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.
- Muhammad Muazzam Butt, Advocate vs Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate and 4 others1998 CLC 1810 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mastan and others vs The State1998 MLD 1011 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalid vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 808 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, dated 22-9-1997, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for the alleged possession of 25 grams of heroin powder. The core legal questions involved the credibility of police witnesses, the failure to associate public witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the impropriety of the complainant acting as the investigating officer, and the establishment of a strong motive of false implication due to prior enmity. The Peshawar High Court held that the mandatory provisions of section 103, Cr.P.C. were violated, the dual role of the complainant as investigating officer rendered the evidence a weak piece requiring independent corroboration, and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in light of established enmity and custodial torture. The court laid down the principles that the prosecution must succeed on its own strength, mandatory procedural safeguards regarding public witnesses must be observed, a complainant police official should not act as the investigating officer, and custodial torture by law enforcement is strictly prohibited and liable to departmental action.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to associate independent public witnesses from the available public during a narcotics recovery violates the mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a police official who acts as the complainant in a criminal case also competently act as the Investigating Officer for the same case without requiring independent corroboration?
- What is the effect on the prosecution case when previous enmity and a motive for false implication by the investigating officer are fully established during cross-examination?
- Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of whether the defence plea is proved or found to be false?
- Muhammad Kamal vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1781 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail criminal appeal was filed by the convict-appellant against his conviction under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-e-Shibh-i-Amd and sentence of Diyat amounting to Rs. 2,40,000, payable in three equal yearly instalments. The appellant was kept in jail for undergoing simple imprisonment due to non-payment of the Diyat amount. The core legal questions pertained to the sustainability of the conviction based on voluntary confessional statements and supporting medical and recovery evidence, as well as the mechanism for releasing a convict on bail during the payment period under Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal, but directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing security equivalent to the Diyat amount under Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to pay the remaining instalments. The Court also recommended legislative amendment regarding Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to address the indefinite period of simple imprisonment faced by an offender who fails to pay Diyat.
Questions settled- Is a convict sentenced to pay Diyat under Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 entitled to be released on bail upon furnishing security equivalent to the Diyat amount?
- Can a conviction for Qatl-e-Shibh-i-Amd be maintained based on a voluntary confession supported by medical evidence and recovery of the crime weapon?
- Does Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 specify a fixed maximum term of imprisonment for non-payment of Diyat?
- Muhammad Israr vs The State1998 PLD Peshawar 73 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ishaq Khan vs Vice-Chanceller, Gomal University, D.I. Khan1998 CLC 101 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan and others vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1998 MLD 1075 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal and another vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 776 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Azam Khan and others vs Government of N.W.F.P.1998 PLC (C.S.) 29 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, appointed as Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates on a contractual basis, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court through a writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Provincial Government to honor the recommendations of the Chief Justice and regularize their services. The core legal question was whether contractual employees possess a vested legal right to demand regularization of service through a writ of mandamus, and whether such regularization can bypass statutory requirements involving the Public Service Commission. The court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce contractual obligations or to compel the executive to act outside statutory frameworks. It ruled that the petitioners, having accepted employment on specific contractual terms stipulating termination upon the availability of Public Service Commission selectees, lacked a clear legal right. Furthermore, the court held that regularizing posts in BPS-17 without the Public Service Commission's process violates governing statutory laws. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Can a writ of mandamus be issued to enforce contractual obligations or compel the regularization of contractual employees?
- Do contractual civil judges have a vested legal right to demand regularization contrary to their terms of appointment?
- Whether the appointment and regularization of civil judges in BPS-17 can bypass the statutory functions of the Public Service Commission?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable to alter the terms of a contract freely entered into between the parties?
- Muhammad Attique, Etc. vs TayabuddinK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 639 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Atiq and others vs Tayubuddin and others1998 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises out of a suit for possession of land filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants, alleging that the suit land was given to defendant No. 1 in lieu of his services as an Imam and that he was asked to hand over possession upon failing to perform duties and raising constructions. The trial court dismissed the suit, but upon appeal and remand, the lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs subject to the payment of improvement costs. Both parties filed civil revisions challenging different aspects of the lower appellate court's judgment. The core legal question was whether land granted more than a century ago as 'Sadaqa/Seri' for services as an Imam, and held continuously without objection, is revocable and whether the possessors are mere tenants-at-will. The Peshawar High Court held that land given as 'Sadaqa/Seri' with delivery of possession for religious services over a century becomes adverse in possession and is irrevocable, and the grantees enjoy permanent rights analogous to ownership, preventing their eviction. The Court accepted the defendants' revision, set aside the appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit, laying down that ancient 'Seri' grants for religious services are irrevocable and create protected possessory rights.
Questions settled- Whether land granted as 'Sadaqa/Seri' for religious services such as Imamat for over a century is revocable by the grantor's successors?
- Does continuous possession of land under a 'Seri' tenure ripen into adverse possession against the original owners?
- Can a grantee holding land under a 'Seri' tenure for religious services be evicted as a tenant-at-will?
- Whether a party can simultaneously accept a lower appellate court decree while challenging only the portion relating to the cost of improvements in revision?
- Muhammad Aslam and 14 others vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Abbottabad and 17 others1998 MLD 1737 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf vs Ghulam Rabbani alias Rabbani and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 773 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner/complainant filed a revision petition against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge for the murder of his brother using a Klashnikov rifle. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to take cognizance and adjudicate upon the matter or if it fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of a Special Judge under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, given the use of a Klashnikov. The Peshawar High Court held that based on the F.I.R. and prosecution material indicating the use of a Klashnikov, the offense was a scheduled offense triable exclusively by a Special Judge, rendering the Sessions Judge's trial and acquittal a nullity. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment, remanded the case for a trial de novo before the Special Judge, and ordered the respondent to be taken into custody as an under-trial prisoner, establishing that jurisdiction in such matters is determined from the F.I.R. and material presented at the time of challan.
Questions settled- Whether a Sessions Judge is competent to take cognizance of a case involving the use of a Klashnikov or if it falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of a Special Judge under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- How is the question of jurisdiction determined when a scheduled offense is alleged in a criminal case?
- Does a trial conducted by a Court lacking jurisdiction constitute a nullity in law?
- What is the legal effect of a lack of initial objection to jurisdiction by parties during a trial held by an incompetent Court?
- Muhammad and another vs Bukhte Rehman and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1254 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram Beg vs The State1998 MLD 1001 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 955 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application was filed before the Peshawar High Court by the petitioner, who was arrested under Section 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 read with Section 9 of the Control of Narcotics Substance Ordinance, 1997 for alleged possession of 1750 grams of charas recovered from a passenger coach. The primary legal questions concerned whether the failure to associate public witnesses from among the passengers affected the prosecution case for bail purposes, and which statute governs the determination of bail when an accused is charged under two parallel enactments providing different punishments for the same subject matter. The High Court held that while police officials are competent witnesses, the failure to associate available independent public witnesses in serious offences casts doubt on the recovery at the bail stage. Furthermore, where two valid parallel statutes provide differing penalties for the same act, the law prescribing the lesser punishment must be considered for the purpose of granting bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.
Questions settled- Is it incumbent upon investigating officers to associate available public witnesses during a recovery from a passenger vehicle?
- Which statute should be considered for the purpose of granting bail when an accused is charged under two parallel statutes providing different quantum of punishments for the same act?
- Does the non-association of independent public witnesses at the time of recovery entitle an accused to the concession of bail in a narcotics case?
- Muhamamd Rafique vs Murtaza1998 MLD 1665 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sultana Bibi and others vs The State1998 MLD 1339 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sultan Zari vs Nisar Muhammad and 2 others1998 MLD 1173 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sabir Jana alias Dowali vs Hamidullah Jan and others1998 CLC 726 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saadaturrehman through Legal Representative vs Muhammad1998 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three revision petitions challenging a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Haripur, regarding land ownership and partition disputes. The core legal question was whether applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining a decree, were maintainable and whether the appellate court erred in dismissing them summarily. The court held that while Section 12(2) provides a mechanism to challenge judgments obtained through fraud, it does not mandate a full trial in every instance. The court determined that if an application is vexatious, filed to delay execution, or lacks bona fide intent, it may be dismissed summarily. The court found that the petitioners' claims of fraud were unsubstantiated, their conduct indicated acquiescence, and the applications were merely attempts to obstruct the execution of a final decree. Consequently, the court upheld the lower courts' judgments, affirming that the statutory provision is intended to prevent the abuse of process and multiplicity of litigation rather than to provide an indefinite avenue for re-litigating settled matters.
Questions settled- Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed summarily by a court?
- Does the failure to press an application for the appointment of a local commission during trial constitute an abandonment of that plea?
- Is a person who fails to intervene in a suit despite knowledge of the proceedings entitled to challenge the resulting decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Mst. Rabia and others vs Mst. Fateha Bibi1998 MLD 1278 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Jehan vs The State1998 MLD 205 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jehan Ara vs Umar Bakhsh and others1998 PLD Peshawar 11 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hukam Zada vs Afsar Zaman And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 631 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hukam Zada vs Afsar Zaman and 3 others1998 CLC 879 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Badri Jamala vs Khushdil and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 1652 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Shireen Nawaz vs The University of Peshawar, through the Vice-1998 CLC 308 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-03Read full judgment →
- Miss Ghazala Quader vs Joint Admission Committee for Admission to 1ST Year M.B.,B.S. in Khyber Medical College Ayub Medical College and 3 others1998 MLD 1238 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
- Mir Zakam vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 665 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →
- Mian Mukaram Shah and otherss vs Rahim Shah1998 CLC 1653 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mian Hamid-Ud-Din vs Gul Rehman1998 CLC 1829 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-19Read full judgment →
- Mian Yamin Ul Haque vs Municipal Committee, Abbottabad through Chairman, and 5 others1998 MLD 431 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Saif Textile Mills Limited vs Pakistan through Secretary, Finance1998 PLD Peshawar 15 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of section 15 of the Finance Act, 1992, which levied a Federal Education Fee on industrial units with fixed assets exceeding fifty million rupees. The core legal questions involved whether education is a provincial subject falling outside the legislative competence of the Federal Legislature under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether the impugned levy constituted a fee or a tax. The Court held that education is not included in the Federal Legislative List or the Concurrent Legislative List and remains a provincial subject, rendering the federal legislation ultra vires the Constitution. The Court further held that the levy lacked the essential character of a fee as no quid pro quo or special service was rendered to the payers, and no parent law authorized such collection. Consequently, the Court accepted the petitions and declared section 15 of the Finance Act, 1992 to be unconstitutional, unlawful, and without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Government has the legislative competence to levy an educational fee under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does education fall within the Federal Legislative List or the Concurrent Legislative List?
- What is the distinction between a tax and a fee in light of constitutional jurisprudence?
- Can a fee be levied without a corresponding quid pro quo or special service rendered to the payers?
- Messrs Habib Bank Limited vs Naseer Ahmed and another1998 MLD 1765 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 24 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 challenged an ejectment order passed by the Additional Controller of Rents against the appellant-tenant bank in favor of the landlords-respondents, who sought the premises for their bona fide personal use. The core legal questions involved whether a lease agreement covenant waiving statutory ejectment rights is enforceable, whether the failure to disclose the specific nature of an intended business vitiates a personal need claim, and whether business experience is a prerequisite for seeking eviction. The Peshawar High Court held that statutory provisions override inconsistent contract terms, that a landlord is not legally required to state the specific nature of the intended business or possess prior business experience, and that an assertion of personal need on oath, if unshakeable in cross-examination, suffices to establish bona fides. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming that covenants violative of rent restriction laws are void and that statutory protections sufficiently safeguard tenants.
Questions settled- Does a covenant in a lease agreement waiving statutory rights of ejectment override the provisions of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Is it legally mandatory for a landlord seeking eviction on grounds of personal need to disclose the specific nature of the intended business in the ejectment application?
- Must a landlord possess prior business experience to successfully claim commercial premises for personal and bona fide use?
- What is the evidentiary value of a landlord's assertion on oath regarding personal requirement when unshakeable in cross-examination?
- Messrs Ampake Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collector Customs and others1998 CLC 674 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
- Mehmood Sultan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1769 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a life imprisonment sentence, and a criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to death and the imposition of compensation. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of a dying declaration recorded by a police officer in the absence of a magistrate, the evidentiary value of ocular testimony that was previously disbelieved against co-accused, and the legal requirement for awarding compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the dying declaration was admissible as it was corroborated by medical evidence and ocular testimony, and that the accused's long abscondence, coupled with other evidence, established guilt. The Court declined to enhance the sentence to death, citing the accused's age and the prosecution's tendency to implicate innocent family members. However, it allowed the revision petition to the extent of ordering compensation to the legal heirs, affirming that under Section 544-A, such compensation is mandatory upon conviction.
Questions settled- Is a dying declaration recorded by a police officer in the absence of a magistrate admissible if corroborated by medical evidence?
- Does the principle of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' apply to the testimony of witnesses in criminal cases in Pakistan?
- Is the awarding of compensation to legal heirs under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory upon conviction?
- Can long abscondence without reasonable explanation be used as corroborative evidence of guilt?
- Mazhar Iqbal and another vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 858 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-04Read full judgment →
- Maulvi Abdul Khaliq vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1998 MLD 165 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
- Mamoon Rashid vs Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1998 MLD 6 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-18Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Younus and another vs Umer Hayat and another1998 MLD 1195 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Khyber Plastic & Polymer Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. - vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad1998 P.C.T.L.R. 594 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khurshid vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 761 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-18Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Ahmad Khan and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1192 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 302 and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while a connected criminal revision seeks enhancement of the sentence. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with absconding co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly and murdered the deceased while attempting to murder his two sons at a bus stop. The core legal question revolves around the credibility of the ocular testimony given by related and inimical witnesses, the probability of the prosecution's narrative regarding the incident and subsequent arrests, and whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was doubtful, uncorroborated by independent sources, and contradicted by improbable circumstances concerning their escape and arrest. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt, acquitted them of all charges, and dismissed the revision petition. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of interested, related, and inimical witnesses requires strong, independent, and unimpeachable corroboration, and where the prosecution story suffers from inherent improbabilities and tainted investigation, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related and inimical eye-witnesses requires strong independent corroboration?
- Can a conviction for murder under section 302 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses is doubtful?
- Does the unconvincing nature of police arrests and flawed investigation entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Whether an absolute escape of eye-witnesses unhurt during an indiscriminate firing incident from close range renders their presence improbable?
- Khanzada Inamullah Khan vs Mst. Zakia Qutab and 3 others1998 PLD Peshawar 52 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil revision arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration, permanent injunction, and alternatively specific performance of an oral agreement regarding agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed that he paid the government charges to repurchase surrendered land on behalf of the defendants pursuant to an oral agreement that he would receive 1350 Kanals and 12 Marlas in return. While the Trial Court decreed specific performance and granted an injunction, the Appellate Court dismissed the suit. The High Court addressed whether an oral agreement to sell land contingent on the conferment of proprietary rights is lawful, whether the agreement was satisfactorily established, and whether the form of suit was defective. The High Court held that the plaintiff fully proved the oral contract through oral and documentary evidence, unchallenged witness testimony, audio recording, and long-standing possession and improvements. It ruled that an agreement to sell contingent upon the grant of proprietary rights does not violate law or public policy and is specifically enforceable. Consequently, the revision was accepted, the Appellate Court's decision was set aside, and the Trial Court's decree was restored.
Questions settled- Whether an oral agreement to sell land prior to the conferment of full proprietary rights is valid and specifically enforceable?
- Whether an audio-cassette recording is admissible in evidence under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to corroborate an agreement?
- Whether a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction with an alternative prayer for specific performance is legally maintainable?
- Can co-owners be bound by an oral agreement and power of attorney executed by one co-owner when their subsequent conduct affirms the transaction?
- Jhanda vs Muhammad Sabir and another1998 MLD 999 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
- Jehan Ara vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1784 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
- Jawad Habib vs Secretary, Education Department, Government of N.-1998 MLD 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
- Javed Akhtar and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1009 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected criminal revision arise from a judgment of the Sessions Court, Haripur, convicting the appellants under sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of one person and causing firearm injuries to another. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony from an injured witness, the corroborative value of medical evidence and forensic expert reports regarding specific weapons, and the legality of sentences and compensation awarded under the law. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the injured eyewitness, corroborated by an independent witness and positive firearm expert reports, firmly established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the murder convictions and life imprisonment. However, partly accepting the complainant's revision, the court enhanced the sentence for the hurt offense, converted consecutive prison terms to run concurrently under section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and modified the compensation from 'Daman' to 'Arsh' equivalent to one-half of the Diyat amount pursuant to section 337-R of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as the injured complainant had lost an eye.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of an injured eyewitness carry greater weight and require less corroboration in a criminal trial?
- Can the medical opinion regarding the probable duration of injuries or time of death override direct, unshaken ocular testimony?
- Whether sentences of imprisonment awarded for multiple convictions should run concurrently or consecutively under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the correct measure of compensation under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a victim suffers the loss of an organ found in pairs, such as an eye?
- Jamil Shah vs The State1998 MLD 1121 (1) · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Jaffar Shah and another vs Mian Yahya Shah and another1998 MLD 1920 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
- Ismail Khan and 60 others vs Kamran Ali Afzal and 2 others1998 MLD 1340 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-24Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Shah vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1177 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
- Inayatur Rehman vs The State1998 MLD 1033 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-20Read full judgment →
- Imran vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1022 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the complainant seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent-accused by the Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, in a case registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge exercised discretion properly in granting bail based on a perceived discrepancy in the medical evidence regarding the time of death and the filing of the challan. The Peshawar High Court held that the order of the Sessions Judge was based on a deep and premature appraisal of the evidence at the bail stage, ignoring material parts of the medical report and misapplying case law regarding the submission of a challan. The High Court set aside the order and cancelled the bail. The key principles laid down are that contradictions between ocular and medical evidence should not be assessed in depth at the bail stage, and superior courts will interfere with bail orders when the lower court's discretion rests on conjecture or misreading of the record.
Questions settled- Can a court evaluate and resolve contradictions between medical evidence and ocular testimony in depth at the bail stage?
- Whether bail once granted to an accused charged with a capital offense can be cancelled if the lower court's order is based on conjecture and misreading of the record?
- Does the mere submission of a challan and commencement of trial operate as an absolute bar against the cancellation of bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in extraordinary circumstances?
- Is a discrepancy in the time of death versus the time of the First Information Report sufficient ground for granting bail in a case involving a capital charge with a nominated single accused?
- Ilyas vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1927 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
- Ikramullah vs Sami Ullah and another1998 MLD 1184 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2022 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge/Zilla Qazi, Timargera, convicting the appellant for a triple murder and related offenses, resulting in sentences of death as Qisas and rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the effect of delay in recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, and the legality of awarding Qisas without Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through trustworthy eyewitness testimony, immediate pursuit, and positive forensic evidence matching the crime weapon and empties, despite a retracted confession and minor investigative flaws. The Court laid down that while courts in Malakand Division function under common Islamic law, they must seek guidance from the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1997, altering the death sentence from Qisas to Tazir due to the absence of Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood, while dismissing the appeal and confirming the convictions for murder and assault on public servants.
Questions settled- Whether the delay in recording an eyewitness's statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invariably renders their testimony doubtful?
- Can a retracted judicial confession be relied upon without corroboration when it is recorded after a considerable delay without a satisfactory explanation?
- Whether a sentence of death as Qisas can be awarded by a trial court without undertaking the exercise of Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood?
- Is a passer-by or a witness present on a public thoroughfare considered a chance witness whose testimony must be discarded?
- Ibrahim Shah vs Mst. Hameeda and 2 others1998 MLD 1252 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-12-03Read full judgment →
- Khalilurrahman vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1625 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner, Khalilur Rehman, seeking post-arrest bail in a case arising from F.I.R. No. 62 dated 22-7-1997 registered at Police Station Nizampur, District Nowshera, under sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition Order and sections 6, 7, and 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, for the alleged possession of 1150 grams of Charas. The core legal questions involved whether bail could be granted considering conflicting statutory provisions, the applicability of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 despite the mention of the repealed Ordinance in the F.I.R., and the effect of a clerical error in the recovery memo date. The Peshawar High Court held that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 contains a specific restrictive embargo on bail and has an overriding effect over other laws, rendering general rules of lesser punishment inapplicable when dealing with narcotics offences carrying severe statutory bars. The court laid down the principle that mere misdescription or erroneous mention of a repealed ordinance in an F.I.R. does not exclude the application of the currently enforced governing statute, and procedural irregularities like mistaken dates in recovery memos do not ipso facto entitle an accused from whom contraband is recovered to bail.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted when a specific statutory embargo is placed against it under narcotics legislation?
- Does the erroneous mention of a repealed ordinance in an F.I.R. exclude the application of the currently enforced statute?
- Can a clerical mistake regarding dates on a recovery memo serve as a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
- Do the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act have an overriding effect over other laws for the time being in force?
- Humayun Khan vs The Registrar, High Court, Peshawar and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
- Hazurdad vs Sajid Khan and others1998 P Cr. L J 633 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan, in a case arising from F.I.R. No. 270 registered under sections 302, 324, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shahbaz Garhi. The core legal question was whether the lower court exercised its judicial discretion properly in granting bail on the ground of further inquiry. The Peshawar High Court held that the impugned bail order was arbitrary, perverse, and passed without judicial application of mind, noting that the accused were directly charged with murder in the F.I.R. and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the lower court misapplied the principles governing bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition, recalled the bail granted to the accused, and ordered them to be taken into custody.
Questions settled- When does a criminal case fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of bail?
- Does the mere fact that no specific fatal injury is attributed separately to an accused charged with murder make the case one of further inquiry?
- Whether bail granted through an order that fails to record proper reasons and misinterprets statutory provisions is liable to be cancelled?
- Hayat Muhammad vs Dost Muhammad1998 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-20Read full judgment →
- Haji Umar Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1630 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
- Haji Mazharulhaque through Legal Heirs and another/Pro forma1998 PLD Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
- Haji Hakeem Gul and others vs Madad Khan and others1998 MLD 1260 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Ali Shah and another vs Rehmat Khan and 14 others1998 MLD 1236 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-11-17Read full judgment →
- Haji Sardar Khan vs Registrar of Firms (Societies) and others1998 PLD Peshawar 40 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-29Read full judgment →
- Gul Nawaz vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1730 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from an order of the Special Judge, Lakki, convicting the appellant, Gul Nawaz, under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on multiple counts of murder and sentencing him to death and life imprisonment. The prosecution case rested primarily on the ocular testimony of a solitary witness concerning a fatal shooting incident at a local Baithak arising from a blood-feud. Due to a split opinion between the learned judges of the Peshawar High Court (where one judge upheld the conviction and death sentence while another favored acquittal by extending the benefit of doubt), the matter was placed before a reference judge, who ultimately concurred with the conviction. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of a solitary and related eye-witness, the sufficiency of corroborative evidence, the plausibility of delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the application of the principle of benefit of doubt. The court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, validating the trial court's assessment of the ocular and medical evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the murder reference was answered in the affirmative.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a related and interested eye-witness?
- Whether inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case when explanation is offered?
- Does any discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony necessarily warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- How should an appellate court resolve a split verdict between learned judges in a capital punishment reference?
- Gul Daali vs Inspector-General of Police, N.-W.F.P. and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 40 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
- Government of NWFP through Secretary of Forest, Food and Agriculture Department, Peshawar And Other vs (Syed) Akhtar Hussain Shah And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 621 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, C&W Department vs Sherdil1998 CLC 1805 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
- Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, C&W and others vs Messrs1998 CLC 1680 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question revolves around the legality of deciding a suit summarily under Order 17, Rule 3 without a proper judicial determination on merits based on the available evidence and material on record. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial Court acted illegally and without lawful authority by decreeing the suit straightaway without evaluating the evidence and material present on the record, and that Order 17, Rule 3 requires a decision based on a judicial determination of evidence. The Court laid down the principle that while proceeding under Order 17, Rule 3, C.P.C., a court must consider the entire material and evidence on record to decide the suit on merits rather than acting in a summary manner, and that delays caused by pursuing remedies in courts lacking pecuniary jurisdiction can constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empower a court to decree a suit straightaway without considering the material and evidence available on record?
- Does the time spent in pursuing an appeal before a forum lacking pecuniary jurisdiction constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is it mandatory for a trial court proceeding under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to record its findings on merits after evaluating the entire material on record?
- Ghulam Mustafa vs Muhammad Shaffi1998 CLC 1327 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Jilani vs Government of N.-W.F.P.1998 PLC (C.S.) 491 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Iqrar Khan alias Iqrar Khan and another vs Sakhi Zaman and another1998 MLD 1202 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-27Read full judgment →
- Ghafoor Khan vs Gul Faraz Khan and others1998 CLC 1800 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-08Read full judgment →
- Fazal Muhammad vs Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi, Swat and1998 MLD 1276 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
- Farid Khan through Legal Heirs vs Malik Aman Khan1998 CLC 1981 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 692 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
- Dr. Zubair Khan vs N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1368 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
- DR. Zafar Ali Khan vs Government of Pakistan Through Chairman, C.B.S., Islamabad1998 P.C.T.L.R. 590 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dr. Said Qayum vs Secretary, Education, Peshawar and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1218 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court by the petitioner challenging his premature repatriation from the post of Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar, to his parent department before completing a purported four-year tenure. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had a vested right to a fixed four-year tenure under section 14(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1990, and whether his repatriation without a hearing violated principles of natural justice. The Court held that the Chairman holds office during the pleasure of the Controlling Authority, and the four-year period prescribed in the statute represents a maximum limit rather than a guaranteed minimum tenure. The Court laid down the principle that the Controlling Authority possesses unfettered power to remove or transfer a Chairman without assigning reasons, and repatriation to a parent department in accordance with service terms does not constitute an adverse order requiring a prior hearing.
Questions settled- Whether the four-year term mentioned in section 14(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1990 constitutes a guaranteed minimum tenure or a maximum period of appointment?
- Does a Chairman of the Board holding office during the pleasure of the Controlling Authority have a vested right to remain in office for the full statutory maximum period?
- Is an opportunity of hearing required under principles of natural justice when a public servant is repatriated to their parent department from a deputation post?
- Diyar Khan vs Said Khan1998 P Cr. L J 798 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-14Read full judgment →
- Chan Zeb and 9 otherss vs Gul Zaman and 5 others1998 CLC 1857 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding joint property ownership, which was decreed in favor of the respondent. The appellate court dismissed the petitioners' appeal on technical grounds, citing misdescription of parties in the appeal's heading. The core legal question was whether an appellate court is justified in dismissing an appeal solely due to such technical defects without addressing the merits, and whether the court possesses the authority to allow amendments to the array of parties after the limitation period has expired. The High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment, holding that procedural law is designed to foster the cause of justice rather than defeat it. The court affirmed that under Order 41, Rules 4, 20, and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, appellate courts possess wide discretionary powers to correct party descriptions and implead necessary parties. These powers are not strictly constrained by the Limitation Act 1908, and courts should prioritize deciding cases on their merits over dismissing them on mere technicalities.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal solely on the ground of misdescription of parties in the appeal heading?
- Does the appellate court have the power to allow the addition or correction of parties in an appeal after the expiry of the limitation period?
- Are the powers of an appellate court under Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constrained by the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empower a court to allow amendments to the array of parties to determine the real issue in controversy?
- Bashar vs State and others1998 MLD 1105 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-15Read full judgment →
- Azizurrehman vs Kala Khan and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 743 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-29Read full judgment →
- Azim Khan and another vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 752 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-06Read full judgment →
- Attiqur Rehman vs Islam Gul1998 MLD 50 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-14Read full judgment →
- Asif Javed vs The Collector Custom and another1998 CLC 1840 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-22Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Muhammad and anothers vs Khuda Bakhsh and 5 others1998 PLD Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by private complainants against the acquittal of respondents in an anti-corruption case decided by the Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Special Judge under the said Act is maintainable at the instance of a private complainant. The Peshawar High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable. The Court ruled that a right of appeal is strictly statutory, and since Section 10(2) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 only provides a limited right of appeal to the Central Government against acquittals by Central Special Judges—and excludes the application of the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—no appeal or revision lies for a private complainant or the Provincial Government against an acquittal under the Act unless expressly provided by the statute.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against an acquittal order passed by a Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 is maintainable by a private complainant?
- Does the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to proceedings under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 regarding appeals against acquittal?
- Can a revision petition be maintained by a private complainant against an acquittal order under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958?
- Does the striking down of section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 as repugnant to Islam automatically amend section 10(2) to allow private appeals?
- Anwar Shah and otherss vs Additional Sessions Judge and others1998 CLC 1388 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
- Anwar Saifullah Khan vs The Passport and Immigration Officer, Government of Pakistan University Town, Peshawar and 3 others1998 PLD Peshawar 82 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Federal Minister and Senator, challenged the placement of his name on the Exit Control List (E.C.L.) and the non-issuance of a passport by filing a constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court. The core legal questions involved whether the placement of a person's name on the E.C.L. without prior notice or opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, and whether the non-issuance of a passport constituted an unlawful restraint on personal liberty. The Court held that Section 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 expressly excludes the requirement of a prior show-cause notice or hearing, meaning the principles of natural justice cannot override explicit statutory text unless the provision is declared unconstitutional. Furthermore, the pendency of accountability references before the Ehtesab Bench constituted a valid and reasonable ground in the public interest to restrict foreign travel to prevent frustrating the accountability process. The grievance regarding the passport was deemed premature. The petition was accordingly dismissed with observations regarding undue delay.
Questions settled- Does Section 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 legally exclude the right to a pre-decisional hearing or show-cause notice?
- Whether the pendency of accountability references before an Ehtesab Bench constitutes a valid ground for placing a person's name on the Exit Control List?
- Can the principle of audi alteram partem be invoked to override an express statutory exclusion of a right to hearing in a statute?
- Is a constitutional petition against the non-issuance of a passport maintainable when the aggrieved party has not filed a formal application under the Passports Act, 1974?
- Amanullah and others vs Dilbar Khan and others1998 MLD 461 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-24Read full judgment →
- Ali Gohar vs Managing Director, Sui Northern Gas Pipe Lines Limited, Lahore and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 828 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment from the Peshawar High Court and the Lahore High Court addresses two distinct service matters. In the first matter, the petitioner challenged the termination of his probationary service as a Sales Officer of Sui Northern Gas Pipe Lines Limited under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The court held that the company lacked statutory rules governing service terms, establishing a master-and-servant relationship, and that termination during probation due to unsatisfactory performance did not require a show-cause notice or amount to misconduct, thus barring writ jurisdiction. In the second matter, multiple civil servants challenged their transfer and posting orders passed under political influence from members of parliament and ministers. The court held that while political interference in civil servant transfers is illegal under the Government Servants Conduct Rules 1966 and subverts the rule of law, the High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 199 read with Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as matters relating to terms and conditions of service fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Can the services of a probationer be terminated without a show-cause notice on the ground of unsatisfactory performance?
- Does a writ petition under Article 199 lie against a company that lacks statutory service rules?
- Whether political interference by members of parliament in the transfer and posting of civil servants is legally permissible?
- Does the bar contained in Article 212(2) of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters of civil servants' transfers influenced by political dictation?
- Alamsher and others vs Hukam Khan1998 CLC 1977 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-14Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1800 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-04-13Read full judgment →
- Afghan National Bank vs Haji Akhtar Ali Qazilbash and others1998 PLC 331 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-12-23Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Military Estate Officer1998 MLD 692 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
- Abdullah vs Mst. Shaheen and 2 others1998 MLD 1216 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →