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 Zahoor Ul Islam vs Convening Authorities Air Force2023 PCRLJ 1455 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-22
  court martialpakistan air force actofficial secrets actcivilian trialenhanced punishmentwrit jurisdictionpromulgation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by a retired Pakistan Air Force employee challenging his conviction and sentence by a Field General Court Martial under the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, for offences linked to the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The core legal question concerned whether a civilian subject to the PAF Act for offences under the Official Secrets Act faces enhanced punishments under section 71 of the PAF Act, and the legality of amending a promulgation to correct an apparent clerical error regarding the specific counts of conviction. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that once a person falls within the ambit of the PAF Act via section 2(dd), civil offences tried thereunder attract enhanced punishments such as imprisonment for life under section 71. Furthermore, the court held that correcting an apparent record error in the promulgation was permissible and that tribunals relating to the Armed Forces are excluded from writ jurisdiction under Article 199(5). The key principle laid down is that trial of civilians under the PAF Act for specified offences integrates the enhanced penal consequences prescribed by military law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civilian tried under the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953 for an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is liable to enhanced punishments under section 71 of the PAF Act?
  • Can a court martial or confirming authority amend a promulgation to rectify an apparent clerical or recording error regarding findings of guilt?
  • Does the High Court have writ jurisdiction under Article 199 over tribunals established under laws relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahir Shah and another vs Amin-Ur-Rehman and another2023 YLR 2323 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-11
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencechance witnessjudicial confessionmedical evidencemurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants were convicted by the trial court for the murders of two individuals, Shamsher Khan and Mst. Zarkhewa, under sections 302/324/311/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 15 of the Arms Act. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony, a judicial confession, and recovery of weapons. The Peshawar High Court, upon review, found the prosecution's case riddled with reasonable doubts. The court held that the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was not established, and their conduct was unnatural. Furthermore, there were significant discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence, as well as between the site plan and the testimony regarding the location of the crime. The court also found the judicial confession to be a verbatim copy of the police statement, rendering it unreliable, and noted that the recovery of weapons was highly suspicious. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, directing their immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a chance witness can be accepted without cogent reasons justifying their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a judicial confession that is a verbatim copy of a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 satisfy the requirement of being voluntary and reliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a significant conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to material discrepancies in the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zada vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Education, Peshawar and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1027 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-05
  constitutional petitionappointmentClass-IV postdiscriminationequal treatmentreasonable classificationtransfer adjustment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed seeking a direction to the department to appoint the petitioner to the post of Chowkidar (Class-IV) at Government Primary School, Sherin Abad. The petitioner had applied and appeared for the interview pursuant to an online notice; however, while other Class-IV appointments across the district were finalized, the specific post he applied for was left unfilled and subsequently utilized for the transfer/adjustment of an existing employee. The department resisted the petition claiming the post was withheld due to a pending transfer process. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that withholding the appointment for the advertised post while filling other similar posts was discriminatory and violated the principles of equal treatment. The court reiterated that while reasonable classification allows differential treatment of unequals, equals must be treated alike under similar circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does leaving an advertised vacancy unfilled to accommodate an employee transfer constitute unlawful discrimination against a candidate interviewed for the post?
  • Whether candidates in similar recruitment processes are entitled to equal treatment under the principle that likes should be treated alike?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs Provincial Election commissioner, Khyber2023 PHC 552 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Ali vs Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2023 PHC 239 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs President Zari Taraqiati Bank Limited and 2 others2023 PHC 478 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-24
  service lawadvance incrementsrecruitment policyadditional qualificationZari Taraqiati Bank Limitedservice benefitsdiscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the denial of five advance increments to the petitioner, a former employee of Zari Taraqiati Bank Limited, who claimed entitlement based on possessing an LL.B degree at the time of his 1990 appointment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s LL.B degree constituted an additional qualification under the bank's 1989 Recruitment Policy, thereby mandating the grant of increments, and whether the bank’s refusal constituted discriminatory treatment compared to other employees. The Court held that the petition was without merit, finding that the Recruitment Policy explicitly distinguished between B.A. LL.B, which the petitioner held, and M.A. LL.B, which was the qualification eligible for increments. The Court further clarified that the petitioner’s reliance on a previous judgment was misplaced, as those cases involved employees with different qualifications and circumstances. The key principle laid down is that recruitment policies must be interpreted strictly according to their specific terms, and benefits cannot be claimed contrary to the mandate of the policy, nor can judicial precedents be applied where the underlying factual matrix differs.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee entitled to advance increments for a degree that does not qualify as an additional qualification under the specific recruitment policy in force at the time of appointment?
  • Does a previous court judgment granting benefits to other employees create a binding precedent if the factual circumstances and qualifications of the petitioners differ?
  • Can a court interpret a recruitment policy contrary to its explicit provisions regarding qualification requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taimur vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad & others2023 PHC 3 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs The State2023 MLD 2136 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-05
  child witnessocular evidenceabscondencecorroborationmurdercriminal appealforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Haripur, for the murder of five family members. The appellant was convicted under sections 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the appellant's guilt through ocular evidence, specifically the testimony of a child witness, and corroborative circumstantial evidence, including forensic reports and the appellant's prolonged abscondence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It affirmed that the testimony of a child witness, if consistent, credible, and corroborated by other evidence, is sufficient for conviction. Furthermore, the Court ruled that while abscondence alone is insufficient for conviction, it serves as a strong piece of corroborative evidence when considered alongside other direct and circumstantial proof. The Court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the connected criminal revision for enhancement of sentence, finding the trial court's assessment of evidence and the sentence imposed to be appropriate given the mitigating circumstances surrounding the motive.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a child witness?
  • Is abscondence of an accused sufficient to form the basis of a conviction?
  • Does the absence of a statement from the original complainant invalidate an FIR?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a child witness's statement when subjected to cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and others vs Muhammad Saeed and others2023 MLD 1785 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaukat Khan etc. vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2023 PHC 606 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State etc2023 PHC 540 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-24
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of the doubteyewitness credibilitymedical contradictionmotiveweapon recoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Model Criminal Trial Court, Abbottabad, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-e-amd and acquitting the co-accused. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the crime scene, the corroboration of medical evidence with ocular testimony, the proof of motive, and the reliability of weapon recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the presence of the sole eyewitness was highly doubtful due to unnatural conduct, material contradictions with the medical evidence and site plan, failure to establish motive, and delayed/dubious recovery. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, dismissed the connected appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused, and dismissed the revision petition for enhancement of sentence as infructuous. The key principle laid down is that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the presence of an eyewitness whose conduct is unnatural and unverified by initial documents can be relied upon to sustain a capital conviction?
  • Does a contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the trajectory of a firearm injury create a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal effect when the prosecution fails to prove a specific motive alleged in the First Information Report?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent court is sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Can a recovery of a weapon made from a joint dwelling house after police custody and without independent local witnesses be deemed reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Awan & another vs NBP through its President 022023 PHC 88, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 607 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-07
  constitutional petitionAnnual Performance Appraisalperformance evaluationCountersigning Authorityvested rightjudicial reviewNational Bank of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by employees of the National Bank of Pakistan seeking to expunge grade 'C' ratings from their Annual Performance Appraisals (APRs) and restore grade 'A' ratings assigned by their immediate supervisor. The core legal question was whether the final evaluating authority could lower performance ratings under the bank's internal competitive appraisal system in the absence of mala fide or breach of service rules. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners had no vested right to maintain the initial rating awarded by their immediate supervisor, as finality attached to the evaluation conducted by the functional Group Chiefs at the Head Office under the structured appraisal policy. The Court established that competitive evaluation and internal performance appraisal of officers are administrative matters of the bank, which do not warrant judicial interference under constitutional jurisdiction unless shown to be illegal, discriminatory, or tainted with mala fide. The petition was accordingly dismissed as being devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution interfere with internal performance appraisal decisions of a bank?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to retain the initial performance grading awarded by an immediate supervisor?
  • Can a countersigning authority lower an employee's appraisal rating pursuant to an approved competitive performance policy in the absence of mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad vs The State2023 YLR 408 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-29
  narcoticsbenefit of doubtcriminal appealpossessionevidentiary chainforensic reportacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged recovery of twelve kilograms of charas from a motorcar. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution established the appellant's conscious possession of the narcotics and whether the evidentiary chain of custody and procedural requirements were satisfied. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to significant evidentiary gaps, including the lack of proof of the appellant's ownership or nexus with the vehicle, contradictory testimonies regarding the recovery of the fuel tank, and the failure to produce the fuel tank as evidence. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of necessary protocols in the Forensic Science Laboratory report and the lack of evidence regarding the safe custody and transmission of samples. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any material discrepancy or failure to follow mandatory procedural protocols warrants acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce the alleged container of narcotics in court create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when there are material contradictions between prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery process?
  • Does the absence of protocols on a Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding tests applied render the report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be maintained when the prosecution fails to establish a nexus between the accused and the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid vs Ibrar Gul2023 CLC 613 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State2023 MLD 373 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-15
  narcotics possessionchain of custodychemical examiner reportreasonable doubtconscious knowledgeacquittalsafe custody of samples
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants, Muhammad Saeed and Shahzad Khan, for the possession of 50 kilograms of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the seized narcotics and proved the appellants' conscious possession beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to significant evidentiary gaps, including an unexplained eight-day delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the failure to examine the official responsible for transporting the samples, and inconsistencies regarding the investigation's timeline. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the conscious knowledge of the appellant Muhammad Saeed regarding the contraband. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must establish an unbroken, unsuspicious, and secure chain of custody for narcotic samples from the point of recovery to the laboratory; any break or lapse in this chain vitiates the reliability of the chemical report and necessitates acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to the laboratory vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the failure to examine the official responsible for transporting samples to the laboratory a fatal flaw in the prosecution's chain of custody?
  • Must the prosecution prove conscious knowledge of the contraband to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • What is the legal consequence of a broken chain of custody regarding the safe transmission of narcotics from the recovery site to the testing laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2023 PHC 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-04
  family pensionqualifying serviceregularization of servicecontract servicepensionary benefitscivil servantwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, widower of a deceased civil servant (Lady Health Worker), invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking family pension and back benefits. The core legal question was whether the period of service rendered on a contract basis or fixed pay prior to regularization can be added to the post-regularization service to fulfill the mandatory ten-year qualifying service threshold required for pensionary benefits under the civil service and pension rules. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that pursuant to the binding dicta of the Supreme Court, contract or fixed-pay service cannot be counted toward the initial ten-year eligibility criteria for qualifying service unless the employee has independently completed ten years of regular service. The court clarified that pre-regularization service may only be added to calculate the quantum of pension once the independent eligibility threshold has been met, not to fulfill the threshold itself.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service rendered on contract or fixed pay prior to regularization can be counted towards completing the ten-year qualifying service threshold for pensionary benefits?
  • Does Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations allow an employee to bypass the ten-year regular service eligibility criterion by combining regular and contractual periods of employment?
  • Can the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant validly file a writ petition before the High Court for pensionary benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2023 PLC (C.S.) 1383 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-04
  family pensionqualifying servicecontractual serviceregularizationpensionary benefitscivil servantwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the widower of a deceased Lady Health Worker seeking family pension benefits. The core legal question was whether the period of service rendered by the deceased on a contract or fixed-pay basis could be added to her regular service to meet the mandatory 10-year qualifying service threshold required for pension eligibility. The Court, relying on authoritative pronouncements by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, held that contractual service cannot be added to regular service for the purpose of fulfilling the initial eligibility criteria of 10 years of qualifying service. The Court clarified that contractual service may only be counted for calculating the quantum of pension once the employee has independently completed the requisite 10-year qualifying service on a regular basis. Consequently, as the deceased employee had not completed 10 years of service after her regularization, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that contractual service is not a substitute for the mandatory qualifying service period required to establish pension entitlement under the Civil Service Regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Can service rendered on a contract or fixed-pay basis be added to regular service to meet the 10-year qualifying service threshold for pension eligibility?
  • Does Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations allow a civil servant to bypass the 10-year qualifying service requirement by combining contractual and regular service?
  • Can the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant maintain a writ petition before the High Court for pensionary benefits?
  • Is the period of contractual service countable for the purpose of calculating the quantum of pension if the employee has already met the 10-year qualifying service criteria?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Alias Sadiq vs The State2023 MLD 32 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-08-26
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryhouse raidmandatory procedural safeguardsfurther inquiryindependent witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail petition filed by the petitioner Muhammad Sadiq alias Sadiq seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 220 dated 14.07.2021 registered under sections 9-D/13, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, relating to the alleged recovery of 5000 grams of heroin and chemical from his house. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions regarding house searches and lack of independent corroboration. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner, holding that the failure to obtain a search warrant under section 27, the absence of a lady constable during the house raid, the lack of independent witnesses under section 31, and the presence of two conflicting versions brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that statutory procedural safeguards governing house raids in narcotics cases must be strictly observed, and their violation coupled with lack of ownership proof of the premises creates reasonable grounds for further inquiry warranting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to obtain a search warrant under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 make a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the absence of independent witnesses during a police raid at a private house entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Can non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding the presence of a lady constable during a house search create grounds for bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raziq Shah and others vs Dawood Shah2023 PHC 145 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and another vs Mian Muhammad Waqas and others2023 CLC 1770 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Yasmin Akhtar & others2023 PHC 354 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raheel vs Mst. Rimsha Anwar and others2023 PHC 155, 2024 YLR 2841 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahat Fareed vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 436 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysodomychild at riskDNA samplingtentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner, accused of committing sodomy under sections 377/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and the applicability of the special statute. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, finding that the case requires further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Key factors included the unexplained delay in reporting the incident, the lack of corroborating evidence beyond the complainant's statement, the petitioner's minor age, and the absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime. Furthermore, the court noted the failure to comply with the mandatory DNA sampling requirements under section 164-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and questioned the applicability of the Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, as the victim did not clearly fall within the statutory definition of a 'child at risk'.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to obtain DNA samples as required by section 164-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail?
  • When does a case qualify for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the applicability of section 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, dependent on whether the victim meets the definition of a 'child at risk'?
  • Does the absence of corroborating evidence in a daylight occurrence justify the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Niqab vs National Bank of Pakistan through Manager2023 CLD 222 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others vs Ameer Bahadur and others2023 PLD Peshawar 12 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-28
  inheritance mutationcustomary lawriwajMuslim Personal Law Shariat Application Actlimitationacquiescencepast and closed transactionlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from concurrent findings of the courts below decreeing a suit filed by the respondents concerning the inheritance of their common predecessor, Muhammad Khan, whose property was mutated in 1922 under customary law (riwaj). The core legal questions involved the retrospective application of the North West Frontier Province Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935 and West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 to a mutation attested during the period of riwaj, as well as the issue of limitation and acquiescence where a legal heir remains out of possession and fails to challenge such a mutation during their lifetime. The Peshawar High Court held that mutations attested during the period of riwaj prior to the Shariat Acts constitute past and closed transactions and are not subject to retroactive application under Act No. V of 1962. Furthermore, the court held that where an aggrieved legal heir remains alive for a considerable period without challenging their deprivation, their inaction amounts to acquiescence, and subsequent legal heirs lack locus standi to challenge the stale mutation long after the property has changed hands. The revision was allowed and the suit was dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inheritance mutation attested during the period of riwaj prior to the enforcement of the Shariat Application Acts constitute a past and closed transaction?
  • Whether the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 has retrospective effect on successions settled under customary law?
  • Does the prolonged failure of a legal heir to challenge an inheritance mutation during their lifetime amount to acquiescence and render a subsequent suit by their legal heirs time-barred?
  • Do subsequent legal heirs have the locus standi to challenge an ancient inheritance mutation that remained unchallenged during the lifetime of their immediate predecessor?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawab Khan vs Bahader Sher2023 MLD 416 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs Mst. Taj Mina and others2023 CLC 1468 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs Additional D&SJ Mansehra etc2023 PHC 518 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Manzoor vs Dr. Sohail Mehmood and 2 others2023 YLR 507 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Liaqat & anothers vs State2023 PHC 66, 2024 YLR 916 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs Sheraz Khan2023 PHC 548, 2024 PLD Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran and others vs Sajjad Ahmad Jan and others2023 YLR 475 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram vs The State2023 PCRLJ 635 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-24
  narcoticsFSL reportsummoning of witnessesre-examination of witnessesfilling of lacunafair trialcase property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition arises from an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court, Peshawar, which dismissed the petitioner's application for sending case property samples to the FSL while allowing prosecution applications for summoning and re-examining certain prosecution witnesses. The core legal questions involve whether an accused can demand re-sampling of narcotics case property at a belated stage during trial, and whether a trial court can summon or recall witnesses under Section 540 and Section 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court rightly dismissed the re-sampling request since an FSL report was already on record and defense counsel is not an expert, and that the trial court possesses wide discretionary and mandatory powers under Sections 540 and 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon or re-examine any witness whose evidence is essential for the just decision of a case, provided it does not cause prejudice or amount to filling a lacuna improperly. The key principles laid down emphasize that the powers of the court to summon witnesses are aimed at discovering the truth for a fair trial and apply equally to assist both the prosecution and the defense.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused demand the re-sampling of narcotics case property for FSL analysis during the middle of a trial based on personal visual observation?
  • Whether a trial court has the power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon or re-examine witnesses whose names were inadvertently omitted from the police challan?
  • Does the summoning of additional witnesses by the trial court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to improperly filling up a lacuna in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the scope and extent of the trial court's powers under Section 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the examination of witnesses for a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram etc vs Fazal ur Rehman & others2023 PHC 498 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ijaz & another vs The State2023 PHC 422 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idris vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2023 PHC 241, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 386 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-25
  proforma promotionantedated promotionback benefitscivil servicedeputationseniorityretrospective promotionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by a retired civil servant seeking antedated/proforma promotion to the post of Personal Secretary to Director General (BS-17) along with back benefits. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, who was eligible for promotion and possessed an unblemished service record, could be denied promotion in a timely manner and subsequently granted proforma promotion with back benefits from the date the post became vacant. The Peshawar High Court observed that the petitioner was eligible for promotion when the post became vacant upon the retirement of the previous incumbent, but the department unnecessarily delayed his promotion for five years without lawful justification. The court held that a civil servant wrongfully prevented from rendering service in a higher post to which he was entitled is eligible for proforma promotion and back benefits. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner proforma promotion from 07.02.2015, with all arrears and back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant who is wrongfully denied timely promotion is entitled to proforma promotion from the date the post fell vacant?
  • Can a civil servant be granted proforma promotion with back benefits after his retirement from service?
  • Whether filling a promotional post through deputation contrary to service rules illegally deprives an eligible civil servant of their promotion rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Chairman Board of Trustees Employees Old Age2023 PLC 15 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-24
  writ jurisdictionEOBI benefitsdisputed questions of factalternative remedygolden handshakeindustrial disputestatutory forum
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions filed by ex-employees of the Forest Development Corporation seeking old-age benefits under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, following their retirement under a 'Golden Handshake' scheme. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could adjudicate these claims in writ jurisdiction and whether the petitioners had bypassed the statutory forum provided by the Act. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, cannot be invoked to resolve disputed questions of fact, such as individual length of service, registration status, and contribution history, which require factual inquiry. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that where a statute provides a comprehensive mechanism for the resolution of disputes, as found in Chapter VII of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, an aggrieved party must exhaust that alternative, adequate remedy before approaching the High Court. The Court affirmed that it is not the function of the High Court to determine the merits of individual claims requiring such factual probe.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding length of service and contribution history in writ jurisdiction?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable when an aggrieved party has failed to exhaust the statutory remedies provided under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • Does the acceptance of a Golden Handshake scheme preclude an employee from claiming old-age benefits under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat and others vs Muhammad Zaman and others2023 PHC 123 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon vs M/s Amin Hotel and another2023 PHC 5, 2024 PLC 245 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-16
  labour revisionterminal duesworkman statusburden of proofgratuitymanagerial capacityindustrial and commercial establishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This labour revision petition challenged the judgment of the Labour Court, Peshawar, which had reversed an earlier order of the Wages Court granting terminal dues to the petitioner. The petitioner, a former employee of the respondent hotel, sought gratuity, leave encashment, and bonus. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who held the position of Finance Manager, qualified as a 'worker' entitled to benefits under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2013. The Court held that while the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013, allows 'persons' (including non-workmen) to claim wages, claims for specific benefits like gratuity and bonuses under the Standing Orders Act, 2013, require the claimant to prove their status as a 'worker'. The Court affirmed the Labour Court's decision, ruling that the petitioner failed to discharge the initial burden of proof to establish his status as a workman, as his duties were managerial rather than manual or clerical. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'person' under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013, include non-workmen for the purpose of claiming wages?
  • Is a claimant required to prove their status as a 'worker' to be entitled to benefits under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2013?
  • On whom does the initial burden of proof lie to establish the status of a workman in a labour dispute?
  • Can a person holding a managerial position, such as a Finance Manager, be classified as a 'worker' under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2013?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazal vs The State etc2023 PHC 60 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazal vs The State and others2023 MLD 1477 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-30
  criminal appealmurder convictionocular evidenceforensic reportsubstitution of accusedwitness credibilitysentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction under Section 302(b) and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the available ocular and forensic evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent and confidence-inspiring ocular testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of the weapon of offense, and a positive forensic report. The Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed both the appeal and the revision petition. Key principles laid down include that the substitution of a single accused in a murder charge is a rare phenomenon; that the testimony of witnesses cannot be discarded merely due to their relationship with the deceased if it is otherwise trustworthy; and that an FIR is not required to be an exhaustive encyclopedia of all case details.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of prosecution witnesses be discarded solely on the basis of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Is the FIR required to contain every minute detail of the occurrence to be considered valid?
  • Does the substitution of a single accused in a murder charge occur frequently in criminal jurisprudence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when ocular evidence is corroborated by forensic reports and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayaz vs President, Zarai Taraqiati Bank, Islamabad and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 650 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-03
  disciplinary proceedingsnatural justicewrongful dismissalbank employeeburden of proofindustrial relationsreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioner from service by the Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited and the subsequent affirmation of this dismissal by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The core legal question concerns whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and supported by sufficient evidence. The Court held that the inquiry proceedings were fundamentally flawed, as the charge sheet lacked specificity, the inquiry report relied on conjecture regarding the quantum of misappropriated funds, and the bank failed to produce cogent evidence to substantiate the allegations. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal order and the NIRC’s decisions, ordering the petitioner's reinstatement while granting the bank liberty to initiate a fresh, fair inquiry. The judgment establishes that disciplinary proceedings must be based on concrete, confidence-inspiring evidence rather than mere guesswork. Furthermore, it clarifies that criminal investigations and internal disciplinary proceedings are distinct processes that may run concurrently without one necessarily dictating the outcome of the other.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer dismiss an employee based on an inquiry report that relies on guesswork rather than concrete evidence?
  • Does the pendency of criminal proceedings bar or dictate the outcome of internal disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is an employee entitled to reinstatement if the disciplinary inquiry failed to provide a fair opportunity to defend against specific allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ejaz vs The State2023 PHC 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-30
  post-arrest bailhuman traffickingnon-compoundable offencecompromisespecial lawspublic policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, charged with human trafficking and smuggling under the Emigration Act 1979 and the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act 2018, sought post-arrest bail following a compromise reached with the complainant. The core legal question was whether an accused charged with non-compoundable offences under special laws could be granted bail solely on the basis of a compromise with the complainant. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the offences involved were non-compoundable and affected society at large. The court emphasized that the legislature has exclusively defined compoundable offences in Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and courts cannot expand this scope based on humanitarian grounds or private settlements. The key principle laid down is that offences against the State or society, particularly those under special laws like human trafficking, cannot be compounded by private parties, and judicial leniency in such matters would undermine public policy and encourage criminal activity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court allow the composition of an offence that is not listed as compoundable under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a compromise between the complainant and the accused entitle an accused to bail in a non-compoundable offence?
  • Are offences under special laws, such as the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act 2018, compoundable by private parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ejaz vs The State and 2 others2023 MLD 1415 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-13
  post-arrest bailhuman traffickingprohibitory clauseextortionsmuggling of migrantsbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Muhammad Ejaz, who was charged in connection with human trafficking and extortion. The complainant alleged that the petitioner lured her son with promises of a Canadian visa, subsequently detained him in Iran, and demanded ransom, with a portion of the funds deposited into the petitioner's bank account. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the severity of the charges and the evidence connecting him to the crime. Upon reviewing the record, the Court noted that the petitioner was directly named by the complainant, bank statements confirmed the receipt of funds, and digital evidence linked the petitioner to the victim's captors. The Court held that although Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not currently applicable, the charges under Section 22(B) of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 and Sections 3 and 6 of the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act 2018 carried sentences of 14 years, thereby falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense punishable by 14 years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when there is prima facie evidence connecting them to human trafficking and the receipt of ransom funds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ejaz Saeed vs The State and 2 others2023 PCRLJ 1476 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-03
  post-arrest bailhuman traffickingnon-compoundable offencescompromise deedspecial lawspublic policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Ejaz Saeed, sought post-arrest bail in a case involving human trafficking and extortion, registered under the Emigration Act and the Prevention of Smuggling of Migrants Act, 2018. The petitioner relied on a compromise deed executed with the complainant to seek bail. The core legal question was whether an accused charged with non-compoundable offences under special laws could be granted bail solely on the basis of a compromise with the complainant. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the offences charged were non-compoundable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court reasoned that the legislature has exclusively defined compoundable offences in Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and courts cannot expand this scope on humanitarian grounds or private settlements. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that human trafficking is a heinous crime against society at large, and granting leniency would encourage such criminal activities. The principle established is that non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded by private parties, and courts lack the authority to override statutory bars on compounding offences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court allow the compounding of an offence that is not listed as compoundable under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does a compromise between the complainant and the accused entitle an accused to bail in a non-compoundable case involving special laws?
  • Is it against public policy for a court to permit the compounding of offences that affect society at large?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem Khan & others vs Muhammad Imran Khan & others2023 PHC 560, 2024 CLC 1808 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State2023 PCRLJ 544 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-05
  juvenile justicedetermination of ageremandcriminal appealfair trialmandatory inquirychild protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court erred by failing to determine the appellant's age, given that he appeared to be a juvenile at the time of the offense. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court failed to discharge its mandatory duty under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018 to inquire into the accused's age when there was reason to believe he was a minor. The Court emphasized that the obligation to determine age is not dependent on the issue being raised by the parties but is a judicial duty to prevent injustice. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Child Protection Court with directions to first determine the appellant's age and, if he is found to be a juvenile at the time of the offense, to conduct a fresh trial in accordance with the applicable juvenile justice laws.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court obligated to determine the age of an accused person if there is an indication of minority, even if the issue is not raised by the parties?
  • What is the procedure for determining the age of an accused person under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to determine the age of a juvenile accused vitiate the conviction and sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Awais Khan and others vs Government of Pakistan through Federal Secretary Health, Islamabad and others2023 PLJ Peshawar 170, 2024 MLD 422 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc2023 PHC 62 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1561 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-30
  quo warrantopublic officeregularization of serviceslienlocus standiwrit petitionservice jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in the nature of quo warranto to challenge the appointment and subsequent regularization of respondent No.11 as an Assistant Labour Officer in the Labour Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal question was whether the appointment and regularization of respondent No.11 were contrary to statutory rules, rendering him a usurper of a public office, and whether a writ of quo warranto could be issued under the circumstances. The Peshawar High Court held that the appointment and regularization of respondent No.11 were made in accordance with law, specifically falling within the ambit of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, and that he was not a usurper. The court established that a writ of quo warranto cannot be used to determine the correctness of a regularization order where no statutory violation is found, that termination of an employee's lien does not bar them from holding a public office, and that courts will examine the conduct and motives of a petitioner in quo warranto proceedings to decline relief if mala fides or proxy litigation is involved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ of quo warranto can be issued to challenge an appointment and regularization made in accordance with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009?
  • Does the termination of an employee's lien by their former employer debar them from holding a public office?
  • Can a person possessing qualifications for a higher grade be appointed to an inferior post?
  • Is the conduct and motive of a petitioner relevant when seeking a writ of quo warranto?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State, Sayad Hussnain Kazmi2023 PHC 94, 2024 PCRLJ 318 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-14
  illegal emigrationfraudulent inducementforeign employment fraudfake work visasemigration ordinancecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected criminal revision challenge the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under sections 17, 18, and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 for illegally arranging foreign employment, fraudulently inducing emigration, and receiving money under the pretext of providing jobs abroad. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges through oral and documentary evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent testimonies of direct effectees, bank deposit slips, and money transfer records proving substantial financial transactions into the accounts of the appellant and his absconding wife. The court laid down that unrebutted documentary bank evidence corroborated by direct victim testimonies sufficiently proves charges under the Emigration Ordinance, and failure to examine a secondary account holder does not vitiate the conviction when direct parties testify and documents remain unchallenged. Consequently, both the appeal against conviction and the revision petition for enhancement of sentence were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unrebutted bank transaction records and direct witness testimonies are sufficient to maintain a conviction under the Emigration Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the non-examination of an account holder cause a fatal flaw to the prosecution's case when direct complainants testify and financial records are exhibited without objection?
  • Whether sentences imposed under sections 17, 18, and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 warrant enhancement upon revision when supported by reliable evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aqib Irshad vs Govt: of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2023 PHC 440, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 505 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-10
  constitutional petitionwaiting listpublic appointmentnon-joining of candidatevested rightservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed seeking the appointment of the petitioner as a Secondary School Teacher (SST) Biochemistry (BPS-16) against a vacant post in District Abbottabad. The petitioner qualified the recruitment test administered through the Educational Testing and Evaluation Agency and was placed at serial no. 4 of the merit list. Although the candidate at serial no. 2 was appointed, he failed to join the post. The respondents refused to appoint the petitioner on the ground that the waiting list had expired. The core legal question was whether a candidate on the waiting list is entitled to be appointed when a selected candidate fails to join. The court held that when a selected candidate fails to join, the next eligible candidate on the waiting list has a right to be appointed, and the department cannot keep the post vacant or deny appointment based on the alleged expiration of the waiting list caused by departmental delay. The court laid down the principle that posts vacated by non-joining candidates must be filled from the existing waiting list rather than re-advertising, and candidates cannot be prejudiced by official laxity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate on the waiting list is entitled to be appointed when a selected candidate fails to join the service?
  • Can the department refuse appointment to the next eligible candidate on the ground that the waiting list has expired due to departmental delay?
  • Does a successful candidate acquire a right to appointment when a vacancy remains unfilled due to the non-joining of an initially appointed candidate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam and 20 others vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secratery Environment Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at Peshawar and 06 others2023 PHC 610 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Chaudhry and another vs Federation of Pakistan2023 YLR 653 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afaq Khan vs Chairman, BISE, Kohat etc2023 PHC 253, 2024 MLD 115 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan vs The State & Another2023 PHC 299 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid vs Bakht Wali2023 PHC 307 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mufti Muhsin Mehmood vs The State and another2023 PHC 486 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• Mufti Kifayat Ullah vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-02
  post-arrest bailanti-terrorism actseditioncriminal intimidationfurther inquiryfreedom of speechprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Mufti Kifayat Ullah, who was detained under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, following remarks made during a television talk show concerning state functionaries and institutions. The core legal question revolves around whether the allegations levelled in the crime report prima facie attract the invoked penal provisions and the Anti-Terrorism Act, and whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the applicability of the charged sections and the evidentiary value of the material require further probe into the guilt of the petitioner, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court laid down the principle that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and require deeper appreciation and trial, the grant of bail is the general rule while its refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether anti-state comments made during a television talk show necessarily attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at the bail stage?
  • Do the offences under Sections 505, 506, and 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can past criminal history where an accused has been acquitted or released on bail be the sole ground to deny post-arrest bail in a subsequent case?
  • When does a case qualify for further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mufti Kifayat Ullah vs Government of KP2023 PHC 584, 2024 PCRLJ 1875 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-12-07
  Fourth ScheduleAnti-Terrorism ActProscribed personFundamental rightsPreventive detentionDue processConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition, subsequently converted into an appeal, challenged the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, via a notification issued by the government. The core legal question was whether the mere existence of pending or past criminal cases, without evidence of terrorist involvement or affiliation with proscribed organizations, justifies proscription under Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondents failed to demonstrate any reasonable grounds or material evidence linking the petitioner to terrorism, sectarianism, or proscribed organizations. Finding the impugned notification arbitrary and lacking in due process, the Court set it aside and directed the removal of the petitioner's name from the Fourth Schedule. The judgment establishes the principle that the power to proscribe individuals under the Anti-Terrorism Act requires substantive evidence of terrorist intent or affiliation, rather than reliance on ordinary criminal cases, which often lack the requisite element of terrorizing society. Furthermore, it reaffirms that public functionaries must exercise their statutory powers reasonably and in good faith, respecting the fundamental rights to life and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere existence of criminal cases against an individual constitute sufficient grounds for placing their name on the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Is the government required to demonstrate evidence of terrorist involvement or affiliation with a proscribed organization to justify proscription under Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can a constitutional petition be converted into an appeal to secure the ends of justice when a statutory remedy was inadvertently bypassed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Wakeel and another vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2023 PHC 245 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mudassar Wakeel and another vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2023 PLD Peshawar 187 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
• Mubashir Ahmad vs The State etc2023 PHC 163, 2024 YLR 2127 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaib Un Nisa vs Qasim Azeem and 3 others2023 YLR 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmeen Bibi vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Home and Tribunal Affairs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 4 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 989 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-07
  pensionary benefitscontractual servicequalifying servicecivil servantregularizationwrit petitionCivil Service Regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the widow of a deceased government employee, challenging the denial of pensionary benefits. The petitioner sought to include her late husband's contractual service, rendered prior to his regularization, in the calculation of his total service for pension eligibility. The core legal question was whether contractual service followed by regularization could be counted towards the mandatory qualifying service period required for pension entitlement. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that contractual service cannot be used to satisfy the eligibility criteria for pension. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court clarified that while contractual service may be added to regular service for calculating the quantum of pension, it cannot be used to meet the threshold of ten years of qualifying service. The Court emphasized that Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations does not permit bypassing the mandatory qualifying service period. Consequently, as the deceased had not completed the requisite qualifying service independently, the petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can contractual service be counted towards the mandatory qualifying service period for pension eligibility?
  • Does Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations allow an employee to bypass the ten-year qualifying service requirement for pension?
  • Are legal heirs of a deceased civil servant entitled to file a writ petition for pensionary benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmeen Bibi vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Home and Tribal Affiars Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,Civil Secretariate Peshawar and others2023 PHC 44 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-07
  pensionary benefitscontractual serviceregularizationqualifying servicecivil servantswrit petitionlegal heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, the widow of a deceased police constable, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking pensionary benefits. The deceased had served as a Special Police Officer on contract from 2009 until his services were regularized in March 2020, and he passed away shortly thereafter. The petitioner sought to count the contractual service period toward the qualifying service for pension under Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations and the West Pakistan Civil Service Pension Rules 1963. The Peshawar High Court examined the maintainability of the petition by legal heirs and the substantive entitlement to pension. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that while legal heirs can maintain such a petition, contractual service can only be added to regular service for calculating the quantum of pension if the employee has independently completed the minimum ten years of regular qualifying service. Since the deceased had not completed the requisite ten years of regular service post-regularization, his contractual service could not be counted to establish eligibility. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant maintain a writ petition before the High Court for pensionary benefits?
  • Whether service rendered on a contract or temporary basis followed by regularization can be counted to meet the minimum qualifying service of ten years for pension eligibility?
  • Does Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations allow a temporary or contractual employee to bypass the requirement of regular qualifying service for pension entitlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tajrian through legal heirs and 9 others vs Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Forest, Islamabad and 3 others2023 YLR 619 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shehla Naeem vs Chief Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2023 PHC 313 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-08
  civil servanttransfer and postingservice matterjurisdictional barconstitutional petitionService TribunalArticle 212
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant (Assistant Professor), filed a constitutional petition challenging her transfer order, alleging it was improper and seeking reinstatement to her original post. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain a petition regarding the transfer of a civil servant, given the constitutional bar on service matters. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Court affirmed that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction is a command that restricts High Courts from interfering in service-related disputes, even when allegations of mala fides are raised, as the Service Tribunal is the appropriate forum for such grievances. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction, while granting the petitioner liberty to approach the competent forum for redressal of her grievance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition challenging the transfer of a civil servant?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Can a civil servant challenge a transfer order on the grounds of mala fides before the High Court instead of the Service Tribunal?
  • Is a transfer order considered a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamshad Begum and others vs Mohammad Bashir and others2023 PHC 578 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shameem Begum and others vs Syed Qaim Shah Bukhari and others2023 PHC 189, 2024 CLC 256 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shakira wife of Habib Ullah vs The State etc2023 PHC 231, 2023 P Cr. L J 1670 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-01
  mental incapacityunsound mindQatl-e-Amdcriminal trial proceduremedical boardSection 465 Cr.P.C.fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the offence of Qatl-e-Amd under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a mandatory inquiry into the appellant’s mental capacity despite repeated applications and admissions regarding her mental illness. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which requires the court to determine an accused's capacity to stand trial when unsoundness of mind is raised. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court established that when a prima facie claim of mental incapacity is raised, the trial court must constitute a Standing Medical Board to evaluate the accused. The conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded with directions to conduct a formal inquiry into the appellant's mental state, ensuring medical expert testimony is recorded and subjected to cross-examination before proceeding with the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have a mandatory duty to inquire into the mental capacity of an accused when a plea of unsoundness of mind is raised?
  • Can a trial court form a subjective view regarding an accused's mental incapacity without seeking the opinion of a medical expert?
  • What is the required procedure for a trial court when an accused claims mental illness under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana vs Asif Ullah and others2023 PHC 199 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rozeena vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2023 CLC 427 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rainaz vs The State and another2023 PHC 159, 2024 PCRLJ 20 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-08
  retracted confessionjudicial confessionpointationdiscoveryqatl-i-amdcriminal appealcorroborative evidencevoluntariness of confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This Jail Criminal Appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of her sister-in-law. The core legal question is whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on a retracted judicial confession and an alleged pointation of the crime scene, in the absence of independent corroborative evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It found that the Judicial Magistrate failed to ensure the voluntariness and truthfulness of the confession, having recorded it in a hurried manner without allowing the appellant, a young and illiterate girl, sufficient time to comprehend the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the 'pointation' of the crime scene by the accused did not constitute a valid discovery under the law, as the police were already aware of the location and had previously prepared a site plan. The principle laid down is that a retracted confession requires independent, reliable corroboration to support a conviction, and evidence obtained through 'pointation' of a known location is inadmissible as a discovery under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroborative evidence?
  • Does a pointation of a crime scene already known to the police constitute a valid discovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What is the legal requirement for a Judicial Magistrate to ensure the voluntariness of a confessional statement?
  • Is evidence obtained through 'pointation' of a location already documented in a site plan admissible as a discovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia jabeen vs The State2023 PHC 412 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qabala vs Muhammad Shafi Khan and other2023 PHC 614 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Jehan vs Ubaid Ullah and another2023 MLD 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naureen Masood etc vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad etc2023 PHC 600 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Ishaq and others vs Khizar Hayat and others2023 PLJ Peshawar 82, 2023 PLD Peshawar 133 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Bibi vs District Education Officer (F) Shangla and others2023 PHC 394 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-13
  writ petitioncivil servicemedical retirement quotamarried daughter eligibilitylocus poenitentiaepolicy decisionwithdrawal of appointment order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed challenging an order withdrawing the petitioner's appointment as a Naib Qasid (Class-IV) on the quota for children of government servants retired on medical grounds. The core legal questions were whether a married daughter remains eligible for employment under Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1989 in light of an departmental policy clarification, and whether the authority could withdraw an illegal appointment order under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under the government's policy clarification, a married daughter loses financial dependency on her father and is ineligible for appointment unless judicially or customarily separated. The Court ruled that the policy clarification was consistent with Rule 10(4) and Section 26(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act 1973, and under Section 20 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 1956, an illegal order grants no perpetual rights and may be rescinded.

  Questions settled

  • Is a married daughter eligible for appointment under the quota for children of civil servants retired on medical grounds under Rule 10(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1989?
  • Can an administrative departmental policy clarification supplement statutory civil service rules without being inconsistent with them?
  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae prevent an appointing authority from rescinding an appointment order if the appointee was ineligible at the time of appointment?
  • Can a High Court interfere with a departmental policy decision in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadia vs The State2023 YLR 171 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-24
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryconscious knowledgefurther inquirypregnant woman bailsuckling babyvehicle search
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a post-arrest bail application filed by two female petitioners who were arrested following the recovery of a large quantity of charas and opium from secret cavities of a motorcar in which they were travelling as passengers. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail when no direct recovery of narcotics was made from their personal possession and their conscious knowledge of the concealed contraband required further inquiry, coupled with their personal circumstances of pregnancy and having a suckling infant. The Peshawar High Court held that in the absence of prima facie evidence establishing conscious knowledge or nexus with the concealed narcotics, the petitioners' case fell within the scope of further inquiry, making them eligible for bail. Additionally, the court highlighted Islamic jurisprudence and binding precedents regarding the protection and welfare of pregnant women and suckling children. The court laid down the principle that passengers travelling in a vehicle without direct recovery or proven conscious knowledge of concealed contraband are entitled to further probe, and that pregnancy or the responsibility of a suckling child are significant humanitarian and Islamic grounds for granting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether passengers travelling in a vehicle are entitled to post-arrest bail when narcotics are recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle rather than from their direct personal possession?
  • Does the absence of prima facie evidence regarding conscious knowledge of concealed contraband bring the case of an accused within the scope of further inquiry under criminal law?
  • Whether pregnancy and the care of a suckling infant constitute valid grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail in serious criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadia Bibi vs Asad Khan and others2023 CLC 2055 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarat vs Aziz Ahmad and others2023 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mujahida Bibi vs The State etc.2023 PHC 370 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Muhammad Bibi vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Director Education School (Female) Peshawar and others2023 PHC 151, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 547 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-31
  pensionary benefitscontract serviceregular servicequalifying serviceconstitutional petitioncivil servantlegal heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the mother of a deceased civil servant seeking the payment of pension and other service-related benefits following the murder of her daughter. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the period of service rendered on a contract or temporary basis prior to regularisation can be counted towards the qualifying period for pensionary benefits when the employee has not independently completed the mandatory ten years of regular service. The Peshawar High Court held that a civil servant must independently complete the prescribed ten years of regular service to qualify for pension, and while previous temporary or contractual service can be added to calculate the quantum of pension once eligibility is established, it cannot be used to fulfill the initial ten-year qualifying threshold. Applying this principle, since the deceased had served less than five years as a regular employee following her regularisation, her previous contract service could not be counted to make up the shortfall, rendering her ineligible for pension. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant file a constitutional petition for pensionary benefits?
  • Whether service rendered on a contract or temporary basis can be counted toward the qualifying period for pension eligibility?
  • Does Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations allow the addition of contractual service to meet the mandatory ten-year regular service threshold for pension?
  • Can previous contractual service be added to regular service solely for calculating the quantum of pension after the independent qualifying period is met?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Miraj Bibi and 5 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Attorney2023 YLR 53 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija and another vs The Controlling Authority Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education_Chief Minister Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 4 others2023 YLR 2261 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija & another vs The Controlling Authority, BISE, etc2023 PHC 161 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jehan Pasa vs The State2023 MLD 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Ara (Widow) vs Mst. Surayya Begum Deceased (through Legal2023 CLC 663 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hayat Begum vs Rehman Malik and others2023 PLD Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haleema Bibi vs The Additional Chief Secretary Fata, Fata Secretariat, Warsak Road, Peshawar and others2023 PHC 110 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Falak Shehnaz and another vs Mst. Farah Deeba and others2023 PLJ Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Ayesha etc vs Muhammad Farooq etc2023 PHC 275 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Bakht Begum vs Afarin Khan and 12 others2023 CLC 763 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayesha vs Muhammad Niaz Khan & 02 others2023 PHC 303 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amna and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secratery, Ministry of Interior etc2023 PHC 382, 2024 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Adalat Bibi vs Mst. Socha Bibi and others2023 CLC 1518 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mosa Khan vs The State2023 YLR 363 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-24
  post-arrest bailnarcotic traffickingconscious possessioncriminal liabilityrecovery from vehiclefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner, Mosa Khan, seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 1533, registered under sections 9D and 11C of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Narcotic Substances Act, 2019. The petitioner was charged with trafficking significant quantities of heroin and amphetamine, along with possession of small amounts of heroin and ice, discovered in a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was a passenger in the vehicle, could be held liable for the large quantity of narcotics recovered from a secret cavity controlled by the co-accused, given the lack of evidence establishing his conscious knowledge or involvement in the smuggling attempt. The court held that while the petitioner possessed a small, personal quantity of narcotics, there was no evidence linking him to the larger smuggling operation. Consequently, the court found his participation in the alleged crime required further inquiry and granted bail. The principle laid down is that mere presence in a vehicle containing contraband, without evidence of conscious knowledge or control, does not establish criminal nexus for trafficking charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an individual in a vehicle containing a large quantity of narcotics establish their liability for trafficking?
  • Can possession of a small, personal quantity of contraband be used to establish liability for a larger smuggling operation found in the same vehicle?
  • What evidence is required to establish a nexus between a passenger and contraband recovered from a secret cavity in a vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohibullah vs The State2023 PLD Peshawar 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-12
  refreshing memorywitness testimonycriminal trialpolice filefair trialcross-examinationQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges a trial court order allowing a prosecution witness to refresh his memory using the police file during examination-in-chief without a formal request or established foundation. The core legal question concerns the permissible scope and procedure for witnesses to refresh their memory under Article 155 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and whether allowing a witness to read directly from a police file violates the right to a fair trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court erred by permitting the witness to testify while reading from the police file without first establishing a memory lapse or following the requisite legal procedure. The Court ruled that the police file is a confidential record not intended for witness testimony, and the practice of allowing a witness to regurgitate evidence from it undermines cross-examination and prejudices the accused. The Court set aside the impugned order, declared the witness's prior testimony inadmissible, and mandated that the evidence be recorded afresh, emphasizing that witnesses must testify from memory, not by reading documents authored by others.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness refresh their memory from a police file without a formal request or establishing a foundation for memory lapse?
  • Is a witness permitted to read from a police file while testifying in the witness box?
  • What is the proper procedure for a witness to refresh their memory under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →