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.

• Noor Khan & 11 others vs Babar Akbar & 04 others2024 PHC 78, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-02Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ullah vs Farman Ali2024 PHC 212, 2024 YLR 2779 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-05Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad vs Muhammad Naveed Khan & others2024 PHC 244, 2025 PLD Peshawar 21, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-12Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ali vs Director HRSPL Limited and others2024 PHC 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-23
  Area Sales Managerworkman definitionwrit jurisdictiontermination of servicefull and final settlementmisconductfake degreemanagerial capacity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the termination of his services as an Area Sales Manager. The core legal question was whether an employee designated as an Area Sales Manager, performing supervisory and managerial duties, qualifies as a 'workman' entitled to protection under labor laws, and whether the High Court should adjudicate disputed factual claims regarding the nature of a financial settlement in writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the petitioner’s duties were predominantly managerial and administrative, thus excluding him from the definition of a 'workman.' Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the NIRC's decision. Additionally, the Court ruled that it cannot resolve disputed questions of fact, such as whether a received payment constituted a 'full and final settlement' or outstanding salary, particularly when the termination was based on proven misconduct, including the submission of a fake academic degree. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Area Sales Manager performing supervisory and managerial duties qualify as a 'workman' under labor laws?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding 'full and final settlement' of employment dues in writ jurisdiction?
  • Is a leave granting order of the Supreme Court a binding precedent?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan and others vs M_s Premier Sugar Mills and Distillery Company Mardan2024 PHC 72, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 94, 2024 CLD 925 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-08Read full judgment →
• Nasir Mahmood, Regional Operations, Chief, HBL, etc. vs Kamaran Khan2024 PHC 366, 2025 PLD Peshawar 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-13
  consumer protectionmaintainability of appealspecial law vs general lawmutatis mutandisappellate jurisdictioncivil vs criminal nature of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of appeals filed against orders passed by Consumer Courts under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether an order passed by a Consumer Court under Section 15 of the Act, which is civil in nature, is appealable under Section 17(2) of the Act, given that the provision incorporates the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which generally restricts appeals to those arising from criminal courts under Section 404. The Court held that the right to appeal under Section 17(2) of the Act is a substantive statutory right that extends to all orders of the Consumer Court, including those under Section 15. The Court clarified that the reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in Section 17(2) is purely procedural, intended to provide an appellate framework, and does not subject the appeal to the restrictive bars of the Code. Consequently, the Court established that the special law (the Act) overrides general procedural bars, ensuring a uniform appellate mechanism for both civil and criminal orders passed by Consumer Courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed by a Consumer Court under Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997, appealable to the High Court?
  • Does the reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in Section 17(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997, subject appeals to the bar under Section 404 of the Code?
  • Does the right to appeal under Section 17(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997, distinguish between orders of a civil nature and those of a criminal nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer-Ud-Din through Legal Heirs vs Ghairat Khan and others2024 CLC 2070 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-26Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs Mst. Sumaira Rehman2024 CLC 2110 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-28Read full judgment →
• Naseem Ullah vs The State and another2024 MLD 27 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-20
  post-arrest bailattempted murderprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal enmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Naseem Ullah seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 324/337-G/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 15 of the Arms Ordinance, arising from FIR No. 86 at Police Station Sahib Abad, District Dir Upper. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the direct charge of causing a knife blow to the vital part of the victim's head, supported by the medical report, site plan, and recovery of a weapon. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner is prima facie linked to the commission of the offence, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is directly charged with a specific role involving a vital part of the body and supported by corroborative material like the medical report and site plan, and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause, post-arrest bail cannot be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused directly charged with a knife blow to a vital part of the body is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the mere possibility of further inquiry in a criminal case warrant the grant of bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How is the culpability of an accused to be assessed when considering a bail application in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseeb Ullah Khan and another vs The State etc2024 PHC 116 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-01Read full judgment →
• Naik Nawaz vs The State etc.2024 PHC 190, 2025 MLD 529 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Durrani vs The State2024 PHC 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-03Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmed and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through the Secretary, Soprts, Tourism, Archaeology, Museums and Youth Affairs Department, Peshawar and others2024 PHC 316, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 87 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-10
  contract employmentregularizationvested rightconstitutional jurisdictionmaster and servanttourism authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition involves employees appointed on a contract basis seeking regularization of their services or, alternatively, re-advertising of the positions with preference given to them. The core legal questions relate to whether contract employees possess a vested right to regularization or extension of their contracts under constitutional jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that contract employment terminates upon the expiry of its term, confers no right to regularization or continuation, and is governed by the terms of the contract and relevant statutory provisions. The court established that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to alter contractual terms or force an employer to extend a contract, and that contract employees have no legal entitlement to conversion into regular appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees have a legal right to seek regularization of their services upon the expiry of their contract period?
  • Can the High Court alter or extend contractual terms and conditions in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does an employer have the discretion to extend a contract or dispense with the services of a contract employee upon the completion of their tenure?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s R-SC Internet Services Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Assistant Manager2024 YLR 2808 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-12-07Read full judgment →
• M/s Kips Academy. vs Zahid Mehmood & others2024 PHC 340 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-24
  payment of wagestrans-provincial establishmentlabour court jurisdictioncivil revisionindustrial relationswage claimKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act 2013
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the orders of the Labour Court and the Authority established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013, which had allowed a wage claim filed by an employee against a private educational institution. The core legal question was whether the Authority under the 2013 Act possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate wage claims against a trans-provincial establishment, or if such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court held that the Authority under the 2013 Act retains jurisdiction over wage claims for employees working within the province, regardless of the establishment's trans-provincial nature, as the 2012 Act does not exclude the 2013 Act's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner, having already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Authority by filing an appeal before the Labour Court, was estopped from challenging that jurisdiction at a belated stage. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the 2013 Act provides a complete mechanism for wage grievance redressal for establishments operating within the province.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Authority established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013 have jurisdiction to adjudicate wage claims against a trans-provincial establishment?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 exclude the jurisdiction of the Authority established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013 regarding wage claims?
  • Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of a forum after having voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction by filing an appeal before the appellate authority?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Imtiaz Textile Bara District Khyber and others vs The Federation of2024 PHC 254, PTCL 2025 CL. 87, 2025 PTD 301 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-12Read full judgment →
• M/s Frontier Green Wood Industries (Pvt) Ltd vs Commissioner Inland2023 PHC 320, 2024 PTD 1422 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-13Read full judgment →
• M/s Askari Cement Limited (Acl) through authorized2024 PHC 350 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Al-Hamd Bulk Storage (Pvt) Ltd, Karachi Sindh vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2024 PHC 166, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 119 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mustafa alias Kakai vs The State etc2024 PHC 346 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-18Read full judgment →
• Musa Raza vs The State2024 YLR 1000 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-19
  narcotics possessioncharas recoverycredibility of police witnessesburden of proofsafe custody of case propertycriminal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kohat, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9-D of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 2019 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution successfully proved the apprehension of the appellant and the recovery of narcotics from his possession beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether minor discrepancies and the absence of private witnesses vitiated the trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimonies of the police officials were natural, consistent, and un-shattered during cross-examination, and that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 stands excluded in narcotics cases. The Court laid down the principle that the testimony of police officials is as reliable as that of private witnesses unless animus or enmity is proven, and once the prosecution establishes the recovery of contraband, the burden shifts to the accused under the statute to prove innocence or lack of knowledge. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases without the association of private witnesses?
  • Does the failure to prove an alleged plea of enmity or altercation with police shift the burden back to the accused after prosecution proves recovery?
  • Are minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the color of contraband sufficient to vitiate a conviction?
  • Whether the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to offenses under the Control of Narcotic Substances laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Murad Saeed vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2024 PHC 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muqadar Khan and 01 other vs Ayub Khan and others2024 PHC 418 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-01Read full judgment →
• Munawar Khan vs Senior Member Board of Revenue Government of KP, Peshawar and others2024 PHC 202 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-05
  son quotamedical retirementcivil servantconstitutional petitionstatutory interpretationmandatory vs directoryappointment rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of authorities to appoint the petitioner under the 'son quota' following his father's retirement on medical grounds. The core legal question concerned whether Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1989, imposes a mandatory duty on the state to provide employment to children of such civil servants, and the validity of retirement on medical grounds for those already eligible for superannuation. The Court held that the provision is directory, granting the appointing authority discretion rather than a mandatory obligation. It determined that civil servants who have completed twenty-five years of service or reached the age of fifty-five, as per Section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, are ineligible for retirement on medical grounds. The Court emphasized that Rule 10(4) should be applied only in genuine hardship cases to prevent discriminatory practices against merit-based candidates. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the petitioner's father had already attained the age of superannuation and received full pension benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appointment of a child of a civil servant retired on medical grounds under Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1989, a mandatory obligation for the appointing authority?
  • Can a civil servant who has completed twenty-five years of service or attained the age of fifty-five years opt for retirement on medical grounds?
  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, provide for the earmarking of quotas for the appointment of children of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ahmad vs The State and another2024 PHC 192 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zuhaib and others vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Health & Sciences, Islamabad and others2023 PHC 328, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaib vs Govt of KP & others2024 PHC 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Abdul Mateen and others2024 PHC 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas Parvez Khan vs Zahoor ud Din and others2024 PHC 60 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-20
  illegal dispossessioncriminal revisionco-ownershiptenancy rightsimmovable propertyactus reus and mens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, regarding the forcible occupation of immovable property. The core legal question centered on whether the complainant established a prima facie case of illegal dispossession, including lawful possession, actus reus, and mens rea on the part of the respondents. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner failed to state the specific date and manner of receiving possession after the death of the previous tenants, whereas the respondents had acquired the status of co-owners/co-sharers via mutation during the pendency of the proceedings, meaning no illegal dispossession was made out. The court laid down the principle that to sustain a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the complainant must provide full details of how possession was held and how and when dispossession occurred, and that co-owners cannot be prosecuted for illegal dispossession in the absence of established unlawful ouster.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish an offence under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a co-owner or co-sharer be prosecuted for illegal dispossession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does the right of succession to non-occupancy tenancies cease under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tenancy Act, 2014?
  • Is a complainant required to state the specific time, mode, and manner of possession and subsequent dispossession in a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail vs Station House Officer, Police Station, PESCO, Peshawar and 2 others2024 PCRLJ 722 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-01
  electricity theftquashment of FIRcognizable offencetaking of cognizancepolice investigationconstitutional petitionPESCO
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of an FIR registered against him under Section 462-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for electricity theft, arguing that offences under Chapter-XVII-B of the said Code are non-cognizable and that the court can only take cognizance on a complaint pursuant to Section 462-O of the same Code. The core legal question was whether the requirement of a complaint by an authorized officer for taking cognizance under Section 462-O prohibits the police from registering an FIR and investigating electricity theft offences. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the registration of an FIR, police investigation, and the taking of cognizance by a court are distinct and independent concepts under criminal law. The Court laid down the principle that a statutory bar or specific condition placed solely on the manner in which a court takes cognizance does not imply a prohibition on the police's power to register an FIR and conduct an investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of a complaint by an authorized officer under Section 462-O of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bars the police from registering an FIR for electricity theft?
  • Are the registration of an FIR, police investigation, and the taking of cognizance by a court distinct and independent concepts under criminal law?
  • Does a restriction on a court taking cognizance imply a prohibition on the police's power to investigate a reported offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib and others vs Mst. Saleha and others2024 CLC 1907 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sherin and others vs Ziarat Khan and others2024 PHC 326, 2025 CLC 664 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State through Muhammad Qasim and another2024 YLR 2059 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-16
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaydelay in conclusion of trialthird proviso to section 497 Cr.P.C.fundamental rightsright to libertymurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Shafi, facing trial under sections 302/324/336/337-D/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, seeking release on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the accused was entitled to post-arrest bail under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the prolonged incarceration exceeding three years without conclusion of the trial. Holding in the affirmative, the court reasoned that the delay in the trial was not attributable to the petitioner through any concerted effort, nor was he a previous convict or a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. The court laid down the key principle that once a statutory right to bail accrues under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it cannot be defeated by discretion, and routine adjournments sought by the defence do not constitute an act or omission to delay the trial unless part of a concerted design.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused become entitled to post-arrest bail as a matter of right if the trial is not concluded within the statutory period under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can routine adjournments sought by an accused's counsel be counted as an act or omission to delay the trial for the purpose of denying statutory bail?
  • Does a statutory right to bail once earned under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 get taken away by judicial discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State & 2 others2024 PHC 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State2024 PHC 234, 2025 PLD Peshawar 31 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raziq Shah and others vs Dawood Shah2024 CLC 624 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raziq & another vs The State2024 PHC 222, 2025 YLR 26 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasool and others vs Syed Akbar Shah and others2024 PHC 204 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahman vs Muhammad Ayub and others2024 PHC 328 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Khan and others vs Mst. Alia and another2024 PHC 92 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muazzam Butt vs President of Pakistan and others2024 PHC 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Junaid Shah vs The State and another2024 PHC 28 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar and 3 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 158 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-14
  disabled persons quotaconstitutional petitiontheology teacher appointmentarabic teacher appointmentemployment quota calculationestablishment cadre strength
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by petitioners seeking directions for their appointment as Theology and Arabic Teachers respectively against the disabled persons quota after their applications were declined by the respondent department. The core legal question is how the 2% reserved quota for disabled persons must be calculated and implemented within specific cadres where total open merit appointments have not reached arbitrary thresholds claimed by the department. The Peshawar High Court held that the department's calculation method was incorrect and contrary to statutory provisions and binding judicial precedents. The Court ruled that fractions of 0.5 and above must be counted as a whole number pursuant to the relevant ordinance, and that establishment quotas must be properly maintained and cannot be deferred beyond permissible cadre limits. Consequently, the Court accepted the petitions and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the disabled persons quota forthwith, laying down principles regarding the correct computation and enforcement of reserved employment quotas for disabled persons.

  Questions settled

  • How should fractions be treated when calculating the percentage of posts for disabled persons under the Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981?
  • Can an establishment defer the allocation of a disability quota to a particular category of posts until a threshold of fifty or more open merit appointments is reached?
  • What is the legal effect of appointing candidates on open merit against vacancies reserved for disabled persons in a cadre?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and another vs Muhammad Aslam (deceased) though2024 PHC 58 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal & others vs Mst. Chan Bibi & others2024 PHC 176 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imtiaz vs The State2024 YLR 244 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-07
  post-arrest bailheroin recoveryprohibitory clauseexclusive possessionnarcotics control
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner, Muhammad Imtiaz, seeking post-arrest bail in a case relating to the recovery of 2000 grams of heroin from the secret cavities of a motorcar driven and exclusively controlled by him, registered under Section 9-D of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on merits despite previous unsuccessful rounds of bail applications up to the Supreme Court, and whether minor clerical errors in the arrest card warranted the grant of bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was caught red-handed with a huge quantity of contraband falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a positive Forensic Science Laboratory report and supporting statements, making out a prima facie case against him. The court laid down that clerical errors in recording FIR numbers on arrest cards are matters for trial rather than bail consideration, and that where an accused is found in exclusive possession of a commercial quantity of narcotics, bail cannot be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused found in exclusive possession of a large quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Can a clerical error regarding the FIR number on an arrest card serve as a ground for granting bail at the pre-trial stage?
  • Whether successive bail applications can be considered on merits after previous petitions have been dismissed up to the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imtiaz vs The State through Advocate-General, Khyber2024 YLR 1390 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-07
  narcoticsheroin recoverysafe custodysentence reductionjudicial discretionlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and life imprisonment sentence under Section 9(d) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, following the recovery of two kilograms of heroin from a motorcar he was driving. The prosecution established its case through consistent testimonies of the recovery officers, the Moharrir, and the official who transmitted the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, proving safe custody and transmission. The High Court found no material discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. On the question of sentence, the Court analyzed Section 9(d) of the Act, noting that while a minimum of life imprisonment is mandatory if the quantity of narcotics exceeds ten kilograms, the court retains judicial discretion for quantities below ten kilograms. Finding no evidence of the appellant's prior involvement in similar offenses, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to four years, while maintaining the fine.

  Questions settled

  • Does the court have discretion to award a sentence of less than life imprisonment under Section 9(d) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 when the recovered quantity of narcotics is less than ten kilograms?
  • What is the legal effect of minor discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that do not go to the root of the case?
  • Is a sentence of life imprisonment appropriate for a first-time offender convicted of transporting two kilograms of heroin under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees Khan vs Secretary, Mineral Development Department2024 PLJ Peshawar 162 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim Khan and 3 others vs Abdul Aleem through L.Rs. and others2024 YLR 1342 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faizan Babar vs Returning Officer and others2024 PHC 9, 2024 MLD 1463 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Essa vs The State and another2024 PHC 164 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan Swati vs Provincial Election2024 PHC 132 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan & others vs Raseed and others2024 PHC 374, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 63 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq Khan & another vs Muhammad Daud & others2024 PHC 300, 2025 PLD Peshawar 103 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar through LRs and others vs Ali Sher and others2024 YLR 2289 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and others vs Govt. of KPK Peshawar Through Chief2024 PHC 280, 2025 PLD Peshawar 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajab (deceased) through LRs and others. vs Yousaf & others2024 PHC 330 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhamamd Naeem Khanand others vs Mst. Alia and another2024 PHC 92 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mubassir Ali Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2024 YLR 2762 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zebun Nisa through legal heirs and another vs Ismail and others2024 PHC 52 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaibi vs Zahid Ali and others2024 PHC 196, 2024 PLD Peshawar 197, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 152 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharif Zadgai and others vs Provincial Government through Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2024 YLR 2303 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharafat Bibi vs Ministry of Interior, lslamabad2024 PHC 118 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahira Bibi vs The State2024 PHC 322 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina & others vs Imtiaz and others2024 PHC 378, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Parveen vs Saqib Mushtaq & others2024 PHC 368 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Rani vs Shah Faisal and others2024 YLR 2211 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Neelofar and others vs Muhammad Khan and others2024 PHC 310, 2025 CLC 145 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehr Bibi vs Aman ullah Jan (deceased) through legal heirs and others2024 PHC 264 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Bano and others vs Mst. Muhammadia Bibi and others2024 YLR 2238 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Salima alias Katkai vs Hasan Bahadar and others2024 PHC 344 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakht Sahiba and others vs Malak Zada and others2024 PHC 76, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bacha Haram through LRs and others vs Muhammad Sardar Malak2024 PHC 90 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Arfa & one another vs Aftab Muhammad & 02 others2024 PHC 226, 2024 MLD 2026 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. AIam Shada vs Government of KPK through Chief Secretary, Peshawar2024 PHC 124 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst Sadia vs Ubaid Afridi and others2024 PHC 66 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-08Read full judgment →
• Miss Nigareen Zeb vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secratery Home & Tribal Affairs Department, Peshawar & others2024 PHC 242, 2024 MLD 1801, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 16 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →
• Miandad vs Muhammad Akbar2024 YLR 1493 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Ir (Audit-05), Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar and another2024 PTD 1021 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Aitimad Polyma Pipe vs Chief Commissioner and others2024 PTD 1501 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-10Read full judgment →
• Meshiat-ur-Rahman and others vs Fazal Rouf and others2024 PHC 262 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-22Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 1841 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-08
  criminal appealattempted rapesexual abuseoccupied fieldfederal and provincial lawsjuvenile offenderkidnappingsentencing mitigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for offences related to the attempted rape of a minor victim and sexual abuse, resulting in concurrent and consecutive prison sentences. The core legal questions involved whether a conviction under the provincial Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 can be sustained when the federal Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 occupies the same field regarding sexual abuse, and whether moving a victim a short distance solely for the purpose of committing assault constitutes kidnapping under section 364A of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Peshawar High Court held that under the doctrine of occupied field and Article 143 of the Constitution, federal legislation prevails over conflicting provincial legislation, necessitating the conversion of the conviction under the provincial Act to section 377B of the Pakistan Penal Code. Furthermore, moving the victim a short distance merely to facilitate the assault without intent to remove her from lawful guardianship does not constitute an independent offence of kidnapping. The appeal was partially allowed, modifying the convictions and reducing the sentences in light of the appellant's juvenile status at the time of the occurrence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a provincial law on sexual abuse give way to federal legislation under the doctrine of occupied field and Article 143 of the Constitution due to a conflict in sentencing quantum?
  • Does moving a victim a short distance solely for the purpose of committing sexual assault constitute kidnapping under section 364A of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can penal amendments that enhance punishment be applied retrospectively to offences committed prior to the enactment of such amendments?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Tahir Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2024 CLC 1071 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-14Read full judgment →
• Mahtab Hussain vs Muhammad Aslam2024 CLC 2038 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-25Read full judgment →
• M /S Haripur Foods Industries Haripur vs Govt of KPK etc...2024 PHC 352 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-09-30Read full judgment →
• Latif Hakeem vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 2 othersPTCL 2024 CL. 281 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Lady Doctor Getman Alla alias Aliya Wahab vs The State and others2024 PHC 62 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-28Read full judgment →
• Kiramat Khan vs The State and another2024 YLR 1529 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysodomytentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.544 dated 02.11.2022, registered under Sections 506 and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Sections 36, 38 and 53 of the Child Protection Act, at Police Station Regi, Peshawar, on charges of attempting sodomy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that since the medical report showed no signs of sodomy, the FSL report was negative for human semen, the complainant was not an eye-witness, and the accused had not confessed, the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry. The Court ruled that grant of bail in such circumstances is a matter of right rather than grace. The petition was consequently allowed, admitting the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing suitable surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a negative medical report and FSL report in a sodomy case bring the matter within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail considered a matter of right when a case falls within the ambit of further inquiry?
  • Whether the absence of a confession and lack of eyewitness testimony warrant the release of an accused on post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Khan vs Zarai Tarqiati Bank through its Zonal Chief, Zonal Office2024 PHC 188, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• Khaista Mir. vs XEN PESCO & two others2024 PHC 384 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-02Read full judgment →
• Khadim Ahmad vs Muhammad Zakir Shah2024 PHC 42 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• Kamal Jalal and others vs The State etc2024 PHC 324, 2025 PCRLJ 298 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-02
  murderbenefit of doubtchance witnessocular testimonymedical evidencecrime emptiescriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants recorded by the trial court under sections 302, 324, 338-C, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellants opened indiscriminate fire, resulting in the death of a woman and her unborn child and endangering the life of the complainant. Upon reappraising the evidence, the Peshawar High Court found the testimony of the eyewitnesses to be unreliable, categorizing them as chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was highly doubtful and unverified by independent evidence. The court noted significant discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the trajectory of the firearm injury, as well as unexplained delays in dispatching crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Reaffirming that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, the court set aside the convictions, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person in a criminal trial is bound by admissions made by their defense counsel during cross-examination?
  • Does the unexplained delay in sending crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory compromise the evidentiary value of a positive FSL report?
  • What constitutes a chance witness and under what circumstances can their testimony be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • How does a contradiction between the medical evidence regarding the trajectory of a firearm injury and the ocular account affect the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Ahma vs The State2024 PHC 390, 2025 PLD Peshawar 116 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-03Read full judgment →
• Jubilee Life Insurance Company Ltd vs Federal Investigation Agency @Ia)2024 PHC 318, 2025 PLD Peshawar 71, 2025 CLD 549 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-22Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb & 02 others, Shaukat Ali son of Muhammad Khan vs The State &2024 PHC 86 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jehanzeb & 02 others vs The State & another2024 PHC 86 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-23
  murdercommon intentioninjured witnessrelated witnessvicarious liabilityappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected criminal revision arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder, murderous attempts, and hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitness testimony of related and injured witnesses, the applicability of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and the effect of minor contradictions and delayed dispatch of forensic evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the eyewitnesses, including an injured complainant, gave natural and consistent accounts, and their relationship with the deceased did not render them interested witnesses in the absence of deep-rooted enmity. The court further held that minor discrepancies do not discredit otherwise reliable testimony and that common intention was established by the concerted conduct of the accused. Consequently, the court upheld the convictions and sentences, dismissing both the appeal and the revision for sentence enhancement. The key principles laid down include that the testimony of an injured witness is inherently reliable, minor contradictions over time are natural and can be ignored, and related witnesses are not disqualified unless shown to be partisan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a related and injured eyewitness can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder case?
  • Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased render them 'interested witnesses' under criminal law?
  • Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code be inferred from the concerted conduct and actions of the accused at the crime scene?
  • What is the legal effect of minor contradictions and delayed transmission of crime empties to the forensic science laboratory on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Janat Khan vs Chief Secretary Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2024 PLC (C.S.) 972 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-24
  Constitutional jurisdictionService matterInquiry proceedingsCompetent authorityAdministrative discretionExcess of powerPatwari seniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the legality of administrative proceedings initiated against the petitioner, a Patwari, regarding his appointment and seniority. The core legal question concerns whether an administrative authority can compel a competent authority to implement an inquiry officer’s recommendations after the competent authority has already filed the inquiry report. The court held that the competent authority is not legally bound to accept an inquiry officer’s recommendations. Once the competent authority has exercised its discretion to file the inquiry, it cannot be reopened through administrative directives. The court ruled that the respondent’s order directing the competent authority to comply with the inquiry recommendations was an excess of power and a nullity in the eye of the law. The judgment establishes the principle that when the law prescribes a specific mode and manner for administrative action, it must be strictly followed. Furthermore, an administrative authority cannot override the competent authority’s discretion or initiate de novo proceedings based on personal whims, as such actions constitute a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of authority.

  Questions settled

  • Is a competent authority legally bound to accept the recommendations of an inquiry officer under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servant (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 2011?
  • Can an administrative authority direct a competent authority to implement inquiry recommendations after the inquiry has already been filed?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to review administrative actions that do not strictly pertain to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Is an administrative order directing the reopening of a filed inquiry without legal basis considered a nullity in the eye of the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Pervez vs The State & another2024 PHC 224, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1081, 2025 PCRLJ 141 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-03
  post-arrest bailprohibitory limbmurderous attempttentative assessmentbenefit of doubtbail as a rule
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Jan Pervez, facing charges under Sections 324, 337-F(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with Sections 15-AA and 19-AA, in case FIR No. 144 registered at Police Station Manglawar, District Swat. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the primary offense attributed to him did not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that since the injury sustained fell under Section 337-F(ii) PPC, carrying a maximum sentence of three years, the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause, rendering bail the rule and refusal the exception. The Court affirmed that where doubt arises regarding participation or where offenses do not attract the prohibitory limb, liberty should be granted, and challan having been submitted, further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt is a matter for the trial court. The petition was consequently allowed subject to furnishing surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when an offense does not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an injury punishable under Section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract the prohibitory clause?
  • Should an accused be enlarged on bail when reasonable doubt exists regarding his participation in the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamal Abdul Nasir vs Commandant Chitral Scouts at H.0 Chitral2024 PHC 172 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Shah vs The Secretary Local Govt. Election & Rural Development2024 PHC 168, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 108 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →