Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Mst. Khando and 7 Other vs Yousaf and Another1982 PLD Peshawar 151 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bilquis Jehan Begum vs Mst. Tajwar Sultan and 2 Other1982 PLD Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from proceedings under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, and subsequent execution proceedings where an objection petition filed by the petitioner against an ejectment order was dismissed by the lower courts without recording evidence. The core legal question was whether a third-party objector claiming possession through the judgment-debtor could maintain an objection petition in execution proceedings prior to physical dispossession. The Peshawar High Court held that while an executing court can entertain an objection petition before physical dispossession in cases where the objector asserts an independent title, where the objector claims possession derived directly from the judgment-debtor, actual dispossession remains a condition precedent for filing such an objection petition under Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petition was accordingly dismissed on the merits.
Questions settled- Can an objection petition be filed in execution proceedings by a person not dispossessed from the property?
- Does an executing court have the power to adjudicate an objection petition filed by persons claiming through the judgment-debtor before physical dispossession?
- Can the question of title be agitated in proceedings under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act?
- Mir Akhtar Khan Khattak vs The State1982 PLD Peshawar 128 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal miscellaneous applications arose out of orders passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Peshawar, denying bail to the petitioner in cases registered under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a public servant, was involved in the embezzlement and misappropriation of a substantial amount of public money. The High Court considered whether the magnitude of the misappropriated amount and the statutory prohibition under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justified withholding bail. Granting bail, the High Court held that the large amount involved is not by itself a ground to refuse bail, especially when the investigation is complete, tampering with evidence is unlikely, and trial commencement would take considerable time. The Court laid down that bail should not be withheld as punishment, and facts must not be artificially stretched to fit within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based purely on the maximum theoretical sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the mere fact that a large sum of public money is involved in an alleged embezzlement is sufficient ground by itself to refuse bail?
- Can bail be withheld as a measure of punishment when the investigation is complete and the trial is likely to take considerable time?
- Whether the court should look at the maximum statutory sentence or the punishment likely to be ultimately awarded when determining the applicability of the prohibitory clause under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mian Muhammad Ayub vs The State1982 PLD Peshawar 130 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
- Mehdi Hussain Shah and 3 Others vs North West Frontier Province and 2 Other1982 CLC 168 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- Mehdi Hussain Shah and 3 Other vs N: W. F. P. through Deputy1982 PLD Peshawar 33 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
- Lal Zarif vs The State1982 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal from jail challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his first cousin. The core legal question involves the reliability and evidentiary value of a dying declaration as the sole basis for a murder conviction, and whether it requires medical attestation or corroboration. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life. The court held that a genuine dying declaration made while the injured person is in full possession of their senses, free from prompting, and consistent with medical evidence and circumstances can form the sole satisfactory basis for a conviction. The key principle laid down is that the mere absence of a doctor's endorsement on a dying declaration does not affect its credibility if it is otherwise proved to be true, and such statements are further corroborated by the unexplained long absconsion of the accused and the existence of a strong motive.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration form the sole basis of a conviction for murder without medical endorsement?
- Does the absence of a doctor's attestation affect the credibility of an otherwise genuine dying declaration?
- What constitutes sufficient corroboration for a dying declaration in a murder case?
- Can unexplained absconsion coupled with motive corroborate a dying declaration?
- Jehanzeb vs The State1982 PLD Peshawar 136 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a murder conviction where the appellant was sentenced to death by the trial court. The core legal questions concern the evidentiary value of a First Information Report (FIR) when the informant is unavailable for cross-examination, the reliability of a solitary eye-witness whose testimony contradicts medical evidence and other prosecution witnesses, and the sufficiency of abscondence as proof of guilt. The Peshawar High Court held that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used to prove the facts contained therein without examining the informant. Furthermore, the Court found the testimony of the sole eye-witness unreliable, as it was contradicted by medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired and by the Investigating Officer regarding the time and place of the FIR's registration. The Court laid down the principle that a conviction cannot be based on the testimony of a solitary, interested witness when that testimony is riddled with material discrepancies and contradicted by medical and circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Is a First Information Report a substantive piece of evidence that can be used to prove facts without examining the informant?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of an interested eye-witness when that testimony is contradicted by medical evidence?
- Does the abscondence of an accused, by itself, constitute sufficient proof of guilt to support a conviction?
- Is an FIR admissible as a public document under Section 35 of the Evidence Act 1872 even if the informant is not examined as a witness?
- Jamal Khan and 5 Another vs Mst. Mubarik Bano and 7 Other1982 PLD Peshawar 16 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-09-11Read full judgment →
- Ishrat Yar Khan vs Senior Civil Judge, Mardan and 2 Other1982 PLD Peshawar 155 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Karim Bakhsh and Another vs The State1982 PLD Peshawar 20 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an application filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Sessions against the petitioners under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged murder of Javid Muhammad by administering poison. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A to quash criminal proceedings when alternative remedies such as moving the trial court for acquittal under sections 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are available. The Peshawar High Court held that the application was premature and dismissed it, ruling that the inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A is not an alternative or additional jurisdiction to be used to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure when another specific remedy is provided. The key principles laid down are that the inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A are extraordinary and exceptional, and should not normally be invoked where an alternative statutory remedy exists before the trial court.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an alternative remedy is available before the trial court?
- Whether an application for quashment of criminal proceedings is premature when provisions like sections 249-A and 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked before the trial court?
- What are the parameters for invoking the extraordinary inherent powers of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of the court?
- Haji Harifullah vs The State1982 PLD Peshawar 157 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
- Haji Aftab Hussain and Other vs Additional Commissioner, Peshawar1982 PLD Peshawar 37 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdur Rashid vs Muhammad Rafiq1982 PLD Peshawar 120 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad vs The Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land1982 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an appellate order directing the restoration of a seized car upon payment of customs duty and government dues. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the return of his car without payment of customs duties due to an alleged failure by customs authorities to issue a statutory notice within two months under section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969. The Peshawar High Court held that although the seizure may have suffered from a procedural lapse regarding notice, the car was admittedly imported into Pakistan without paying customs duty or obtaining a valid import permit in violation of the Customs Act 1869 and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1950, and the burden of proving lawful import rested on the possessor under section 187. The court laid down the principle that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 will not be exercised to grant ineffective relief or to return uncustomed goods to a petitioner without discharging statutory liabilities for customs dues, as no writ can be issued in favor of possessing ill-gotten gains.
Questions settled- Does the failure to serve a seizure notice within two months under section 168(2) of the Customs Act 1969 absolve the owner from paying customs duty and government dues?
- Where a revision petition remains pending before a departmental authority for a prolonged period, does it bar the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Upon whom does the burden lie to prove that a vehicle was lawfully imported into Pakistan under the Customs Act 1969?
- Can the High Court issue a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to return uncustomed goods without the discharge of statutory liabilities?
- Fazal Anwar vs The State1982 PLD Peshawar 113 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The High Court heard a criminal appeal and a connected murder reference concerning the appellant's conviction under Section 302 and Section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for daytime murder and criminal intimidation. The prosecution case was founded on the eyewitness testimony of the deceased's sister, supported by a disinterested witness, medical evidence, and the appellant's subsequent abscondence. The defense contested the presence of the complainant, alleged conflict between the site plan and medical injuries, and argued that previous blood-feud offered mitigating circumstances against capital punishment. The High Court affirmed the conviction and confirmed the death sentence, holding that ocular testimony from an interested witness can sustain conviction when materially corroborated by independent evidence and prompt reporting. The Court further ruled that site plans are not substantive evidence and that avenging a past murder where the deceased had already undergone judicial punishment constitutes premeditated murder without any mitigating factors.
Questions settled- Whether the ocular testimony of an interested relative witness can be relied upon to convict an accused when corroborated by independent testimony and medical evidence?
- Is a site plan considered substantive evidence that can override reliable ocular testimony regarding the trajectory of firearm wounds?
- Does avenging a previous family murder where the deceased was already tried and sentenced serve as a mitigating ground against the death penalty?
- Ashiq Hussain vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 49 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
- Amir Khan vs The State1982 PLD Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arose from a domestic dispute where the petitioner was convicted under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by an Illaqa Magistrate and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment, which sentence was subsequently enhanced by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision to imprisonment for life and a fine. The core legal question was whether an Additional Sessions Judge, exercising revisional powers, is competent to enhance a sentence beyond the sentencing powers of the trial Magistrate. The Peshawar High Court held that the Sessions Court and High Court in revision are not restricted by the trial court's sentencing limits, provided the offence is tried by a Magistrate empowered under Section 30 and Section 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and thus the Additional Sessions Judge had the legal competence to enhance the sentence. However, exercising its inherent powers under Section 561-A, the High Court found the enhanced sentence excessive and reduced it in the interest of justice.
Questions settled- Whether an Additional Sessions Judge exercising revisional powers can enhance a sentence beyond the maximum sentencing powers of the trial Magistrate?
- Does Section 439(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restrict a Sessions Court from enhancing a sentence in revision beyond the trial court's limits?
- Can the High Court interfere with a sentence under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the sentence imposed by the lower courts does not meet the ends of justice?
- Ali Muhammad and Other vs Admission Committee, University of Engineering & Technology, Peshawar and Another1982 PLD Peshawar 106 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rauf and Other vs Abdur Rahim Khan, Advocate1982 PLD Peshawar 172 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged an order of the Civil Judge, Peshawar, overruling a preliminary objection regarding the competency and jurisdiction of an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by a non-party pre-emptor. The petitioners (vendors) had obtained a decree declaring a sale deed void for violating Martial Law Regulation 115 against the vendee in a separate suit without impleading the pre-emptor, allegedly to frustrate his pending pre-emption suit. The pre-emptor subsequently challenged the decree under Section 12(2), CPC, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion. The core questions were whether a person who was not a party or judgment-debtor to a suit can invoke Section 12(2), CPC, and whether the provision added by Ordinance X of 1980 applies retrospectively to earlier decrees. The High Court held that the word 'person' in Section 12(2), CPC, is not restricted to judgment-debtors or parties, allowing any aggrieved person affected by a fraudulent or collusive decree to invoke it. The court further held that as a procedural provision, Section 12(2) applies retrospectively. The revision petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a person who was not a party or judgment-debtor in a suit maintain an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge a decree obtained by fraud or misrepresentation?
- Does Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply retrospectively to decrees passed before its enactment by Ordinance X of 1980?
- Abdur Rahim, Etc vs Province of West Pakistan and Other1982 PLD Peshawar 74 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-02-12Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali Khan and 6 Other vs Haji Muhammad Zaman/1981 PLD Peshawar 151 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
- University Town Committee, Peshawar vs Iftikhar Ahmad and 9 Other1981 PLD Pesharwar 99 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-30Read full judgment →
- Syed Shah vs Political Agent, Bajaur Agency and 3 Other1981 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the order of the Political Agent, Bajaur, cancelling the petitioner's domicile certificate and withdrawing his nomination for admission to Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad against reserved tribal seats. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction in relation to a Federally Administered Tribal Area under Article 247(7) of the Constitution, and whether the petitioner's suppression of material facts and reliance on a previously forged domicile certificate disentitled him to equitable relief. In a reference resulting from a split verdict between Muhammad Sardar Khan, J. and Muhammad Khurshid Khan, J., the Acting Chief Justice agreed with the view that the impugned order having been passed in a tribal area by an authority outside the territorial and constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court, no writ could be issued. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed by the majority.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution in relation to a Federally Administered Tribal Area under Article 247(7)?
- Does the suppression of material facts and previous fraudulent conduct disentitle a petitioner from seeking discretionary equitable relief in writ jurisdiction?
- Whether an order passed by a Political Agent within a Tribal Area is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court merely because its effect extends to an institution located within settled areas?
- Sharif Khan vs Pervez1981 PLD Peshawar 149 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
- Rahim Shah Mian and 5 Other vs Municipal Corporation, Peshawar and Another1981 PLD Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
- Nur Halim Shah vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 913 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-03-27Read full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad vs Mustafauddin and Another1981 P Cr. L J 931 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-04-28Read full judgment →
- Naeem Shah and 14 Other vs Zarin Gul and 7 Other1981 PLD Peshawar 141 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Khan vs Mst. Roshan Jan and 2 Other1981 PLD Peshawar 129 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub Butt vs Allied Bank of Pakistan and Other1981 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Amin and Another vs The State1981 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-06-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal Khan vs Haji Abdul Jalil1981 PLD Peshawar 157 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-06-26Read full judgment →
- Mohib Ali (Mahboob Ali) vs Amanullah Khan and 3 Others1981 CLC 251 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal concerns a dispute over agricultural land where the plaintiffs sought possession, claiming ownership, while the defendant asserted title through adverse possession. The core legal question was whether the suit was time-barred under Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908, concerning dispossession, or if the residuary Article 144 applied, and whether the defendant had matured title through continuous adverse possession. The Court held that the suit was within time. It established the principle that for land not capable of physical possession or lying vacant, possession follows title; thus, the rightful owner is presumed to be in constructive possession. Because the evidence showed the land was vacant during certain periods, the defendant failed to establish the requisite continuous twelve-year adverse possession. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower courts' decrees in favor of the plaintiffs, dismissing the appeal. The judgment clarifies that when land is unoccupied, the legal possession resides with the rightful owner, preventing the maturation of adverse possession claims based on intermittent occupancy.
Questions settled- Does possession follow title in cases involving vacant or unculturable land?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 applies when a plaintiff claims possession of land that was previously vacant?
- Can a defendant claim adverse possession if there are gaps in their occupation of the disputed property?
- Does the failure to argue a specific issue of law in the first appellate court bar the appellant from raising it in a second appeal?
- Miss Christine Brass vs DR. Javed Iqbal1981 PLD Peshawar 110 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 199(1)(b)(i) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was filed by a Canadian Christian mother seeking the custody of her four minor children from their Pakistani Muslim father, relying on a divorce and custody decree issued by a Superior Court in the State of Washington, U.S.A. The core legal question was whether a foreign custody judgment can be directly enforced through habeas corpus proceedings in Pakistan without a regular civil suit, and whether such foreign orders override the welfare of the minors and the personal law of the father. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a foreign custody judgment is not directly executable as a decree in Pakistan without being made the basis of a domestic civil suit, that custody orders are by nature not final, and that the paramount consideration in child custody matters is the welfare of the minors, who are residing in Pakistan with their natural Muslim guardian. The key principle laid down is that foreign custody orders are not strictly binding or directly enforceable in Pakistani constitutional jurisdiction, and the welfare of the child coupled with the father's right under personal law to have the children brought up in the Muslim faith overrides foreign judicial determinations.
Questions settled- Whether a foreign judgment regarding child custody can be directly enforced through a habeas corpus petition in Pakistan without instituting a civil suit?
- Does a foreign custody order possess finality comparable to other civil judgments under private international law?
- Whether the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in determining child custody disputes involving foreign parents and foreign judgments?
- Can a Muslim father's right to the natural guardianship and religious upbringing of his minor children be superseded by a foreign court's custody decree when the children reside in Pakistan?
- Mian Amanul Mulk vs N. W. F. P. through Chief Secretary1981 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the retirement of a civil servant under the North-West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act 1973, raising the issue of whether the High Court retains jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate matters concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants, notwithstanding the establishment of Service Tribunals under Article 212. The petitioner argued that the High Court could intervene where orders were allegedly void, mala fide, or coram non judice. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Article 212 and the relevant Service Tribunals Acts create an exclusive jurisdiction for Service Tribunals over all matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants. This ouster of jurisdiction is absolute, applying even to orders alleged to be void or mala fide. The High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 is excluded whenever a competent Service Tribunal exists, as the Tribunal functions as an appellate body with broad powers to examine both law and fact. The High Court may only intervene in limited instances, such as where the impugned order is not passed by a departmental authority.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants where a Service Tribunal has been established under Article 212?
- Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction over an order passed by a departmental authority if the order is alleged to be void, mala fide, or coram non judice?
- Does the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal extend to examining the propriety of an order of retirement passed by a departmental authority?
- What are the specific instances where the High Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning civil servants despite the establishment of Service Tribunals?
- M. Kabut Khan vs Chairman, Board of Governor, Cadet College, Kohat1981 PLD Peshawar 75 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-06-04Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Muhammad Samin Jan and Another vs Haji Samundar Khan1981 CLC 62 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khaista Gul vs Muhammad Azbi and 3 Others1981 P Cr. L J 238 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain and 4 Others vs Mst. Farooqa Gul1981 CLC 15 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →
- Haji Mir Aftab and 4 Other vs The State1981 PLD Peshawar 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
- Haji Gula Khan and 6 Other vs And 2 Other1981 PLD Peshawar 118 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-29Read full judgment →
- Gul Naras Khan vs Governor, N. W. F. P. through Chief Secretary and Another1981 PLD Peshawar 87 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
- Gul Amin and Another vs Haji Muhammad Akram1981 PLD Peshawar 72 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
- DR. Islam Mehmood vs Registrar University of Peshawar and 2 Others1981 CLC 712 · Peshawar High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
- Dilbar vs Muhammad Shartf and 8 Others1981 CLC 86 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-04-12Read full judgment →
- Chairman, Railway Board, Lahore and Other vs Messrs Wahabuddin &1981 PLD Peshawar 92 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-01-24Read full judgment →
- Ch. Ghulam Rasool and 2 Others vs Deputy Land Commissioner, Dera1981 CLC 227 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain vs The State1981 PLD Peshawar 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali Khan vs Sahib Noor and ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 710 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-11-13Read full judgment →
- West Pakistan Province (Now N.W. F. Province) vs Hafiz Allah Yar and Others1980 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Wazir Bat Khan Accused vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 292 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-10-14Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad vs Collector, Lands Acquisition, Hazara, Abbottabad1980 CLC 1090 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
- Umra Khan and Another vs The State1980 PLD Peshawar 145 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-16Read full judgment →
- Umar Khan and Another vs Land Commissioner, N.W. F. P., Peshawar1980 CLC 1717 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
- Syed Shah Ibrahim vs WAPDA through Chairman and Another1980 PLD Peshawar 110 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-07Read full judgment →
- Syed Qasim Shah and Another vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry or Law, Islamabad and Another1980 PLD Peshawar 239 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Submajor (Retd.) Aziz Ahmed vs Mst. Sardar Begum and 8 Other1980 PLD Peshawar 204 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
- Subhan Beg and 18 OTHERSs vs Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd., Rawalpindi1980 PLD Peshawar 113 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking a direction to the respondent, Pakistan State Oil Company Limited, to regularly supply kerosene oil to the petitioner as a distributor. The petitioner argued that as the legal successor to Daud Petroleum Limited under the Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act, 1974, the respondent was legally bound to continue supplies under the existing agreement. The core legal questions were whether contractual rights and duties can be enforced through a constitutional petition in the nature of mandamus, and whether the High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction over a respondent located outside its territorial limits whose impugned actions occurred outside said limits. The Peshawar High Court held that the right to supply flowed from a contract and not from statute, as section 24 of the Act merely gave continuity to existing contracts without creating independent statutory rights or duties. Furthermore, contractual rights cannot be enforced via constitutional jurisdiction, and remedies lie in civil suits for damages or specific performance. Additionally, the Court held it lacked territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 because the respondent resided and the impugned stoppage of supplies occurred outside the High Court's territorial jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether contractual rights arising from an agreement can be enforced through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does section 24 of the Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act, 1974 create an independent statutory duty to supply goods, or does it merely preserve existing contractual terms?
- Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ against a respondent that resides and performs the impugned act outside the territorial limits of the Court's jurisdiction?
- Sirajul Islam vs University of Peshawar through Vicechancellor, Peshawar and 2 Others1980 PLD Peshawar 158 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sher Afzal Khan vs Fida Hussain Shah,. Etc.1980 PLD Peshawar 99 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-07Read full judgment →
- Sharifullah vs Mumtaz and Another1980 PLD Peshawar 87 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises from a suit for possession by pre-emption. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's initial suit because he failed to deposit the required pre-emption money within the time fixed by the court under Section 23(4) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950. The plaintiff subsequently filed a fresh suit for the same land. The core legal question was whether the rejection of a plaint under Section 23(4) of the Act precludes a plaintiff from filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Section 23(4) for non-deposit of pre-emption money does not bar the plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit, subject to the law of limitation. The Court reasoned that Section 23(4) is supplementary to Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the effect of such rejection is analogous to that under the Code, which expressly permits the filing of a fresh plaint under Order VII, Rule 13.
Questions settled- Does the rejection of a plaint under Section 23(4) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950, preclude the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action?
- Should an order dismissing a suit for failure to deposit pre-emption money under Section 23(4) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950, be treated as a rejection of the plaint?
- Is the rejection of a plaint under Section 23(4) of the North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act, 1950, appealable as a decree?
- Shariat Bench] Mst. Farishta vs The Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Islamabad1980 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the validity of Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, which allows the children of a predeceased son or daughter to inherit from their grandparent, arguing it is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Court first addressed the jurisdictional challenge, holding that the Shariat Bench has the authority to review the Ordinance because it is a legislative enactment, not "Muslim Personal Law" (Shariat) itself, and thus falls within the scope of Article 203-B of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. On the merits, the Court examined the Qur'anic verses and Sunnah regarding inheritance. It concluded that the Qur'an prescribes specific shares for heirs and that the inclusion of grandchildren as heirs when a son is present contradicts these established divine limits. Consequently, the Court declared Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and directed its repeal, suggesting alternative legislative measures to address the potential distress of orphaned grandchildren, such as encouraging testamentary wills.
Questions settled- Does the Shariat Bench have jurisdiction to examine the validity of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, under Article 203-B of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, regarding the inheritance of a predeceased son or daughter, repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Does the term 'Muslim Personal Law' in the explanation to Article 203-B of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include legislative enactments that amend Shariat?
- Shariat Bench] Gul Hassan Khan vs Government of Pakistan and Another1980 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter involves petitions seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and other mercy laws are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam regarding Qisas, Diyat, and pardon for offences affecting the human body. The core legal questions concern whether the penalties prescribed for murder and related provisions on commutation and compounding are repugnant to Islamic injunctions, and whether minors are subject to Qisas. The Peshawar High Court held that provisions denying the right of pardon, compounding, and Diyat, as well as executive powers of commutation for offences affecting the human body, are repugnant to Islamic injunctions, and that minors cannot be subjected to Qisas though they may be liable to Ta'azir. The key principle laid down is that under Islamic law, offences affecting the human body are compoundable through pardon or Diyat by the heirs, and executive authorities lack the power to commute sentences for such offences.
Questions settled- Whether penalty prescribed by the Pakistan Penal Code for murder is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Whether a person who was a minor at the time of the commission of murder can be subjected to Qisas?
- Whether the provisions of sections 54 and 55 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sections 401 and 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Whether provisions regarding compoundability and commutation of sentences relate to the procedure of a Court or Tribunal under Article 203-B of the Constitution?
- Sarfaraz alias Faraz Accused vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1163 · Peshawar High Court · 1977-05-23Read full judgment →
- Said Habib vs Haft Matiur Rehman and 5 Others1980 CLC 1450 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land and for a declaration that a subsequent registered sale deed in favour of the appellant is void. Both lower courts decreed the plaintiffs' claim, holding that the agreement of sale was duly executed and the subsequent sale deed was ineffective. In the second appeal, the appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient, that the document was a mere receipt, and that he was a protected bona fide purchaser for value without notice under section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court held that the failure to cross-examine marginal witnesses amounted to an admission of the document's execution, that the deed was clearly an agreement to sell rather than a receipt, and that the plea of a bona fide purchaser without notice, being a question of fact, must be specifically raised in the pleadings and substantiated by evidence, neither of which the appellant had done. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Does the failure to cross-examine marginal witnesses on the execution of a document amount to an admission of its execution?
- Whether an agreement to sell can be construed as a simple receipt or acknowledgement of money?
- Can a subsequent transferee raise the plea of being a bona fide purchaser for value without notice for the first time in appeal without pleading it in the trial court?
- What are the essential requirements for a subsequent transferee to claim protection under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- S. M. Zafar vs Standard Bank (at Present Habib Bank)1980 PLD Peshawar 278 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-06-24Read full judgment →
- Rafiullah and 5 Others vs Government of N.W. F. P. and 8 Others1980 PLD Peshawar 281 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-17Read full judgment →
- Qalandar vs Muhammad Zarin and Another1980 CLC 1417 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-08Read full judgment →
- Nowsherwan Khan vs Sher Zamin and 2 Others1980 CLC 1096 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-18Read full judgment →
- Noor Jehan vs The State1980 PLD Peshawar 103 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an appeal against a conviction and death sentence for murder under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court violated section 465, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by failing to properly try and determine the issue of the accused's unsoundness of mind and incapacity to make a defense, despite initial observations by the court suggesting the accused might be of unsound mind. The Court held that the trial was vitiated because the trial judge failed to conduct a formal inquiry into the accused's sanity as mandated by the statute. The key principle laid down is that when a court entertains doubts regarding an accused's sanity, it must not merely rely on observations or medical reports but must formally try the fact of such unsoundness by examining medical officers and other evidence to determine if the accused is capable of making a defense. Failure to record a specific finding on this capacity renders the subsequent conviction illegal, necessitating a retrial.
Questions settled- Does a trial court's failure to formally try the issue of an accused's unsoundness of mind under section 465, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiate the trial?
- What is the correct procedure for a court to follow when it entertains doubts about the sanity of an accused person during trial?
- Is a trial court's personal satisfaction regarding an accused's sanity sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 465, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without a formal record of inquiry?
- Mumtaz Khan vs Government of Pakistan and 7 Others1980 PLD Peshawar 154 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-15Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz and 6 Others vs Jehanzeb,1980 CLC 797 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-10-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Khaki vs Vicechancellor, Gomal University, D. I.1980 PLD Peshawar 128 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by an employee and academic staff association president of Gomal University against the Vice-Chancellor, challenging the withdrawal of recommendations previously issued for the petitioner's admission to Ph.D. and LL.M. programmes at external universities. The core legal question was whether a recommending authority retains the power of 'locus poenitentiae' to withdraw or rescind recommendations after the applicant has been selected for admission and notified, but before physically joining the course. The Peshawar High Court held that once recommendations are acted upon, tests are cleared, selection is made, and the candidate is duly notified, a valuable vested right is created, constituting a 'decisive step'. Consequently, the recommending authority cannot unilaterally withdraw the recommendations. The court laid down the principle that the power to recede (locus poenitentiae) ceases once an order takes legal effect and creates rights in favour of an individual, making actual physical implementation or joining of the course unnecessary to lock in the right.
Questions settled- Whether a recommending authority can withdraw recommendations for university admission after the candidate has been selected and notified?
- Does the power of locus poenitentiae remain available to an authority until actual physical implementation of an order?
- At what stage does a decisive step occur to bar the withdrawal of a beneficial administrative order?
- Whether an academic employee acquires a vested right upon being selected for a higher education course pursuant to recommended applications?
- Muhammad Ashraf Khan vs Revenue E. A. C. and 7 Others1980 CLC 1504 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the compulsory acquisition of his land for a 'Live Stock Extension Project', alleging mala fides, lack of public purpose, and procedural irregularities regarding notifications and service of notices. The petitioner contended that the authorities acted in collusion with other landowners to exclude their land and include his, and that the acquisition was not for a public purpose. The Court held that the determination of 'public purpose' is primarily a function of the Government, and courts should not sit in appeal over such decisions unless compelling reasons exist. Regarding mala fides, the Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner, who failed to provide specific evidence of personal motive or bad faith. The Court found that the acquisition was for a compact plot and that the procedural requirements, including notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were substantially complied with. The Court affirmed that official acts carry a presumption of regularity and dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner's objections were time-barred.
Questions settled- Is the determination of what constitutes a 'public purpose' under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 subject to judicial review?
- Does the burden of proof for establishing mala fides in administrative actions lie with the petitioner?
- Can a court interfere with land acquisition proceedings on the ground of mala fides without specific evidence of personal motive or bad faith?
- Are official acts of public authorities entitled to a presumption of regularity?
- Muhammad Ashraf and Another vs Government of N.W. F. P. and 91980 CLC 1400 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Arshad and 2 Others vs Selection Board through Its1980 PLD Peshawar 208 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Anwar vs Government of N.W. F. P. and 2 Others1980 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ali vs Mst. Askari Begum and 3 Others1980 CLC 44 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
- Mubarik Din vs The State1980 P Cr. L 1 985 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sherin Taj vs Haji Akbar Khan (Represented by Heirs) and Others1980 CLC 787 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bibi Jana vs The Deputy Land Commissioner, Peshawar and 21980 PLD Peshawar 213 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
- Mohsin Raza vs DR. Bashir. Ahmad and Another1980 P Cr. L J 180 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-08Read full judgment →
- Mir Alam Khan vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1152 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mir Afzal and 6 Others vs Samiur Rehman and 34 Others1980 CLC 1446 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
- Military Estates Officer, Hazara Circle, Abbottaba and Another vs Pir1980 CLC 1467 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
- Mian Jan vs The State1980 PLD Peshawar 92 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-07-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sarwar Khanimran Khan vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 21980 PLD Peshawar 20 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-08-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Indus River Contractors, Tarbela vs MR. Aziz Ahmad Member, N.1980 PLD Peshawar 216 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) to adjudicate an individual employment dispute involving the termination of a Senior Administrative Officer employed by an entity declared an 'essential service' under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The core legal question was whether the Specified Authority under the 1952 Act possesses inherent jurisdiction to resolve individual service disputes, such as reinstatement, in the absence of specific regulations governing the terms and conditions of that employment. The Court held that while the power to 'regulate' under Section 6(1) of the 1952 Act impliedly includes the power to adjudicate disputes, this jurisdiction is strictly contingent upon the prior framing of valid regulations governing the terms and conditions of service. The Court determined that procedural notifications, such as SRO 97(1)/79, do not satisfy the requirement for substantive regulation. Consequently, the Specified Authority lacked jurisdiction in this matter, and the petitioner’s remedy lay with the ordinary civil courts, as the statutory conditions for the Authority’s intervention had not been met.
Questions settled- Does the Specified Authority under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, have the jurisdiction to adjudicate individual employment disputes in the absence of specific regulations governing the terms and conditions of service?
- Does the term 'regulate' in Section 6(1) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, include the power to adjudicate individual service disputes?
- Can procedural notifications issued by the Specified Authority serve as a substitute for substantive regulations required to vest the Authority with jurisdiction over employment disputes?
- Does the declaration of an employment as an 'essential service' automatically oust the jurisdiction of civil courts in all employment-related matters?
- Messrs Bibojee Services Ltd. vs Government of N.W. F. P. through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department and 3 Others1980 CLC 1437 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
- Malik Rahim Bakhsh vs Mst. Munira Akhtar1980 PLD Peshawar 246 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
- Malik Nook. Badshah vs Deputy Commissioner, Kohat and Another1980 PLD Peshawar 265 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-06-07Read full judgment →
- M Ir Zaman vs Khalilur Rehman and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 1160 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan and 3 OTHERSs vs Murid Khan and 6 Others1980 PLD Peshawar 40 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-11-09Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs The State1980 PLD Peshawar 186 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
- Khoedad Khan and ANOTHERAccuseds vs The State1980 PLD Peshawar 139 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rape. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the victim's minority and whether the sexual intercourse was non-consensual. The trial court had relied on a medical report to determine the victim's age without further verification. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was under seventeen years of age, as the medical evidence was unsubstantiated and the victim was not referred for radiological examination. Furthermore, the court found the victim was likely a consenting party, noting the absence of physical violence, the delayed reporting of the incident, and the victim's initial failure to disclose the full details to her father. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment establishes that the burden of proof regarding minority rests solely on the prosecution and that medical opinions on age, when not supported by clinical or radiological evidence, are insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proving the victim's minority in a rape case lie with the prosecution?
- Is a medical report stating an age without supporting clinical or radiological examination sufficient to prove minority in a criminal trial?
- Can a conviction for rape be sustained when there is an absence of physical violence and evidence suggesting the victim was a consenting party?
- Khawaja Muhammad Naeem and Others vs Tasleem Jan and Others1980 CLC 1483 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises out of a civil suit instituted by the respondents for a declaration and perpetual injunction regarding shop No. 1067 in Peshawar Cantt., challenging a compromise decree obtained by the petitioners against the legal representatives of Mahmood Jan. The trial court and the District Judge decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding them to be joint owners. The petitioners challenged these concurrent findings in revision. The core legal questions involved whether a respondent can file cross-objections without filing a substantive appeal, whether the plaintiffs proved joint ownership of the business 'Tasleem Jan & Sons', and whether a suit for mere declaration without seeking consequential relief of possession is barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The Peshawar High Court held that a respondent has a statutory right under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure to file cross-objections, that the lower courts misread the transfer documents and ignored material evidence proving Mahmood Jan was the sole proprietor, and that a suit for mere declaration when the plaintiffs are out of possession is barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The revision petition was accepted and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a respondent who has not appealed from any part of a decree can file cross-objections in an appeal filed by another party?
- Does a suit for a mere declaration of title without seeking possession as a consequential relief lie when the plaintiffs are admittedly not in possession of the property?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in revision when material evidence has been misread or ignored?
- Jean Charles Groosen vs State of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1980 PLD Peshawar 275 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Swiss national, challenged an order passed by the Federal Government under the Foreigners Act, 1946, which prohibited his entry into Pakistan on the grounds that his activities were prejudicial to the state's interest. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice and Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether the government is required to provide a hearing to a foreigner before exercising its power to restrict entry into the country. The Court held that the petition was meritless, ruling that a sovereign state possesses inherent, absolute power to restrict the entry of foreigners into its territory. The Court determined that the Federal Government's authority under the Foreigners Act, 1946, is plenary and does not require prior notice or a hearing. The principle laid down is that the sovereign right of a state to regulate the entry of foreigners is not fettered by principles of natural justice or equity.
Questions settled- Does the principle of natural justice require the government to provide a show-cause notice or hearing to a foreigner before banning their entry into Pakistan?
- Does the Federal Government have the authority under the Foreigners Act, 1946, to restrict the entry of a foreigner without prior notice?
- Is the sovereign right of a state to restrict the entry of foreigners subject to the requirements of natural justice?
- Hazrat Shah vs Rehan Shah and 38 Others1980 CLC 1093 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
- Hazrat Ghani and 5 Others vs Magistrate First Class, Timargarah, and 4 Others1980 PLD Peshawar 183 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-11Read full judgment →