Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• Amir Khoidad vs Mst. Jehan Zeba and others1999 MLD 1231 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Yousaf vs The State1999 YLR 2604 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-01Read full judgment →
• Ali Jaffar and another vs Ali Asghar Siddiqui and others1999 YLR 239 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Haider vs Amir Sher Bahader Khan1999 CLC 1878 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-11Read full judgment →
• Alam Sher and others vs Hukam Khan1999 MLD 1155 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zaman vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1337 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-09Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Jamir vs Nadir Khan1999 CLC 387 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Shah vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 225 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-07-06
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsrule of consistencylesser punishment principleinvestigating officer as complainantchemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of charas, opium, wine, and heroin, registered under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused had already been granted bail, and whether the petitioner should benefit from the statute prescribing a lesser punishment when charged under two different laws. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court applied the rule of consistency, noting the co-accused had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that where an accused is charged under two laws providing different punishments, the benefit of the statute prescribing the lesser punishment should be extended for the purpose of bail. Additionally, the Court noted the prejudice caused by the complainant acting as the investigating officer and the delay in receiving the Chemical Examiner's report, ultimately admitting the petitioner to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to a petitioner when a co-accused charged in the same FIR has already been granted bail?
  • When an accused is charged under two different statutes providing different punishments, which statute should be considered for the purpose of bail?
  • Is it legally permissible for the complainant of an FIR to also act as the investigating officer in the same case?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Khan and others vs Mukamil Shah and others1999 YLR 1606 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-09-09Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Khan vs Attaullah Khan and 4 others1999 MLD 2357 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-10-02Read full judgment →
• Ajbar Khan And Others vs Said Hakim Khan And Other1999 CLC 362 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-15
  revision petitionconsent decreelimitation periodtampering of recordfrivolous petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the judgment and decree dated 17-7-1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumar Bagh, District Dir. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of a revision petition against a consent decree and the issue of limitation. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a revision petition is not maintainable against a consent decree under the law. Furthermore, the Court found the petition to be barred by time, having been filed on 18-2-1997, well beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The Court also noted that the petitioners attempted to mislead the judicial process through the tampering of dates on the certified copy of the impugned judgment. The key principles laid down are that parties cannot maintain a revision against a consent decree, and petitions tainted with delayed filings and deliberate tampering of certified records are frivolous and liable to be dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can a revision petition be maintained against a consent decree?
  • What is the limitation period for filing a revision petition in the High Court?
  • What are the consequences of tampering with dates on a certified copy of a judgment in a revision petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Aj Ab. Khan vs Jehanzeb and another1999 YLR 2509 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-24Read full judgment →
• Ain Ullah vs Nazool and another1999 YLR 1303 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-29Read full judgment →
• Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan vs Abdul Wadood And Other1999 CLC 316 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-18Read full judgment →
• Afsar Ali and others vs The State1999 YLR 2265 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-12-29Read full judgment →
• Adil Jan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 808 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1305 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-02
  retracted confessiondying declarationmurdercriminal appealidentification evidencecorroborationdeath sentencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on a retracted confession and a dying declaration when the prosecution fails to establish identity and provide independent corroboration. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found the dying declaration unreliable, noting the deceased was in shock or coma, and the occurrence happened in darkness without established identification. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a retracted confession requires independent corroboration in material particulars to sustain a conviction, which was absent here. The Court laid down the principle that while a dying declaration can be sufficient for conviction, it must be scrutinized for the declarant's mental capacity and the absence of mistaken identity; where these are doubtful, independent corroboration is mandatory. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on a retracted confession without independent corroboration in material particulars?
  • Does a failure to record a memorandum under Section 364(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically invalidate a confession?
  • Is a dying declaration reliable if the declarant was in a state of shock or coma at the time of making the statement?
  • Does the mere fact of absconding provide sufficient grounds to sustain a conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim Khan vs Sher Ali Khan1999 YLR 648 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs The State1999 YLR 174 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1999 YLR 555 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 563 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1031 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan and anothers vs Assistant Political Agent, Bara and 61999 MLD 2661 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-12-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Akbar Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Local1999 MLD 1498 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Zia Malik vs The State1998 MLD 690 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
• Zardullah Khan vs The State1998 MLD 855 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
• Zardad Khan vs Mst. Safia Begum1998 CLC 2006 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-10
  mutationburden of prooflimitationco-sharerrevisional jurisdictionpardanashin ladyrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court upholding concurrent decisions of the courts below which decreed the respondent's suit for a declaration and possession regarding a disputed land mutation. The core legal questions involved whether a mutation attested without proper statutory compliance and free consent of a pardanashin owner is valid, whether a suit challenging a fraudulent mutation is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 or Article 14, and whether technical omissions under Order 20 Rule 5 and Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 vitiate an appellate judgment. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving the lawful execution and attestation of the mutation, particularly given the absence of mandatory identifiers under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 and the destruction of original tehsil records. It further ruled that suits challenging fraudulent mutations regarding proprietary rights fall under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 rather than Article 14, and that procedural provisions governing appellate judgments are directory rather than mandatory where concurrent findings of fact are well-reasoned and cause no prejudice. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit seeking a declaration against a fraudulent land mutation is governed by Article 14 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the failure of an appellate court to strictly frame points for determination under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render its judgment a nullity?
  • Where a party voluntarily produces a witness who deposes against them, can that party subsequently demand that the witness's testimony be excluded without declaring the witness hostile?
  • What is the extent of the burden of proof required of a person claiming proprietary title on the basis of a disputed land mutation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zar-Faroosh vs Slkandar Aziz And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 626 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-27Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad vs Sangeen Khan and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 763 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-20Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Director, Headquarters Chashma Right Bank Canal Project, WAPDA, Dera Ismail Khan vs Muhammad Bakhsh and 14 others1998 CLC 1934 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-03Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Director, Headquarter Chashma Right Bank Canal Project.1998 MLD 1274 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
• Wali Mast Khan vs Mian Shahzad Gul and others1998 CLC 1756 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-22Read full judgment →
• Waheed Gul vs Mst. Saida Jan1998 MLD 3 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-05
  civil revisionland mutationdelivery of possessionappellate court reversalcontradictory pleas
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court judgment dated 5-10-1985, which dismissed the plaintiff-petitioner's suit for a declaration and cancellation of a land mutation, thereby reversing the trial court decree. The core legal question concerns the validity and genuineness of a land mutation executed in favour of the defendant-respondent in lieu of her consent to the plaintiff's second marriage, and whether delivery of possession was duly established. The Peshawar High Court held that the evidence on record, including entries in the daily diary and testimonies of marginal witnesses, conclusively proved that the mutation was attested with the consent of the plaintiff, whose own stances regarding his marriage status remained contradictory. The court laid down the principle that where spouses live jointly as husband and wife, strict proof of physical delivery of possession is not imperative for a mutation, as possession by the wife is construed through the husband, and a mutation duly attested raises a presumption of change of possession. Finding no jurisdictional defect or misreading of evidence, the High Court dismissed the revision petition with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether strict proof of delivery of possession is necessary for a land mutation between spouses living jointly as husband and wife?
  • Does the attestation of a mutation raise a presumption of change of possession from the donor to the donee?
  • Can a party succeed in a civil suit when their pleadings and oral statements regarding a material fact are mutually contradictory?
  Read full judgment →
• Universal Tobacco Company, Par Hoti, Mardan through Manager and 91998 CLC 1666 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-10Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Messrs Victory Engineering Company, S.I.E., Abbottabad through Managing Partner and 3 others1998 CLC 690 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao and another1998 MLD 209 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-26
  Ehtesab OrdinanceEhtesab ActCorrupt practicesDischarge of accusedFraming of chargeRepeal of statuteSavings clauseAbuse of official positionPecuniary advantagePlot allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns a reference under the Ehtesab Ordinance 1997 for the trial of a former Chief Minister and a former MNA on charges of corrupt practices related to the allotment of a plot. The core legal questions involved determining whether the proceedings were to be regulated by the repealed Ehtesab Ordinance 1997 or the Ehtesab Act 1997, and if the prosecution's material disclosed the commission of any offence under the applicable law to warrant framing a charge. The Court held that, by virtue of Section 31(2)(c) of the Ehtesab Act 1997, proceedings initiated under the repealed Ordinance were to continue under the Act. Upon scrutinizing the prosecution's documents and statements, the Court found that the alleged facts did not disclose the commission of any offence under Section 3(1)(c) or 3(1)(d) of the Ehtesab Act 1997, as the plot was never availed, and no pecuniary advantage was obtained by the accused for themselves, their spouse, or dependents. Consequently, the applications for acquittal were treated as applications for discharge under Section 265-D, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the accused were discharged.

  Questions settled

  • Do proceedings initiated under a repealed Ordinance continue under the repealing Act if explicitly provided by a savings clause?
  • Can an accused be discharged under Section 265-D, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the prosecution's documents and statements do not disclose the commission of any offence?
  • Does the offence of corrupt practice under Section 3(1)(d) of the Ehtesab Act 1997 require the public office holder to obtain or seek pecuniary advantage for themselves, their spouse, or dependents?
  • Can an application for acquittal under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, be treated as an application for discharge under Section 265-D, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, before a charge is framed?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Dad and anothers vs Wajahat Ali and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 619 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Mumtaz Shah and otherss vs The Cantonment Board, Abbottabad through Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Abbottabad and 3 others1998 CLC 103 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Jaffar Shah vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1153 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
• Sultan Gul vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1236 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
• State vs Said Qamash and others1998 P Cr. L J 1643 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
• State vs Khan Wali1998 MLD 990 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• State through AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P., Peshawar vs Salim Khan1998 P Cr. L J 1636 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-05Read full judgment →
• Sona Khan and others vs The State1998 PLD Peshawar 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-20Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin and 2 others vs Habib Bank Ltd, and 5 others1998 MLD 1351 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1855 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-16Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman and another vs Zar Kamal and others1998 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
• Sher Qadir vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Khan and otherss vs Hussain Shah and others1998 CLC 1869 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
• Sharafat and others vs The State1998 MLD 892 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
• Shahid and others vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1998 PLC (C.S.) 773 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-04Read full judgment →
• Shah Jehan vs Nawabzada Khalid Khan and others1998 CLC 1397 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-18Read full judgment →
• Shafiur Rehman vs Jan Bahadur Khan, S.H.O., Zaida and 6 others1998 MLD 1161 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
• Sepoy Farmanullah Hashmi vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 4 others1998 MLD 1883 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-23Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P., Education Department vs Sher1998 CLC 1839 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs ' Mst. Bibi Shahnaz Akhtar1998 CLC 1971 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-14Read full judgment →
• Sambali Khan vs The State1998 PLD Peshawar 101 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
• Salim Khan and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 990 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-09
  murderdeath sentenceappellate jurisdictioncontradictory ocular evidenceunproven motivebenefit of doubtacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellants under section 302/307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder and murderous assault, sentencing them to death, while acquitting their co-accused. The Peshawar High Court examined whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and circumstantial evidence. The core legal questions involved the effect of non-production of the first information report lodger, unproven motive, glaring contradictions in eye-witness testimony, and discrepancies regarding the time of occurrence based on medical evidence. The Court held that material contradictions, failure to prove the motive, inconsistency between the ocular account and the medical/site plan evidence, and the unexplained absence of the complainant rendered the prosecution case highly doubtful. The High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentences, acquitted the appellants, and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing that unproven motive and major discrepancies in witness testimony undermine the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-production of the maker of the First Information Report vitiates the trial or adversely affects the prosecution case when other circumstances fail to support the charge?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the motive set forth in the First Information Report adversely affect the credibility of eye-witnesses?
  • Whether material contradictions between the ocular testimony and the medical or physical evidence at the scene are sufficient to create reasonable doubt leading to the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution's narrative of the manner of occurrence is contradicted by the site plan and medical evidence regarding the contents of the deceased's stomach?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Dad vs Chief Engineer/Project Director (Power), Small Hydel1998 PLC (C.S.) 734 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Zaman and 2 others vs The State and another1998 MLD 1957 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
• Said Mullah Shah vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1142 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Sahir Inam vs N.-W.F.P. University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar and 4 others1998 CLC 1924 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad and others vs Mst. Khatoon Begum and others1998 MLD 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-01
  res judicataconstructive res judicataevacuee propertyspecial costsrevisional jurisdictionallotment of propertyintegral part of construction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a declaratory suit claiming ownership of a courtyard, which served as the roof of the respondents' hall, following the division of evacuee property. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing res judicata, and the appellate court upheld this dismissal while modifying the order regarding special costs. The petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenging the findings on res judicata, while the respondents filed a cross-revision regarding the special costs. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding res judicata were based on evidence and did not suffer from jurisdictional defects or misreading of facts. The Court affirmed that the roof of a structure is an integral part of the construction underneath it and passes with the allotment of that structure. Furthermore, the Court clarified that special costs cannot be awarded under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when specific provisions like Section 35-A exist. Consequently, both revision petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit is barred by res judicata if the matter in issue was substantially in issue in a previous litigation between the same parties?
  • Can the court award special costs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a specific provision for such costs exists under Section 35-A?
  • Does the allotment of a building structure naturally include the roof as an integral part of that construction?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabaz Ali Khan vs Abdul Khaliq1998 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-21
  ejectment petitionex parte orderlandlord and tenantdelaying tacticsadjournmentCantonments Rent Restriction ActCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an ex parte ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, against a tenant who repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to produce evidence. The core legal question concerned whether the Rent Controller was justified in passing the ex parte order and whether the tenant was obligated to appear on adjourned dates when the presiding officer was on leave or the date was a holiday. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant's persistent failure to produce evidence and reliance on delaying tactics justified the ex parte decision. The Court affirmed that under Order 17, Rules 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, parties are legally obligated to appear before the court or its ministerial staff to ascertain the next date of hearing when the presiding officer is absent or the court is closed. The judgment establishes that a tenant cannot evade rent obligations by citing a pending civil suit regarding title if the landlord has established prima facie ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Is a tenant entitled to withhold rent payments due to a pending civil suit regarding the landlord's title?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the authority to set aside an ex parte order under the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the obligation of a party to appear in court when the presiding officer is on leave or the date is a holiday?
  • Can a Rent Controller proceed ex parte when a party repeatedly fails to produce evidence despite being granted multiple opportunities?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman alias Rehman Ullah vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 143 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-17Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 530 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-30
  murderocular testimonyinterested witnessessplit verdictreference to third judgemedical evidenceabscondencepromptly lodged FIRsubstitution of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a murder trial where the appellant, Raza Khan, along with absconding co-accused, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda, under section 302/34 and section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in life imprisonment and fine. The prosecution alleged that the appellant fatally shot the deceased, Hunar Khan, following a dispute and blood feud, after the complainant party deboarded a bus. Upon appeal, a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court recorded a split verdict: one judge voted to acquit the appellant due to material contradictions, weak motive, and discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, while the other judge voted to maintain the conviction based on a promptly lodged First Information Report and supporting testimony. Pursuant to section 378 and section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the matter was referred to a third judge as referee. The third judge independently evaluated the entire evidence, resolved minor discrepancies in favor of natural witness testimony corroborated by medical evidence, and upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, dismissing both the appeal and the connected revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related or interested eye-witnesses requires independent corroboration in a criminal trial?
  • What is the scope and authority of a third judge when a case is referred under section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to a split verdict by a Division Bench?
  • Does a discrepancy between the entry and exit wounds in medical evidence necessarily discredit the direct ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses?
  • Can the prompt lodging of a First Information Report rule out the possibility of fabrication or false substitution of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs Habib-Ur-Rehman and another1998 MLD 1324 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-14Read full judgment →
• Rajwali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 664 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →
• Raja Nek Muhammad vs District Magistrate, Abbottabad and others1998 P Cr. L J 612 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-09Read full judgment →
• Rahdar vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 695 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-06Read full judgment →
• Rafiullah vs Muhammad Ismail and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 832 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
• Qarshi Industries (Private) Limited through Deputy Manager (Admn.) vs Government of N..W.F.P. through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Peshawar and 10 others1998 PLD Peshawar 26 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-23
  export taxmodel tax scheduleofficial gazette publicationlocal council powersprovincial government powersindustrial estate exemptionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner company, located in the Hattar Industrial Estate, challenged an export tax levied on its products (medicinal syrups and herbal preparations) pursuant to a Provincial Government notification under the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner contended that the Provincial Government possessed no independent power to directly impose export tax, that the items produced were not covered by the model schedule, that the notification had expired by efflux of time after three years, and that the tax proposal was never published in the official Gazette. The Peshawar High Court accepted the constitutional petition, holding that under Sections 134, 135, and 136 of the Ordinance, export tax can only be imposed by the Local Council itself, not directly by the Provincial Government. The Court further ruled that mandatory statutory provisions and rules require tax proposals and schedules to be published in the official Gazette to have the force of law. Since the impugned notification was never published in the official Gazette, it was declared null, void, and of no legal effect against the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Provincial Government directly levy and impose export tax under the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 1979, without the tax being levied by the Local Council?
  • Is publication of a taxation proposal in the official Gazette mandatory for it to have the force of law?
  • Does an unnotified or unpublished tax schedule notification carry legal effect against affected taxpayers?
  Read full judgment →
• Qari Hafiz Muhammad Ehsanullah vs Syed Ahmad Shah Mashadi, Advocate and 3 others1998 MLD 1805 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Qambar Ali and another vs Khair Ali1998 MLD 63 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
• Qamar Abbas and 2 others vs Sohail Siddique and another1998 MLD 1132 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
• Project Director, Darya Khan Bridge Project, D . I. Khan vs The Collector_Collector Land Acquisition, D.I.Khan and 205 others1998 PLD Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-20
  land acquisitionlimitation periodcondonation of delaymarket valueclassification of landcompensationgovernment appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected regular first appeals arising from a land acquisition award for the Dera-Darya Khan Bridge Project. The core legal questions involved were whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation, and whether the classification of the acquired land for compensation purposes should be determined based on the revenue record existing at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or subsequent changes. The Peshawar High Court held that the government cannot claim preferential treatment regarding limitation, and routine departmental correspondence or internal delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Furthermore, the Court held that compensation must be determined based on the market value and classification of the land as of the date of the Section 4 notification, disregarding subsequent improvements or changes. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as time-barred and devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental correspondence and internal governmental delays constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
  • Can the government claim different standards or leniency regarding the law of limitation compared to ordinary litigants?
  • Whether the market value and classification of acquired land for compensation must be determined as of the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Does a subsequent change in the revenue record regarding land classification have any bearing on the determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Principal, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar vs Miss Sajida Parveen1998 CLC 336 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-10Read full judgment →
• Pine Match (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chairman vs Central Board of Revenue1998 PTD 3490 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Peshawar14 Bahadur Khan vs Ajmal Khan and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 728 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
• Sajid and anothers vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-02
  Qatl-e-Amddeath sentence commutationocular evidencechance witnessesprocedural irregularitiescriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of two appellants for Qatl-e-Amd under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite defense arguments regarding a delayed FIR, the status of witnesses as chance witnesses, the absence of motive, and alleged procedural irregularities in the investigation. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular testimony, which remained credible despite the witnesses' relationship to the deceased. The Court affirmed that procedural defects in an investigation do not automatically invalidate a prosecution case if the direct evidence is reliable. While rejecting the argument that youth alone warrants a lesser sentence for such a heinous crime, the Court held that the absence of previous enmity and the ambiguity surrounding the immediate cause of the fatal altercation justified commuting the death sentences to life imprisonment. The judgment reinforces that conviction stands on the strength of direct testimony, and minor procedural lapses do not undermine the core evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of procedural irregularities or illegalities in a police investigation automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment solely due to the absence of previous enmity and uncertainty regarding the immediate cause of the attack?
  • Is youth a sufficient ground for awarding a lesser sentence in a case of Qatl-e-Amd?
  • Does the failure to name an eye-witness in the FIR necessarily render their testimony unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Oba Idu Llah Khan vs Inayatullah Khan and 10 others1998 MLD 1718 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-17Read full judgment →
• Nowroz Khan and another vs Chief Secretary and others1998 MLD 1753 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-27Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs Javed Iqbal and 2 others1998 MLD 1293 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-12Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad vs Mst. Naziran Bibi and another1998 CLC 1927 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-17Read full judgment →
• Nasib-Ur-Rehman vs Nazar Muhammad and others1998 MLD 1128 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 32 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan vs Sher Qadir Khan and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 712 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
• Nadeem vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 975 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muzamal Khan vs Khan Faraz and others1998 CLC 1847 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
• Munir Gul and otherss vs Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Peshawar1998 CLC 898 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Bannu through Administrator vs Muhammad Iqbal1998 CLC 1714 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar and 2 others vs The State1998 MLD 109 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin Khan vs Mst. Nasim Akhtar1998 CLC 385 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Inam Ullah Khan alias Inam and another1998 PLD Peshawar 78 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzad Qazi vs Chairman, Joint Admission Committee, Khyber Medical College_Ayub Medical College and 2 others1998 MLD 1243 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq 5 others vs Political Agent, Khyber Agency and 71998 P Cr. L J 1347 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim alias Samin vs The State and others1998 MLD 1086 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and others vs Chief Secretary and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 24 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Shah vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 768 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 746 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-17
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailcircumstantial evidencejudicial confessionQanun-e-Shahadatproviso to Section 497 CrPCcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal miscellaneous applications arising from FIR No. 110 of 1996: an application for the cancellation of bail granted to a female co-accused and an application for the grant of bail to the male petitioner. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of circumstantial evidence, the validity of a judicial confession, and the entitlement to bail in the absence of direct evidence. The Court held that the bail cancellation application for the female accused should be dismissed, as she is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the evidence against her was insufficient. Conversely, the Court rejected the male petitioner's bail application, finding that his conduct—specifically the recovery of the deceased's vehicle and his judicial confession—established a prima facie case. The key principle laid down is that while a court may tentatively assess evidence at the bail stage, it must avoid prejudging the merits of the case, particularly regarding the voluntariness of a confession, which remains a matter for the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a pointation memo prepared at the instance of an accused in custody admissible as evidence if no discovery is made?
  • Does the proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provide special consideration for female accused in bail matters?
  • Can a court at the bail stage definitively determine the voluntariness of a judicial confession?
  • Does the absence of eye-witnesses in a murder case automatically entitle an accused to bail when circumstantial evidence exists?
  Read full judgment →