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.

• Muhammad Sherin Sahibzada vs Lal Badshah and 5 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 62 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sherin Sah1bzada vs Lal Badshah and 5 Others1987 PLD Peshawar 62 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher and anothers vs Mian Kamal Shah and 11 others1987 CLC 47 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed alias Pulla vs The State1987 PLD Peshawar 31 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Roshan vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 773 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs Additional Deputy Commissioner, Swat And 21987 P Cr. L J 127 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq Khan Kundi and 2 others vs Abdul Ghafoor1987 CLC 2134 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-08
  pre-emptionco-sharersubsisting rightsplitting of khatageneral power of attorneylimitation periodmarket value
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises out of competing pre-emption suits over agricultural land in District D.I. Khan. The core legal questions involved whether land purchased for construction purposes disqualifies a vendee from asserting pre-emption rights, the effect of splitting up joint khatas during the pendency of a pre-emption suit on the pre-emptor's co-sharer status, and the competency of a pre-emption suit instituted through a general power of attorney lacking explicit authorization. The High Court held that purchasing land for construction does not bar future pre-emption claims if legally acquired, that a pre-emptor must maintain a subsisting right of co-sharership at the time of the decree, and that a general power of attorney not expressly empowering the agent to pre-empt renders the suit incompetent if ratified only after the period of limitation has expired. The revision petitions were dismissed accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does purchasing land for construction purposes disentitle a vendee from acquiring more land or enforcing a superior right of pre-emption?
  • Does the splitting up of a joint khata into separate khatas during the pendency of a pre-emption suit affect the pre-emptor's co-sharer status?
  • Can a general power of attorney without express authorization enable an attorney to institute a valid pre-emption suit?
  • Does subsequent execution of a special power of attorney after the expiry of the period of limitation cure an initially incompetent pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs Ghulam Yasin and 1S Other1987 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs Ghulam Yasin and 15 Others1987 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbarxhan and Another vs Munawar Khan1987 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Khan and Another vs Munawar Khan1987 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mst.Amro vs Mst. Atlas and 22 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamroz Begum and 2 others vs Muhammad Riaz and Others1987 PLD Peshawar 100 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamroz Begum And 2 Other vs Muhammad Riaz And Other1987 PLD Peshawar 100 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musharaf Jan vs Government of N.W.F.P. and 17 others1987 CLC 234 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amro vs Mst. Atlas and 22 Others1987 PLD Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
• Mir Afzal vs Ali Asghar1987 PLD Peshawar 3 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-13Read full judgment →
• Mehboob vs Mst.. Sarwar Jan and Another1987 PLD Peshawar 65 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
• Mehboob vs Mst. Sarwar Jan and Another1987 PLD Peshawar 65 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Abdur Rahim vs Shahzada Mohayuddin1987 MLD 2460 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-08-27
  election petitiongovernment contractordisqualification of candidatemandatory procedureelection tribunalsubsisting contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This election petition under Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 challenged the election of the respondent as a Member of the National Assembly from NA-24 Chitral on multiple grounds, primarily that he was a Government contractor with a subsisting contract at the relevant time, alongside allegations of corrupt practices, voter disenfranchisement, and being a Government dues defaulter. The core legal questions involved whether the election petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements regarding witness affidavits and the proper verification of annexures, and whether the respondent was disqualified from contesting the election due to a subsisting government contract. The Peshawar High Court held that the procedural rules framed by the Election Commission under Section 62(1) requiring witnesses and affidavits to be filed with the petition are mandatory, and failure to do so renders the petition defective. Furthermore, on the merits, the evidence established that the respondent had validly transferred his contract to a third party with departmental approval long before the election, negating any disqualification. The election petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Are the procedural requirements framed by the Election Commission under Section 62(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 regarding the filing of witness lists and affidavits mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to sign or verify annexures to an election petition in the manner laid down for pleadings in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 entail the dismissal of the petition under Section 55(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Does a candidate maintain a subsisting government contract disqualifying them from an election if the contract was transferred to another person with departmental approval prior to the election?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish the disqualification of a candidate on the ground of being a government contractor?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Aman vs Safdar Ali1987 CLC 1832 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-26Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Khan and Others vs Ghulam Muhammad1987 PLD Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Khan and Other vs Ghulam Muhammad1987 PLD Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector No. II, Tarbela Dam and 2 Others vs Dilbar1987 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
• Lalzada and Another vs Gur Bakhsh Singh and 15 Others1987 PLD Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
• Lalzada and Another vs Gur Bakhsh Singh and 15 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
• Khushal and 3 others vs The State1987 MLD 1642 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1575 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
• Kazim vs Muhammad Iqbal Through 9 L.Rs.1987 PLD Peshawar 152 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
• Itbar Gul vs The State1987 PLD Peshawar 163 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-07-18Read full judgment →
• Haqeequllah Alias Ateequllah And 2 Other vs Hazrat Nabi Alias Toti And 53 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Murad Khan and 7 others vs Abdul Ghafoor and 12 others1987 CLC 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-07-21Read full judgment →
• Gulab vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1803 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
• Gul Qadam Jan vs Sher Azam and 2 others1987 P Cr. L J 514 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad And Another vs Ibrahim1987 PLD Peshawar 156 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan vs Sikandar Khan and Others1987 PLD Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan vs Sikandar Khan and Other1987 PLD Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Another vs Sardar Muhammad Sami and Another1987 PLD Peshawar 77 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir Khan vs Naqibullah Khan1987 MLD 2386 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Kibriya vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1792 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Gul vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2140 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
• Fiaz Hussain Another vs The State1987 PLD Peshawar 116 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• Fia2 Hussain another vs The State1987 PLD Peshawar 116 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rabbi vs Khadi Khan1987 PLD Peshawar 40 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad and others vs Juma Khan and others1987 CLC 872 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-02-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Ali Sajjad Bukhari and 6 others vs Sabir Ali Shah and 4 others1987 CLC 229 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-09
  perpetual injunctionsuit for declarationamendment of plaintrevisional jurisdictionremand of caseappreciation of evidenceabatement of revision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the judgments and orders of the lower courts dismissing the plaintiff's suit for perpetual injunction restraining interference in the possession of a vacant site and shrine. The plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership and possession through ancestors, while the defendants denied ownership and asserted their own continuous possession. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit as incompetent in its present form without seeking a declaration of ownership and without recording findings on the specific evidence or on issue No. 4 framed regarding ownership and possession. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in deciding the suit without judicially scrutinizing the voluminous oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties and failing to give findings on material issues. The court set aside the judgments of both lower courts, remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision in accordance with law, and allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint to include a prayer for declaration of ownership, subject to payment of costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for simple injunction under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 is competent without seeking a declaration of ownership when the plaintiff's title is specifically denied by the defendants?
  • Do the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding abatement apply to a revision petition?
  • Is it incumbent upon the trial and appellate courts to give findings on all material issues and judicially scrutinize the evidence produced by the parties?
  • To what extent should an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Pir Zaman Shah And 12 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 125 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-07-08Read full judgment →
• Collector, Land Acquisition, Tarbela Dam and 2 others vs Abdur Rauf1987 CLC 225 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
• Collector Land Acquisition, Tarbela Dam vs Abdur Rauf And 43 OtherK.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 45 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Balakamoon Khan vs Syed Gulrehman Shah and 2 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
• Balakamoon Khan vs Sayed Gul Rehman Shah and 2 Others1987 PLD Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
• Attaullah vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
• Asifullah vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1809 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-25Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Mir And 4 Others vs The State- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 2101 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
• Aqal Khan vs Sherzada and 2 others1987 PCr.LJ 1154 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-14Read full judgment →
• Amjad vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1773 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2169 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-29
  concurrent sentencespre-sentence detentionmisappropriationappellate jurisdictionSection 382-B CrPCSection 397 CrPCcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and miscellaneous petition filed by a convict seeking the concurrent running of sentences and the benefit of pre-sentence detention. The petitioner, previously sentenced to twenty-five years' rigorous imprisonment by a Special Military Court for misappropriation, was subsequently convicted by a Special Judge for a similar offence and sentenced to five years' imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question was whether an appellate court possesses the authority under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct that a subsequent sentence run concurrently with a prior sentence, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for pre-conviction detention. The Court held that it holds the power to order concurrent sentences under its appellate jurisdiction, aligning with the trial court's authority. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the petitioner's entitlement to the benefit of pre-sentence detention. Consequently, the Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently, determined the petitioner had completed his term, and directed his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the authority under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order that a subsequent sentence run concurrently with a previously imposed sentence?
  • Is a convict entitled to the benefit of pre-sentence detention under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when calculating the completion of a sentence?
  • Can an appellate court exercise the powers of a trial court regarding the sentencing of an offender under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Amin vs Qazi Muhammad Naeem And 4 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation1987 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Matin vs Taj Muhammad and 3 Othsrs1987 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Matin vs Taj Muhammad and 3 Others1987 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 883 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jalil and 2 others vs GH Ul Am S a Rwa R1987 CLC 1839 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan Khattak vs Pakistan Forest Institute and 2 Others1987 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan Khattak vs Pakistan Forest Institute and 2 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• Zar Shah vs Fazal Ahmad1986 PLD Peshawar 159 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-06Read full judgment →
• Zaab Din and Another vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-02
  murderunlawful assemblyinjured witnesssite planpolice statementdestruction of notesabscondencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and revision petition arose from the conviction of the appellants under Sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for forming an unlawful assembly, committing rioting, and launching a firearm attack that resulted in one death and injuries to four others. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of two injured eyewitnesses. However, the High Court observed critical discrepancies: the absence of blood at the alleged points of firing, the unnatural conduct of the witnesses, and the physical impossibility of identifying one appellant from the designated firing points as per the site plan. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer failed to properly record statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, instead destroying original notes and reconstructing statements in the witnesses' absence, which severely prejudiced the defense. Applying the principle that the dishonest implication of innocent persons casts doubt on the entire prosecution case, and noting that abscondence alone cannot substitute for reliable evidence, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an investigating officer destroying original notes of oral examinations and reconstructing statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the site plan demonstrates that the accused's firing position was physically invisible to the eyewitnesses?
  • Does the dishonest implication of one innocent person in a crime cast a doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's case against the remaining co-accused?
  • Is the abscondence of an accused person, by itself, sufficient to establish guilt in the absence of other reliable direct or circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Yaqub Khan vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 137 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority vs Muhammad Hayat Khan1986 PLD Peshawar 81 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-10
  ex parte decreesetting aside ex parte decreelimitation periodOrder XVII Rule 2Article 181 Limitation ActArticle 164 Limitation Actadjourned hearingdamagesremand
  Summary & questions settled

  First Appeal against Order was filed by WAPDA challenging the trial court's dismissal of its application to set aside an ex parte decree awarding damages of Rs. 2,42,000 for loss caused by flood water discharge. The trial court had dismissed the application as time-barred under Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 and found no sufficient cause for non-appearance. The High Court considered whether Article 164 or the residuary Article 181 applies to setting aside an ex parte decree passed at an adjourned hearing under Order XVII Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Following Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that Article 164 applies only to ex parte decrees passed at the first hearing under Order IX Rule 6(1)(a), whereas ex parte decrees passed on adjourned dates under Order XVII Rule 2 are governed by Article 181, which provides a three-year limitation period. Consequently, the application was held to be within time, sufficient cause was made out due to counsel's bona fide belief regarding record requisitioning in revision, and the ex parte decree was set aside on terms of heavy costs.

  Questions settled

  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed at an adjourned hearing under Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply only to ex parte decrees passed at the first hearing under Order IX Rule 6(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the summoning of trial court records by a revision court operate as an automatic stay of proceedings in the trial court?
  • Can a trial court pass a simple ex parte decree for unliquidated damages without assessing evidence regarding loss and negligence?
  Read full judgment →
• Wasal And 2 Others vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2954 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
• Waris Khan and Another vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 182 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-22Read full judgment →
• Tilla Muhammad And Another vs Government of North West Frontier1986 CLC 1429 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs Irshad and 2 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 166 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-17Read full judgment →
• The Manager,DEAN's Hotel vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others1986 PLC 537 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
• Tariq Zaman vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-11Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Khan vs Ghulam Rehmani and 7 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan Petitioner vs Mst.1986 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs The State of Pakistan-1986 P Cr. L J 2463 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
• Sherdil vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 95 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
• Sher Afgan vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 107 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-02Read full judgment →
• Shad Muhammad and 3 Others vs Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar1986 PLD Peshawar 169 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Salim Khan Afridi vs Principal, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad and 4 TM-RS1986 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rehman vs Additional Secretary Home Department, N.-W. F. P., Peshawar and 4 armas1986 PLD Peshawar 180 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saeedullah and Another vs Political Agent, Malakand and Another1986 PLD Peshawar 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali Khan vs Fida Muhammad Khan1986 PLD Peshawar 50 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
• Qalandar and 4 oTHets vs Mir Haider-1986 PLD Peshawar 75 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-29Read full judgment →
• Qaim Khan Ihrough Legal Hiers vs Yaqub and 25 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 10 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
• Pakistanrailway Through General Manager And Another vs Faqir1986 CLC 1419 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Obaidullah and Another vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 150 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Khan and Others vs Habibullah Khan and Others1986 PLD Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
• Nook Hassan vs Eid Akbar and Another1986 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
• Nizam Din vs Faqir Elahi and Another.1986 PLD Peshawar 69 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-26Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 5 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
• Nazar MUHAMMADAccused vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 32 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-27
  perjuryhostile witnesssolemn affirmationoathSection 164 statementcontradictory statementscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for perjury after resiling from a statement previously recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during a murder trial. The core legal questions were whether the appellant could be convicted for perjury without a definitive finding on which of his two contradictory statements was false, and whether a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on solemn affirmation, rather than oath, constitutes valid evidence for a perjury charge. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court reasoned that the trial court failed to determine which statement was false, particularly by proceeding with the perjury trial before the conclusion of the murder case. Furthermore, the Court held that because the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was recorded on solemn affirmation rather than oath, it violated the mandatory requirements of Section 6 of the Oaths Act 1873, rendering it inadmissible as evidence of perjury. The conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on solemn affirmation instead of oath constitute valid evidence for a perjury charge under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is it legally permissible to convict a witness for perjury based on contradictory statements without a definitive judicial finding as to which of the two statements is false?
  • Should a trial court conclude the primary murder trial before initiating perjury proceedings against a witness who resiled from their previous statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Muhammad Khan vs Salim Saifullah Khan and 2 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
• N.W.F.P. through Collector, Mardan and Another vs Faiz Muhammad1986 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
• N. W.F.P. (West Pakistan) Government Through Its Secretary To Government (N. W.F.P.) Forest Department, Peshawar And 4 Others vs Firm Rajamuhammad Feroz Ud Din Sons1986 CLC 566 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
• Murtaza Shah and Another vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-13Read full judgment →
• Munshi Khan vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 3032 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-03Read full judgment →
• Mukarram vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →