Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.
- Gul Roz alias Meena s/o Shamroz, r/o Tehkal Bala Peshawar vs The State2023 PHC 590, 2024 YLR 2451 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the murder of three individuals and attempted murder. The appellant was convicted under sections 302(b), 324, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of eyewitnesses who were relatives of the deceased, the evidentiary value of witnesses remaining unhurt during indiscriminate firing, and the proportionality of the death sentence given the uncertainty of the fatal shots. The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular account consistent and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. However, the Court held that the death sentence was inappropriate because it remained uncertain which of the five accused fired the fatal shots and the motive primarily involved absconding co-accused. Consequently, the Court converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life on three counts. The judgment reaffirms that the mere survival of witnesses during an attack does not render their presence doubtful, nor does familial relationship automatically disqualify witnesses absent evidence of hostility.
Questions settled- Does the fact that eyewitnesses remained unhurt during an incident of indiscriminate firing render their presence at the scene doubtful?
- Can the death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when it is uncertain which of multiple accused fired the fatal shots?
- Does a familial relationship between prosecution witnesses and the deceased automatically render them interested witnesses whose testimony must be discarded?
- Gul Nabi Syed vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Energy Power Division, Islamabad and others2023 PHC 249, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 20, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 17 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, initially appointed as a temporary Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of PESCO on a stopgap basis, challenged the Federal Government's proposal to replace him with respondent No. 5. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was removed and respondent No. 5 was appointed on a similar temporary, stopgap basis. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the company lacked statutory service rules. The High Court held that because the appointment to the office of CEO is governed by statutory instruments and guidelines framed by the Federal Government, the Court possessed the necessary jurisdiction. On the merits, the Court observed that the practice of making continuous stopgap, ad hoc, or look-after appointments to the post of CEO, without initiating a regular selection process, violates the mandatory provisions of the Companies Act, 2017 and the corporate governance rules. The Court deprecated the culture of adhocism and directed the Federal Government to complete the regular appointment process within two months, failing which the temporary appointment of respondent No. 5 would cease to be valid.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a public sector company lacking statutory service rules when the appointment to the office of its Chief Executive Officer is governed by statutory instruments and guidelines?
- Can the Federal Government indefinitely continue stopgap or look-after arrangements for the post of Chief Executive Officer of a public sector company without initiating a regular selection process?
- What is the legal status and maximum permissible duration of an appointment made on a current charge or stopgap basis in public sector entities?
- Gul Khan etc vs The State2023 PHC 530 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
- Gul Hussain vs Fazal Shah and others2023 PHC 285 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-12Read full judgment →
- Gul Aslam vs Gomal University, D.I. Khan through Vice-Chancellor and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1073 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a retired employee of Gomal University, filed a constitutional petition seeking the restoration of his seniority, promotion, and consequential monetary benefits, challenging an administrative decision from 1986 that re-designated Mess Munshis as Junior Clerks. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s grievance, raised decades after the impugned administrative action and after his retirement, was maintainable or barred by the doctrine of laches. The Court held that the petition was hit by laches due to the petitioner’s inordinate delay and lack of vigilance in challenging the seniority list. The Court emphasized that in matters of service and promotion, an aggrieved party must approach the court within a reasonable time; failing to do so, especially when the petitioner remained silent for nearly thirty years, precludes judicial intervention. The key principle laid down is that when a court determines a petition is barred by laches, it is not required to adjudicate the underlying merits of the claim, as the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 is not intended to revive stale claims.
Questions settled- Is a court required to decide a constitutional petition on its merits if it determines the petition is barred by laches?
- Does the doctrine of laches apply to service and promotion matters where there has been an inordinate delay in approaching the court?
- Can a petitioner seek judicial review of an administrative decision regarding seniority decades after the decision was made?
- Gul Aslam vs Gomal University, D.I Khan through its Vice Chancellor and others2023 PHC 141 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
- Government of KPK through Secratery Works & Communication2023 PHC 348, 2024 CLC 1876 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-01Read full judgment →
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest Department2023 PLD Peshawar 60 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary &2023 PHC 572 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Deputy Commissioner, Swabi2023 YLR 2522 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-27Read full judgment →
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others2023 YLR 574 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-18Read full judgment →
- Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and 5 others2023 YLR 2556 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-05Read full judgment →
- Gohar Ali vs The State2023 YLR 1761 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Mardan, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the return of seized foreign currency. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who claimed ownership of seized Saudi Riyals, was entitled to their release on superdari despite failing to provide proof of authorized acquisition or legitimate source. The court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of ownership, as inquiries revealed the alleged sale transaction was groundless. Furthermore, the court emphasized that conducting a foreign currency business requires specific authorization from the State Bank of Pakistan under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947, which the petitioner lacked. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court affirmed that the freedom of trade under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is subject to lawful regulation. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, maintaining that the seized currency could not be released without proof of legitimate ownership and compliance with regulatory requirements.
Questions settled- Is a person entitled to the return of seized foreign currency on superdari if they cannot prove the currency was acquired through authorized sources?
- Does the right to freedom of trade under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 exempt a person from complying with regulatory requirements for foreign currency exchange?
- Is prior authorization from the State Bank of Pakistan mandatory for conducting a business involving foreign currency exchange?
- Ghulam Rabbani and others vs Abdul Aziz and others2023 YLR 2422 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs The State and another2023 YLR 2266 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Ghulam Muhammad, challenged his conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of life imprisonment rendered by the trial court. The complainant alleged that the appellant entered a doctor's clinic and fatally shot the deceased due to political rivalry. The Peshawar High Court examined the evidence, noting severe contradictions regarding the time and manner of the occurrence, the failure to establish the natural presence of the complainant and eye-witnesses at the scene, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, and unexplained delays in reporting the crime. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the sole accused. Holding that the prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful and that the medical evidence conflicted with the ocular account, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, while dismissing the connected revision for sentence enhancement and appeals against the acquittal of co-accused.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution's failure to establish the natural presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of the crime is fatal to the case?
- Does a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- What is the legal effect when an accused fails to fully substantiate a plea of alibi taken in defence?
- Whether the non-production of best available evidence entitles the accused to an adverse inference under the law?
- Ghulam Jan vs The State2023 YLR 1786 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-12Read full judgment →
- Fida Ullah Khan vs President Habib Bank Limited, Head Office, Habib Bank2023 PLC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which had set aside a reinstatement order previously granted to the petitioner, a former bank manager. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, designated as a Manager (Band-I) and holding a power of attorney, qualified as a "workman" under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, to maintain a grievance petition. The Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving his status as a workman, as he performed supervisory duties rather than manual or clerical work. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the individual approaching the labor forum to establish their status as a workman. Furthermore, the Court held that bank managers and power of attorney holders generally fall outside the definition of a "workman." Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner's employment terms were governed by his contract, and any grievance regarding termination should be pursued in an appropriate civil forum rather than the NIRC.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie on the employee to establish their status as a workman when approaching a labor forum?
- Can a bank manager who holds a power of attorney be classified as a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Is the status of a workman determined by the designation of the post or by the actual nature of the duties performed?
- Where should an employee pursue a grievance if they do not qualify as a workman under labor laws?
- Fida Muhammad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government Elections & Rural Development Department, Peshawar & others2023 PHC 532 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Fazle Rabi vs HBL & others2023 PHC 474 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the judgment of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which had set aside the reinstatement of the petitioner, an ex-cashier dismissed for alleged cash shortage and misconduct. The core legal question was whether the appellate forum's findings, based on assumptions and presumptions regarding a bank cash shortage and a missing cheque, were sustainable when contrary to the record and evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the dismissal was based on conjectures and misreading of evidence rather than established misconduct, and that the grievance petition was filed within time after awaiting the outcome of a departmental appeal. The court restored the Single Member NIRC's order reinstating the petitioner, laying down that High Courts can interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with findings of appellate tribunals that are illogical, unsupported by material on record, or based on far-fetched presumptions.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with factual findings of an appellate tribunal that are based on presumptions and misreading of evidence?
- Does a delay caused by awaiting the outcome of a pending departmental appeal justify condonation or render a subsequent grievance petition under labor laws within time?
- Can an employee be held liable for misconduct based on assumptions without direct evidence or support from the record?
- Fazal Subhan vs The Registrar Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and others2023 PHC 444 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-10Read full judgment →
- Fazal Subhan vs (Respondents are not represented being a motion case)2023 PLD Peshawar 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner-complainant's application to declare PW-12, an ASI, as a hostile witness during his cross-examination. The core legal question was whether a witness can be declared hostile and permitted to be cross-examined by the party who called him after the opposing party has commenced cross-examination. The Peshawar High Court held that once the examination-in-chief is completed and the opposing party begins cross-examination, the witness no longer remains the witness of the calling party, and consequently, a request to declare the witness hostile cannot be entertained at that stage. The Court emphasized that an unfavourable answer during cross-examination inures to the benefit of the accused rather than serving as grounds for treating the witness as hostile. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Can a prosecution witness be declared as a hostile witness during the course of cross-examination by the defence?
- At what stage of trial proceedings can a party request the court to declare its witness as hostile?
- Does an unfavourable statement made by a witness during cross-examination provide sufficient ground to declare such witness hostile?
- Fazal Nawaz alias Muhammad Shafi vs The State etc2023 PHC 512, 2024 PCRLJ 993 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Bannu, wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for qatl-i-amd, along with an order for compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while being acquitted of a charge under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Peshawar High Court examined the prosecution's case, which relied on an ocular account, medical evidence, circumstantial evidence, abscondence, and a purported motive. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the solitary eyewitness, material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, and the legal effect of unproven motive and abscondence. The Court held that the presence of the eyewitness was highly doubtful, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, laying down that even a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence vitiate the conviction?
- Can abscondence alone sustain a criminal conviction in the absence of substantive primary evidence?
- What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to prove an alleged motive when it serves as the sole link between the parties?
- Whether the benefit of a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused?
- Fazal Khan and others vs Additional Deputy Commissioner and others2023 PLD Peshawar 29 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-13Read full judgment →
- Fazal Khaliq and others vs Muhammad Ayub and others2023 PHC 464 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karam vs Deputy Forest Manager, Forest Development Corporation2023 PHC 267 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-23Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hadi and others vs Shah Nazar Khan and others2023 CLC 1882 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
- Farzand Ali and another vs The State and another2023 YLR 2374 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants for murder and attempted murder. The appellants were convicted by the trial court for offenses including murder and attempted murder following a shooting incident. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the prosecution's version of events was contradicted by medical evidence, site plans, and inconsistencies in witness testimony regarding the timing and manner of the incident. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the number of assailants was likely exaggerated, the motive was not established, and there were significant contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was found to be unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that when the prosecution fails to establish a common object or specify individual roles in a case with multiple accused and injuries, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a motive react against a conviction on a capital charge?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account is in direct conflict with the medical evidence and site plan?
- Is it necessary for the prosecution to specify the role of each accused when the common object is not proven?
- What is the evidentiary consequence of the prosecution withholding key witnesses from the court?
- Farman Ullah vs Mst. Shaheen Akhtar and 2 others2023 CLC 1959 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
- Farman Ullah vs Mst. Shaheen Akhtar & others2023 PHC 129 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
- Farman Shah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2023 PHC 14 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
- Farman Shah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through C.S. and others2023 PLD Peshawar 178 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-02Read full judgment →
- Farman Hussain vs The State2023 PCRLJ 398 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail petition arising from case FIR No. 163 registered under sections 489-F/420 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station MRS, Kohat. The petitioner, former Director Finance of Garrison Cadet College Kohat, was accused of misappropriation, cheating, and fraud involving a substantial sum of money after an internal departmental inquiry, and subsequently issued a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that even if an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause, bail is not a universal rule and can be refused based on the facts and circumstances of the case, such as the magnitude of financial embezzlement and the execution of an agreement with dishonoured cheques. The key principle laid down is that the mere fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, as judicial discretion remains to refuse bail in appropriate cases.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be refused for an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the issuance of a dishonoured cheque in pursuance of an agreement for misappropriated funds serve as an exception to the grant of bail?
- Can the High Court direct the inclusion of an additional section of law during the dismissal of a post-arrest bail petition?
- Fareed Khan etc vs Gul Daraz etc2023 PHC 28 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-16Read full judgment →
- Fareed Khan and 12 others vs Gul Daraz and 10 others2023 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-16Read full judgment →
- Faqir & one another vs Khan Zada through LRs & 02 others2023 PHC 468, 2024 YLR 1442 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-30Read full judgment →
- Faqeer Muhammad vs M/s Natover Lease & Refinance Ltd through2023 PHC 364, 2024 PLJ Peshawar 45, 2024 CLD 758 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-07-10Read full judgment →
- Fakhar Zaman vs The State and another2023 PCRLJ 496 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arose from a case registered under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, involving allegations of sexual harassment and extortion. The petitioner was accused of transmitting nude images and videos of the complainant to harass her and extort financial benefits while her husband was abroad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the incriminating digital forensic evidence. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was prima facie connected to the offense through forensic reports identifying the illicit content on his devices. The court established that while bail is generally granted for offenses punishable by less than ten years of imprisonment, it is not a mandatory rule. Courts may depart from this norm and deny bail in appropriate cases where the accused has victimized a helpless complainant through sexual harassment, blackmail, and extortion, particularly when such acts are supported by substantial digital evidence.
Questions settled- Is the grant of bail mandatory for offenses punishable by less than ten years of imprisonment?
- Can a court deny bail in a cybercrime case where digital forensic evidence prima facie connects the accused to the offense?
- Does the act of transmitting nude images for extortion constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Faisal Amin and 3 others vs The State through A.G. Office Peshawar and another2023 YLR 199 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by accused-petitioners charged under Sections 365, 377, 506, 392, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of abducting and committing an unnatural offence against a transgender person. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail, particularly in light of a purported compromise reached with the complainant party. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the accused were prima facie connected to the commission of a serious offence that affronts collective morality and norms. The Court emphasized that the offences charged are not compoundable, rendering the compromise irrelevant at the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court noted that the victim, belonging to a vulnerable segment of society, had directly nominated the accused, and the medical evidence supported the prosecution's version. The Court laid down the principle that in cases involving heinous offences against vulnerable individuals, a compromise between parties cannot be considered for the grant of bail, especially when the offence is non-compoundable and falls within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a compromise between the complainant and the accused be considered for the grant of bail in non-compoundable offences?
- Does an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a victim's direct nomination of the accused in a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to deny bail at the tentative assessment stage?
- Erfan vs Muhammad Mushtaq and another2023 MLD 1731 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected revision arise from a judgment of the Model Criminal Trial Court/ASJ-II, Kohat, convicting the appellant under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder and inflicting injuries, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involve the assessment of ocular testimony of related witnesses, corroboration through medical and circumstantial evidence including the immediate spot-arrest of the accused with a weapon matching forensic ballistic reports, and the propriety of enhancing the sentence to death where multiple assailants opened fire and fatal shots could not be specifically attributed to an individual. The Peshawar High Court dismissed both the appeal and the revision, holding that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt through reliable eyewitness accounts, corroborative forensic evidence, and immediate police encounter arrest, while declining to enhance the sentence to death due to uncertainty regarding whose specific gunfire caused the fatal injuries. The key principle laid down is that related eyewitness testimony, when consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, remains fully credible, and sentence enhancement to death is unwarranted where multiple accused fire simultaneously and individual fatal attribution is impracticable.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an eyewitness who is closely related to the deceased can be discarded solely on the ground of relationship?
- Does the recovery of the weapon of offense and a positive forensic ballistic match of crime empties serve as strong corroborative evidence against an accused?
- Can a sentence of life imprisonment be enhanced to death in a case of multiple accused firing where the specific fatal shot cannot be attributed to a single individual?
- Whether non-existence of exit wounds on the body of a deceased at close-range firing is sufficient to discard otherwise trustworthy medical and ocular evidence?
- Ejaz Ahmad, Assistant Office of District Food Controller, Mansehra vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary Food Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar and others2023 PLJ Peshawar 187 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a constitutional petition filed before the Peshawar High Court challenging a judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding seniority and promotion. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a petition against an order of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, or if such jurisdiction is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Court held that by virtue of the Provincial Service Tribunals (Extension of Provisions of the Constitution) Act, 1974, the provisions of Article 212(2) of the Constitution stand extended to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal upon the request of the Provincial Assembly. Consequently, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal bars the High Court from entertaining proceedings relating to terms and conditions of service, and the sole remedy lies via an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 212(3). The petition was accordingly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction to entertain a petition against a judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal?
- Whether the provisions of Article 212(2) of the Constitution stand extended to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal?
- What is the appropriate remedy against a judgment, decree, or order of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal?
- Ejaz Ahmad vs Govt etc2023 PHC 201, 2023 PLJ Peshawar 187, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 53 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged a judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal dismissing his service appeal regarding seniority and promotion. The core legal question was whether the High Court has constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a petition against the judgment of a Provincial Service Tribunal given the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Peshawar High Court held that pursuant to the Provincial Service Tribunals (Extension of Provisions of the Constitution) Act 1974, the provisions of Article 212(2) stand extended to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal upon the request of the Provincial Assembly, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court. The key principle laid down is that once Article 212(2) provisions are extended to a provincial service tribunal, the exclusive remedy against its judgment lies before the Supreme Court under Article 212(3), and the High Court lacks constitutional jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction to hear a petition against a judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal?
- Whether the provisions of Article 212(2) of the Constitution extend to the Provincial Service Tribunals?
- What is the appropriate remedy against a judgment, decree, or order of an Administrative Court or Tribunal established under a provincial law?
- Dr.Naeem-ur-Rehman vs Saeed-Ur-Rehman2023 PHC 404, 2024 YLR 780 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. Rafiullah, Assistant Professor, Department of Agriculture and 21 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 560 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the decision of the University of Swabi's Syndicate to cancel job advertisements for Assistant Professor positions and subsequently re-advertise them. The petitioners, who had applied under the initial advertisements, contended that the cancellation was illegal and violated their legitimate expectations. The core legal question was whether the respondent authority possessed the power to rescind the advertisements before any selection process had been finalized. The Court held that, under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, an authority that has the power to issue an order, rule, or notification also possesses the power to rescind it, provided no decisive step has been taken and no vested rights have accrued to any individual. Finding that the petitioners had not acquired any vested rights as no selection process had been completed, the Court upheld the Syndicate's decision to cancel the advertisements and dismissed the petition in limine.
Questions settled- Does an authority have the power to rescind an advertisement for a job post before any decisive steps in the recruitment process have been taken?
- Does the mere act of applying for a advertised post create a vested right that prevents the authority from cancelling the advertisement?
- Under what circumstances can an authority invoke the doctrine of locus poenitentiae to withdraw an order or notification?
- Dr. Mehmood Jan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Through Secretary Health Peshawar and others2023 PHC 153, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 123 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by a civil servant challenging his proposed transfer from the position of District Health Officer by the provincial Health Department, alleging mala fide and political victimization. The core legal question revolves around the maintainability of a constitutional petition by a civil servant regarding terms and conditions of service in light of the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution and the availability of an alternative remedy before the Service Tribunal. The Peshawar High Court held that matters relating to the posting and transfer of a civil servant fall strictly within the terms and conditions of service, over which the Service Tribunal exercises exclusive jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that allegations of mala fide do not confer jurisdiction on the High Court, and the constitutional bar under Article 212 explicitly ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts and High Courts. The petition was consequently dismissed as non-maintainable, leaving the petitioner at liberty to approach the appropriate departmental and statutory forum.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a constitutional petition by a civil servant regarding a transfer?
- Does an allegation of mala fide or political victimization confer jurisdiction upon the High Court to interfere in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant in view of Article 212?
- Whether matters of posting and transfer of a civil servant fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal?
- Dr. Jehanzeb and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkrwa2023 PLC (C.S.) 297 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition was filed by petitioners challenging a previous judgment of the Peshawar High Court which had dismissed their writ petition against a notice issued by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The petitioners, members of a committee in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Text Book Board, had been issued a notice by the Anti-Corruption department demanding the deposit of an alleged misappropriated amount following audit observations. The core legal question was whether the Anti-Corruption Establishment possessed the statutory authority to issue a notice demanding the deposit of an alleged embezzled amount prior to the completion of a formal inquiry or investigation. The Court held that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1999, do not authorize the issuance of such a notice for the recovery of funds. The Court emphasized that the power of review is available to correct errors patent on the face of the record or where important statutory provisions were overlooked. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notice as illegal and without jurisdiction, clarifying that while the petitioners could still be proceeded against in accordance with the law, the specific demand for payment was unauthorized.
Questions settled- Does the Anti-Corruption Establishment have the legal authority to issue a notice demanding the deposit of an alleged misappropriated amount prior to the conclusion of an investigation?
- Under what circumstances can a court exercise its power of review regarding a previous judgment?
- Is a notice issued by the Anti-Corruption Establishment demanding the deposit of funds without following the prescribed inquiry procedure legally sustainable?
- Dr. Jehanzeb and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2023 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
- Dr. Hazrat Khan vs The State and others2023 MLD 312 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition sought special leave to appeal against an order of the Judicial Magistrate-I, D.I. Khan, which acquitted the respondents under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a complaint involving allegations of fraud and other offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a second criminal complaint could be maintained against the same accused for the same set of facts when a previous complaint regarding the same allegations had already been dismissed by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court held that the petition was meritless, affirming the acquittal. The ratio of the decision is that the principle of double jeopardy, or 'nemo debet bis vexari', prohibits the re-trial of an accused for the same offense once they have been tried and acquitted by a competent court. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions, including the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the General Clauses Act 1897, and the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, strictly protect individuals from being prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offense.
Questions settled- Does the principle of double jeopardy prohibit a second trial for the same offense when the accused has already been acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Can a complainant file a fresh criminal complaint based on the same facts and allegations that were previously adjudicated and dismissed by a competent court?
- Does the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar subsequent prosecution for the same offense?
- Dr. Hazrat Hussain vs Rector Comsats University, Islamabad and others.2023 PHC 346 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-01Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ammer Khan Jadoon vs Govt of KP & others2023 PHC 396 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-13Read full judgment →
- Dr. Amjad Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2023 CLC 731 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-18Read full judgment →
- District Police Officer, Abbottabad vs Mst. Noor Julian & others2023 PHC 538 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-30Read full judgment →
- District Accounts Officer Malakand vs Mst. Haleema Bibi2023 PHC 482 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged the lower courts' dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which sought the rejection of a civil servant’s plaint regarding the correction of her date of birth. The core legal question was whether a civil court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain a suit by a civil servant for the alteration of their date of birth. The High Court held that such matters fall outside the jurisdiction of civil courts, as they are governed by specific service rules, particularly Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, which mandates that any such correction must occur within two years of initial appointment. The Court emphasized that civil servants cannot bypass these rules by seeking declarations from civil courts. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and, exercising suo motu revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, also set aside a previous decree obtained by the respondent, directing the reversal of all unauthorized date-of-birth entries.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a civil servant for the correction of their date of birth?
- Can a High Court exercise suo motu revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a decree passed by a subordinate court?
- Is a civil servant permitted to seek an alteration of their date of birth after the expiration of two years from their initial appointment?
- Dilabaz Khan vs The State and another2023 PHC 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-05Read full judgment →
- Dil Nawaz etc vs Malik Naeem Khan etc2023 PHC 536 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-07Read full judgment →
- Dawn Frozen Foods & others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief Secratery, Peshawar and others2023 PHC 504, 2024 YLR 2670 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
- Dawa Khan & another vs Muhammad Izhar Khan2023 PHC 207, 2024 YLR 2349 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
- Danish Khan Afridi vs The State2023 YLR 1218 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arose from FIR No. 229/2021, wherein the petitioner was charged under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including murder and attempted murder, following the killing of a serving Anti-Terrorism Court judge and his family. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on claims of false implication and alibi, supported by affidavits and mobile data. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief. The court reasoned that the nature of the crime was exceptionally heinous and that the petitioner had remained a fugitive for eight months. The court established that a detailed appraisal of evidence, such as an alibi, is inappropriate at the bail stage as it risks prejudicing the trial. Furthermore, the court emphasized that bail is not a matter of course in cases involving grave offenses where the accused has absconded, and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings to ensure a speedy trial.
Questions settled- Is a detailed assessment of an alibi defense permissible at the bail stage?
- Does the status of an accused as a fugitive for a significant period impact the court's discretion to grant bail in a murder case?
- Can a court grant bail in a case involving a heinous crime where the accused is charged with multiple murders?
- Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Mardan Zone, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs Mr. Imran Ahhad M_S Green Hill CNG Station By Pass Road, Malakand2023 PHC 358, 2024 PTD 584 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax/W.Tax Companies Zone, Peshawar vs Islamic2023 PHC 330, 2024 PTD 1009 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
- Commissioner lnland Revenue Corporate Zone, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs M_S Al-Haj Steel Foundry, District Khyber2023 PHC 340, 2025 PTD 662 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-25Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue Withholding, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar2023 PHC 279, 2023 PTD 1709, 2023 PLJ Peshawar 191 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-02Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue Corporate Zone, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs M_s. Khyber Tea & Food Manufacturing Company, PeshawarPTCL 2023 CL. 266 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue & others vs M/s Saim Traders2023 PHC 26 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-19Read full judgment →
- Collector of Cutoms, Model Customs Collectorate, Customs House, Jamrud Road, Peshawar vs Messrs Waheed Hamid Bros. Ltd and another2023 PTD 1679 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-01Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Peshawar vs Muhammad Arif & another2023 PHC 255, 2024 PTD 316, 2023 PLJ Peshawar 198 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-31Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs, (Appraisement) Model Customs Collectorate, Peshawar vs M_S Jan Builders, FF-697, First Floor, Deans Trade Center, Peshawar2023 PHC 360 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Collector Customs MCC, Peshawar vs Painda Noor and another2023 PTD 750 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
- Chief Administrator Auqaf & two others vs Abdul Haleem through Legal2023 PHC 289 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Bismillah Din vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2023 PLC (C.S) 910 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed seeking a direction to correct the evaluation of a Multiple Choice Question in an ETEA test for the post of Primary School Teacher. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to marks for answering a religious history question correctly based on authentic Islamic texts, despite a discrepancy in official school textbooks. The Peshawar High Court held that while the petitioner's answer regarding the historical event associated with Surah Mubeen (Sulah Hudaibiya) was correct based on authoritative Islamic scholarship and certain school texts, relief could not be granted because the petitioner failed to array the affected competing candidates as respondents, which would result in injustice. The court disposed of the petition while directing the testing agency to exercise greater care in future test evaluations.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition can be granted when the successful candidates who would be adversely affected have not been arrayed as respondents?
- Does a candidate have a right to correct evaluation based on accurate religious and historical texts in competitive examinations?
- What is the obligation of testing agencies in ensuring accurate key answers derived from educational syllabi?
- Bilal Ahmed vs The State and another2023 MLD 73 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application in a case involving allegations of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, and Section 3 of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence and the applicability of the special child protection legislation. The court held that the medical report contradicted the complainant's version, noting an absence of physical injury or signs of abuse. Furthermore, the court observed that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory DNA sampling requirements under Section 164-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the court found the applicability of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, to be questionable at the current stage. Concluding that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court granted bail, emphasizing that bail is a transfer of custody, not an acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the failure to obtain DNA samples as required by Section 164-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 established when medical evidence contradicts the complainant's allegations?
- Does the grant of bail constitute an acquittal of the accused?
- Barkat Ullah vs The State & another2023 PHC 448 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-11Read full judgment →
- Bannu vs Mst. Safia Begum2023 PHC 287, 2024 CLC 1793 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
- Bakht Biland vs The State2023 PHC 22 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
- Bakht Biland vs Sarbiland and 2 others2023 YLR 2487 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge/MCTC, Kolai Pallas, under sections 302(b), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the ocular evidence and the circumstances surrounding the FIR. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution case was fabricated, noting that the alleged complainant had succumbed to injuries before the police arrived, rendering the FIR a post-facto creation. Furthermore, the court identified significant discrepancies in the medical evidence, the site plan, and the motive, while observing that the eye-witnesses made dishonest improvements to their statements. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that when ocular evidence suffers from willful improvements and the prosecution's narrative is inconsistent with the medical and physical evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, and a conviction cannot be sustained on tainted evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when ocular evidence suffers from dishonest improvements?
- Is a conviction valid when the prosecution's narrative is contradicted by medical evidence and site plan discrepancies?
- What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
- Does the fabrication of an FIR and manipulation of inquest reports entitle an accused to acquittal?
- Bakht Bahadur and others vs Muhammad Saeed2023 PHC 8 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-20Read full judgment →
- Bakht Alam Khan vs Waseem Khan and others2023 PLD Peshawar 78 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
- Badshah Jan Wazeer vs State through Assistant Commissioner Khanpur2023 YLR 1288 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
- Ayub Mti Abbottabad and another vs Atiq-ur-Rehman and other2023 PHC 336 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
- Aurangzeb Jehangiri and 8 others vs Tehsil Municipal Administration2023 CLC 320 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-27Read full judgment →
- Attaullah vs Ghazanrafullah & Others2023 PHC 528, 2025 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-02Read full judgment →
- Asmatullah Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at Peshawar and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S) 743 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Certified Teacher appointed on contract, challenged an order prematurely withdrawing his sanctioned extra-ordinary leave for higher studies abroad and directing him to resume duty. The Peshawar High Court examined whether the competent authority could rescind the leave after the petitioner had acted upon it by proceeding abroad. The Court held that since the leave order was lawfully issued by the competent authority without fraud or misrepresentation, and the petitioner had taken a decisive step by acting upon it, the authority could not subsequently withdraw it under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The impugned withdrawal order was declared illegal and set aside, and the petitioner was granted extension of service at par with his colleagues. The key legal principle established is that a lawful order acted upon by an individual to their detriment creates vested rights, and the power to rescind under locus poenitentiae cannot be invoked once a decisive step has been taken, barring exceptions such as fraud, illegality, or lack of jurisdiction in the initial order.
Questions settled- Can a competent authority withdraw or rescind a sanctioned leave order after the employee has acted upon it and proceeded abroad for higher studies?
- Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to a lawful order once a decisive step has been taken by the aggrieved party?
- Whether an administrative order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing is sustainable in law?
- Asmat vs Sahib Rokhan and 7 others2023 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-03Read full judgment →
- Asif Ullah vs The State2023 YLR 966 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV/Judge Special Court, Nowshera, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that 17,335 grams of charas were recovered from a vehicle driven by the appellant. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution evidence, safe transmission of narcotics samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and material contradictions in witness testimonies. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish safe transmission of the samples since the official who carried them to the FSL was not produced, and noted glaring contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses alongside physical improbabilities regarding the alleged recovery. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the charge.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the official who carried representative samples to the FSL vitiate the safe transmission of the samples?
- Can a criminal conviction be sustained when there are glaring contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding material aspects of the search and recovery?
- What is the effect of the absence of an application for FSL analysis and lack of evidence regarding how contraband was extracted from a vehicle's fuel tank on the prosecution's case?
- Asif Ali vs The State and another2023 YLR 1143 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arises out of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Tank, declining post-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner charged in an FIR under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail based on tentative assessment, differing forensic evidence regarding recovered empties, and discrepancies in eye-witness accounts. The Peshawar High Court held that where a tentative assessment of the record reveals arguable points, such as conflicting forensic reports regarding weapons fired and unexplained discrepancies in naming eye-witnesses, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused even at the bail stage. The court allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner on post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.
Questions settled- Whether the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused person at the bail stage?
- Does a discrepancy in the number of recovered weapon empties and forensic reports create an arguable case for post-arrest bail?
- Whether deeper appreciation of evidence is warranted while deciding a bail petition?
- Asar Khan vs Nazeer2023 PHC 209 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
- Asad Qaiser etc. vs The State etc.2023 PHC 380 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-04Read full judgment →
- Asad Qaiser etc. vs The State etc2023 PHC 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-08-04Read full judgment →
- Asad Haroon Khan vs The State & others2023 PHC 574 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-12-04Read full judgment →
- Arsal vs Khalid Mehmood and other2023 PHC 350 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-06Read full judgment →
- Arif Ali vs The State and another2023 PHC 392 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-07Read full judgment →
- Aqal Munir and others vs Gul Munir and others2023 PHC 472 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
- Anyi Sundy Alias Joe vs The State and 2 others2023 MLD 255 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail petition filed by a foreign national accused of financial crimes, including embezzlement and money laundering, seeking release on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having been in detention for a period exceeding the statutory limit without the trial concluding, was entitled to bail, and whether he fell within the exceptions for 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminals. The Court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the delay was attributable to the petitioner or that he met the criteria for the exceptions under the law. Emphasizing that the statutory right to bail flows from the constitutional guarantees of liberty and a fair trial, the Court ruled that in the absence of evidence of a concerted effort by the accused to delay proceedings, the petitioner was entitled to bail. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of consistency, noting that co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail on the same statutory grounds.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail on statutory grounds if the trial is not concluded within the prescribed period and the delay is not attributable to the accused?
- Does the mere allegation of involvement in financial corruption suffice to classify an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminal under the sixth proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What must the prosecution demonstrate to successfully oppose a bail application based on statutory delay in trial?
- Does the principle of consistency apply to co-accused persons when determining entitlement to bail on statutory grounds?
- Anwar Khan vs Assistant Commissioner, Tehsil Alpurai, District Shangla and others2023 CLC 1406 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
- Anwar Badshah vs State through Additional Advocate General and another2023 PCRLJ 945 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his sister-in-law. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a child witness's testimony, the impact of a belated recording of such testimony, and whether circumstantial evidence sufficiently corroborated the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The Court observed that the child witness was examined fourteen days after the occurrence without a plausible explanation, rendering her testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the Court noted significant inconsistencies between the prosecution's site plan and the child's version of events, and found the recovery of the alleged murder weapon highly doubtful given prior police searches of the premises. The Court reiterated the principle that while a child witness may be competent under Article 3 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, their testimony requires independent corroboration as a rule of prudence, especially when the witness is introduced at a belated stage. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Does the belated examination of a prosecution witness without a plausible explanation render their testimony unreliable?
- Is the sole testimony of a child witness sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
- What is the legal test for determining the competency of a child witness to testify under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Can a conviction be sustained when there is a fundamental inconsistency between the prosecution's site plan and the testimony of the sole eye-witness?
- Anwar Ali and another vs Abdul Hakim and others2023 PLD Peshawar 181 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-22Read full judgment →
- Anjam Ali Khan vs Mehar Shah and 3 others2023 CLC 1942 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
- Anjam Ali Khan vs Mehar Shah and 03 others2023 PHC 137 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
- Amjad Ali and others vs Secretary Public Health Engineering, Khyber2023 MLD 2003 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed review petitions seeking the deletion of specific restrictive language from a previous judgment that had regularized their services but denied them back benefits. The core legal question was whether the inclusion of this language constituted an accidental slip or omission or an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that no valid grounds for review were established. It reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is exceptional and distinct from appellate jurisdiction. A judicial pronouncement carries sanctity and cannot be lightly interfered with. The Court emphasized that review is restricted to cases involving the discovery of new, previously unavailable evidence, errors apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient causes. Crucially, a review petition cannot be used to re-argue the merits of the case or raise points that were available but not pressed during the original hearing. A conscious, deliberate decision on a point of law or fact remains binding.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be used to re-argue a case or raise points that were available but not pressed during the original hearing?
- What are the essential preconditions for exercising review jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Does a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of fact or law warrant a review of the judgment?
- Is a review petition equivalent to an appeal or revision?
- Amjad Ali & 7 others vs Secratery Public Health Engineering Khyber2023 PHC 113 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners originally filed civil miscellaneous petitions seeking the modification/correction of a phrase in a judgment delivered in their favor, which allowed their writ petitions regarding regularization of services from initial appointment but excluded back benefits. The Peshawar High Court converted these applications into review petitions under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the court could delete the restrictive condition in the operative judgment through its review jurisdiction on the ground of an accidental slip or omission. The High Court dismissed the review petitions, observing that review jurisdiction is exceptional, statutory, and strictly limited to the discovery of new evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient cause. The court highlighted that review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or to re-agitate conscious decisions. Furthermore, the foundational precedent upon which the original writ petitions relied had been set aside by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- What are the statutory grounds required to exercise review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a party seek a review of a judgment to re-agitate points of law or fact that were consciously decided by the court?
- Whether the setting aside of a foundational precedent by the Supreme Court affects pending review petitions relying on that precedent?
- Amir Zada vs Mir Dilawar and others2023 PHC 34, 2023 CLC 1208 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →