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.

• Mehboob vs The State1991 MLD 545 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Mir vs The State.1991 P Cr. L J 454 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-16
  murdercriminal appealself-defenceinterested witnessesmedical evidenceballistic expertbenefit of doubtprivate defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a judgment of the Sessions Court, Abbottabad, convicting the appellant Mazhar Mir under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant fired at the deceased from the roof of his house during a dispute, while the defence raised a plea of self-defence, contending that the deceased had criminally trespassed into the house of the appellant's sisters with the intent to kidnap and molest them, and was killed by one of the sisters during the ensuing struggle. The Peshawar High Court examined the evidence, found the ocular testimony of the interested and related witnesses to be unreliable, uncorroborated, and inconsistent with medical evidence and the site plan, and noted that the prosecution had suppressed the injuries sustained by the accused parties. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the defence established a plausible case of private defence under Section 96 read with Sections 100 and 102 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the enhancement revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interested and related ocular testimony can be relied upon without independent corroboration when it is contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused persons cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of a weak and unproved motive when the eyewitness account is inherently defective?
  • Under what circumstances is a person protected by the right of private defence of person and property under sections 96, 100, and 102 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Maza Din vs Mirza Ali and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 208 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
• Manager, Forest Development Corporation and others vs Haji Gul1991 PLD Peshawar 117 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
• Madar Ali alias Muhammad Ali Khan and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 2564 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
• M Uza Mmil Shah vs The State1991 MLD 1944 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-08
  sodomychild witnesscorroborationcriminal appealmedical evidencesentencingcompensationcompetency of witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing sodomy against a seven-year-old mentally retarded victim. The core legal question concerns the admissibility and reliability of the testimony provided by a child witness, alongside the sufficiency of the corroborative evidence. The Court held that while the evidence of a child witness requires close and careful scrutiny, it is not inherently inadmissible if the witness is intelligent and capable of providing rational answers. Upon reviewing the record, the Court found the child witness credible and corroborated by medical evidence and positive chemical analysis reports regarding semen stains. Consequently, the conviction was upheld. However, the Court modified the sentence, reducing the life imprisonment to eight years rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine and mandating compensation to the victim's heirs under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment reaffirms that the competency of a child witness is determined by their ability to understand questions and provide rational responses.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a child witness inherently inadmissible in criminal proceedings?
  • What criteria determine the competency of a child witness to testify?
  • Is a court required to award compensation to the victim under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction for sodomy be sustained based on the testimony of a child witness corroborated by medical and forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector, T.D.R.O., Ghazi and 2 others vs Abdul1991 MLD 554 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Wajihudiin vs The N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission, Peshawar and 7 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
• Khan Sardar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 425 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-05Read full judgment →
• Khalilur Rehman vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Central1991 PLD Peshawar 14 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-13Read full judgment →
• Khalid Khan vs Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan and 6 others1991 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
• Kalu Etc vs Ghulam Siddiq and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 554 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Kalu and another vs Ghulam Siddiq and 4 others1991 PLD Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-26
  revisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factunregistered sale deedadmissibility of documentsRegistration ActCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenges concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit house through an oral agreement and subsequent unregistered sale deeds executed by the heirs of the original owner, whereas the defendants-petitioners claimed title through a rival registered sale deed. The core legal questions involved were whether concurrent findings of fact based on evidence could be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction, and whether unregistered sale deeds were admissible in evidence following amendments to the Registration Act 1908. The Peshawar High Court held that concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts cannot be interfered with in revision unless perverse, based on no evidence, or on inadmissible evidence. The Court further held that, following the omission of the proviso and relevant clauses of section 49 of the Registration Act 1908 by the Registration Amendment Ordinance 1962, unregistered documents requiring compulsory registration are admissible in evidence, particularly for collateral purposes. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below can be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Are unregistered documents that require compulsory registration admissible in evidence under section 49 of the Registration Act 1908 after the amendments introduced by the Registration Amendment Ordinance 1962?
  • Can an unregistered sale deed be received in evidence for a collateral purpose?
  • What are the limited grounds upon which erroneous decisions of fact by subordinate courts can be revised under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Jumma Khan (deceased) through Legal Heir vs Mir Ahmad and 5 others1991 CLC 1791 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
• Irfanuddin vs Toti Gul and others1991 MLD 2249 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Khan vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 92 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh and others vs Mst. Amiran1991 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
• Ikhtiar Khan vs Dilawar and anothers1991 MLD 2210 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmed vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-01Read full judgment →
• Himayat Ahmad and others vs Khalid Khan and others1991 MLD 153 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
• Hayatullah Khan and others vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1501 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
• Hayatullah Khan & Other vs Additional District Judge & OtherK.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 524 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
• Hayat Kaleem vs Sher Hassan1991 CLC 566 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-01Read full judgment →
• Hamid Siddique and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 540 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Javed vs The State and 2 others-1991 P Cr. L J 62 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-12
  quashment of ordercancellation of FIRsection 173 CrPCsection 561-A CrPCcognizance of offencepolice investigationabuse of process of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the Illaqa Magistrate's order dated 8-3-1989, which had accepted a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and cancelled FIR No. 47. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether a Magistrate can cancel an FIR under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after taking cognizance of the matter, and whether such a cancellation order passed mechanically constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. The High Court held that where prima facie ocular evidence exists supporting the complainant's report, the investigating agency cannot usurp judicial functions by deciding guilt or innocence. Furthermore, once a Magistrate is seized of the matter and takes cognizance, cancellation of the FIR under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is impermissible, and the Magistrate must follow standard proceedings until proper legal termination. Finding that the Magistrate acted mechanically without conscious application of mind, the High Court set aside the impugned cancellation order and directed the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate cancel a criminal case under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after taking cognizance of the matter?
  • Does an investigating officer have the authority to decide the credibility of conflicting evidence instead of sending the accused to trial?
  • Is a Magistrate's order cancelling an FIR subject to quashment under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. if passed mechanically without applying a conscious mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Mahmood Khan vs Khalilurrehman Khan and another1991 MLD 1001 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Gulshan vs Abdul Qayum EtcK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 502 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Gulshan vs Abdul Qayoom and 4 others1991 PLD Peshawar 85 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-23
  civil revisioninheritance mutationpredeceased songrandchild inheritanceMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceMuslim Personal Lawlimitation periodextraneous issuedeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from a declaratory suit challenging two inheritance mutations (Mutation No. 5034 of 1963 and Mutation No. 6061 of 1981) regarding the estate of a deceased landowner. The petitioner, husband of a deceased daughter, contended that the grandson (son of a predeceased son) was allotted an excess share under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, thereby diminishing the legal shares of other Muslim Law heirs. Both lower courts dismissed the suit, holding Section 4 valid and the suit time-barred. The Peshawar High Court upheld the dismissal. It held that Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 remains valid legislation and operative unless declared un-Islamic by the Council of Islamic Ideology under Article 227 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It further affirmed that lower courts should not decide extraneous issues not pleaded or framed under Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Finally, the Court ruled that claims under Muslim Personal Law are subject to the Limitation Act 1908, and the suit challenging a 1963 mutation brought in 1981 was hopelessly barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Is Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 valid and operative legal authority in Pakistani courts?
  • Can a court decide an issue that was neither raised in the pleadings nor framed as an issue for determination?
  • Are inheritance claims made under Muslim Personal Law subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 bar a suit challenging an inheritance mutation brought after long delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Gamun vs Muhammad Afzal and 2 others1991 PLD Peshawar 54 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-08
  pre-arrest bailcancellation of bailanticipatory bailmala fide arrestdelay in FIRgrievous hurtSection 497(5) CrPCSection 498 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan, in a case registered under Section 325/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether delay in registering an F.I.R. constitutes a valid ground for pre-arrest bail and what criteria must be met to grant anticipatory bail. The Peshawar High Court held that delay per se in registering an F.I.R. is not a ground for pre-arrest bail as it can be explained at trial. The Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of genuine apprehension of imminent arrest, physical surrender, bona fide merits, and demonstrated mala fides or ulterior motives to humiliate the accused. Finding direct allegations, medical evidence, and no proof of mala fides against respondent No. 1, the Court cancelled his pre-arrest bail, while maintaining bail for respondent No. 2 due to his lesser role.

  Questions settled

  • Does delay in the registration of an F.I.R. constitute a sufficient ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • What essential conditions must be satisfied before a court can grant pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a mere allegation of mala fides or apprehension of arrest in a bail application sufficient to grant anticipatory bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail granted by a Sessions Judge be cancelled if it was allowed without legal and factual justification contrary to established principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Fazal Karim vs Amanullah Khan and others1991 MLD 1887 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Sattar vs Haji Abdul Fatah1991 MLD 426 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
• Hakim Khan And Others vs The State and others-1991PCr.LJ 218 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
• Haibat Khan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 199 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-07Read full judgment →
• Hab1bullah Jan and others vs M. Hassan Khan and others1991 MLD 25 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-20
  limitation periodjamabandi entriesmuslim personal lawshariat applicationwill in favour of heirsgift of undivided shareco-sharerestoppel against law
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from a long-standing property dispute involving the estate of late Malik Feroz Khan, who executed a will in 1911 bequeathing his property to his wife and daughters with specific devolution conditions. The core legal questions pertained to the applicability of limitation for challenging revenue entries, the effect of the enactment of the N.-W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935 on pre-existing testamentary dispositions, the doctrine of estoppel against law, and the validity of a gift of an undivided share made by a co-sharer. The Peshawar High Court held that repeated wrong entries in Jamabandis furnish a fresh cause of action, rendering the suit within time. Furthermore, the court held that upon the enforcement of the 1935 Act, succession must be governed strictly by Islamic law (Shariat), rendering testamentary dispositions contrary to it invalid unless consented to by heirs post-testator's death, and that no estoppel can override the law. Lastly, the court affirmed that a co-sharer can validly gift an undivided share, and strangers to an estate cannot challenge such a gift. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a repeated wrong entry in the Jamabandi furnish a fresh cause of action for a suit for declaration?
  • Does a testamentary disposition made before 1935 remain binding on the parties after the enforcement of the N.-W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935?
  • Can the doctrine of estoppel be invoked against the provisions of the law of inheritance?
  • Is a gift of an undivided and disputed share by a co-sharer void under Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of NWFP and Other vs Haji Begu KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 182 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. and Other vs Mohammad Khan Alias Aan(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 88) · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-24Read full judgment →
• Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Forests, Peshawar and 41991 MLD 422 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-30
  arbitration awardpecuniary jurisdictionlegal misconductlimitationcondonation of delayforest contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute where the respondent, a forest contractor, was fined Rs.1,97,734 by the Conservator of Forests for illicit cutting of trees under an agreement. The respondent's challenge before an arbitrator failed, leading him to file an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The trial court set aside the award and exonerated the respondent. On appeal, the High Court first addressed the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction, holding that since the fine amount exceeded the District Judge's pecuniary limits, the appeal lay directly to the High Court. The Court condoned the delay under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 as the jurisdictional question was complex. On the merits, the Court held that Article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908 did not apply because the award was never filed in court by the appellants; hence, the residuary Article 181 applied. The Court affirmed that an award based on no evidence, or which ignores crucial evidence exonerating the contractor, constitutes legal misconduct under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act 1940 and is liable to be set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the value of the subject-matter of an arbitration reference determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court for filing an appeal?
  • Does Article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to an application challenging an award if the award has not been formally filed in court by the parties?
  • Can an arbitration award be set aside under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act 1940 on the ground of misconduct if it is completely opposed to the evidence on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yasin and 10 others vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1991 CLC 1487 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yasin & 10 Other vs Govt. of N.W.F.P.K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 63 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Deputy Commissioner, Charsadda and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 307 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and others vs Shaukat Ali Khan and others1991 MLD 193 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-16Read full judgment →
• Fazli Rabbi And Another vs The State1991PCr.LJ 212 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-08-13Read full judgment →
• Faqir vs Gul Zaman and 7 others1991 MLD 1870 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Dawar and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 1864 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
• Daraz Khan And 4 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 68 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
• Chambail Gul vs Imam Gul and 5 others1991 MLD 2198 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Ayaz And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2407 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-06Read full judgment →
• Attaullah Khan and others vs Samiullah Khan and others1991 MLD 941 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 73 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
• Amirullah through Legal Heirs vs Surat Ali and 17 others1991 PLD Peshawar 29 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-17
  limited ownercustomary lawwidow estateinheritancealienation by giftburden of proofrefugee property allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for possession of land by inheritance. The core legal question was whether a widow who migrated from India following the partition and received an allotment of land in Pakistan held that land as a limited owner under customary law or as a full owner, thereby determining the validity of a subsequent gift made by her. The Peshawar High Court held that custom must be specifically pleaded and proved by cogent evidence, and since the plaintiffs failed to establish that the widow succeeded to her deceased husband's estate as a limited owner under custom in India, she was rightly regarded as a full-fledged owner competent to alienate the property. The court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, establishing the principle that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own case and that the existence of a limited estate under customary law cannot be presumed merely from the status of a widow without affirmative proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a widow succeeding to her deceased husband's estate in India and receiving land in Pakistan in lieu thereof holds it as a limited owner under customary law without affirmative proof of such custom?
  • Does the mere description of a female as a widow in revenue records create a legal presumption of a limited estate?
  • Can a plaintiff succeed in a claim for inheritance by relying on the alleged weaknesses of the defendant's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Amirullah and Other vs Surat Ali and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 485 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan and anothers vs Mst. Jehan Bakhta and others1991 MLD 1859 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Aftab Zaman And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 76 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
• Abu Saeed vs The State1991 PLD Peshawar 49 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs The State1991 MLD 1875 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State and another1991 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
• Zarin And Another vs Momin Khan And 3 Other Respondents1990 CLC 3 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through its Chairman and 3 others vs Khadim Ali1990 MLD 1874 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and 10 others vs District Judge/Special Tribunal, Dera1990 MLD 815 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-29Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited, D.I. Khan Through Manager vs Mst. Jinda Bibi And 81990 CLC 1901 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
• Umer Hakim and others vs Deputy Commissioner, Dir and others1990 PLD Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-02
  Martial Law RegulationCivil Court JurisdictionOuster of JurisdictionLand DisputesRoyalty RightsFormer State of DirImmovable Property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against trial court orders returning plaints for lack of jurisdiction in suits regarding royalty shares from forest property in the former State of Dir. The core legal question is whether such disputes, involving claims by local right-holders against the former Ruler, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of authorities appointed under Martial Law Regulation No. 123 of 1972, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Court held that the dispute relates to an interest in immovable property within the former State of Dir, falling squarely within the mischief of the Regulation. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Regulation provides a complete, exclusive mechanism for resolving such disputes through the Provincial Government or its authorized officers. The key principle laid down is that where a special statute provides a specific forum and procedure for adjudicating land-related disputes in former states, the jurisdiction of civil courts is excluded, and litigants are legally bound to pursue their remedies through the designated statutory authorities rather than initiating civil litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute regarding royalty shares in forest property in the former State of Dir fall within the scope of Martial Law Regulation No. 123 of 1972?
  • Does the Martial Law Regulation No. 123 of 1972 oust the jurisdiction of civil courts to adjudicate land-related disputes in the former State of Dir?
  • Is the former Ruler of a state considered to have an interest in immovable property for the purposes of Martial Law Regulation No. 123 of 1972 even after the property is declared State property?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 125 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-26
  dying declarationmurdercompensation to heirsappreciation of evidencecriminal revisionjail appealSection 544-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for murder, while a criminal revision seeks enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions concern the evidentiary value of a dying declaration in the absence of ocular witnesses and the proper application of compensation provisions under Section 544(A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that a dying declaration, if credible and free from suspicion, can form the sole basis for conviction without further corroboration. In this case, the dying declaration was deemed reliable, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon. The Court upheld the conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment, finding no grounds for enhancement. Crucially, the Court laid down that compensation under Section 544(A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, must be imposed as an additional burden independent of any fine levied as part of the sentence, rather than being deducted from such fine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration form the sole basis of a conviction without corroboration?
  • Is compensation awarded under Section 544(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 required to be in addition to, or part of, the fine imposed as a sentence?
  • Does the failure to examine ocular witnesses mentioned in the FIR automatically invalidate a conviction based on other evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Ayyar Khan vs Umar Daraz Khan And 10 Other1990 CLC 1196 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-19Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ibrar Hussain Shah and others1990 P Cr. L J 176 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-10Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam Jilani and others1990 P Cr. L J 597 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-18Read full judgment →
• The State vs Attaullah1990 P Cr. L J 163 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-24Read full judgment →
• The State through the Advocate- General, N.-W.F.P.- vs Saifur Badshah1990 P Cr. L J 1669 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
• The State through AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P. vs Gul Rehman1990 MLD 1049 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F. Province, Peshawar- vs Mukamil Shah1990 P Cr. L J 1692 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-12Read full judgment →
• The State through A.-G., N.-W.F.P. vs Abdul Latif and another1990 P Cr. L J 113 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-01Read full judgment →
• The State through A.-G., N.-W.F.P. Peshawar vs Irshad Muhammad alias1990 P Cr. L J 1816 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Sajid Mian vs Habib Bank Limited Pakistan Through President,Habib1990 CLC 557 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Muqaddar Shah And Another vs Haji Abdul Arad Khan And Another1990 CLC 1596 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah through Legal Heirs vs Maulvi Abdul1990 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-18
  execution of decreelimitation periodresiduary articlefirst execution applicationpre-emption suitrevision petitiontime-barred
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the lower courts' dismissal of an objection regarding the limitation period for an execution application. The core legal question was whether the first application for the execution of a decree is governed by the six-year limitation period stipulated in Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or the three-year residuary limitation period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the execution application was time-barred, as it was filed more than three years after the appellate court's dismissal of the appeal. The Court established the principle that Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 merely provides an outer limit for fresh execution applications and does not regulate the timing of the initial execution application. Therefore, the first application for execution of a decree is governed by the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, which requires such applications to be filed within three years from the date the right to apply accrues. Consequently, the lower courts' orders were set aside, and the execution application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the first application for execution of a decree governed by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provide a limitation period for the initial application for execution of a decree?
  • What is the applicable limitation period for the first application for execution of a decree following the omission of Article 182 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Assistant AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P., Abbottabad vs Muhammad Riaz Khan, S.H.O. Bagnotar1990 PLD Peshawar 116 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P vs Wasal Khan alias Narai1990 P Cr. L J 1955 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
• Shermast Khan, Advocate and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1959 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Khan vs Ghulam Khan1990 MLD 334 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-25Read full judgment →
• Sher Jan vs Karim Dad Khan Through Legal Heirs1990 CLC 1845 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali vs Mst. Hashmat Aziz1990 MLD 1869 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
• Sharif Khan vs Seenar Gul and another1990 P Cr. L J 142 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-28
  bail cancellationabscondencetrial commencementjudicial discretioncriminal proceduremurder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for cancellation of bail arose from a murder case where the accused-respondent, having allegedly absconded for nine years, was granted bail by the Illaqa Magistrate, a decision upheld by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner sought cancellation of bail primarily on the ground of the accused's long-term abscondence. The Peshawar High Court examined whether bail should be cancelled when the trial has already commenced. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that where the trial of an accused has commenced or is scheduled to commence shortly, interference with an existing bail order is generally improper, even if the accused was previously a fugitive from law. The Court emphasized that the discretion exercised by lower courts in granting bail should not be disturbed at such a stage merely on the ground of prior abscondence. Consequently, the High Court declined to cancel the bail, dismissed the petition, and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be cancelled solely on the ground that the accused was an absconder for a long period?
  • Is it proper for an appellate court to interfere with a bail order when the trial of the accused has already commenced?
  • Does the fact that a co-accused has been acquitted affect the grounds for cancelling bail for the remaining accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah Khan and another vs The State1990 MLD 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
• Shadid Khan vs Wali Khan and another1990 MLD 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Hassan Khan and 6 others vs Province of N.W.F.P.1990 MLD 1039 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-27Read full judgment →
• Sardar Abdus Samad Khan vs Land Acquisition Collector1990 MLD 972 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
• Samandar vs Abdur Rahim And 3 Other1990 CLC 1671 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
• Said Qayyum vs Ghani Shah and another1990 P Cr. L J 428 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-02Read full judgment →
• Sahib Jan vs Ahmad Khan EtcKX.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 134 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ud Din vs Secretary to Government of N. W.F.P.1990 CLC 8 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-08
  constitutional petitionservice lawpromotionbasic pay scalediscriminationequality before lawcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, a Field Assistant promoted to Agriculture Officer B Grade, challenging the departmental order placing him in Basic Pay Scale 9 (BPS-9) instead of Basic Pay Scale 16 (BPS-16), which was granted to initially recruited Agriculture Officers and other similarly situated promotees. The core legal question was whether denying BPS-16 to the promotee Agriculture Officer while granting it to others performing identical duties, based on a restrictive departmental rule note, violated the principle of equality before the law. The Peshawar High Court held that treating civil servants of the same class arbitrarily and discriminatorily is hit by the constitutional guarantee of equality. The Court ruled that the petitioner, like his colleagues in previous identical writ petitions, was entitled to BPS-16, setting aside the discriminatory departmental placement and allowing the petition with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether placing promoted Agriculture Officers in a lower pay scale than direct recruits holding the same rank constitutes unlawful discrimination?
  • Does a departmental recruitment rule note that singles out promotees for inferior pay scales violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to parity in pay scales when performing identical duties and sharing the same responsibilities as colleagues in the same department?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabz Ali Khan And Others vs Sarwar Khan And Other1990 CLC 26 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
• Raziq Ali and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1779 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan and another vs Khan Sahib Madad Khan and anothers1990 PLD Peshawar 42 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
• Rahimullah Khan And 65 Others vs Government of N. W.F.P. Through Secretary Agricultural Forest And Co Operation Department Peshawar And 5 Other1990 CLC 550 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-25
  tax vs feequid pro quocolourable exercise of powerdelegated legislationtimber sale depotssaw millsenhancement of registration feeprovincial revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, operators of timber sale depots and saw-mills in Swat, challenged a notification dated 6 August 1984 amending rule 9 of the N.-W.F.P. Establishment of Sale Depots and Sawing Units Rules, 1978, which enhanced the registration and renewal fee tenfold from Rs. 100 to Rs. 1,000. The core legal question was whether the enhanced levy constituted a valid regulatory fee or an unconstitutional tax imposed through subordinate legislation without quid pro quo. The Peshawar High Court held that a fee requires a reasonable correlation to services rendered or benefits conferred, with the burden of proof resting on the imposing authority. The government admitted that the increase was meant to mobilize provincial revenue and discourage saw-mill installation rather than provide specific services. The Court held the impost lacked quid pro quo, amounting to a tax disguised as a fee, and violated Article 163 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the impugned notification amending rule 9 was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • What criteria distinguish a regulatory fee from a tax under constitutional and statutory law?
  • Does an enhancement of a fee intended solely to generate state revenue and discourage a trade amount to an unlawful tax?
  • Upon whom does the burden lie to establish the element of quid pro quo when a fee increase is challenged?
  • Can a provincial government impose a tax on trades or callings through subordinate rules without an enabling Act under Article 163 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Raham Taj vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2021 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-23Read full judgment →
• Rafiuddin vs The State1990 MLD 600 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-28Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Hussain Shah vs Mst. Imtiaz Bibi And Another1990 CLC 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
• Qasim Khan vs Mirza Ali Khan and others1990 MLD 2406 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-23Read full judgment →
• Police Department vs Javed Israr and others1990 MLD 1214 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
• Nowshad and another vs Jehanzeb and 4 others1990 P Cr. L J 1902 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-16Read full judgment →