Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• Muhammad Ziafat vs Tariq Nawaz Khan & others2025 PHC 282 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs State and another2025 PHC 188 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Ajab Khan and others2025 PHC 250 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-09-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Talha Nasir vs Yasir Khan2025 PHC 166 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Subhan vs Ibrar Khan2025 PHC 172 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sareer and others vs Muhammad Ameer and others2025 PHC 252 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State and another2025 PHC 202 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad and others vs Ramesh and others2025 PLD Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs Amir Muhammad2025 PHC 272 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer (Deceased) through LRs vs Master Naveed & others2025 PHC 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs Banaras Khan and another2025 PHC 134 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamshed Khan and others vs National Bank of Pakistan and others2025 PHC 154 · Peshawar High Court
  regularization of servicewrit jurisdictioncontractual employeesthird-party outsourcingmaster and servant principlemaintainabilitydisputed questions of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment addresses five writ petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by petitioners seeking regularization of their services with the National Bank of Pakistan. The petitioners, engaged through third-party contractors, argued that their continuous service and the regularization of similarly placed employees entitled them to similar treatment under the principle of equal treatment. The Court examined whether a contractual relationship existed between the petitioners and the Bank and whether the writ jurisdiction was the appropriate forum for such claims. The Court held that the petitioners were employees of private third-party service providers, not the Bank, and that their employment was governed by private contracts. Consequently, the Court ruled that no vested right to regularization existed, and the matter involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. The petitions were dismissed as not maintainable, with the Court clarifying that the petitioners may pursue remedies under relevant labour laws if they qualify as workmen.

  Questions settled

  • Does long and continuous service under a contractual arrangement with a third-party provider confer a vested right to regularization in the absence of a specific statutory provision?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the regularization of employees engaged by a third-party contractor for a public sector bank?
  • Can a High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the nature of an employment relationship under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to contractual employees seeking regularization against a public entity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Fida Muhammad2025 CLC 864 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The State through Additional Advocate General and another2025 PHC 114 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hakim and another vs Taj Bahadur Khan and others2025 YLR 1017 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faisal vs The State and another2025 PHC 80 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB)2025 PHC 240 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Taqiya Begum vs Intikhab & others2025 PHC 42 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sultan Zarina and others vs Govt. of K.P and others2025 PHC 274 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-08-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shama vs Said Amin Shah2025 PHC 144 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaheen and another vs The State and others2025 PHC 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safeen Akhtar vs Ehtesham and others2025 PHC 16 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-18
  criminal appeal against acquittalocular evidence versus medical evidencepreliminary investigation before FIRchance witnessesbenefit of doubtfailure to prove motiveabscondance
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated criminal judgment arose from two appeals filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the respondents/accused in a double-murder case registered under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal questions were whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused where preliminary investigation commenced prior to recording the FIR; whether the ocular testimony was contradicted by medical evidence and rendered doubtful by the presence of chance witnesses; and whether alleged abscondance or defective weapon recoveries could sustain a conviction. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the acquittals, finding that the investigating officer began inquiries before the FIR was registered, suggesting prior deliberation. The Court further noted substantial discrepancies between the ocular account and medical reports regarding the nature of the firearm wounds, cast doubt on the presence of the eyewitnesses, held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive, and established that recoveries were deeply flawed. The Court reaffirmed that even a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does conducting a preliminary inquiry or collecting evidence before the formal registration of an FIR render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can an ocular account contradicted by medical evidence regarding the nature of firearm injuries form the basis of a criminal conviction?
  • Is an injured witness's testimony automatically entitled to full credence merely by virtue of sustaining injuries during the occurrence?
  • Can the abscondance of an accused person independently serve as sufficient legal ground to sustain a conviction without independent corroborating evidence?
  • What legal consequence arises when the prosecution sets up a specific motive for a murder but fails to prove it through cogent evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Akhtar & Another vs Mst. Shairoon & Others2025 PHC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mujahida vs Alamgir2025 PHC 184 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and another vs Muhammad Munir and others2025 PHC 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jameela Paracha vs Mst. Amna Inayat etc2025 PHC 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jameela Khatoon etc vs Abdul Rasheed etc2025 PHC 60 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haseena vs Ikramullah2025 PHC 122 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Fathul Bari vs Ubaid ur Rahman and others.2025 PHC 182 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asima vs State2025 PHC 32 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-21Read full judgment →
• Military Estates Officer, Peshswa r Circle, Peshawlr Cantt & Others vs Haji2025 PHC 48 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Taj Vegetable Oil Processing Unit (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary Finance and Revenue Division, Islamabad and others2025 PTD 399 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Mati Ullah vs Amin Ullah, etc2025 PHC 212 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-28Read full judgment →
• Maqarab Khan and others vs Muhammad Javaid Khan2025 PHC 200 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-02Read full judgment →
• Malik Farman Ullah Khan vs The Controlling Authority, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education_Chief Minister and others2025 MLD 73 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-30Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Haider Shah vs Mustafa Haider Shah and another2025 MLD 397 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-04
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationmurdertrial in progressmisuse of bailperverse order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the accused/respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Haripur, in a case involving multiple murders. The core legal question was whether the bail granted to the accused should be cancelled, particularly given that the trial had already commenced. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the complainant failed to demonstrate any strong or exceptional grounds required for the cancellation of bail. The Court emphasized that once bail is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, it cannot be recalled unless the order is patently illegal, perverse, or if the accused has misused the concession of liberty, such as by tampering with evidence or absconding. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the established principle that bail cancellation petitions should not be encouraged when the trial is already in progress, as this avoids premature discussion on the merits of the case. Finding no perversity or disregard for legal principles in the impugned bail order, the High Court declined to interfere.

  Questions settled

  • What are the specific grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Should a court entertain a petition for the cancellation of bail when the trial of the case is already in progress?
  • What constitutes a perverse order in the context of granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Kifayat Ullah Khan vs Waheed UIIah, etc2025 PHC 204 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-11Read full judgment →
• Khazana Sugar Mills (Pvt) Limited through General Manager and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Water & Power, Islamabad and others2025 PLJ Peshawar 119 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khalid vs State2025 PHC 246 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-31Read full judgment →
• Khaista Akbar vs State2025 PHC 244 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-08-01Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain & others vs Mir Maqsood Ali & others2025 PHC 162 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kausar vs Emtiaz etc2025 PHC 266 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-09-09Read full judgment →
• Kamran Khan vs The State & 2 others2025 PHC 93 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-30
  withdrawal from prosecutiondischarge of accusedsuo motu dischargepublic prosecutor powerscriminal revisionconstitutional petitionsupervisory jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition, converted into a constitutional petition, challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge discharging the accused-respondents under Section 494(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from charges under Sections 324, 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question addressed is whether a trial court can invoke Section 494 Cr.PC suo motu to discharge an accused without an application by the Public Prosecutor. The Peshawar High Court held that a court cannot initiate withdrawal from prosecution on its own motion, as the power to withdraw is exclusively vested in the Public Prosecutor, with the court acting only in a supervisory capacity to grant or withhold consent. The High Court established that Section 494 Cr.PC requires an initiation by the Public Prosecutor and informed consent of the court, and courts cannot discharge accused persons suo motu based on a detailed appreciation of evidence at a preliminary stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court invoke Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 suo motu without an application by the Public Prosecutor?
  • What are the essential conditions required to validly invoke Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a court can undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence at a preliminary stage to discharge an accused under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the High Court have the power to convert a criminal revision petition into a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Jubilee Life Insurance Company (Pvt) Ltd. vs Arshad Khan2025 PHC 142 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-11Read full judgment →
• Jehan Sher vs The State2025 PHC 82 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-24Read full judgment →
• Javed lqbal vs Mst. Nosheen Rani & others2025 PHC 178 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-10Read full judgment →
• Jameel Shah & another vs Nazia Zameer & others2025 PHC 62 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-14Read full judgment →
• Jamal Shah vs Mst. Qais Begum and another2025 PHC 264 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-08-21Read full judgment →
• Jafar Khan and others vs The State and others2025 PHC 92 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Israr and another vs The State2025 PHC 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-07Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ullah and another vs The State and another2025 MLD 934 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-11
  post-arrest bailanti-terrorismconfessional statementexplosive substancesfurther inquiryproscribed organization
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, following their arrest with alleged explosive materials and literature related to a proscribed organization. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the recovery of incriminating materials and alleged confessions made to police officers. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The Court observed that the confessional statements recorded by a police officer, rather than a judicial magistrate, were legally questionable regarding their impartiality and admissibility. Furthermore, the Court noted significant discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, including the suspicious circumstances of the arrest and the lack of an expert report confirming the nature of the recovered substances. Consequently, the Court ruled that the case required further inquiry, and as the investigation was complete, the petitioners were no longer required for custodial interrogation. The principle laid down is that confessions recorded by police officers, particularly when supervisory, lack the requisite independence to be relied upon for bail denial without judicial scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Can a confessional statement recorded by a police officer be relied upon to deny bail?
  • Does the absence of an expert report regarding recovered explosive material constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is a bail application maintainable when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for custodial interrogation?
  Read full judgment →
• Imad Zarif & others vs Arbab Imran & others2025 PHC 190 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-01Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad vs Sharif Khan2025 PHC 50 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-10Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs The State2025 YLR 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-16Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Ghulam and another vs The State and 4 others2025 MLD 962 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-03
  qatl-i-amdinjured witnesssolitary witnessomission of witness in FIRmotive failuremitigating circumstanceslife imprisonmentalibi plea
  Summary & questions settled

  This single judgment disposes of two criminal appeals and one connected criminal revision stemming from a multiple-murder incident arising out of FIR No. 206 registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 148, and 149 PPC. The core legal questions pertained to the sufficiency of a single injured eye-witness's testimony, the legal effect of omitting an eye-witness's name from the FIR, and the impact of the prosecution's failure to establish specific fatal shots or premeditated motive on sentencing. The Peshawar High Court affirmed the convictions and sentences of life imprisonment passed by the trial courts. The Court held that the ocular account of the injured complainant was natural, trustworthy, and fully corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries of matching empty shells, and positive FSL reports. The Court laid down the principles that the testimony of a single credible injured eye-witness is sufficient to sustain conviction, the omission of an eye-witness's name in the FIR does not automatically render their testimony unreliable if corroborated, and inability to attribute the fatal fire shot in a multi-accused attack constitutes a mitigating factor justifying life imprisonment over the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Is the uncorroborated or solitary testimony of a single injured eye-witness sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Does the failure to name an eye-witness in the First Information Report (FIR) automatically render their testimony inadmissible or unworthy of credit?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to prove a specific motive or establish which accused fired the fatal shot on the quantum of sentence in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashim Khan through LRs vs Saad Ullah through LRs & 02 others2025 PHC 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Zubair Ahmad etc vs Project Director, KDA, Kohat etc2025 PHC 4 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-01-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Hafiz Ullah and others vs Sardar Hussain and others2025 PHC 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-05Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah vs Aman Ullah Khan2025 PHC 214 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-25Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Muhammad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2025 PLC (C.S.) 755 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-07
  pro forma promotiondepartmental inquirycivil servantdisciplinary proceedingsdelayed inquiryretirementwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition concerns the denial of promotion to a civil servant, a Director in the Local Council Board, who was deferred for promotion to BPS-19 due to pending disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner retired from service without the disciplinary inquiry ever reaching a conclusion or finding him guilty. The Court addressed the core legal question of whether the mere pendency of departmental proceedings justifies the indefinite deferral of a civil servant's promotion, particularly when such proceedings are characterized by inordinate delay. The Court held that the pendency of an inquiry should not be used as a tool to deprive a civil servant of their lawful right to promotion, especially when the delay is attributable to the administration's failure to adhere to prescribed timeframes. The ratio establishes that where a civil servant is exonerated or retires without being found guilty, they are entitled to be considered for pro forma promotion from the date they were initially deferred, as the pendency of proceedings cannot be a perpetual hurdle to advancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere pendency of departmental disciplinary proceedings justify the indefinite deferral of a civil servant's promotion?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to pro forma promotion if they retire before the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings without being found guilty?
  • What is the effect of an inordinate delay in departmental inquiries on a civil servant's right to promotion?
  • Under Fundamental Rule 54A, what happens to disciplinary proceedings against a government servant who attains the age of superannuation before the inquiry is completed?
  Read full judgment →
• Guldad Khan vs Area Incharge SNGPL and 8 others2025 MLD 83 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government, Elections & Rural Development, Peshawar and others vs Nasir Hayat and others2025 PHC 18 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary C&W Department2025 PHC 238 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghazi Rehman vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through its2025 PHC 194 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Feroz Khan vs The State2025 PHC 280 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-25
  hostile witnessArticle 150 Qanun-e-Shahadatcross-examinationretraction of statementconcessional statementcriminal revisionexamination-in-chief
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition assailed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bara Khyber, which had allowed the prosecution's application to declare its witness (PW-2) hostile after the defence had completed cross-examination. The High Court reviewed the provisions of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 regarding examination of witnesses and declaring a witness hostile under Article 150. The core question was whether a prosecution witness can be declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the party calling him after the opposing party has already concluded cross-examination. The Court held that discretion under Article 150 must be exercised during examination-in-chief when the witness shows hostility or deviates from a previous statement. Once cross-examination by the defence is fully recorded, there is no concept of declaring the witness hostile merely due to concessions made or retraction during cross-examination. Distinguishing between hostility and retraction, the Court noted that a witness's testimony must be evaluated in its totality by the trial court. The revision petition was accepted and the impugned order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a prosecution witness be declared hostile under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 after the defence has concluded cross-examination?
  • Does a witness's retraction or concession made during cross-examination automatically render the witness hostile?
  • How should the trial court evaluate and appreciate the evidence of a witness who has been declared hostile?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Wahab and others vs The State2025 PCRLJ 103 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-11
  criminal revisionjoinder of chargesjoint trialcriminal breach of trustconsolidation of FIRssame transactionCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenges a trial court order that refused to consolidate charges against the petitioners in three separate FIRs. The core legal question was whether multiple FIRs, registered against the same accused for criminal breach of trust arising from a single inquiry and occurring within a twelve-month period, could be consolidated for a joint trial. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court’s order and directing the consolidation of the charges. The Court held that, pursuant to Section 222(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, offences of criminal breach of trust committed within a one-year period may be treated as a single offence. The Court established that where accused persons commit crimes jointly in the same transaction with continuity of intention, a joint trial is permissible under Sections 234 and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, emphasizing that the bifurcation of such charges would cause unnecessary prejudice to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can multiple FIRs involving the same accused and the same transaction be consolidated for a joint trial?
  • Does the limitation of three offences under Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to charges of criminal breach of trust?
  • Is a joint trial permissible when offences are committed within a twelve-month period and arise from the same inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Khaliq vs The State2025 YLR 233 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-30
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtcommon intentionchain of custodyadverse inferencefirearms expert reportabscondencemurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the establishment of common intention, the reliability of forensic evidence, and the proof of motive. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that where the prosecution fails to establish common intention, individual liability must be proven, which the prosecution failed to do. Furthermore, the court ruled that forensic reports are not corroborative evidence when the chain of custody is compromised by discrepancies in sealing and documentation. The court also applied Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding material witnesses. Emphasizing that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right, the court concluded that abscondence alone is insufficient to prove guilt absent other reliable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-production of a material eye-witness warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the chain of custody for forensic evidence is compromised?
  • Is abscondence alone sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused in a criminal case?
  • Does the failure to prove common intention require the prosecution to establish the specific individual act of each accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hanan & another vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary E & S Education & others2025 PHC 216 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Falak Naz Khan vs The State and another2025 YLR 251 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02
  criminal appealmurder convictionsentence enhancementeyewitness reliabilitysudden provocationacquittalPeshawar High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, convicting the appellant under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased via a brick blow, while acquitting co-accused under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant challenged the acquittal and sought enhancement of the appellant's sentence. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the propriety of the acquittal, and whether the murder fell under Section 302(c) (Taazir) or Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the testimony of an independent police witness present at the scene was reliable and sufficient for conviction. Regarding the sentence, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the occurrence developed suddenly without premeditation, involving a single blow, which justified sentencing under Section 302(c) rather than Section 302(b). The Court upheld the acquittal of co-accused due to lack of specific evidence. The principle established is that conviction can be based on the testimony of an absolutely reliable witness, and sudden provocation without premeditation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on the testimony of an absolutely reliable witness in the absence of corroboratory material?
  • Does a murder committed on the spur of the moment without premeditation qualify for sentencing under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the acquittal of co-accused justified when the prosecution fails to attribute specific roles or recover incriminating weapons?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Zaman vs The State2025 PHC 64 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
• Dr. Waqar Un Nisa Faizi vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Cheif Secretary & others2025 PHC 224 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Ali Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others2025 PHC 160 · Peshawar High Court
  transfer and postingterms and conditions of servicecivil servantconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunaljurisdiction bar
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, approached the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging his transfer order on the grounds of premature transfer and violation of the government's transfer and posting policy. The core legal question was whether the High Court has constitutional jurisdiction to entertain service-related disputes concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants, particularly regarding transfers. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, holding that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, which ousts the jurisdiction of High Courts. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked by civil servants for service disputes, and such grievances must be agitated before the administrative courts and tribunals established for that purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain petitions relating to the transfer of civil servants?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of High Courts in matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  • Can a civil servant approach the High Court when an adequate remedy is available before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Maqbool Khan vs Mir Alam Jan Khan2025 PHC 156 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-30Read full judgment →
• Dr. Imtiaz Ali Shah vs University of Engineering and Technology through Registrar UET Peshawar2025 MLD 282 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-09
  ex-parte decreestudy bondrecovery suitpower of attorneysufficient causebreach of contracthigher studies
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court concerning the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex-parte decree in a recovery suit filed by the University of Engineering and Technology against a former faculty member for breach of a study bond. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of an appeal filed when the appellant is abroad through a general power of attorney, and whether sufficient cause was shown under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the ex-parte decree. The court held that the appeal was competently filed through the duly authorized counsel/brother holding a valid wakalatnama, but dismissed the appeal on merits, holding that the appellant failed to provide plausible or reasonable grounds for his repeated non-appearance despite the application being within limitation. The key principle laid down is that an application to set aside an ex-parte decree requires cogent, convincing, and justified reasons for non-appearance, and limitation alone does not suffice without showing sufficient cause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal can be validly filed by a counsel on behalf of an appellant residing abroad on the strength of a wakalatnama executed prior to departure?
  • Does the mere filing of an application to set aside an ex-parte decree within the period of limitation entitle the applicant to relief without showing plausible grounds for non-appearance?
  • What constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside an ex-parte judgment and decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hazrat Bilal and others vs Athar Ahmad Arbab and others2025 CLC 531 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
• Director General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Revenue Authority, Peshawar vs M/s.PTCL 2025 CL. 527 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs Messrs2025 PTD 650 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Corporate Zone, Peshawar vs Messrs2025 PTD 23 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-12Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Peshawar vs Messrs2025 PTD 596 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
• Bilal Iqbal vs The State and others2025 MLD 373 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-20
  post-arrest baildishonored chequeprohibitory clausenon-bailable offencecriminal liabilitybail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, who is charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the alleged issuance of dishonored cheques. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail, given the substantial financial amount involved and the existence of other pending criminal cases against him. The court allowed the petition, holding that the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court reasoned that since the maximum punishment for the offence is three years, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Furthermore, the court established that bail cannot be withheld solely due to the magnitude of the financial amount involved, nor can it be denied based on the mere registration of other criminal cases without prior convictions. The principle laid down is that in non-prohibitory offences, bail should be granted unless exceptional grounds, such as habitual criminality or misuse of bail, are demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld in a non-prohibitory offence solely due to the involvement of a large financial amount?
  • Is the mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused, without prior conviction, a sufficient ground to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan vs The State, etc2025 PHC 90 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-29Read full judgment →
• Atta UIIah etc vs Secretary E&SE Department, KPK Peshawar etc2025 PHC 136 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
• Atta Hussain vs Altaf GouharKhan and others2025 PHC 152 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-25Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner Khwazakhela and others vs Muhammad Rashad2023 PHC 588, 2025 CLC 159 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-12-12Read full judgment →
• Arshad Khan vs Farhana etc2025 PHC 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-12Read full judgment →
• Arshad & another vs The State & another2025 PHC 146 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-17Read full judgment →
• Arsalan Arif and others vs Salma Gul and another2025 PLD Peshawar 54 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
• Arbab Saif Ali Khan etc vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Revenue Peshawar etc2025 PHC 88 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-28Read full judgment →
• Arbab Arshad vs National Bank of Pakistan2025 PHC 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-17Read full judgment →
• Anwar Zeb alias Munnu vs The State2025 PHC 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• Amir Ullah Shah and others vs Govt. of K.P.K and others2025 PHC 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-20Read full judgment →
• Amir Sultan Safi, Advocate vs Waqas Sabir2025 PLD Peshawar 50 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad Khan and others vs Janat Gul and others2025 PHC 198 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-02Read full judgment →
• Al-Khalid Stone Crusher and others vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental2025 PHC 116 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Akhtar Nawaz vs The State and another2025 YLR 92 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-27
  criminal appealremandcommon intentionSection 367 CrPCtrial court judgmentacquittalconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in a murder and attempted murder case. The core legal question was whether a trial court judgment is legally sustainable when it fails to explicitly adjudicate upon all charges framed against the accused and neglects to record findings regarding the applicability of common intention under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court’s judgment was deficient and illegal for failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which necessitates that a judgment must contain points for determination, reasons for the decision, and specific findings on each charge. Furthermore, the court emphasized that trial courts are duty-bound to render a definite finding regarding the applicability of common intention (Section 34) or common object (Sections 148/149) when multiple accused are involved. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for a de novo judgment within three weeks, ensuring all legal requirements are met.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court judgment legally sustainable if it fails to record a specific finding on the applicability of Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for a criminal judgment under Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must a trial court explicitly adjudicate upon all charges framed against an accused in its final judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Nawaz and others vs Azra Begum and others2025 YLR 544 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-28Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs The State and the accused namely Jahangeer Khan2025 PHC 220 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-22Read full judgment →
• Ajmal vs S.D.O, Pesco Sub-Division, Nowshera Cantt-01 and 3 others2025 CLD 181 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-08Read full judgment →
• Aizaz Ullah and another vs Nawabzada Qadir Khan2025 PHC 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ainul Hassan vs Mst. Maryam (deceased) through L.Rs and others2025 PHC 56 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-12Read full judgment →