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.

• Asher Waseem Bhatti Versus National Accountability Bureau2012 YLR 430 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-11-29Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Versus State2012 YLR 2503 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-12
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlprohibitory clausefurther inquiryrecovery of charas
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by Ibrahim seeking release in case F.I.R. No. 778 dated 10-10-2010 registered under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Gut Bahar, Peshawar, following the alleged recovery of two kilograms of Charas Pukhta. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the quantity of the recovered contraband and the stage of the investigation. The Peshawar High Court held that the completion of the investigation coupled with the quantity of the recovered contraband brings the case within the scope of 'further inquiry', and that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court confirmed the grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, laying down the principle that intermediate quantities of narcotics not attracting the prohibitory clause and where investigations are complete warrant the exercise of judicial discretion in favor of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of two kilograms of Charas Pukhta fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When does a narcotics case qualify for further inquiry at the post-arrest bail stage?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 when the investigation is complete and the prohibitory clause is not attracted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus The State2012 YLR 1991 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-02-19
  post-arrest bailcorruption caseillegal gratificationbribelesser punishmentWAPDA employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail petition filed by an accused-petitioner, a WAPDA employee, facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for allegedly accepting a bribe. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the potential punishment. The Court held that the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, carries a maximum punishment of three years, and since the trial court might impose a fine only, continued incarceration was unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's long service record, the lack of risk of abscondence, and the fact that the offence did not fall within the restrictive clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that for bail purposes, courts should consider the lesser punishment provided for the offence and the specific circumstances of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the potential for a fine-only sentence in a corruption case justify the grant of bail?
  • Does an offence punishable by three years imprisonment fall under the restrictive part of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a court consider the lesser punishment provided for an offence when deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajid Ali Versus State2012 YLR 1051 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-12-23
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsconscious knowledgefurther inquiryconfessional statementrecovery of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a driver of a vehicle, sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 15 kilograms of Charas. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had conscious knowledge of the contraband found in a bag at the feet of his co-accused passenger. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s role as a driver, without evidence of prior association or ownership of the narcotics, warranted the denial of bail, especially given the co-accused's confession exonerating the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner’s case constituted one of further inquiry because the recovery was not from his immediate possession, and the co-accused had explicitly claimed sole ownership of the contraband. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation was complete, rendering continued detention unnecessary. The court established the principle that where a driver is unaware of the contents of a passenger's luggage and the co-accused admits sole possession, the driver is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a driver of a vehicle liable for narcotics possession if the contraband was in the sole possession of a passenger?
  • Does a co-accused's confession claiming sole ownership of narcotics entitle the driver of the vehicle to bail?
  • When does a narcotics case qualify as a case of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anila Versus Mst. Rafia2011 YLR 593 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali Khan Versus Bibi Ro2011 YLR 2494 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-05-18Read full judgment →
• Rashid Iqbal Versus Mst. Uzma Khan2010 YLR 3246 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-08-18Read full judgment →
• Rooh-Ul-Amin Versus State2009 YLR 2148 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-05-20
  criminal appealmurdereyewitness testimonymedical evidencesentence enhancementabscondancemitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under section 302(C), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment for a murder committed through firearm discharge, alongside a criminal revision by the complainant for sentence enhancement. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, medical corroboration, and abscondance. The Peshawar High Court held that the eyewitness accounts were natural, credible, and fully supported by medical evidence, establishing the appellant's direct culpability, though mitigating circumstances rendered the death penalty inappropriate. However, the court modified the conviction from section 302(c) to section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while dismissing both the appeal against conviction and the revision for sentence enhancement. The key principle laid down is that minor discrepancies and relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased do not discredit their testimony when corroborated by medical evidence and prompt naming of a single accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder trial?
  • Does a discrepancy between the number of recovered spent empties and the single firearm injury invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Whether abscondance of an accused after the occurrence can be used as corroborative evidence of guilt?
  • What constitutes sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment instead of death under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Versus State2008 YLR 812 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-01-29
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsdelay in trialprofessional misconductadjournmentsspeedy justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Shafiullah Khan, who is charged under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997 for the possession of 3 kilograms of charas. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of delay in the trial, citing a previous order from the High Court that mandated the trial's conclusion within one month, failing which bail should be considered favorably. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the delay in trial proceedings. Upon review, the Court found that the delay was not attributable to the prosecution but was caused by the petitioner's own counsel, who repeatedly requested adjournments. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not benefit from a delay he himself orchestrated. The Court emphasized that counsel has a professional and ethical duty to assist the Court in ensuring speedy justice, and deliberate delays by defense counsel disentitle an accused from claiming relief based on such delays.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused claim bail on the ground of delay in trial when the delay is caused by his own counsel?
  • Is a defense counsel under a professional duty to assist the court in ensuring a speedy trial?
  • Does the repeated seeking of adjournments by defense counsel constitute professional misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz Versus State2007 YLR 444 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-11-27
  criminal appealattempted murderfirearm injuryreduction of sentencejurisdiction of Court of Sessionmedical and oral evidencebenefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Haripur, wherein the appellant Nawaz alias Haq Nawaz was convicted under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The complainant had charged the appellant with effectively firing at him with a pistol. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, the appreciation of oral and medical evidence regarding the firearm injury, and the quantum of sentence. The Peshawar High Court held that the Court of Session had proper jurisdiction as the offence carried a punishment of up to ten years, and upheld the conviction based on consistent ocular and medical testimony supported by recoveries. However, considering the circumstances of the case, the Court reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year while maintaining the fine, and extended the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that minor contradictions not affecting the core charge do not vitiate a conviction, and appellate courts may adjust sentences where deemed excessive under the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Court of Session have jurisdiction to try an offence under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether minor contradictions in ocular testimony regarding who was targeted affect the core prosecution case of firearm assault?
  • Can an appellate court reduce the quantum of imprisonment if it finds the trial court's sentence excessive under the circumstances?
  • Is an appellant entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when not explicitly granted by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Versus State2006 YLR 1132 · Peshawar High Court · 2005-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Versus State2006 YLR 1008 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-03-01
  bail bond forfeituresurety liabilityabscondencecriminal revisionpenalty impositionbail bond
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, D.I. Khan, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000 each on the petitioners for failing to produce an accused person for whom they had stood surety. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in imposing this penalty, given the petitioners' claims of benevolence, lack of monetary gain, and poor financial condition. The Court dismissed the revision petitions, holding that once a surety executes a bail bond, they are under a binding legal obligation to produce the accused. The Court reasoned that when an accused jumps bail, the entire surety amount is liable to be forfeited, and courts should not show leniency in such matters as it encourages abscondence. The key principle laid down is that courts must adopt a dynamic and progressive approach regarding the forfeiture of bail bonds, ensuring that the full penalty is recovered to uphold the rule of law and deter accused persons from jumping bail, especially in light of inflationary trends and the lack of respect for legal processes.

  Questions settled

  • Is a surety liable to pay the full penalty amount when an accused person jumps bail?
  • Should courts consider the financial condition of a surety when forfeiting a bail bond?
  • Does the failure to produce an accused in court justify the forfeiture of the surety bond under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Versus State2005 YLR 2337 · Peshawar High Court
  post-arrest bailcounterfeit currencyprohibitory clauseforged notescriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by Ghulam Mustafa seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 507 dated 24-7-2004, registered under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station West Cantt, Peshawar, after his earlier bail plea was rejected by the lower courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the recovery of counterfeit currency from his possession raised an arguable point as to whether the offense fell under Section 489-B or Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Peshawar High Court held that the case at this stage pertained to mere possession of forged notes, which attracted Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, an offense whose punishment does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the application and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that offenses falling outside the prohibitory clause warrant bail unless exceptional circumstances are shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere possession of counterfeit currency attracts Section 489-B or Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the bail stage?
  • Does the punishment for an offense under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Versus The State2003 YLR 1627 · Peshawar High Court · 2003-04-07
  post-arrest bailrecovery of illicit armsexplosive substancesprohibitory clausecriminal miscellaneous
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a bail petition filed by Muhammad Amin seeking post-arrest bail after being apprehended during a police raid on his house, where a .30 bore pistol and two hand grenades were allegedly recovered from his possession without a license. The petitioner was charged under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the nature of the recovery and the prohibitory clause. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the petitioner was directly nominated in a promptly lodged FIR, recovery of dangerous weapons fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and sufficient material existed connecting him to the alleged crime. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is charged with an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and prima facie incriminating material exists, bail ought not to be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused found in possession of unlicensed firearms and grenades falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when there is ample material connecting the accused to the offense charged?
  • Does non-compliance with the procedural formalities of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail in every case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Versus Additional Secretary, Home and Tribal Affairs, Government of N.-W. F. P., Peshawar1999 YLR 2619 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-02Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan Versus Mir Qasim, S.H.O. to Police (a) Division, Mardan1999 YLR 2617 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-17Read full judgment →
• Zahida Parveen Versus Shaukat Ara1999 YLR 2615 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-14Read full judgment →
• Kips Academy Versus Zahid Mehmood2025 PLC 148 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-24
  payment of wagestrans-provincial establishmentjurisdiction of authoritylabor courtcivil revisionindustrial relationsKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the orders of the Labour Court and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, which allowed an employee's claim for outstanding legal dues and compensation. The core legal question was whether the Authority established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013, has jurisdiction to entertain a wage claim against a trans-provincial establishment, or whether such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Peshawar High Court held that the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013, operate independently and the jurisdiction of the Authority under the 2013 Act is not excluded for trans-provincial establishments having branches within Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The court laid down that the Authority under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013, retains jurisdiction to adjudicate wage claims of employees working within the province, even if the establishment is trans-provincial, and that participation in appellate proceedings before the Labour Court constitutes a surrender to jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Authority under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013 have jurisdiction to entertain a wage claim against a trans-provincial establishment operating within the province?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 exclude the jurisdiction of the Authority established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013?
  • Can a petitioner challenge the jurisdiction of the Authority after voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction by filing an appeal before the Labour Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Philip Morris (Lakson Tobacco Company Limited) Versus Syed Arif Shah2021 PLC 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-18
  labour appealjurisdiction of labour courttrans-provincial establishmentNational Industrial Relations Commissionunfair labour practicegrievance petitionIndustrial Relations Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This labour appeal challenges the judgment of the Labour Court Haripur, which accepted the respondent employee's grievance petition against his termination and reinstated him with back benefits under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010. During the proceedings, the question arose as to whether the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the matter, given that the appellant establishment operated as a trans-provincial entity falling under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court examined the statutory definitions and the bar under Section 57(5) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which restricts labour courts from entertaining matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission. Conceding to this legal position, the appellant acknowledged that the proper forum for redressal is the Commission. Consequently, the High Court held that the appeal and the underlying proceedings were not competent before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and ordered the return of the appeal for presentation before the proper forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does a provincial labour court have jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition against a trans-provincial establishment operating in more than one province?
  • Whether a labour appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal is competent against an order passed by a labour court lacking jurisdiction over a trans-provincial matter?
  • What is the effect of Section 57(5) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 on the powers of a Labour Court or Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding matters falling within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Development Corporation Versus Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Hazara Director at Haripur2019 PLC 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-06
  permanent workmangroup insuranceStanding Orders Ordinanceartificial break in servicestatutory exemptionworkmen's compensationmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, which directed the petitioner corporation to pay group insurance and gratuity to the legal heirs of a deceased winch operator. The core legal question was whether the deceased, employed on successive 88-day contracts, qualified as a "permanent workman" entitled to insurance benefits under the West Pakistan, Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether the corporation was exempt from the Ordinance due to its own statutory rules. The Court held that the corporation’s practice of issuing short-term contracts to create artificial breaks in service was mala fide and intended to evade statutory obligations. Consequently, the deceased was deemed a permanent workman. Furthermore, the Court ruled that because the corporation’s statutory rules did not address the specific employment conditions of the deceased, the exemption under the Ordinance did not apply. The petition was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's order. The judgment establishes that employers cannot use artificial service breaks to deny statutory benefits, and statutory exemptions are strictly construed against employers whose own rules fail to cover the specific employment terms.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employer's practice of issuing successive short-term contracts to create artificial breaks in service prevent an employee from attaining the status of a permanent workman?
  • Can a corporation claim exemption from the West Pakistan, Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, if its own statutory rules do not cover the specific terms and conditions of the employee's service?
  • Is an employer liable to pay insurance benefits to the heirs of a deceased employee if the employer failed to insure the employee as required by Standing Order 10-B of the West Pakistan, Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Regional Chief Executive, UBL Mardan Versus Habib Ul Hassan2015 PLC 246 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-30
  labour appealgrievance petitionlimitation periodmisappropriationbanking trusttermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This labour appeal challenges a judgment of the Labour Court, Mardan, which partially accepted an employee's grievance petition by modifying his termination from service to a reduction in rank. The core legal questions concern the mandatory limitation period for serving a grievance notice and filing a grievance petition under labour laws, and whether the subsequent deposit of misappropriated funds serves as a mitigating circumstance in banking employment. The Peshawar High Court held that the employee's grievance notice and petition were hopelessly time-barred, that the court must determine limitation questions even if unpleaded, and that subsequent restitution of embezzled funds does not condone a breach of banking trust. The court laid down the principle that banking business relies on mutual trust, making termination the appropriate penalty for financial misappropriation regardless of later repayment, and that time-barred grievance petitions cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grievance petition filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Industrial Relations Ordinance is maintainable without seeking condonation of delay?
  • Does the subsequent deposit of misappropriated funds constitute a mitigating circumstance for a bank employee guilty of financial embezzlement?
  • Can a court permit an employee to amend a grievance petition to introduce fresh grounds after the conclusion of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi Versus National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad1988 PLC 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-09-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khyber Tobacco Co. Ltd., Mardan Versus Labour Union and Another1976 PLC 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad & Co. Versus Secretary Government Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Communication and Works Department, Peshawar2025 CLD 1528 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-16Read full judgment →
• Sardar Faraz Hussain Versus State2025 CLD 1193 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-12Read full judgment →
• Malik Lighting Versus United Bank Limited2021 CLD 1438 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir Safdar Versus The Bank Alfalah Limited2021 CLD 1418 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
• Hussain Khan Versus Habib Bank Limited2021 CLD 1413 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-25Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan Versus Said Gul2020 CLD 134 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-19Read full judgment →
• Nib Bank Limited Versus Mian Wisal Bacha2017 CLD 486 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-18Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Khan Versus Mst. Shafaq Urooj2017 CLD 35 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem Khan Versus Haroon-Ur-Rasheed Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.2015 CLD 719 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-31Read full judgment →
• Pharmatec Pakistan through Managing Director Versus Amjid Ali Shah2015 CLD 1973 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-08
  corporate litigationmaintainability of appealBoard of Directors resolutioncompany representationcivil procedureunauthorized legal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal challenged a civil court decree for the recovery of money. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the appellant, a private limited company, failed to authorize the filing of the appeal through a valid resolution of its Board of Directors. The appellant contended that a 1997 resolution authorized specific individuals to act on behalf of the company. Upon review, the Court found that the signatories of the vakalatnama were not authorized by any current Board resolution, and the purported 1997 resolution was insufficient and did not refer to a properly convened meeting. The Court held that legal proceedings initiated on behalf of a company are incompetent unless authorized by a resolution passed in a duly convened meeting of the Board of Directors, in accordance with the company's Articles of Association. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, affirming that when the law mandates a specific procedure for an act, it must be strictly followed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed on behalf of a company maintainable if the person filing it lacks authorization from a Board of Directors resolution?
  • Does a resolution by circulation without a duly convened meeting satisfy the legal requirement for authorizing legal proceedings on behalf of a company?
  • Can a pleading on behalf of a corporation be signed by a person not authorized by the Board of Directors?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhan Versus Muhammad Sultan Khan2015 CLD 1951 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-29Read full judgment →
• Said Rasool Versus Dr. Hamayun Khan2014 CLD 284 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-04Read full judgment →
• Anwarzeb Versus Mushtaq Ahmed2014 CLD 1632 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Shah Pir Mian Kazmi Versus Mst. Nelofer (Widow)2012 CLD 850 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Highway Authority Versus Put Sarajevo General Engineering Company2012 CLD 464 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-07-05Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ellahi Versus Akhtar Ali2011 CLD 486 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Versus Ashiq Badshah or Zahawar Shah2011 CLD 1586 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-06-09Read full judgment →
• Shahab Saqib Versus United Bank Limited2006 CLD 877 · Peshawar High Court · 2005-04-07Read full judgment →
• The Provincial Government through Secretary, Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Versus Malik Qasim Khan2025 PLD 227 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-10Read full judgment →
• Faqir Hussain Versus Khan Sher2025 PLD 221 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-24Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior2025 PLD 212 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waqeel Versus State2025 PLD 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-13Read full judgment →
• Madad Khan Versus Mst. Samiya Nisar2025 PLD 201 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Masood Hussain Shah Versus National Accountability Bureau (NAB), through Chairman2025 PLD 177 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-03Read full judgment →
• Shandana Gulzar Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Islamabad2025 PLD 163 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →
• Sultan-Ul-Arifeen Versus Mst. Musarrat Shaheen2025 PLD 155 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mian Fazl-E-Kareem Versus Khan Muhammad2025 PLD 145 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ur Rehman Versus Chief Election Commissioner through Secretary, Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad2024 PLD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• Cherat Cement Co. Ltd., Nowshera Versus Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Power Division), Islamabad2023 PLD 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Rabnawaz Versus Mst. Sabu Bibi2023 PLD 19 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Zia-Ur-Rehman Versus State2023 PLD 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-17
  narcotics possessionbail refusalprohibitory clausesearch and seizuredirectory provisionsarrest without warrantmethamphetamineKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused charged with the possession of 3000 grams of ICE (methamphetamine) recovered from a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the arrest and seizure of narcotics by a police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector, contrary to the requirements of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, vitiates the prosecution case or entitles the accused to bail. The court held that the provisions governing search, seizure, and arrest without warrant under the Act are directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, procedural non-compliance by an officer of a lower rank does not automatically invalidate the trial or the prosecution's case. The court affirmed that the guilt or innocence of an accused is determined by the evidence produced at trial, not the rank of the arresting officer. Given the recovery of a significant quantity of narcotics and the absence of demonstrated mala fides, the court found the accused prima facie connected to the offence, which fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and dismissed the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 regarding search, seizure, and arrest without warrant mandatory or directory?
  • Does the arrest of an accused by a police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector vitiate the prosecution case in narcotics offences?
  • Can an accused be granted bail solely on the ground that the arresting officer was below the rank of Sub-Inspector?
  • Does the non-compliance with procedural requirements for search and seizure under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 render a trial invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Azim Afridi Versus Federation of Pakistan2023 PLD 145 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
• Ismail Versus Syed Zulfiqar Hussain Shah2021 PLD 98 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-24Read full judgment →
• Rasool Khan Versus Fazal Wadood2021 PLD 8 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Said Alam Versus State2021 PLD 198 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-29
  post-arrest baildying declarationmurdercriminal liabilitycommensurate injuriesprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Syed Alam, who was charged under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds that the number of injuries sustained by the deceased did not correspond with the number of accused persons charged, and that no bullet marks were found at the crime scene. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being directly charged in the First Information Report, which was based on the dying declaration of the victim. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage. It reasoned that the victim had attributed specific roles and weapons to the accused, and that the case rested on a dying declaration, which required further evidence to establish the victim's state of consciousness. The Court established that the lack of correspondence between the number of injuries and the number of accused does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in a mechanical manner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the lack of correspondence between the number of injuries and the number of accused persons automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can a court grant bail in a murder case where the accused is directly charged in a dying declaration?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to dissect the merits of a dying declaration during the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Swat Textile Mills Limited, Haripur Versus Mst. Nabeela2021 PLD 146 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
• Islam Ud Din Versus Mst. Hajj Begum2020 PLD 79 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Aslam Khan Versus Fawad Akhtar2019 PLD 227 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Khan Versus Mst. Falek Negar Bibi2019 PLD 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Farid Khan Versus Fazla Qadir2019 PLD 171 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Arif Khattak Versus Chairman/Director General, National Accountability Bureau2018 PLD 207 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-08Read full judgment →
• Suleman Versus State2018 PLD 186 · Peshawar High Court · 1917-10-10Read full judgment →
• Khan Asghar Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Defence, Islamabad2017 PLD 31 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ulfat Bibi Versus The State2017 PLD 173 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-07
  abductionunlawful marriageretracted confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants, Mst. Ulfat Bibi and Farhad Khan, under sections 365-B, 494, and 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged abduction, unlawful marriage, and illicit cohabitation. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of prosecution evidence regarding abduction, proof of a second marriage during a subsisting wedlock, the medical evidence concerning pregnancy, and the voluntariness and corroboration of a retracted judicial confession. The Peshawar High Court held that the essential ingredients of abduction and forced illicit intercourse were missing, the prosecution failed to prove an unlawful marriage or valid Nikah-Nama during the relevant period, and the retracted confession was neither voluntary nor corroborated by independent evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principles laid down include that a retracted confession requires clear, cogent, and independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, and that findings of guilt must rest on firm evidence rather than mere conjectures or probabilities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on a retracted confession without clear, cogent, and independent corroboration?
  • Whether a finding of guilt against an accused person can be based merely on high probabilities and conjectures rather than firm evidence?
  • What are the essential prerequisites to establish an offence under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding abduction for forced marriage?
  • Does medical evidence of pregnancy alone suffice to prove a charge of unlawful marriage or illicit cohabitation without proof of a marriage contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz Versus Malik Zareef Khan2016 PLD 8 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Ameerzada Versus Secretary to Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Revenue Department2016 PLD 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilqees Begum Versus Arbab Hidayat Ullah Khan2016 PLD 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-01Read full judgment →
• State Force Commander Anti-Narcotics Force, N.-W.F.P, through Dag Versus Haji Iqbal Shah2015 PLD 80 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-03-10
  forfeiture of propertymaintainability of appealaggrieved personbinding precedentleave granting orderAnti-Narcotics ForcePrevention of Smuggling Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four criminal appeals filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) challenging the dismissal of information petitions regarding the forfeiture of property under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977. The core legal questions addressed were whether the ANF is a competent 'aggrieved person' to file such appeals under the Act, whether a leave-granting order by the Supreme Court constitutes binding law under Article 189 of the Constitution, and the extent to which the Special Appellate Court is bound by its own precedents. The Court held that the appeals filed by the ANF were not maintainable because the Act requires proceedings to be conducted by Law Officers appointed under the Central Law Officers Ordinance, 1970, and the ANF failed to meet the criteria of an 'aggrieved person'. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a leave-granting order by the Supreme Court does not establish binding law. In a related miscellaneous application, the Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to rectify a wrongful property forfeiture, ordering the release of property belonging to a third party that had been erroneously seized.

  Questions settled

  • Is a leave-granting order passed by the Supreme Court a decision that constitutes binding law under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are appeals filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force under the Prevention of Smuggling Act 1977 maintainable if not conducted by Law Officers appointed under the Central Law Officers Ordinance 1970?
  • Is a Special Appellate Court bound to follow its own earlier decisions and those of a coordinate Bench?
  • Can a Special Appellate Court treat a miscellaneous application as an appeal under section 43 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act 1977 to rectify a wrongful forfeiture?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Versus Mst. Manadia2015 PLD 223 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-12
  criminal revisioncompromisenon-compoundable offenseblood feudbeneficial interpretationacquittalpeace and tranquility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional District Judge, which refused to acquit the petitioners following a compromise between the parties, despite their conviction under Section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a conviction for a non-compoundable offense could be set aside on the basis of a compromise when the parties had resolved a larger, underlying blood feud. The Peshawar High Court held that while Section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is not strictly compoundable, such provisions should not be interpreted in isolation. The Court emphasized that the law must be applied in the context of the specific circumstances, particularly where a compromise is essential to prevent the resurgence of historical retaliatory violence. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and acquitted the petitioners, establishing the principle that a beneficial interpretation of non-compoundable offenses is permissible when a compromise is necessary to ensure long-term peace and tranquility between warring families.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a non-compoundable offense be set aside based on a compromise between the parties?
  • Should the non-compoundability of an offense be interpreted in isolation or in the context of the specific circumstances of the case?
  • Does the court have the authority to grant acquittal based on a compromise to prevent the resurgence of a blood feud?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmad Versus State2015 PLD 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Versus Muhammad Iqbal2014 PLD 35 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-09-19Read full judgment →
• Riaz Muhammad Versus Khadim Muhammad2014 PLD 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-08-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari Versus Director, Livestock, Dairy Development, FATA2014 PLD 132 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-04-07
  FATA jurisdictionArticle 247(7)constitutional petitioncivil servantFrontier Crimes Regulationfundamental rightswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition and connected matters addressed the extent of the Peshawar High Court's jurisdiction over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in view of the ouster clause in Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court could entertain petitions regarding service matters of FATA employees, illegal detentions, and contractual disputes arising in FATA. The Court held that the constitutional bar under Article 247(7) is not absolute. It does not apply where the cause of action arises outside the Tribal Area, where the arrest occurs in the settled area without compliance with Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or where the dispute involves civil servants whose terms are governed by the Civil Servants Act 1973. The Court affirmed that while it cannot strike down constitutional provisions, it has the authority to advise the legislature to amend Article 247(7) to ensure fundamental rights are enforceable for FATA residents. The judgment established that FATA employees are civil servants entitled to seek redress through appropriate legal forums.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 exclude the High Court's jurisdiction over service matters of employees working in FATA?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction in cases of illegal detention where a person is removed from a settled area to a tribal area without complying with Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court ousted under Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when the cause of action arises outside the Tribal Area?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Ali Shah Versus State2014 PLD 122 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-07
  blasphemycognizance of offencesanction for prosecutionunsound mindcoram non judicecapital punishmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for using blasphemous remarks. A murder reference was also sent by the trial court for confirmation of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the mandatory requirement of sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for taking cognizance of certain offences, and the trial court's failure to follow procedures regarding an accused of unsound mind under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that taking cognizance without the mandatory authorization under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the entire trial coram non judice and a nullity, an illegality not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge through credible and consistent evidence, and the trial court erred in ignoring the appellant's plea of unsound mind without adopting the procedure prescribed under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to obtain sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render a trial null and void?
  • Is the omission to observe Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the procedure required to be followed by a Sessions Court when an accused appears to be of unsound mind during trial?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained on contradictory and incredible prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Versus Mumtaz2013 PLD 5 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-08-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Soniya Sharif Versus Bashir Kundi2013 PLD 139 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-16Read full judgment →
• Khalifa Abdul Qayum Versus State2013 PLD 129 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-10
  corrupt practicenomination paperseducational qualificationDeeni SanadHigher Education Commissionelection eligibilityfalse declarationcriminal conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction for corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1976, and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, arising from his submission of invalid religious educational certificates (Deeni Sanads) with his nomination papers for a Provincial Assembly seat. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s submission of degrees from institutions not recognized by the Higher Education Commission constituted a false declaration and corrupt practice. The Court held that the appellant knowingly submitted certificates from unauthorized institutions, failing to meet the statutory requirement of possessing a recognized Bachelor’s degree or equivalent. Consequently, the conviction was upheld as the appellant made a false declaration regarding his qualifications. However, the Court reduced the sentence from three years to one year, noting that the Returning Officer failed to exercise due diligence during the scrutiny of nomination papers. The judgment reaffirms the principle that educational qualifications for electoral eligibility must be formally recognized by the Higher Education Commission, and ignorance of the law provides no defense against charges of corrupt practice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of educational certificates from institutions not recognized by the Higher Education Commission constitute a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act 1976?
  • Can a candidate claim ignorance of the law as a defense for submitting invalid educational credentials in nomination papers?
  • Is a Returning Officer's failure to properly scrutinize nomination papers a valid ground for reducing a sentence in a conviction for corrupt practices?
  Read full judgment →
• Zairi Gul Versus Umar Zad Khan2013 PLD 127 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Jamala Versus Government of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa through Secretary, Home and Tribal Affairs2013 PLD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-09-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Versus Mst. Fozia Bibi2012 PLD 97 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-01-18Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Jan Versus Zabardast Khan2012 PLD 63 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-10-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Musarrat Shah Versus Syed Ahmed Shah alias Lal Bacha2012 PLD 151 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-02-28Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Jabbar Versus Ghiasuddin2012 PLD 147 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-01-30Read full judgment →
• Maj. (Retd,) Abdul Akbar Versus Mst. Maryam Khushboo2011 PLD 78 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-07Read full judgment →
• Fazlur Rahman Versus Muhammad Sadiq2011 PLD 7 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nishat alias Shato Versus Muslim Khan alias Musali2011 PLD 23 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Aurangzeb Khan Versus Habib Khan2010 PLD 80 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Karim Versus Zuljalal2010 PLD 73 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-23Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali Versus Muhammad Anwar2010 PLD 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-03-15Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus Mukameen Shah2010 PLD 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-02-10Read full judgment →
• Gul Amir Khan Versus Zahid Ullah Khan2009 PLD 88 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-13Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Marjan Versus Alam Gul2009 PLD 83 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mir Daraz Khan Versus Darya Khan2009 PLD 81 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-02
  Illegal Dispossession Actunlawful occupieracquittalcriminal revisionpossession of propertytenancy dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed an application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case initiated under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The respondent had filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners, who were initially permitted to reside in his house in exchange for domestic services, became unlawful occupiers upon refusing to perform those services. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' refusal to perform agreed services rendered them liable for prosecution under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The Court held that the petitioners were lawfully inducted into the property, and their subsequent refusal to perform services did not constitute illegal dispossession or grabbing of property under Section 3 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 applies to cases of unlawful entry and dispossession, not to disputes arising from contractual or permissive occupation. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal to perform agreed services by a permissive occupant constitute illegal dispossession under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
  • Can a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be maintained against a person who was initially inducted into the property lawfully?
  • Is an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 appropriate when the facts alleged in a complaint do not constitute an offense under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Bahadur Jan Versus State2009 PLD 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-11-14
  Illegal Dispossession Actright of appealrevisional jurisdictionstatutory interpretationSessions CourtCode of Criminal Procedureremedial rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of criminal appeals and revisions arising from proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether Section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, accommodates the right of appeal and revision for aggrieved parties, given the Act's silence on the matter. The Court held that such rights are indeed maintainable. The ratio is that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, does not create a new 'Special Court' but instead vests powers in existing Sessions Courts established under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the general procedural rules of the Code apply to these proceedings. The Court established the principle that the term 'proceedings' is comprehensive and includes the right of appeal and revision. Furthermore, because the Act does not expressly bar these remedies, and because the legislature intended to provide a remedial framework, a narrow interpretation excluding appellate rights would be unreasonable. Thus, aggrieved parties may exercise their rights of appeal and revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, against orders passed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, grant a right of appeal and revision to an aggrieved party?
  • Are the proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the term 'proceedings' in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, encompass the right of appeal and revision?
  • Can a court exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by a Sessions Court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Versus Muhammad Younus2009 PLD 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-12-15Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan Versus Umar Ali Khan2009 PLD 61 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-09-25Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad Versus Abdur Rashid2009 PLD 59 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-10-24Read full judgment →