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.

• Ali Bahadur and others vs Muhammad Sarwar and another1993 PLD Peshawar 157 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Badshah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 738 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-11Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan vs Zulfiqar and another1993 P Cr. L J 2002 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-06-16Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan Versus Zulfiqar And Another Ajab Khan vs Zulfiqar And AnotherK.L.R 1993 Criminal Cases 457 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan and 2 others vs Sheikh Mahboob Sabir and 5 others1993 PLD Peshawar 55 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Maroof vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 167 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Ali Zaman and another1993 MLD 1481 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 9 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aleem alias Safdar and anothers vs Cie State1993 PLD Peshawar 32 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Chan Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 207 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
• Wisal Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 398 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
• Waris Khan vs Muhammad Sharif And 2 Others1992 P Cr. L J 369 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-23Read full judgment →
• Umer Gul vs Malik Abdul Manan And Other1992 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-12-11
  temporary injunctioncivil revisionbalance of convenienceirreparable lossprima facie casepublic dutySpecific Relief Actinterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged an appellate order that set aside a temporary injunction granted by a trial court regarding the relocation of a school project. The petitioner, having gifted land for a school in his village, sought to restrain the government from shifting the project site to another village. The core legal question was whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the trial court's status quo order and whether the petitioner satisfied the requirements for a temporary injunction. The High Court held that the appellate court correctly exercised its jurisdiction, as the order was appealable under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the injunction, ruling that a prima facie case alone is insufficient; a party must also demonstrate irreparable loss and balance of convenience. Additionally, the Court emphasized the statutory bar under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877, which generally prohibits injunctions that interfere with the public duties of government departments.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order of status quo passed by a trial court appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What are the essential requirements that must co-exist for the grant of a temporary injunction?
  • Does Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877 prohibit the grant of an injunction that interferes with the public duty of a government department?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Gulzar Hussain Shah1992 P Cr. L J 364 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Rafiullah alias Gul---1992 P Cr. L J 435 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-25Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Ramzan And 3 Others1992 P Cr. L J 423 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Zakaullah Shah vs Mst. Zohra And 3 Others1992 P Cr. L J 360 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Pir Farooq Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1509 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Mustafa Kamal Shah and others vs Syed Feroze Shah and others1992 CLC 355 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-08
  giftMuslim Lawdelivery of possessionoffer and acceptancetenant attornmentKhasra Girdawarioral giftcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenges the appellate judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Charsadda, which set aside the trial court's dismissal of three suits and decreed the plaintiffs' claim for the annulment of oral gift transactions of landed property and joint possession of a one-fourth share. The core legal questions involve whether the essential prerequisites of a valid gift under Muslim Law—specifically offer by the donor, acceptance by the donees, and delivery of possession (actual or constructive, particularly where land is in the occupation of tenants)—were duly fulfilled and proved. The Peshawar High Court held that the ingredients of offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession were not satisfactorily established, noting discrepancies in evidence, lack of personal appearance by one of the donees, and failure to record changes in cultivating possession in the daily diary as required by law. The court affirmed the appellate judgment, dismissing the civil revisions and holding that oral gifts of immovable property require strict proof of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential requisites for a valid gift inter vivos under Muslim Law?
  • Whether mere entries in the Khasra Girdawari are sufficient to prove constructive delivery of possession of gifted lands in the occupation of tenants without proper attornment and daily diary entries?
  • Can a respondent support an appellate judgment on issues decided against them without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objections?
  • Does the failure of a donee to appear in the witness-wise to support a gift transaction weaken the defense of the said gift?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman Alias Alamsher vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 409 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-19
  post-arrest bailabscondenceineffective firingfurther inquiryprohibitory clausebail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by Sher Zaman seeking post-arrest bail under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after his bail was cancelled by the Sessions Judge on the ground of prolonged abscondence. The core legal question was whether unexplained abscondence operates as an absolute bar to the grant of bail when a case falls under further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that abscondence does not operate as an absolute bar to the concession of bail in cases where there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed the offence and further inquiry into his guilt is warranted under section 497(2). The key principle laid down is that the disqualification attached to abscondence yields when an accused becomes entitled to bail as of right under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does unexplained abscondence operate as an absolute bar against the grant of bail in cases falling within the prohibitory clause?
  • When can an accused claim bail as of right under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 notwithstanding the allegation of abscondence?
  • Does ineffective firing in a charge under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur vs The State1992 MLD 42 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-08-17Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur Khan and another vs Haji Wali Bat Khan and 7 others1992 MLD 46 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2618 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-27Read full judgment →
• Shahzar Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 394 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-23
  post-arrest bailmurderinvestigating officer opinioncross-caseabscondenceocular evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged with murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds that medical evidence and the site plan contradicted the ocular version, that the investigating officer had exonerated him, and that the incident was a cross-case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the existence of reasonable grounds for believing he committed the offence. The Court held that the opinion of an investigating officer regarding an accused's innocence is not binding when it lacks a sound evidentiary basis and relies merely on statements from interested parties or 'secret information.' Furthermore, the Court determined that the alleged cross-case did not qualify as such due to discrepancies in the time of occurrence and the absence of the petitioner's name in the counter-FIR. The key principle laid down is that the investigating agency cannot exonerate an accused based on unsubstantiated pleas of alibi or local influence, and the Court must independently assess the material on record to determine if reasonable grounds exist to refuse bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is the opinion of an investigating officer regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the Court during bail proceedings?
  • Can an accused be granted bail based on a plea of alibi supported only by statements of local villagers?
  • Does the mere registration of a separate FIR against the complainant party automatically constitute a cross-case justifying bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Muhammad Fazal vs Principal, Quaidiazam College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Peshawar and`2 others1992 CLC 2030 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-03Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Alias Shano vs The StateK.L.R.1992 Criminal Cases 328 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →
• Shah Behram vs Akbar Khan And Another1992 PLD Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-16
  pre-emption suitbank guaranteedismissal of suitres judicataN.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987fresh suitnon-compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision addresses whether a fresh pre-emption suit can be instituted after a previous pre-emption suit is dismissed for failing to comply with an order to furnish a bank guarantee under section 24 of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. The plaintiff filed two pre-emption suits, failed to furnish the required bank guarantee within the statutory thirty-day limit, and suffered dismissal of those suits. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed fresh suits on the same cause of action, which were dismissed by both lower courts on the grounds of res judicata and incompetence under the 1987 Act. The Peshawar High Court held that while the principle of res judicata strictly speaking did not apply because the previous suits were not decided on merits, the fresh suits were nonetheless incompetent. The Court reasoned that allowing a second suit after dismissal under section 24(2) of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 would bypass the strict mandatory timelines and defeat the legislative intent of the modern Islamic pre-emption law, which differs significantly from the repealed 1950 Act. Consequently, the revision petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff file a fresh pre-emption suit after the first pre-emption suit is dismissed under section 24(2) of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 for failure to deposit the sale price or furnish a bank guarantee?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply when a previous suit or proceeding is dismissed for non-compliance with a procedural order rather than being adjudicated on the merits?
  • Are the provisions of Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to the dismissal of a pre-emption suit ordered under section 24(2) of the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987?
  • Does a court have the power under the N.W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 to extend the period for depositing pre-emption money or furnishing a bank guarantee beyond thirty days from the filing of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin Qureshi vs Federal Land Commission and others1992 CLC 2362 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-17
  land reformsabatement of proceedingssuo motu jurisdictionex parte proceedingsnatural justiceconstitutional petitionfederal land commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court challenged an order passed by the Federal Land Commission in suo motu proceedings resuming land from the petitioner under land reforms laws. The core legal question was whether the Federal Land Commission had the lawful authority to reopen past and closed proceedings under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 despite the statutory abatement of pending proceedings under section 25 of the Land Reforms Act 1977, and whether ex parte proceedings conducted without proper service of notice and without recording evidence were sustainable. The Court held that the impugned notification issued by the Federal Government to save pending proceedings from abatement was declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court, and in the absence of a consciously considered directive for the specific case, the proceedings stood abated, rendering the reopening of the case illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court also held that interfering with concurrent findings of fact based on independent sources of income through ex parte proceedings without proper notice violated natural justice. The petition was accepted and the impugned order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings pending before the Federal Land Commission under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 abated upon the enactment of the Land Reforms Act 1977?
  • Does a general notification attempting to save all pending proceedings from statutory abatement violate the provisions of the Land Reforms Act 1977?
  • Can the Federal Land Commission reopen concurrent findings of fact regarding a declarant's independent sources of income through ex parte proceedings?
  • Whether an order passed without proper service of notice to the affected parties and subsequent purchasers violates the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Ghulam And Another vs Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad1992 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2213 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-06Read full judgment →
• Saeed Gul vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 40 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-26Read full judgment →
• Sadaqat Ali Alias Pitti vs The State And Another1992 PLD Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Rehman vs Ghulam Qadir Khan Alias Qadir Khan And Another1992 P Cr. L J 1513 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-20
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationpost-arrest bailzinaabductionconfessional statementmala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected criminal miscellaneous petitions arising from FIR No. 333 registered under the charge of Zina at Police Station Saddar, Bannu. The Sessions Judge had granted pre-arrest bail to the father, Ghulam Qadir Khan, while two courts below declined post-arrest bail to the son, Ubaidullah. The complainant sought cancellation of the father's pre-arrest bail, whereas the son sought the grant of bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the pre-arrest bail granted to the father was unexceptionable as the charge against him appeared tainted with mala fides aimed at pressuring him for the restoration of the abductee, and no common intention with the son was established at this stage. Conversely, the Court held that the son's case stood on a different footing, as he was directly charged with abduction, implicated by confessional statements prima facie connecting him to the crime, and the four-month delay in lodging the report did not warrant bail. Both petitions were consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be sustained when the charge against the accused is shown to be tainted with mala fides?
  • Can the legality and propriety of confessional statements be scrutinized at the bail stage?
  • Does a delay in lodging the first information report per se constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in heinous offences?
  • Whether a father can be vicariously held liable for the offense of his adult son without proof of common intention at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasool Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1992 CLC 374 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-02Read full judgment →
• Rabnawaz Alias Rabba And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1517 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-27Read full judgment →
• Qamar Ali Khan vs Zardad Khan and 2 others-1992 P Cr. L J 362 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Public School, Abbottabad vs Excise and Taxation Officer, Government of N.-W.F.P., Abbottabad and another1992 PLC 559 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
• Noorul Amin And 4 Others vs Said Nazir and another-1992 P Cr. L J 800 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-08Read full judgment →
• Nazar Ali And Another vs The State,1992 PLD Peshawar 176 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-03-29
  qatl-e-amdqisas and diyatcompounding of offenceswaiver of qisastazir punishmentexamination of accusedcompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Peshawar High Court arose from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial for the murder of their brother where a compromise and waiver of qisas and diyat were effected by the legal heirs. The core legal question was whether a trial court can award tazir punishment under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after a compromise in a case of qatl-e-amd not liable to qisas, and whether failure to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the trial. The Court held that Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies only to waiver or compounding of qisas in qatl-e-amd liable to qisas, and has no application to qatl-e-amd liable to tazir which is compoundable under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with the effect of an acquittal. Furthermore, failing to examine the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding facts used for conviction results in a total failure of justice. The convictions were consequently set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to cases of qatl-e-amd liable to tazir?
  • What is the legal effect of the composition of an offence under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does failure to question an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding incriminating circumstances vitiate the trial?
  • What mode of proof is required for qatl-e-amd to be liable to qisas under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 802 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sher Baz Khan Music Centre vs Deputy Collector Central Excise1992 PTD 1169 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
• M/s. Saif Nadeem Kawasaki Motors Limited vs The Government of N:1992 PLD Peshawar 166 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-03-15
  export taxdistrict council limitslocal government taxeducation cessintra-provincial tradeconstitutional validity of taxtown committee jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  A constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a motorcycle manufacturing company challenging notifications issued by the District Council, Abbottabad, imposing an export tax of Rs. 100 per motorcycle and an Education Cess of Rs. 15 per motorcycle. The petitioner contended that its plant, situated within the municipal limits of Khalabat Township Committee, fell outside the jurisdiction of the District Council, and further argued that local councils lacked constitutional authority under Articles 77 and 127 to levy taxes without direct Provincial Assembly sanction. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 134 and Section 172 of the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance 1979, read with Rule 2(e) and Rule 12(1) of the N.-W.F.P. District Council (Export Tax) Rules 1984, District Council limits encompass the entire revenue district including municipalities and town committees. The Court ruled that intra-provincial export tax on goods moving out of the district is valid, constitutional, and backed by statutory authority. Additionally, the Education Cess was held lawfully recoverable under Section 3 of the N.-W.F.P. Development Cess Act 1949, as substituted by Section 4 of the N.-W.F.P. Finance Act 1990.

  Questions settled

  • Can a District Council levy export tax on goods produced within a Town Committee or Municipality located inside its revenue district?
  • Does the imposition of an intra-provincial export tax by local authorities under statutory rules violate Articles 77, 127, or 151 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether defined terms in statutory rules, such as 'export' and 'District Council limits', can be given a wider generic meaning beyond their statutory definitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtao Hussain vs Government of N. W.F.P., Through Secretary, Revenue Department And Another1992 PLD Peshawar 117 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Munsif Khan vs Muhammad Saleem And 3 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 136 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 412 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-08
  post-arrest bailZinaconfessional statementHudood lawsevidentiary valuefurther inquiryjurisdiction of Magistrate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner was accused of abducting a married woman, who was subsequently found to be pregnant. The core legal question was whether a confessional statement recorded by a Magistrate of the First Class, rather than the trial court, holds evidentiary value as a confession under the Ordinance. Following the precedent set by the Federal Shariat Court in Muhammad Naseer v. State, the High Court held that under the second proviso to Section 20 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, only the Sessions Court has the jurisdiction to record a confession; thus, a statement recorded by a Magistrate is legally ineffective as a confession. Finding that the prosecution's case regarding the paternity of the pregnancy and the circumstances of the arrest required further inquiry, and noting the petitioner's prolonged incarceration without trial, the Court granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confessional statement recorded by a Magistrate of the First Class in a case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, legally effective as a confession?
  • Which court has the exclusive jurisdiction to record a confession in a case involving the offence of Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which fails to qualify as a confession under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, retain any evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman And Another vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 156 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yoltsaf vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1507 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib vs The State and 2 others-1992 P Cr. L J 426 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 95 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rauf Khan vs Mir Sahib KhanK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 26 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Alias Fiqa vs The District Magistrate, Mansehra1992 PLD Peshawar 26 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-11
  preventive detentiondetention orderapplication of mindgrounds of detentionright of representationwrit jurisdictionpublic order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the preventive detention orders passed by the District Magistrate, Mansehra, against the petitioner under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal questions were whether the detaining authority had applied its mind to the necessity of detention and whether the mandatory statutory requirement to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu had been fulfilled. The Court held that the detention orders were illegal and without lawful authority. It observed that the District Magistrate had merely used stereotyped, cyclostyled forms without applying his mind to the specific facts of the case. Furthermore, the Court held that the failure to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu, as required by law, rendered the detention order invalid. The key principle laid down is that preventive detention powers must be exercised with due application of mind, and the mandatory statutory duty to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu must be performed without delay to enable the detenu to exercise the right of representation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a preventive detention order valid if it is based on a stereotyped, cyclostyled form without the detaining authority applying its mind to the specific facts?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to communicate the grounds of detention to a detenu under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  • Within what timeframe must the grounds of detention be communicated to a detenu to satisfy the requirements of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Afandi vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, Karachi And 3 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 87 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-28
  banking companies recovery of loansjurisdiction of civil courtspecial courtreturn of plaintarrears of land revenueborrowerbanking company
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the return of his plaint by the lower courts, which held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the recovery of bank loan dues as arrears of land revenue. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court or the Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, held jurisdiction over a dispute between a borrower and a banking company. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the Special Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The Court reasoned that the Special Court, while exercising civil jurisdiction, is vested with all powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and is fully competent to grant the relief of declaration and injunction sought by the petitioner. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 6(4) of the Ordinance. The principle established is that where a special forum is created for specific disputes, the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Courts is ousted, and the Special Court is the appropriate forum for all claims arising out of a loan.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the recovery of bank loan dues as arrears of land revenue?
  • Can a Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, grant the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction?
  • Does the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain a suit depend solely on the averments made in the plaint even when the court inherently lacks jurisdiction?
  • Is the jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred in matters relating to loans between a borrower and a banking company under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam And Other vs Nauroz1992 PLD Peshawar 33 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 187 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-07-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal And 3 Other vs Deputy Commissioner/District1992 PLD Peshawar 107 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-28
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderillegal detentiondistrict magistrate powersgrounds of detentionwrit petitionabuse of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the detention order of petitioner No. 1 and warrants of arrest against petitioners 2 to 4 issued by the District Magistrate under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal questions involved the authority of the District Magistrate to order detention exceeding 30 days, the mandatory requirement of supplying grounds of detention under section 3(6) of the Ordinance, and the legality of using preventive detention for pending or past criminal charges. The Peshawar High Court held that the District Magistrate's order directing detention for three months exceeded the delegated 30-day statutory limit under the Ordinance, violated the mandatory requirement of communicating grounds of detention, and lacked foundational material. The Court concluded that preventive detention cannot be based on ordinary criminal cases and that the mechanical exercise of power without record constituted an abuse of authority. The writ petition was accepted with costs, declaring the detention and warrants without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a District Magistrate has the authority to pass an order of preventive detention exceeding thirty days under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  • Is the supply of the grounds of detention a mandatory requirement under section 3(6) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  • Can ordinary criminal cases or allegations forming the subject of trial be made the basis for preventive detention under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  • Does the failure of authorities to produce material in support of a detention order raise a legal presumption that the order lacks foundational material?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafiz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2614 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-07
  statutory bailpost-arrest baildesperate criminaltrial delaySection 497 Cr.P.C.murder trialcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, charged with murder under Section 302, Section 201, and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought post-arrest bail invoking the third proviso of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, citing a two-year delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail despite the brutal nature of the offense and whether the trial delay was attributable to the prosecution. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the third proviso is controlled by the fourth proviso, which excludes 'hardened, desperate, or dangerous' criminals from statutory bail benefits. Based on the brutal manner of the crime, characterized by eleven severe injuries, the court determined the petitioner acted in a desperate and reckless manner. Furthermore, the court found that the trial delay was caused by the absence of the petitioner's co-accused, not the prosecution. Consequently, the application was dismissed, establishing that the court may assess an accused's 'desperate' nature from the circumstances of the crime to deny statutory bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fourth proviso of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exclude hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals from the benefit of statutory bail?
  • Can a court determine if an accused is a 'desperate or dangerous criminal' based on the manner in which the crime was committed?
  • Is an accused entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial delay is caused by the absence of co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Faqir Muhammad and another1992 CLC 1849 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Fazal Karim Khattak And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2137 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs Khial Mast And Another1992 PLD Peshawar 158 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 356 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Bibi vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 80 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Said Khanum vs Munsif Khan And 7 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Abdara vs Salim Khan And Other1992 PLD Peshawar 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-13
  de facto guardianminorityalienation of propertylimitationadverse possessionMuslim Lawcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a suit filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration of title, confirmation of possession, or alternatively, possession of her inherited share in land. The petitioner contended that she inherited the land from her father, but her mother, acting as a de facto guardian, executed a registered sale-deed in 1938 during her minority, which was subsequently pre-empted and eventually sold to the respondents. The core legal questions were whether a Muslim mother is a de jure guardian authorized to alienate a minor's property, and what limitation period applies to challenge such a transaction. The Peshawar High Court held that under Muslim Law, a mother is merely a de facto guardian with no authority to alienate a minor's property, rendering the sale void. However, the Court ruled that a suit to challenge such an alienation by a de facto guardian is governed by Article 144 read with Section 8 of the Limitation Act 1908, prescribing a twelve-year period from the date the petitioner attained majority. Since the petitioner attained majority in 1947 but sued in 1983, the suit was barred by limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a mother under Muslim Law has the legal authority as a de jure guardian to alienate the immovable property of her minor child?
  • What is the status of a sale of a minor's property executed by a de facto guardian who has no lawful authority of disposition?
  • Which provision of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a suit to set aside an alienation of property made by a de facto guardian, and what is the limitation period for such a suit?
  • Does the limitation period under Article 44 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to transfers made by a de facto guardian?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Zaman and 123 others vs Land Acquisition Collector, Nowshera1992 MLD 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mir Baz Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mir Alam vs Gohar Aman And 14 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 120 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mir Alam Khan vs Mosim Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 89 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mir Afzal vs Muhammad Haneef And 2 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-18
  cancellation of bailmurder casefurther inquiryprima facie casemisuse of bailnon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge to two accused persons charged with murder. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge erred in granting bail solely on the ground that the case required further inquiry, without determining whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offence. The High Court held that the order granting bail was illegal because it failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement of forming a tentative opinion regarding the prima facie guilt or innocence of the accused. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that the mere need for further inquiry is insufficient to entitle an accused to bail under the relevant statutory provisions. Furthermore, the Court noted that the accused had misused the concession of bail by threatening the complainant. Consequently, the Court cancelled the bail, emphasizing that a finding regarding the absence of reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence is a prerequisite for bail in murder cases.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere need for further inquiry sufficient grounds to grant bail in a murder case under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must a court record a finding regarding the absence of reasonable grounds for believing an accused committed a non-bailable offence before granting bail?
  • Does the misuse of bail by threatening the complainant constitute a valid ground for the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Maroof Jan vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 147 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 401 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
• Manager, Forest Operation (Malakand Circle) vs Muhammad Zaman1992 PLD Peshawar 173 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Malik Khan Afsar vs The State And 3 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-12-23Read full judgment →
• Kiramatullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 392 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-21
  post-arrest bailattempted murderminor offenderabscondenceprohibitory clausebail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner seeking pre-trial bail in a case registered under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an attempt to murder. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether a minor accused involved in a prohibitory clause offence can be refused bail on the ground of abscondence and the use of a firearm. The Court held that abscondence does not operate as an absolute bar to the grant of bail where the accused falls within the exceptions provided for children or minors under the law. The key principle laid down is that minority is a strong ground for the concession of bail even in capital or prohibitory-clause offences, and abscondence alone does not override the statutory protections or exceptions applicable to minor offenders.

  Questions settled

  • Does abscondence operate as an absolute bar against the grant of bail in cases falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a minor accused be granted bail in a case involving an offence under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 despite allegations of firing and subsequent abscondence?
  • What are the exceptions wherein an accused with a history of abscondence may still be released on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Zaman vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2289 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-29
  murderdying declarationself-defenceexceeding right of self-defencedelayed ocular evidenceculpable homicidecriminal appealenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petitions arise out of a judgment by the Sessions Judge, Charsadda, convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, with cross-appeals seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involved the reliability of delayed ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of a dying declaration, and whether the appellant was entitled to the right of self-defence deducible from the circumstances and evidence on record. The Peshawar High Court held that the ocular testimony, recorded eight days after the incident, was unreliable and discarded, but upheld the dying declaration of the deceased as truthful, natural, and corroborated by medical evidence and the prompt report lodged by the appellant. The Court further held that although no formal plea of self-defence was taken at trial, such a plea could be validly spelt out from the prosecution evidence and surrounding circumstances. Finding that the appellant had exceeded his right of self-defence during a sudden altercation, the Court set aside the conviction under section 302, substituting it with a conviction under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reduced the sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment while dismissing the enhancement revisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in recording the statements of eye-witnesses by the police renders their testimony doubtful?
  • Can an accused claim the right of self-defence if it is not expressly pleaded at the trial but can be spelt out from the prosecution evidence and circumstances?
  • Does a prompt dying declaration corroborated by medical evidence provide a sufficient basis for sustaining a conviction?
  • Whether an accused who exceeds the right of self-defence during a sudden altercation can be convicted under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of section 302?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Ellahi vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-19
  bailprohibitory clauseattempt to commit Qatl-i-amdCriminal Law (Amendment) Ordinancevicarious liabilitycancellation of bailBadiah
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected applications: a bail petition by an accused charged under Section 324 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, and a cross-application by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to two co-accused. The core legal question concerns whether an offence under Section 324, where hurt is caused, falls within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, thereby affecting the entitlement to bail. The Court examined the legislative changes between the former Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the new Section 324 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991. The Court held that since the injuries sustained were classified as 'Badiah' under Section 337-E(2)(b), punishable under Section 337-F(ii) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail. Regarding the cancellation of bail for the co-accused, the Court declined to interfere, noting that their vicarious liability remained a matter for trial determination.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 324 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, where hurt is caused, fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • How does the punishment structure for an attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 differ from the former Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is bail liable to be cancelled for co-accused persons who are attributed a vicarious role in the commission of an offence before the trial has determined their liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehangir Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 390 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
• Jan Said and 4 others vs Karim Dad Khan and 13 others1992 MLD 54 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
• Inayat-Ur-Rehman vs Assistant Commissioner/S.D.M. Swat And 4 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Sardar Bahadur Khan And Another vs Zia Masoom, D.I.-G. Police, Hazara Range, Abbottabad and others1992 P Cr. L J 1989 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Mustaqim vs Haji Faridullah And Other1992 PLD Peshawar 37 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Sarwar Khan vs Hussain Nawab and others1992 CLC 1915 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-25
  revision petitiondeclaration of titleburden of proofconcurrent findings of factmisreading of evidenceinheritancelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the appellate judgment of the District Judge, Swabi, which upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff-petitioner's suit for declaration of title, possession, and recovery of arrears of rent regarding a disputed house. The core legal question was whether the petitioner successfully established his ownership and title to the disputed property through inheritance from the alleged original owner, and whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the foundational title of his predecessor through cogent evidence, noting that discrepancies in documentation and oral testimony rendered the claim unproven. Reaffirming the principle that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own case rather than any weakness in the defendant's case, and finding no misreading of evidence or jurisdictional defect under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the court dismissed the revision petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff in a title suit can succeed on the basis of weaknesses in the defendant's case?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts be disturbed in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without proof of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding findings of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Ali Khan and Company, Abbottabad through Managing Director and 8 others vs M_s. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited1992 CLC 1906 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-11
  loan recoveryleave to defendsummary procedurepenal interestIslamic injunctionsbanking lawconstitutional protectionpromissory notemortgage deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns an appeal against a Special Court's decision under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, which refused the appellants leave to defend a loan recovery suit and decreed the claim in favour of the bank. The core legal questions revolved around the justification for refusing leave to defend, the bank's entitlement to charge penal interest, and the legality of charging interest in light of Islamic injunctions and the Constitution. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Special Court was justified in refusing leave to defend as the appellants failed to disclose a plausible defence or triable issues. The Court held that penal interest cannot be charged by the bank without an explicit agreement. It further reiterated that claims for interest under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, are permissible due to the protection afforded by Article 270-A of the Constitution, despite being un-Islamic.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a Special Court refuse leave to defend a loan recovery suit filed by a banking company?
  • Is the grant of leave to appear and defend a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a matter of routine or right?
  • Can a banking company charge penal interest on a loan in the absence of an explicit contractual agreement?
  • Are the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, including the claim of interest, protected by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
  • What grounds are permissible for an appeal against a judgment and decree of a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Gustasab And 2 Other vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 154 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-03Read full judgment →
• Gul Wazir vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2631 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
• Gul Raza vs The State and 2 others-1992 P Cr. L J 414 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-20Read full judgment →
• Gul Afzal vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 125 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-29
  post-arrest bailabscondenceattempted murderjudicial discretiongrievous hurtcriminal intentbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from a criminal case where the petitioner, charged with attempted murder and causing grievous hurt via firearm, sought release after eight months of abscondence. The core legal question concerns whether an accused who has remained a fugitive from law for a significant duration is entitled to bail, particularly when the offense involves effective firing and a clear motive, notwithstanding arguments regarding sentencing anomalies in the relevant statutes. The Court held that unexplained abscondence constitutes a significant factor that cautions the Court against granting bail, as it reflects misconduct. While abscondence is not an absolute bar to bail if the case falls under specific statutory exceptions—such as being a woman, child, sick, or where there are no reasonable grounds for guilt—the Court emphasized that bail in non-bailable offenses remains a matter of judicial discretion. The key principle laid down is that where an accused, driven by motive, uses a firearm causing grievous hurt, the Court should exercise its discretion to refuse bail, making refusal the rule and grant of bail the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Does unexplained abscondence of an accused automatically disentitle them to the concession of bail?
  • Is the grant of bail in non-bailable offenses a matter of right or judicial discretion?
  • Under what circumstances can an accused be released on bail despite being a fugitive from law?
  • Does the use of a firearm causing grievous hurt with a clear motive generally warrant the refusal of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P, through Secretary, Home and others vs Zarawar Malak1992 MLD 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-08-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Ghulam Rabbani And 3 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 130 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-27
  contempt of courtcivil revisionjuristic personstatus quo orderinjunctionofficial designationprocedural fairnessvoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner for contempt of court, arising from an alleged violation of a status quo order issued by a Civil Judge. The core legal questions concern whether a civil suit filed against public officials by their official designation, rather than their individual names, is maintainable, and whether contempt proceedings can be sustained for violating an injunction issued in such a suit. The High Court held that a suit against public officials by official designation alone is not maintainable under Order 1, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as they are not juristic persons. Consequently, the injunction issued was void ab initio, and no contempt of court could be committed by violating it. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that equity acts in personam, requiring injunctions to be addressed to named individuals. Additionally, the Court ruled that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and require strict adherence to procedural fairness, including the formal framing of a charge, which was absent in this case. Accordingly, the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil suit be maintained against a public official sued solely by their official designation?
  • Is an injunction issued against a non-juristic entity legally binding?
  • Can a person be convicted for contempt of court for violating an order that was passed without jurisdiction?
  • What procedure must a court follow when initiating contempt proceedings for the violation of a civil injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim And Other vs The State And Other1992 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Habib vs Rahim Gul and 2 others-1992 P Cr. L J 384 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ghiasuddin And Another vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 179 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ghias-Ud-Din And Another vs The StateK.L.R 1992 Criminal Cases 471 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
• Gadoon Textile Mills Ltd vs Assistant Collector And Other1992 PLD Peshawar 191 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-03
  customs dutyregulatory dutyexemption notificationGadoon Amazai Industrial Estateconstitutional petitionrefund of dutybank guaranteepith and substance
  Summary & questions settled

  Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills Limited filed a constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court challenging the customs authorities' demand for regulatory duty on imported Viscose Staple Fibre at Rs.5 per kg, seeking a refund of duties paid under protest and the release of bank guarantees. The petitioner contended that an exemption notification (SRO No. 517(I)/89) issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, exempting imported raw materials from the 'whole of the customs duties' for approved industrial units in Gadoon Amazai, also covered regulatory duty. The respondents argued that regulatory duty under Section 18(2) of the Act is distinct from ordinary customs duties and required a separate exemption. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that regulatory duty is in pith and substance an additional customs duty, and that the phrase 'whole of the customs duties' encompasses regulatory duty. The Court held the demand unlawful for the operative period of the notification, ordering a refund of duties paid and the discharge of the relevant bank guarantees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether regulatory duty levied under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act 1969 falls within the legal expression and character of customs duty?
  • Whether an exemption granted from the 'whole of the customs duties' under Section 19 of the Customs Act 1969 encompasses regulatory duty levied under Section 18(2) of the same Act?
  • Whether regulatory duty requires an independent statutory exemption notification distinct from general exemptions granted under the Customs Act 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ghani vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 373 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-03Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ur Rehman vs The State1992 MLD 349 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Eid Badshah Alias Eidak vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 368 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1511 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-20
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayprohibition lawtrial delayhardened criminalcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Ehsan Ali, facing charges under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The petitioner sought bail on the statutory ground of delay in the commencement and conclusion of the trial, invoking the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State opposed the application, arguing that the delay was attributable to the petitioner's own conduct and administrative factors, including the requisitioning of the case file by the High Court and the trial judge's election duties. The Court held that the delay caused by the requisitioning of the file and administrative lapses by court officials could not be attributed to the accused. Furthermore, as there was no evidence that the petitioner was a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal, or a previously convicted offender, he was entitled to the benefit of the third proviso. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that administrative delays in the judicial process should not prejudice an accused's right to liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Can delay caused by the requisitioning of a case file by a High Court be attributed to an accused for the purposes of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail under the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they are not a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal?
  • Does administrative delay in the judicial process justify the denial of bail to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Daraz Khan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 208 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
• Bismillah Jan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 406 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Sher And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 378 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →