act XIII of 1975 as being ultra vires, void, and in violation of Fundamental Rights, particularly Articles 8 and 25 of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether the challenged provisions of the Act are repugnant to the right of equality before law and equal protection of law. The Court held that the Act is a composite law enacted to protect and manage evacuee trust properties, applies equally to similarly situated persons, and does not discriminate. It ruled that the classification made by the legislature is neither irrational nor unreasonable, as the equality clause does not prohibit different laws for those differently circumstanced. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the constitutional petition in limine, establishing that reasonable legislative classification for the management of evacuee trust property does not violate fundamental equality rights.
Questions settled- Are sections 3(4), 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 25 and 26 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management & Disposal) Act XIII of 1975 violative of Articles 8 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Does the exclusion of ordinary civil court jurisdiction under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management & Disposal) Act XIII of 1975 constitute an unconstitutional classification?
- Does the equality clause in the Constitution prohibit different laws for persons differently circumstanced regarding evacuee trust properties?
- Jehanzeb and others vs Asif and others1999 P Cr. L J 46 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-05Read full judgment →
- Jehan Zeb vs The State and another1999 YLR 332 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
- Javed Ullah vs The State1999 YLR 217 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-06Read full judgment →
- Javed Shiraz Ltd. through Proprietor vs Collector of Customs, Peshawar and 3 others1999 YLR 1733 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-30Read full judgment →
- Javed Iqbal vs Abdul Malik and 3 others1999 YLR 1710 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-25Read full judgment →
- Janas Khan and others vs Collector and others1999 YLR 1946 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-12Read full judgment →
- Jamaluddin vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 973 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-16Read full judgment →
- Izzat Khan vs The State1999 YLR 1953 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-07Read full judgment →
- Ishtiaq and others vs State1999 MLD 3035 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-10Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Hussain vs Jawad Hussain and another1999 YLR 1394 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-28Read full judgment →
- Haqeequllah vs The State1999 YLR 2373 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-16Read full judgment →
- Hamayun Khan and another vs Muhammad Ayub Khan and 4 others1999 P Cr. L J 1706 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of a second First Information Report (F.I.R. No. 17) registered against the petitioners. The petitioners contended that since a prior F.I.R. (No. 357) regarding the same occurrence had already been registered, the subsequent registration of a second F.I.R. for the same incident was illegal. The core legal question was whether a second F.I.R. can be registered regarding the same occurrence when the complainant and the allegations differ from the first. The Peshawar High Court held that the registration of a second F.I.R. is permissible when it is lodged by a different complainant regarding distinct injuries not covered in the initial report. The Court clarified that section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, does not bar a second F.I.R. if it discloses separate cognizable offences and involves different circumstances. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to exercise its inherent powers to quash the investigation.
Questions settled- Is the registration of a second F.I.R. regarding the same occurrence legally barred under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a second F.I.R. be registered if the complainant and the specific allegations of injury differ from the first F.I.R.?
- Does the inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, allow for the quashment of a police investigation based on a second F.I.R.?
- Haji Wazir Khan vs The State and another1999 YLR 2611 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-12Read full judgment →
- Haji Qadar Gul vs Secretary to the Government of N.W.F.P., Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Peshawar and 2 others1999 MLD 840 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-21Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Pervez and 3 others vs Engineer Aziz Ullah Khan and 41999 PLD Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged the maintainability of an objection petition filed by the Acquiring Department (WAPDA) under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding compensation awarded for acquired land. The core legal question was whether a department of the Federal Government, for whose benefit land is acquired, possesses the legal standing to file an objection petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to challenge the compensation amount. Relying on the precedent established by the Federal Shariat Court and upheld by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court, the High Court held that denying such entities the right to file a reference or objection is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The court affirmed that entities paying compensation from public funds must be treated equitably, granting them the same rights as landowners to seek a reference and adduce evidence regarding compensation. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the maintainability of the objection petition filed by the Acquiring Department.
Questions settled- Does the Acquiring Department or the entity for whose benefit land is acquired have the right to file an objection petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Is the denial of the right to file a reference or appeal to the Federal Government or its departments under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, considered repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Are entities paying compensation from public funds entitled to the same rights as landowners to challenge compensation awards through a reference?
- Haji Muhammad Ishaq Shah vs District Magistrate, Lakki Marwat and 21999 P Cr. L J 1558 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This habeas corpus petition challenged the detention of the petitioner's brother, Gul Khan Shah, ordered by the District Magistrate under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was whether a detention order issued on vague, generalized allegations of acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety, without supporting material or specific particulars, satisfies the legal and constitutional requirements for depriving a citizen of liberty. The Court held that the detention order was illegal and without lawful authority. The ratio of the decision is that the power to detain under the Ordinance is not subjective or whimsical; it requires objective satisfaction based on sufficient material. The Court laid down the principle that detention grounds must be specific, factual, and communicated to the detenu. Vague allegations or the mere use of statutory terminology without underlying evidence infringe upon constitutional guarantees and statutory obligations, rendering such detention orders unlawful. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu.
Questions settled- Is a detention order issued under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 valid if it relies on vague, generalized allegations without supporting material?
- Does the power to order preventive detention under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 require objective satisfaction based on specific facts?
- Are the grounds of detention communicated to a detenu required to contain specific particulars of facts?
- Haji Muhammad Azam vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 604 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Mohibullah And Others vs Sheikhul Islam1999 CLC 1656 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdullah through Legal Heirs vs Haji Abdul Majeed1999 MLD 2670 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Latif through Legal Heirs vs Additional District and Sessions1999 YLR 1611 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-02Read full judgment →
- Haii.Roohulamin vs Mst. Sherani and others1999 YLR 2603 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
- Haider Shah and another vs The State and another1999 YLR 2276 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-15Read full judgment →
- Hafeez Iqbal Oil & Ghee Mills and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 MLD 1964 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-31Read full judgment →
- Habibur Rehman and another vs The State and another1999 YLR 2122 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-09Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited vs Habib Ullah and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1074 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
- Gulab vs Shafi Gul and 5 others1999 YLR 315 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
- Gul Nawaz and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 770 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-17Read full judgment →
- Gul Ghameer vs Jane Alam, Advocate and 5 others1999 P Cr. L J 262 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
- Government of N.-W.F.P vs Rehman-Ud-Din and others1999 YLR 105 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-05Read full judgment →
- Government of N. W.F.P. Through Collector, District D.I. Khan And Another1999 CLC 2064 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sanai vs The Assistant Director, National Registration Office, Peshawar and anothers1999 PLD Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by Ghulam Sanai seeking a directive to the respondents to issue him a National Identity Card and refrain from unlawful action. The core legal question was whether a person born in Pakistan whose father is an Afghan refugee can claim Pakistani citizenship by birth and is consequently entitled to a National Identity Card. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the long stay of a foreigner or Afghan refugee in Pakistan does not automatically confer citizenship, and citizenship laws must be read together with provisions governing foreigners. The court laid down the principle that the National Registration Act, 1973 applies exclusively to citizens of Pakistan, and individuals who are not citizens—such as Afghan refugees governed by the Foreigners Act, 1946—cannot obtain a National Identity Card.
Questions settled- Whether a person born in Pakistan is automatically a citizen of Pakistan by birth regardless of the nationality or status of their parents?
- Can an Afghan refugee residing in Pakistan be deemed a citizen of Pakistan merely on the basis of a long stay and purchase of immovable property?
- Is a person who is not a citizen of Pakistan entitled to the issuance of a National Identity Card under the National Registration Act, 1973?
- Ghulam Qasim and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1691 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Jan alias Jajan vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1617 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Fazal Shah and others1999 YLR 288 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Akbar Khakwani and 2 others vs Government of N.W.F.P.1999 YLR 136 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
- Fida Muhammad and another vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Agriculture, Peshawar and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 180 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
- Fazli Ahmad and another vs Province of N.-W.F.P. through Chief1999 PLC (C.S.) 201 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Fazal Said and others vs The State and others1999 MLD 1397 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-29Read full judgment →
- Fateh Khan vs Mosam Khan and 25 others1999 MLD 2378 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
- Farmanullah and others vs Qalandar and 5 others1999 YLR 1610 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged concurrent judgments of the Civil Judge and District Judge, which dismissed the petitioners-plaintiffs' suit for a declaration of ownership by foreclosure and permanent injunction. The petitioners claimed ownership of a house through a mortgage from 1912, asserting non-redemption and possession for over 60 years, rendering a subsequent sale by the original owners inoperative. The lower courts found that the petitioners failed to provide positive or tangible proof of their claim, relying on an unregistered mortgage document. Evidence suggested the petitioners were tenants paying 'Khakshora' and had abandoned the property years prior, contradicting their claim of possession as mortgagees. The High Court upheld the lower courts' findings, noting that the petitioners were out of possession and had sought a mere declaration of title without the consequential relief of possession, which is barred under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The revision petition was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Is a suit for a mere declaration of title maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act if the plaintiff is out of possession and does not seek consequential relief?
- What is the evidentiary value of an unregistered mortgage document when its scribe or marginal witnesses are not produced?
- Does a plaintiff claiming ownership through foreclosure have the burden to prove continuous possession as a mortgagee?
- Can a claim of ownership by foreclosure be defeated by evidence suggesting the claimant was a tenant who abandoned the property?
- Faqir Khan vs Muhammad Safeer and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1172 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
- Faqir Gul And Others vs Abdur Rehman And Other1999 CLC 346 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Kohat, which set aside the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit and decreed the suit for possession through redemption of mortgaged property upon payment of Rs.66. The core legal question involved whether the suit for redemption was barred by limitation and the effect of the declaration regarding section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Peshawar High Court held that the transfer of mortgagee rights and entries in the revenue record constituted an acknowledgment extending the limitation period, and further noted that section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 had ceased to have effect from 31st August 1991 upon being declared repugnant to Islamic injunctions. The court thereby dismissed the revision petition, upholding the lower appellate court's decision in favor of the redemption of the property.
Questions settled- Whether the transfer of mortgagee rights and entries in the revenue record constitute a sufficient acknowledgment under section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908 to extend the period of limitation for redemption?
- What is the legal effect of the declaration of section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Does the expiry of the sixty-year limitation period automatically extinguish the mortgagor's right to redeem the property?
- Fakhar-Uz-Zaman and 2 others vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 735 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-01Read full judgment →
- Dr. Samiullah Khan vs N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission through Chairman, Peshawar and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 345 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-26Read full judgment →
- Dr. Safdar vs Falak Niaz and another1999 YLR 1724 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1723 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-12Read full judgment →
- District Council,Abbottabad through Administrator vs Akbar and anothers1999 MLD 1652 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-09Read full judgment →
- Daulat Khan vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 105 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
- Daulat Khan and others vs Fazal Ahmad and 2 others1999 MLD 1770 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-08-20Read full judgment →
- Cooperative Bank, Haripur through Manager vs Tahir Mehmood1999 MLD 2074 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-28Read full judgment →
- Ghazab Khan vs Fazalurrehman and another1999 YLR 2512 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-12Read full judgment →
- Chandan And Another vs Mir Ahmad And 42 Other1999 CLC 1707 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-22Read full judgment →
- Cantonment Board, Peshawar vs Haji Akhtar Khan1999 MLD 2499 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-21Read full judgment →
- Buner Gul vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 728 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused charged with the possession of 43 kilograms of heroin, an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner sought bail, arguing that the recovery was clandestine, occurred at the police station rather than the spot, and lacked independent witnesses. The State opposed the application, citing the statutory bar on bail for offences punishable by death under the Act and the exclusion of the requirement for independent witnesses under special narcotics legislation. The Court held that the bail plea could not succeed, as the accused was prima facie connected to the crime based on recovery witness statements and a positive Chemical Examiner report. The Court affirmed that the explanation for conducting the search at the police station was plausible given the exigencies of the situation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the requirement for independent witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is excluded by the specific provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which overrides general procedural laws in such matters.
Questions settled- Does the requirement for independent witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to searches conducted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Is bail maintainable for an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the offence is punishable by death?
- Can a recovery of narcotics conducted at a police station instead of the place of interception be considered valid if the circumstances justify the deviation?
- Bismillah Jan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 817 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-30Read full judgment →
- Bcsouthern Hydro Limited through Executive Director and another vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and 6 others1999 YLR 2447 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-30Read full judgment →
- Bassat Raazaq vs The State1999 YLR 2321 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-22Read full judgment →
- Bashir Khan vs Faqir Muhammad and others1999 YLR 1939 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-28Read full judgment →
- Barrister Baachaa, Advocate vs M. Sardar Khan1999 PLD Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
- Baloch Khan alias Balocha vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 823 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
- Bakhth Zali vs Atlas Khan and anothers1999 MLD 847 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-02Read full judgment →
- Badshah Gul vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 691 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-28Read full judgment →
- Babar Khan and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1677 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-27Read full judgment →
- Azmeer vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1006 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
- Azizullah vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 154 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-08-24Read full judgment →
- Azad Khan and 4 others vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 324 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-12Read full judgment →
- Az1zur Rehman vs The State1999 YLR 2631 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-27Read full judgment →
- Ayub Khan and another vs The State and another1999 YLR 1593 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-29Read full judgment →
- Awal Gul and another vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1731 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-04Read full judgment →
- Aurangzeb vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 230 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal bail application filed by Aurangzeb, an accused facing prosecution under section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 19 of the Arms Act in F.I.R. No. 49 dated 5-4-1997 registered at Police Station Chitral. The core legal question involved the interpretation and interplay between section 324 and sections 337-F(ii) and 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the mandatory or discretionary nature of imprisonment for hurt and the overriding effect of non-obstante clauses in cases of hurt. The Peshawar High Court held that the provisions of section 324 and the sections relating to hurt are at variance, and subsection (2) of section 337-N overrides section 324 and other sections relating to hurt, restricting the discretionary award of imprisonment as Tazir to previous convicts, habitual, hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals. Since the petitioner did not fall into any of those categories and was no longer required for investigation, the bail application was accepted and the accused was admitted to bail.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 324 and sections 337-F(ii) and 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 supplement each other or are at variance?
- Does subsection (2) of section 337-N of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 have an overriding effect over section 324 and other sections providing punishment for hurt?
- Under what circumstances can imprisonment as Tazir be awarded in addition to Daman in cases of hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the provisions of section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are not attracted and further investigation is not required?
- Aurangzeb and others vs The State and others1999 YLR 1377 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-09Read full judgment →
- Atlas Khan Alias Mir Atlas Khan vs Assistant Registrar, Cooperative1999 CLC 1642 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-02-04Read full judgment →
- Ashraf Khan vs The State1999 YLR 2487 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-21Read full judgment →
- Arbab Mir Muhammad vs Mst. Iram Iltimas And 4 Other1999 CLC 1668 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from concurrent orders of the Family Court and the Appellate Court enhancing the future maintenance allowance of minor children previously fixed in 1986. The core legal question was whether a fresh application for the enhancement of future maintenance is maintainable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, despite an earlier final adjudication, and whether a father's obligation to maintain a son ceases upon attaining majority. The Peshawar High Court held that a fresh application for enhancement of maintenance is maintainable due to changed circumstances, inflation, and growing needs of the minors, and that the principle of res judicata does not bar such applications. The Court laid down that future maintenance can be modified upon changed circumstances, and questions regarding the cessation of maintenance upon a child attaining majority can be raised and determined before the executing or Family Court.
Questions settled- Whether a fresh application for the enhancement of future maintenance is maintainable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 when maintenance was previously fixed by a court?
- Does the principle of res judicata bar an application for the re-fixation or enhancement of maintenance allowance in light of changed circumstances?
- Is a father bound to pay future maintenance allowance to a son who has attained majority but has not become independent or completed his education?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the quantum of maintenance amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Arab Gul and 3 others vs Amir Rabi and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1675 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-18Read full judgment →
- Anti-Narcotics Force vs Haji Iqbal Shah and 11 others1999 P Cr. L J 1125 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-01-25Read full judgment →
- Amir Muhammad alias Miro vs Shah Muhammad and others1999 YLR 2371 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-12Read full judgment →