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.

• State through the AdvocateGeneral, N . W . F .P . , Peshawar vs Habib1996 PLD Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-31
  appeal against acquittalocular testimonymedical evidencecontradictionsmotivebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court for offences under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony, medical evidence, and recovery established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether interference was warranted in an appeal against acquittal. The Peshawar High Court held that the ocular testimony of the interested witnesses was plagued by material contradictions inter se and was completely belied by the medical evidence regarding the distance of firing and injury pattern, while the site plan and alleged motive further undermined the prosecution case. The court affirmed that an order of acquittal based on a proper appreciation of evidence without legal infirmity should not be interfered with. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine, upholding the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal when the trial court's appreciation of evidence suffers from no legal or factual infirmity?
  • Does a material contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence shatter the credibility of eye-witnesses?
  • Whether a belatedly introduced motive without credible evidence can sustain a conviction?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions among eye-witnesses on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Deputy AttorneyGeneral for Pakistan, Peshawar vs Qazi1996 PLD Peshawar 69 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• State Through Deputy Attorney General For Pakistan, Peshawar vs Qazi(PTCL 1996 CL. 585) · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• State through AdvocateGeneral, N. W F. P. vs Shah Nawaz1996 MLD 2049 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar vs Hazrat Zaman1996 P Cr. L J 1360 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
• State Through Advocate General, N. W . F. P. vs Shah Nawaz Accused1996 MLD 2049 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• Sohail vs Badam and another1996 P Cr. L J 555 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sher Mehmood Khan vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Nwfppeshawar And 5 Others1996 P.C.T.L.R. 638 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur Khan and 3 others vs Anwar Khan and 4 others1996 CLC 1624 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadar vs Additional Sessions Judge1996 P Cr. L J 1192 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Shahzada vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 697 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-12-18Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan vs Dr. Adnan and anothers1996 MLD 934 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan vs Dr. Adnan And Another1996 MLD 934 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P., Home and Tribal Affairs1996 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court
  death sentenceblack warrantQisas and DiyatTa'zirTazkiyah-Al-Shuhoodconstitutional petitionexecution of death sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by the Government of N.W.F.P. challenged the legality of an amended black-warrant issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Swabi, directing the execution of a condemned prisoner by way of Qisas. The core legal question was whether a convict tried and sentenced through ordinary procedures up to the Supreme Court could have their death sentence executed as Qisas rather than as Ta'zir, absent compliance with the strict procedural requirements of Islamic law such as Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood. The Peshawar High Court held that since the trial, appeals, and final dismissal before the Supreme Court were conducted entirely under the procedure for Ta'zir without objection, the subsequent issuance of a black-warrant for execution by Qisas was a patent error. The Court laid down that where a trial has proceeded under Ta'zir and attained finality accordingly, the sentence must be treated and executed as Ta'zir under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and setting aside the amended warrant, restored the original execution warrant issued under sections 368 and 381 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a convict tried and sentenced under ordinary procedures can subsequently be subjected to execution by Qisas without complying with Islamic law prerequisites such as Tazkiyah-Al-Shuhood?
  • Does a trial conducted entirely under Ta'zir procedure up to the Supreme Court render a subsequent black-warrant for execution by Qisas unlawful?
  • Under which clause of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is a conviction maintained when the trial proceedings followed Ta'zir throughout?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Abdur Rehman vs Fida Hussain1996 CLC 1571 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-06
  summary procedureleave to defendattestation of affidavitprocedural irregularityjudicial discretionremandcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a civil matter where the District Judge, Mansehra, passed a decree for the recovery of Rs. 22,000 against the appellant under the summary procedure of Order 37, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court refused the appellant's petition for leave to defend solely because the accompanying affidavit was not attested. The core legal question was whether a court, when exercising summary powers, should reject a petition for leave to defend on a technicality such as an unattested affidavit without granting an opportunity for rectification. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court acted with undue haste, noting that while summary procedures aim for speedy justice, they must not result in the denial of substantial rights. The Court ruled that the trial judge should have exercised discretion under Section 148, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to allow the defendant time to attest the affidavit. Consequently, the decree was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on the merits of the leave to defend petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court reject a petition for leave to defend in a summary suit solely due to the lack of attestation on an affidavit?
  • Does a trial court have the power under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant time for the attestation of an affidavit in a summary suit?
  • Should judicial discretion be exercised liberally in summary proceedings to prevent the denial of substantial rights on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahibdaza Muhammad Salim and anothers vs Mst. Bibi Zuhra and others1996 MLD 1409 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-18Read full judgment →
• Sahibdaza Muhammad Salim And Another vs Mst. Bibi Zuhra And Other1996 MLD 1409 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-18Read full judgment →
• Sadiq and 5 others vs Qazi Muhammad Naeem and 2 others1996 CLC 1984 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-07Read full judgment →
• Rana Mubashar Ahmed and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1378 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
• Raham Khan vs Mian Yousaf Shah1996 MLD 338 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-26Read full judgment →
• Punjab Medical Faculty, Lahore vs Muhammad Mussadiq and others1996 CLC 898 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Pearl Continental Hotel through General Manager and 2 others vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 2 others1996 PLC 485 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Sher Afzal and another1996 P Cr. L J 1181 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
• Noor Dad vs The State1996 MLD 822 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Nizam vs The State1996 MLD 2026 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-11Read full judgment →
• Nisar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1390 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad alias Niazi vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 394 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-09
  murderretracted confessionexculpatory confessionocular testimonyabscondencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealdeath sentence reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentence imposed upon the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Hazarat Ullah. The core legal questions involved the credibility of an un-named eye-witness in the first information report, the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession containing self-exculpatory elements, and the legal weight of the accused's prolonged abscondence. Upon a reference under section 378 read with section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following a split verdict in the Division Bench, the referee judge evaluated the evidence independently. The court held that the sole eye-witness account was unreliable due to material contradictions and non-mention in the first information report, and that the retracted confession was inadmissible as it was exculpatory and raised a plea of self-defense. The court established that abscondence alone cannot form the basis of a conviction in the absence of substantive corroborative evidence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the death sentence was not confirmed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eye-witness whose name is omitted from the first information report can be relied upon without corroboration?
  • Can a retracted judicial confession containing elements of self-defense be treated as a valid and true confession to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Is prolonged abscondence by an accused sufficient by itself to form the basis of a conviction when substantive prosecution evidence has been discarded?
  • What is the scope and independent evaluative power of a referee judge under sections 378 and 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon a split verdict?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Khan vs Saiful Malook1996 CLC 1708 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
• Nasir Jamil vs Deputy Superintendent Customs and 2 others1996 CLC 1174 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Albadar Timber and another vs United Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and1996 CLC 73 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Hussain vs Collector Customs and 3 others1996 CLC 1319 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
• Musali Khan vs The Statff1996 MLD 493 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
• Musali Khan vs The State1996 MLD 493 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
• Murtaza and 2 others vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 358 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-16
  sodomyconfessional statementretracted confessionlast seen evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and fine. The initial charge against the appellants also included murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, under which they were earlier acquitted due to a compromise. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the last seen evidence, the absence of medical evidence, and the voluntariness and evidentiary value of the retracted judicial confessional statements. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the last seen evidence due to a significant time lag and doubtful witness conduct, that no medical opinion was available due to the decomposed state of the body, and that the confessional statements were defective and involuntary because the Magistrate failed to properly assure the accused against police custody. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a considerable time lag between the last seen occasion and the subsequent death render last seen evidence a weak form of evidence?
  • Can a conviction under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained in the absence of medical evidence and when the sole confessional statement is found to be involuntary?
  • Are confessional statements rendered involuntary if the Magistrate fails to properly assure the accused that they will not be handed over to police custody regardless of whether they make a statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Murad Khan vs The State1996 MLD 1665 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muiiammad Waqar Khan and another vs Senior Member, Federal Land1996 MLD 281 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Akbar Ali and others1996 P Cr. L J 1371 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waqar Khan And Another vs Senior Member, Federal Land1996 MLD 281 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shohaib vs Ghulam Samdani and others1996 PLD Peshawar 37 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sheraz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 717 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher and others vs Mst. TM Meena and others1996 PLD Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-23
  civil revisionburden of proofnon-impleadmentproprietary rightsfinality of decreedeclaratory suitappellate procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for declaration and possession filed by the plaintiffs, claiming ownership of a house measuring 9 Marlas and challenging sale deeds executed by the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged they were part of the village proprietary body and that the defendants were mere tenants. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed this decision, leading to the present revision. The core legal questions were whether the plaintiffs had established their title to the property and whether the failure to implead necessary parties in the appeal rendered the trial court's decree final against the appellants. The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving their title, relying on hearsay evidence and failing to substantiate their claims. Furthermore, the Court held that because the vendees (defendants 8 and 9) were not impleaded as respondents in the first appeal, the trial court's decree became final in their favor. The Court reaffirmed the principle that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own case, not the weakness of the defense.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to implead necessary parties in an appeal render the trial court's decree final against the appellant?
  • Is a plaintiff required to succeed on the strength of their own case rather than the weakness of the defendant's case?
  • Can a revision petition be maintained when the underlying decree has become final due to non-impleadment of necessary parties in the first appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• N/A vs Khani Zaman1996 PLD Peshawar 73 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-12
  pre-emptionTalb-i-Muwathibatpleadingscivil revisionburden of proofvariance between pleading and proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition before the Peshawar High Court arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against mutations of land sales in favor of the petitioner-vendee. The trial court and the first appellate court both decreed the suit in favor of the pre-emptor. In revision, the petitioner challenged the judgments on the ground that the mandatory legal requirement of making 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' (immediate demand) was neither properly pleaded nor proved, and that the evidence adduced was at variance with the plaint. The core legal question was whether the details of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' must be specifically pleaded in a pre-emption suit and whether evidence contrary to the pleadings can be sustained. The High Court accepted the revision, holding that 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' is a pure question of fact that must be distinctly and accurately pleaded with necessary details, such as time and place, as it activates the right of pre-emption. The Court ruled that no evidence can be led on a question of fact contrary to the pleadings, and since the pre-emptor failed to properly plead and prove 'Talb-i-Muwathibat', the lower courts committed material irregularity. The suit was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the details of Talb-i-Muwathibat must be specifically pleaded in a pre-emption suit?
  • Can a party lead evidence on a question of fact that is contrary to what is alleged in the plaint?
  • Is Talb-i-Muwathibat a pure question of fact required to be mentioned in the pleadings?
  • What is the effect of failing to properly plead and prove Talb-i-Muwathibat in a pre-emption claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and 78 others vs Collector Acquisition Land, Mansehra and 3 others1996 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensation enhancementpotentiality of landcompulsory acquisitionlocal commissioner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Additional District Judge/Land Acquisition Collector, Mansehra, which dismissed the appellants' objection petition seeking enhancement of compensation for land acquired for the construction of a District Jail. The core legal question concerned the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Collector and the criteria for determining the market value of the acquired land. The High Court held that the lower court erred by ignoring relevant evidence, including schedules of averages and a Local Commissioner's report, while incorrectly dismissing evidence based on sale mutations for construction purposes. The Court set aside the lower court's judgment and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 40,000 per Kanal. The judgment establishes that for land acquisition, the market value must be determined by considering the land's location, potentiality, and neighborhood, rather than relying solely on one-year average prices. It further clarifies that land classification is not the sole determinant of value, as even 'Banjar' land may hold significant market value due to its proximity to commercial or industrial areas.

  Questions settled

  • Is the one-year average price of land the sole criterion for determining market value in land acquisition cases?
  • Can the location and potentiality of acquired land be considered in determining its market value even if the land is classified as 'Banjar'?
  • Is it permissible to appoint a Local Commissioner to evaluate the market value of acquired land based on its potentiality?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rehman alias Khushal vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1394 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Quraish Khan And Others vs Roohul Amin1996 MLD 1156 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan and 2 others vs Mir Ahmad and anothers1996 MLD 1389 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan And 2 Others vs Mir Ahmad And Another1996 MLD 1389 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1399 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Chan Zeb and another1996 P Cr. L J 845 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-06
  post-arrest bailcancellation of bailcommon intentionpre-arrest bailmedical grounds for bailvicarious liabilitymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected criminal miscellaneous applications: one by the petitioner, Muhammad Ishaq, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving murder and attempted murder; and another by the complainant, Chanzeb, seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail previously granted to a co-accused, Mir Aslam. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being directly charged with lethal violence, and whether the pre-arrest bail of the co-accused, granted on medical grounds, was sustainable. The Court held that the petitioner, having actively participated in a pre-arranged plan with common intention to commit violence, was not entitled to bail, as there were reasonable grounds to believe he was guilty of an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment. Regarding the co-accused, the Court found the medical grounds for bail were not bona fide and lacked supporting evidence, rendering the concession unsustainable. The Court affirmed that where accused persons act in concert with lethal weapons, individual attribution of specific shots is immaterial at the bail stage, and bail granted on unsubstantiated medical grounds must be cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person who acts in concert with others to commit a crime is vicariously liable for the offense regardless of whose specific act caused the death?
  • Can pre-arrest bail granted on medical grounds be cancelled if the accused fails to produce medical evidence or if the infirmity is not substantiated?
  • Is a bail application for an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment liable to be rejected when there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused participated in a pre-arranged plan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim vs The State1996 MLD 1886 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 706 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-12-21
  narcotics controlprohibition orderrecovery of heroinchemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order for the alleged possession of 30 grams of contraband heroin, resulting in a sentence of 13 months' imprisonment and a fine. The core legal questions involve the sufficiency and proof of the alleged narcotics recovery, the credibility of material prosecution witnesses, the proper separation and safe custody of samples, and the admissibility of the Chemical Examiner's report without formal proof of notification or direct examination under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery, sample separation, and chemical analysis beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, delayed transmission of samples, and failure to examine the Chemical Examiner or prove his official notification. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to examine the material eyewitness to a narcotics recovery while relying on a witness away from the scene renders the recovery unproved?
  • Does the lack of proof that a Chemical Examiner was duly notified by the Provincial Government necessitate his examination in court to prove his report under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay of 23 days in sending recovered contraband samples to the Chemical Examiner?
  • Does the appearance of an F.I.R. number on a recovery memo prepared before the registration of the F.I.R. cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 540 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farid vs Collector, Land Acquisition, Abbottabad and 21996 CLC 1640 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Darwaish Khan vs Bahadar Nawaz Khan and others1996 MLD 2011 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Darwaish Khan vs Bahadar Nawaz Khan And Other1996 MLD 2011 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Muhammad Yousaf1996 MLD 1167 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub and anothers vs Muhammad Yousaf1996 MLD 1395 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub And Another vs Muhammad Yousaf1996 MLD 1395 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asii,Am vs Ali Zaman and others1996 P Cr. L J 1669 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and others vs Nawab and others1996 CLC 1692 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aqil vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 345 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs Mst. Razia Begum and others1996 MLD 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs Mst. Razia Begum And Other1996 MLD 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaitoon vs Muhammad Riaz and 3 others1996 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-26
  bail cancellationcriminal force to womanstripping of clothescommon objectprohibitory clauseunlawful assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  Mst. Zaitoon filed an application for the cancellation of bail granted to the accused respondents by the Magistrate in a case registered under sections 354-A, 506, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether the accused respondents, who allegedly facilitated the main offence through aerial firing and intimidation while acting in furtherance of a common object, were rightly granted bail for an offence carrying capital punishment or imprisonment for life. The Peshawar High Court held that the Magistrate did not exercise discretion judiciously, as the material on record showed active participation by the respondents in fulfilling the first part of section 354-A, falling within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition, recalled the bail, and ordered the respondents to be taken into custody. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused actively participate by using criminal force and facilitating a heinous crime in prosecution of a common object under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, bail ought not to be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether active participation through aerial firing and facilitating the stripping of a woman disentitles an accused to bail under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does an offence under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause disentitling the accused to the concession of bail?
  • Can co-accused who share a common object in an unlawful assembly be granted bail when prima facie evidence shows their active involvement in the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Slabo Bibi and 3 others vs Gul Rehman and 13 others1996 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-02
  inheritance mutationburden of proofpresumption of deathco-sharerscivil revisiondeclaration of titlelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment maintaining a decree in a suit for declaration and possession regarding inheritance rights. The core dispute involved the validity of an inheritance mutation that excluded a predecessor, Shah Farman, on the premise that he predeceased his father, Isa Khan. The legal questions concerned the burden of proof regarding death under Articles 123 and 124 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and the limitation period for challenging such mutations. The High Court held that the defendants failed to prove the predecessor died before his father. Applying Article 124, the Court found that since the predecessor had not been heard of for over seven years, the burden of proving he was alive shifted to the defendants, who failed to discharge it. Consequently, the mutation was declared void and ineffective. The Court established that a mutation entered without proper inquiry is legally invalid, causing the entire structure built upon it to collapse. Furthermore, such invalidity prevents the limitation period from barring the plaintiffs' claim, as they are deemed co-sharers in possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving a person is alive shift to the party asserting it when that person has not been heard of for seven years?
  • Is an inheritance mutation valid if it is entered without conducting an inquiry into the death of an heir?
  • Does the limitation period bar a suit for declaration of inheritance rights where the underlying mutation is found to be void?
  • Can a person be presumed civilly dead if their whereabouts have been unknown for more than thirty years?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sheena and others vs Civil Judge and others1996 MLD 1931 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sheena And Others vs Civil Judge And Other1996 MLD 1931 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saira vs Mian Hamidul Haq and others1996 CLC 1512 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Roshan vs The State1996 MLD 924 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Begum and another vs Senior Civil Judge (Rent Controller), Charsadda and 2 others1996 PLD Peshawar 8 · Peshawar High Court
  rent restrictionlandlord-tenant relationshippreliminary issuetentative rentejectment applicationconstitutional petitionstriking off defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate court regarding an ejectment application filed under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioners contested the application, specifically denying the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Controller simultaneously framed issues and ordered the deposit of tentative rent. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller could order rent deposits before determining the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship, and whether framing issues and ordering rent deposits on the same date complied with Section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The High Court held that the orders were illegal and without jurisdiction. It established that when a tenant denies the landlord-tenant relationship, the Rent Controller must first frame and decide a preliminary issue on that relationship before ordering rent deposits or proceeding further. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 13(6), the direction to deposit rent must precede the framing of issues, as the failure to comply with such an order necessitates striking off the defence, rendering simultaneous actions procedurally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Must a Rent Controller decide the issue of the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship before ordering the deposit of rent?
  • Is it legally permissible for a Rent Controller to frame issues and order the deposit of rent on the same date under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • What is the mandatory procedure for a Rent Controller when a tenant denies the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship in their written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raisa Bano and 7 others vs Muhammad Riaz Awan and 2 others1996 MLD 238 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raisa Bang And 7 Others vs Muhammad R1az Awan And 2 Other1996 MLD 238 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Bibi and others vs Maqbool Shah and others1996 CLC 1723 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gul Naz vs Qadeer Hussain and another1996 P Cr. L J 524 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bivi Jan and others vs Faqir Muhammad and others1996 CLC 857 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bagum vs Hidayat Shah and another1996 CLC 1622 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amazai vs Khan Sher and others1996 MLD 1235 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amazai vs Khan Sher And Other1996 MLD 1235 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-25Read full judgment →
• Ms. Waheeda Ghafoor vs The Syndicate Through Its Chairman, University1996 MLD 827 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
• Ms. Waheeda Ghafoor vs The Syndicate through its Chairman, University1996 MLD 827 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
• Misri and 2 others vs Muhammad Sharif and 49 others1996 MLD 362 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
• Misri And 2 Others vs Muhammad Sharif And 49 Other1996 MLD 362 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
• Misal Khan vs Tawab Gul and others1996 P Cr. L J 1373 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sartaj Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Havelian, Tehsil and District1996 PLC 353 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-12-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Diamond Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan And Other1996 MLD 654 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-26Read full judgment →
• Mehboob-Ur-Rehman vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 238 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-26
  criminal appealmurderocular testimonycontradictionssole eye-witnessburden of proofbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Sessions Judge, Karak, alongside a connected criminal revision filed by the complainant for sentence enhancement. The prosecution case rested primarily on the sole ocular testimony of the deceased's mother, supported by medical evidence and an alleged motive of loan repayment. The Peshawar High Court examined the contradictions between the First Information Report, the ocular testimony, the site plan, and the medical evidence regarding the manner of the assault, the positioning of the parties, and the post-incident transport of the body. The Court held that irreconcilable contradictions and material improvements in the sole eye-witness's testimony shattered her credibility and rendered the prosecution's version highly doubtful, while the alleged motive remained unproved. Emphasizing that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the sentence enhancement revision as infructuous, laying down that false implications and material discrepancies in a sole witness's account warrant total rejection of the ocular testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between the First Information Report, ocular testimony, and medical evidence are sufficient to discard the testimony of a sole eye-witness?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive weaken its case?
  • Whether the prosecution must succeed on the strength of its own case regardless of the weakness of the defence?
  • What is the effect of false implications of co-accused on the credibility of an eye-witness in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Muhammad Zufran and 273 others vs Malik Nehmat and 619 others1996 MLD 1576 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Muhammad Zufran And 273 Others vs Malik Nehmat And 619 Other1996 MLD 1576 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
• Masood Khan vs The State1996 MLD 502 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Yousaf Ullah Khan vs The State And Another1996 MLD 762 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
• Major (Rtd.) Atta Muhammad Khan and 7 others vs Land Acquisition1996 CLC 276 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Luqman vs The State1996 MLD 1884 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-16Read full judgment →
• Liaqat And Others vs The State1996 MLD 922 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector, Tarbela Dam Resettlement Organization, WAPDA, Ghazi and 2 others vs Hikmat Khan and anothers1996 MLD 1587 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-17Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector, Tarbela Dam Resettlement Organization, WAPDA, Ghazi And 2 Others vs Hikmat Khan And Another1996 MLD 1587 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-17Read full judgment →
• Lal Mir Khan vs Pakistan Forest Institute and 5 others1996 CLC 1647 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-15Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan and anothers vs Rehmatullah and 5 others1996 CLC 1696 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-22Read full judgment →
• Khyber Electric Lamps vs Assistant Collector Customs, and 2 others1996 CLC 1365 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-18
  customs dutyshort-levied dutyshow-cause noticeconstitutional jurisdictionfiscal mattersalternate remedyimport classificationraw material
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged demand notices issued by customs authorities for alleged short-levied duty on imported aluminum caps, previously classified as raw materials. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of writ petitions in fiscal matters despite alternate remedies, the procedural validity of the impugned notices under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, and the classification of the imported goods. The Court held that in fiscal matters, the exhaustion of alternate remedies is not a mandatory condition precedent for invoking constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Regarding the merits, the Court ruled that the impugned notices were legally defective because they failed to provide a 'show-cause' opportunity as required by Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, acting instead as peremptory demands for payment. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Section 32 distinguishes between cases involving mens rea (subsection 2) and those involving inadvertence or error (subsection 3), with different limitation periods. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned notices to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Is the exhaustion of alternate remedies a mandatory condition precedent for invoking the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction in fiscal matters?
  • Does a demand notice issued under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, require the issuance of a show-cause notice to be legally valid?
  • What is the legal distinction between subsections (2) and (3) of Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, regarding the requirement of mens rea?
  • Can customs authorities unilaterally demand payment for short-levied duty without granting the importer an opportunity to explain their position?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Naseem vs Shafiqur Rehman1996 CLC 1460 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-04
  malicious prosecutiondamagesreasonable and probable causeburden of proofcivil revisionGoondas Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two courts below, which decreed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution against the petitioner. The respondent had instituted the suit following his discharge under Section 17 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, in proceedings initiated upon a police report lodged by the petitioner regarding obscene acts near a water spring. The Peshawar High Court examined the essential ingredients required to sustain a suit for malicious prosecution, specifically the absence of reasonable and probable cause and the presence of malice. The Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence and erroneously applied the criminal law presumption of innocence to civil proceedings for damages. Finding that the petitioner had acted upon reasonable and probable cause, with police investigation supporting the initial report and trustworthy witnesses corroborating the allegations, the Court concluded that malice was not established. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the lower courts' judgments were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients that a plaintiff must prove to succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution?
  • Does the acquittal or discharge of an accused in criminal proceedings automatically establish the absence of reasonable and probable cause in a subsequent malicious prosecution suit?
  • Can the presumption of innocence applicable in criminal trials be utilized to shift or satisfy the burden of proof in a civil suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
  • Does the police investigation and corroboration of a complaint by notable witnesses establish reasonable and probable cause for lodging a report?
  Read full judgment →
• Khanan Khan vs Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar and 2 others1996 MLD 1428 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →