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.

• Asim Siddique vs Principal, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad And Another1992 PLD Peshawar 52 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-10
  constitutional petitionmedical admissionprolonged illnessexamination chancescollege rollsstudent rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by an ex-student of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, challenging the Principal's letter striking off his name from the college rolls. The core legal question was whether a medical student's name could be struck off for failing to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination within four chances under Pakistan Medical and Dental Council regulations when the absence and failure to sit exams were due to prolonged illness (G.B. Syndrome) for which official medical leave was granted and fresh admissions were regularly accorded under college rules. The Peshawar High Court held that the regulation requiring four chances does not apply rigidly when non-appearance is due to circumstances entirely beyond a student's control, such as certified medical grounds, especially where rule 14 of the college prospectus explicitly permits re-admission on medical grounds for continuous absences exceeding two years. The petition was allowed, declaring the impugned notification void and without legal effect, thereby permitting the petitioner to continue his studies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a medical student's name can be struck off for exhausting four chances to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination when the failure is due to prolonged illness beyond the student's control?
  • Does rule 14 of the Ayub Medical College prospectus protect a student from disqualification if studies are discontinued on medical grounds?
  • Can college authorities strike off a student's name after granting official medical leave and accepting fresh admissions and college dues for successive sessions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayub vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 357 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-11
  illegal detentionjudicial remandcancellation of bailhabeas corpuscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner, whose bail in a murder case was recalled by the High Court, filed an application alleging that he had been in illegal detention since the cancellation of his bail because no judicial remand had been obtained under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether the detention of an accused without a valid, written remand order from a competent court is legal, and whether a subsequent remand order can cure prior illegal confinement. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner's detention in jail without a remand order under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was entirely illegal, and that a subsequent remand order cannot cure the damage already done by past unlawful confinement. The court laid down the principle that the absence of a proper, written remand order by a competent court renders an accused person's detention illegal, and subsequent procurement of a remand does not legalize the prior period of illegal detention.

  Questions settled

  • Is the detention of an accused person legal when no judicial remand has been obtained under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can a subsequent judicial remand order cure the illegality of a prior period of unlawful detention?
  • Does the absence of a proper remand order by a competent court entitle an accused person to be released on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Amirullah And Another vs Muhammad Ayub Khan And Other1992 PLD Peshawar 84 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 430 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs The State and 2 others-1992 P Cr. L J 420 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-07Read full judgment →
• Ali Zaman vs The State1992 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 389 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
• Al-Imtiaz Foundation (Registered), Abbottabad vs Income Tax Officer, Circle (a), Abbottabad1992 PTD 1292 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-04-19Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2609 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
• Afzal And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 403 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan and others vs Zarin Shah and others1992 MLD 268 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Abdul Qayum1992 PLD Peshawar 103 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-12-10
  civil revisionjoint propertyco-sharermutationtatimadeclaratory decreejoint possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arises from a suit filed by the petitioner, Abdul Latif, seeking a declaration, perpetual injunction, and joint possession regarding a joint land measuring 7 Marlas. The petitioner challenged a mutation through which co-owners sold a portion of the joint property and carved out a separate 'Tatima' without the petitioner's consent. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit. The Peshawar High Court examined the revenue records and held that while co-owners are competent to sell their undivided share in joint property, they cannot legally carve out a specific portion or 'Tatima' to the detriment of other co-sharers without their express permission. The transferee only acquires the status of a co-sharer to the extent of the purchased share. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and granted the declaratory decree, clarifying that issues regarding improvements or construction on joint land must be determined during partition by metes and bounds.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-owner carve out a specific portion or Tatima from joint property without the express permission of other co-sharers?
  • What rights does a transferee acquire upon purchasing a share of land from certain co-owners in a joint holding?
  • How is the issue of construction or improvements made by a co-sharer on joint property addressed?
  • Whether lower courts act with material irregularity when ignoring the legal limitations on transferring specific portions of joint property?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs The State.1992 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan vs The State and others-1992 P Cr. L J 417 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
• Ziarat Khan vs Khadim Hussain and anotherAccused1991 MLD 1949 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
• Zarwali and 3 others vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 70 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-28Read full judgment →
• Zarif Khan vs Abdul Manna N EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 622 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
• Zarif Khan vs Abdul Manna N EtcK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 73 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmed Malik vs The Commandant Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rawalpindi Can17. and others1991 PLD Peshawar 130 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-19
  territorial jurisdictionCode of Civil Proceduretortious liabilitycompensation for wrongsreturn of plaintcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Appeal challenged an order by the Civil Judge, Peshawar, returning the appellant's plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant had filed a suit for damages against the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rawalpindi, alleging that incorrect medical test results caused him financial and psychological harm. The core legal question was whether the Peshawar court possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for compensation for a tortious wrong when both the cause of action arose and the defendants resided outside its local limits. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision. The Court held that Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, exclusively governs suits for compensation for wrongs to persons or movable property. It established that jurisdiction under this provision is restricted to the court within whose local limits the wrong occurred or the court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, carries on business, or works for gain. Crucially, the Court clarified that the plaintiff's place of residence is not a determinative factor for establishing territorial jurisdiction in such tortious claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does the plaintiff's place of residence determine territorial jurisdiction in a suit for compensation for a wrong done to the person under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What are the two specific criteria for determining territorial jurisdiction in suits for compensation for wrongs to persons or movable property under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to suits for compensation for personal wrongs?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Mst. Jindan Bibi through Legal Heirs1991 CLC 1491 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-24Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd vs (Mst). Jinda Bibi Widow and OtherK.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 616 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
• Torey and another vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 20 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-08-11Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gilani1991 PLD Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-16Read full judgment →
• The State through A.G., N.W.F.P., Peshawar vs Miftahuddin1991 PLD Peshawar 124 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
• Tariq vs The State1991 MLD 2173 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs The State1991 MLD 1873 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
• Tahoorul Islam vs Mushtaq Ahmad and 4 others1991 MLD 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-10Read full judgment →
• Sultan Pervaiz vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 174 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-03
  statutory bailprolonged detentionhardened criminalCode of Criminal Procedurejudicial discretioncross-casebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail petition concerns an accused charged under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who sought release after remaining in custody for over two years without the conclusion of his trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or if he was excluded by the fourth proviso as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal.' The Court held that the lower court’s classification of the petitioner as a dangerous criminal was not supported by objective, admissible evidence on record. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petition. The judgment establishes that the fourth proviso, acting as a clog on the statutory right to bail, must be construed strictly. Any opinion forming the basis of such exclusion must be objective, founded on legally admissible material, and not a subjective or mechanical exercise. Courts must consider the overall scenario, including cross-versions of the incident, before denying the statutory right to bail based on the character of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require an objective or subjective assessment by the Court to classify an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal'?
  • Is an accused entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial has not concluded within the prescribed period?
  • Must a court consider the overall scenario, including cross-versions of an incident, when determining whether an accused falls under the exclusionary fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 56 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-09Read full judgment →
• Sub. Maj. Sohbat Khan vs Gulab through Legal Heirs and others1991 CLC 307 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-23Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar vs Murad1991 MLD 1937 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-09Read full judgment →
• State Through Advocate General N. W.F.P., Peshawar vs Saidul Haq---1991 P Cr. L J 469 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sheraz Khan and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 2262 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2409 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
• Shamsur Rehman and anothers vs Muhammad Zahir and others1991 MLD 2211 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-15Read full judgment →
• Shakil Khan vs The State1991 MLD 631 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Alias Shano vs The State-1991PCr.LJ 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad Khan And Another vs The State1991PCr.LJ 65 · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shah Abdur Razzaq Gillani vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief1991 PLC (C.S.) 374 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-13
  constitutional jurisdictionappointment to a particular postmala fidescivil servantProvincial Selection Boardjudicial reviewadverse ACR
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an Assistant Agricultural Engineer against the Government of N.-W.F.P., challenging a notification whereby a junior officer (respondent No.4) was promoted and appointed as Director Agricultural Engineering, and seeking a declaration that the notification was issued mala fide and without lawful authority. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant has a vested right to be appointed to a specific post and whether an administrative appointment can be set aside on the grounds of unproven or bald allegations of mala fides. The Peshawar High Court held that suitability for appointment to a particular post falls exclusively within the administrative domain of the Government and is not justiciable, unless mala fides is proved with cogent and tangible evidence. The Court found that the allegations of mala fides were not substantiated, as the selection was made objectively by the Provincial Selection Board and adverse ACR entries against the petitioner had been lawfully upheld. The writ petition was consequently dismissed, though the Court made observations recommending fair consideration of the senior petitioner for future promotion and equivalent placement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim appointment to a particular post?
  • Is the suitability of a civil servant for appointment to a specific post open to judicial review?
  • What standard of proof is required to establish mala fides against an administrative authority in making an appointment?
  • Does an adverse entry in an ACR, once upheld by the competent authority, lose its legal effect if initially recorded by a rival officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiq Ahmad vs Malik Wazir and others1991 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-27
  civil revisiongift deedpre-emptionjurisdictionouster of jurisdictionland reformsMartial Law Regulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a suit filed by a co-owner seeking a declaration that a registered gift deed of land was void for violating Martial Law Regulation No. 64, or alternatively, seeking possession of the land through pre-emption. The trial court declared the gift void under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 read with Martial Law Regulation No. 115, and decreed pre-emption. The appellate court set aside the pre-emption decree but maintained that the gift was void ab initio. On revision, the petitioner argued that the gift was valid under the amended provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 and that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court held that under the relevant land reform regulations, the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a transaction violates the regulations and is void lies with the Land Commission or the Chief Land Commissioner, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts. The High Court accepted the revision, set aside the lower courts' declaratory decrees, and directed the respondents to approach the Chief Land Commissioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to declare a land transaction void for violating the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
  • Which authority has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of a transaction challenged under Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
  • Can a civil court return a plaint containing multiple reliefs if one relief falls within its jurisdiction but another relief is within the exclusive jurisdiction of a special forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Salim Dil Khan vs Haji Mirza Khan & OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 618 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-10Read full judgment →
• Saleem Dil Khan and 2 others vs Haji Mirza Khan and 16 others1991 MLD 1006 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-10Read full judgment →
• Sajjad alias Jaida and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 1877 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Saiful Malook And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 205 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
• Said Rasool vs The Addl:District Judge, Lakki Marwat, District BannuK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 527 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Said Rasool Khan vs The Additional District Judge, Lakki Marwat, District Bannu and others1991 MLD 1732 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-11
  Khuladissolution of marriagerestitution of conjugal rightsmaintenance allowancedowerhateful unionrestoration of benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the appellate court's judgment and decree which dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on the basis of Khula, while also awarding her maintenance and dower. The core legal questions were whether the appellate court correctly granted Khula based on the wife's aversion, and whether the wife was entitled to maintenance and dower when the marriage was dissolved via Khula. The High Court held that the appellate court correctly dissolved the marriage on the basis of Khula, as the wife had satisfied the court's conscience that forcing her to remain in the union would be hateful. However, the court held that a wife seeking Khula must restore benefits received from the husband. Consequently, the court ruled that the wife was not entitled to past or future maintenance, and that the Khula was granted in consideration of her giving up her right to recover dower and other benefits. The principle laid down is that while a wife is entitled to Khula to avoid a hateful union, she must return tangible benefits, and she forfeits her claim to maintenance upon such dissolution.

  Questions settled

  • Is a wife entitled to Khula if she satisfies the court that continuing the marriage would force her into a hateful union?
  • Does a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula entitle the wife to claim past or future maintenance?
  • Is a wife seeking dissolution of marriage through Khula required to restore tangible benefits received from the husband?
  • Can a court grant Khula in consideration of the wife giving up her right to recover unpaid dower?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Ka.K. Afridi vs Chairman N.-W.F.P. and 3 others1991 PLC 837 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-08-05Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada K.A.K. Afridi vs Chairman NWFP and 3 OtherK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 191 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-08-05Read full judgment →
• Roshan Khan and 2 others vs Provincial Government of N.W.F.P.1991 MLD 2266 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
• Riasat Khan vs Qazi Muhammad Zubair and another1991 MLD 1863 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Nasir Khan and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 528 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-08Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Nasir Khan and 7 others1991 MLD 1011 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-08Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Khan vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs Ziaullah and 2 others-1991 P Cr. LJ 2419 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan vs Muhammad Ali KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 199 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-01Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs The State1991 MLD 232 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
• Qamar Ali Khan vs Election Tribunal and 8 others1991 MLD 159 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
• Project Director, Workers Welfare Board and others vs Messrs Awami1991 MLD 686 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Shamim S. Majid and 8 others vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and 22 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 379 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Ltd., Daud Centre, Karachi vs Collector, Land1991 MLD 2205 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-10Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Habibullah Khan and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 69 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Habibullah and others1991 MLD 1651 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
• Nekam Khan vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2212 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-08-04Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Khan Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 445 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Khan and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 956 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ali vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 42 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Najbuddin vs Sharfuddin Etc.K.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 133 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-01Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan vs Muhammad Aslam Khan1991 MLD 938 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bakhsh and another vs The State through Collector, D.I. Khan and others1991 PLD Peshawar 10 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-28
  territorial jurisdictiontribal areaspolitical agentwrit petitionfrontier crimes regulationpartnership disputearrest
  Summary & questions settled

  These two consolidated writ petitions under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court challenged the jurisdiction of the Political Authorities of the South Waziristan Agency (a tribal area) over disputes arising in the settled area of Dera Ismail Khan. In the first case, the petitioner was summoned and forced to sign a Jirga agreement over a vehicle business dispute. In the second case, the petitioner was arrested under Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on charges under Sections 406, 420, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 11 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, arising from a brick-kiln partnership dispute. The High Court held that the mere fact that one party originally belonged to a tribal area does not confer jurisdiction on political authorities, nor does it divest ordinary civil and criminal courts of jurisdiction where the subject matter is situated, the transaction occurred, or the cause of action arose. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court ruled that Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 does not bar the High Court's jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights violated within its territorial jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere fact that one party to a dispute belongs to a Tribal Area confer jurisdiction on the Political Authorities of that area over transactions occurring in settled areas?
  • Can Political Authorities oust the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil and Criminal Courts where the cause of action arose and the subject matter is situated within the settled area?
  • Does Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to protect a person whose fundamental rights are violated within its territorial jurisdiction by tribal authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Murtaza Khan and others vs Muhammad Zarif Khan and others1991 MLD 1015 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas and another vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 39 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq and 2 others vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Peshawar and another1991 MLD 2713 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid and another vs The University of Peshawar through its Vice Chancellor, Peshawar and 3 others1991 PLD Peshawar 79 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Azim Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 544 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Azim and 9 others1991 MLD 951 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Khan Alias Lais Khan vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 90 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-25
  inherent jurisdictionpre-trial detentionsentence set-offmandatory statutory dutymiscarriage of justicecriminal sentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which had been omitted by the trial court when sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction to rectify a trial court's failure to consider the mandatory provisions of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C., regarding the set-off of pre-trial detention period against a sentence of imprisonment. The Court held that Section 382-B imposes a mandatory duty on trial courts to consider the period of detention served as an under-trial prisoner. The Court established that while trial courts are not strictly bound to grant the concession, they are legally obligated to expressly state in their judgments whether the benefit is extended or denied, providing brief reasons for any refusal. Failure to do so constitutes a non-compliance with statutory requirements, which the High Court may remedy under its inherent powers to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a trial court to explicitly address the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in its judgment when passing a sentence of imprisonment?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to rectify a trial court's failure to consider the period of pre-trial detention?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to mention Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in a judgment imply that the court failed to consider the statutory requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ihsanullah vs Civil Aviation Authority and others1991 PLD Peshawar 127 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim and others vs Arshad Javed [Irshad Javaid] and another1991 MLD 986 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-18
  pre-emptionpre-emption money depositSection 4 Limitation Actclosed courttransfer of presiding officerrejection of plaintactus curiae neminem gravabitcivil revisionPardanashin lady
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from consolidated pre-emption suits concerning land sold under mutation No. 3169. The respondent pre-emptor was directed by the trial court to deposit the pre-emption money before 7-3-1984. However, the Presiding Officer was transferred and relinquished charge on 3-3-1984 without a successor taking over. On 21-3-1984, the respondent applied to the District Judge, who permitted the deposit the same day. The trial court dismissed her suit under Section 23 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950 for failure to make the deposit on time, but the District Judge reversed the dismissal on appeal. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the absence or transfer of a Presiding Officer renders a court 'closed' under Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908, thereby extending the time for deposit until the court reopens. Dismissing the revision petition, the High Court held that when a Presiding Officer is unavailable and business cannot be transacted, the court is deemed closed, entitling the litigant to perform the required act upon reopening under the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court is deemed to be 'closed' under Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 when its Presiding Officer is transferred or unavailable and no successor has assumed charge?
  • Can a pre-emptor legally deposit pre-emption money after the prescribed date if the court was closed due to the transfer of the Presiding Officer?
  • Does the failure to deposit pre-emption money by a specified date warrant rejection of the plaint under Section 23 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950 when the delay was caused by the non-availability of the Presiding Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hasham Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2216 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-08-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1991 PLC 316 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hamayun Khan vs Ali Asghar Khan and 10 others1991 MLD 1957 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsi-J vs Abid Hussain Shah and 6 others1991 MLD 571 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-08
  civil revisionrejection of plaintwithdrawal of suitfresh suitOrder XXIII Rule 1compromiseestoppelcause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed against the judgments of the lower courts which rejected the petitioner's plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner had previously filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent, which he withdrew unconditionally following an oral compromise without seeking permission to file a fresh suit. Subsequently, the petitioner instituted a new declaratory suit claiming ownership as Mutawalli over the same property. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff who unconditionally withdraws a suit based on a private compromise, without obtaining permission under Order XXIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to file a fresh suit, is precluded from bringing a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. The High Court held that where a suit is withdrawn unconditionally due to a private settlement rather than to rectify a formal defect under Order XXIII Rule 1(2), the bar under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) applies and the plaintiff is estopped from bringing a fresh suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unconditional withdrawal of a suit based on a private compromise preclude the plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit on the same cause of action?
  • Can a plaintiff bring a fresh suit after withdrawing a previous suit without obtaining express permission under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether the bar under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to a suit withdrawn upon a compromise settlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Abid Hussain ShahK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 491 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Khan vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 66 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Khan vs Mst. Gulab Jan and 2 others1991 PLD Peshawar 171 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhamm4d Bashir vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2422 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-08-07
  post-arrest bailbail on medical groundssickness exceptionstatutory prohibitory clausedeterioration of healthmedical board report
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed before the Peshawar High Court by Muhammad Bashir seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of sickness under the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an accused suffering from a deteriorating internal ailment, specifically bilateral renal stones and hydronephrosis requiring specialized treatment unavailable in jail or local hospitals, qualifies as a sick person entitled to bail under the statutory exception, despite an earlier rejection. The court held that where medical board reports establish that the petitioner's condition has worsened, involves delicate internal organs, and cannot be adequately treated in custody, the accused falls within the protective scope of the statutory provision. The court laid down the principle that courts cannot arbitrarily qualify or quantify sickness when it threatens life, and that temporary release for surgery is inappropriate due to the critical nature of post-operative care, granting the petition accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can file a subsequent bail application on the ground of sickness when an earlier bail plea on similar grounds was dismissed?
  • Does bilateral renal calculi and hydronephrosis constitute sickness under the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to warrant bail?
  • Is it appropriate to release an accused on bail for a specified limited period for medical treatment and terminate the bail thereafter?
  • What is the relevance of the availability or non-availability of adequate treatment facilities in jail hospitals when determining bail on medical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Shah vs Faiz Muhammad Khan and 7 others1991 PLD Peshawar 107 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zareena Jan vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina and others vs Muhammad Akram and others1991 MLD 1891 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Muslima Jan vs Mst. Zaitoon and 12 others1991 MLD 1881 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khairunnisa vs Shah Behram and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 478 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khairunnisa and others vs Shah Behram and others1991 CLC 994 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakhtawara and others vs Mst. Amirzadgai1991 PLD Peshawar 96 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina and another vs Haji Khan1991 PLD Peshawar 133 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Hashim and Another vs Arshad Javed Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 101) · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-18Read full judgment →
• Miran Bakhsh vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Mir Baz Khan vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 63 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mir Alam Khan vs Mosim Khan and others1991 MLD 2282 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mian Said Habib and 2 others vs Additional Secretary, Government of N.W.F.P. and 13 others1991 MLD 431 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shahnawaz Limited, H.O. West Wharf, Karachi vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Industries, Peshawar and 3 others1991 PLD Peshawar 136 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →