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.

• Shafqat Ullah son of Akbar Jan Khan resident of Mira Khel Tehsil and District Bannu vs Mst. Anjuman daughter of Karim Dad resident of Pipal Bazaar Daud Shah Tehsil and District Bannu & another2022 PHC 16, 2024 CLC 363 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
• Shafiq-ur-Rehman & Abdul Latif alias Latif vs State.,Mursaleen2022 PHC 412 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-20
  concurrent sentencesconsolidation of sentencesquashment petitioninherent powerssame transactioncriminal miscellaneous
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition arose from a quashment proceeding converted from an appeal, wherein the convicts-petitioners sought the conversion of their compensation payment into simple imprisonment and the consolidation of their multiple sentences from different trials. The core legal question concerned whether sentences arising from two different trials, constituting the same transaction, can be consolidated to run concurrently under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether such relief can be granted through inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when not addressed during the trial or appellate stage. The Peshawar High Court held that the High Court possesses wide discretion under Section 397 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct that multiple sentences in separate trials arising from the same transaction run concurrently to meet the ends of justice. The petition was partially allowed, ordering the sentences of one of the convicts to run concurrently.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sentences in two different trials arising from the same transaction can be ordered to run concurrently?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant the benefit of concurrent sentences under Section 397 even if the issue was not addressed during the trial or appellate stage?
  • Does Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confer discretion on the court to direct subsequent sentences to run concurrently with previous sentences?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiq ur Rehman vs Rukhsana Younas & another2022 PHC 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
• Sehrish Habib, Advocate & 17 others vs Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar2022 PHC 56, 2022 PLD Peshawar 226 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-18Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Khan vs Abdul Wahab & The State2022 PHC 400 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Ramzan vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 PLJ Peshawar 44, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1585 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-02
  quo warrantopublic officelocus standistatutory appointmentdeputationacting chargeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for a writ of quo warranto challenged the appointment of the Director General of the Galiyat Development Authority (GDA). The core legal question was whether the respondent, initially holding BPS-18, was legally qualified for the post of Director General, which required BPS-19 under the Galiyat Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2020. The Court held that the appointment was illegal, noting that the respondent failed to meet the statutory rank requirements at the time of his appointment. The Court further determined that subsequent attempts to regularize the appointment through an acting charge promotion were invalid and constituted an effort to justify an unauthorized posting. The judgment established that a writ of quo warranto may be filed by any person, not necessarily an aggrieved party, to challenge the usurpation of public office. Furthermore, it affirmed that public functionaries must strictly adhere to statutory requirements for appointments, and that failure to comply with these mandatory provisions renders an appointment void. The Court emphasized that public office is a trust, and appointments must be made in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petitioner need to be an aggrieved person to file a writ of quo warranto?
  • Can an appointment to a public office be validated retroactively through an acting charge promotion?
  • Is an appointment to a public office valid if the appointee does not meet the statutory rank requirements at the time of appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Aman Khan vs KP Bar Council etc2022 PHC 198, 2022 PLD Peshawar 221 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-16Read full judgment →
• Saqib Khan vs The State and another2022 P Cr. L J 580 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-27
  juvenile justicerapesodomysexual abuseprobationres gestaesentencing mitigationchild protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of a juvenile appellant for rape and sodomy under sections 376 and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sexual abuse under sections 53 and 54(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain convictions under both the Penal Code and the Child Protection and Welfare Act, and the appropriate sentencing for a juvenile offender following a compromise between the parties. The Court held that while the medical and circumstantial evidence sufficiently established the offences of rape and sodomy, the prosecution failed to prove the distinct offence of sexual abuse as defined under the Child Protection and Welfare Act. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under the Act but maintained the convictions under the Penal Code. Applying the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, and considering the compromise, the Court reduced the sentence to ten years and ordered the appellant's release on probation, emphasizing the necessity of rehabilitation for juvenile offenders.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of sodomy under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 contain the same ingredients as sexual abuse under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010?
  • Can a juvenile offender be released on probation under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, after being convicted of serious offences?
  • Is the testimony of a complainant regarding a victim's immediate disclosure admissible as res gestae under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Jehan vs State2022 PHC 210 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-16Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Khan vs National Bank of Pakistan through President & others2022 PHC 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-13Read full judgment →
• Samson Group of Companies vs Public Private Partnership & others2022 PHC 402 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Salman Khan etc vs University of Swat etc2022 PHC 262, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 183 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ahmad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2022 PLJ Peshawar 194 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajjad Etc vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 PHC 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
• Saif-ul-Malook etc vs Election Commission of Pakistan, through, Chief2022 PHC 202, 2022 MLD 1633 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
• Sahib Shah vs State2022 PHC 458, 2024 PCRLJ 396 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-30
  criminal appealidentification by voicetest identification paradebenefit of doubtnocturnal occurrencefirearm recoveryanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for offences including attempted murder and anti-terrorism charges. The core legal questions involved the credibility of identification by voice during nocturnal hours without a source of light, the legal utility of a test identification parade when the accused was already named in the initial report, and the evidentiary value of recoveries and admissions in a criminal trial. The Peshawar High Court held that identification by voice is a weak piece of evidence, especially in the absence of a corroborative source of light, and that test identification parades are unnecessary and legally flawed when the accused is already nominated by name. The court also reiterated that prosecution must prove its case independently without relying on defence weaknesses or admissions. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is identification of an accused solely by voice considered a weak piece of evidence requiring strong corroboration?
  • Can a test identification parade have legal value when the accused is already named in the initial police report?
  • Does an admission made during the cross-examination by a defence counsel have a binding effect on the accused in a criminal trial?
  • Is the prosecution entitled to take advantage of the weaknesses in the defence case to prove its charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Safeer Ullah & others vs Amin-ur-Rehman & others2022 PHC 434 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Safaidullah & others vs Gul Dad2022 PHC 376 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Saeed Akhtar vs Mst.Bilqees Bibi etc2022 PHC 524 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-25Read full judgment →
• Rukhsar vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & four others2022 PHC 360 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Rozi Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary2022 PHC 614 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rizwan Saeed Mughal vs Rizwan Saeed Mughal Appellate Election2022 PHC 484 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Riffatullah, Drawing Master, Municipal Inter College (Boys), Peshawar vs Secretary to Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Local Govt. Elections & Rural Development Department, Peshawar & others2022 PHC 60, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Riaz vs Mst. Raeela and others2022 PCRLJ 1472 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-16
  hostile witnessunfavourable witnesscriminal revisioncross-examinationprosecution witnessjudicial discretionfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the trial court's order declaring a prosecution witness hostile and allowing his cross-examination by the prosecution. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in declaring a witness hostile after cross-examination had already commenced, and whether the prosecution could re-examine its own witness under such circumstances. The Peshawar High Court held that a witness can only be declared hostile during examination-in-chief, not after cross-examination by the defense, as doing so would undermine the purpose of cross-examination. The Court emphasized that there is a critical distinction between a hostile witness—one who deliberately resiles from their statement and damages the calling party's case—and an unfavourable witness, who merely provides testimony contrary to the prosecution's interest. The Court ruled that without evidence of deliberate suppression of truth or changed loyalty, the discretion to allow a party to cross-examine their own witness cannot be exercised. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, reaffirming that the testimony of a witness, even if unfavourable, remains part of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness be declared hostile after they have already been cross-examined by the opposing party?
  • What is the legal distinction between a hostile witness and an unfavourable witness?
  • Does the testimony of a witness declared hostile become entirely inadmissible in court?
  • Does the court have the authority to direct a person present in court to provide handwriting samples for comparison?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Muhammad vs The State etc2022 PHC 166 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-17
  FATA Interim Governance Regulation 2018de novo trialright to fair trialcondonation of delayCouncil of Eldersfundamental rightscriminal appealjurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and twenty-five-year sentence for murder, imposed by the Assistant Commissioner/ADM, Wana, under the FATA Interim Governance Regulations, 2018 (FIGR-2018). The appellant argued that the trial was illegal due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner following the merger of FATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Court first addressed the issue of limitation, holding that the right to appeal against a conviction is a fundamental right under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and that technicalities regarding delay should not deprive a convict of this right. On the merits, the Court found that while the FIGR-2018 was valid at the time of the impugned order, the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement of Regulation 13, which mandates referring the matter to a Council of Elders for findings on facts before sentencing. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanded the case for a de novo trial before the Sessions Judge, South Waziristan, and granted the appellant bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right to appeal against a conviction constitute a fundamental right under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is a conviction under the FATA Interim Governance Regulation, 2018, valid if the mandatory procedure of referring the case to the Council of Elders under Regulation 13 was not followed?
  • Can a court condone a delay in filing a criminal appeal if the appellant is a convict whose fundamental rights are at stake?
  • Are the provisions of Section 16 of the FATA Interim Governance Regulation, 2018, regarding sentencing, independent of the procedural requirements of Regulation 13?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Muhammad and another vs Asad Ullah Khan and 19 others2022 P LC (C.S.) 461 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-29
  illegal appointmentadditional chargecivil court jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionmandatory procedureregularisation of servicerecruitment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a concurrent judgment of the lower courts which maintained the partial decree declaring the appointment of the petitioners as illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal questions involved whether an officer holding a temporary additional charge to look after administrative affairs could make fresh appointments, whether appointments made without advertising vacancies or involving the employment exchange are sustainable, and whether a civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters. The Peshawar High Court held that an officer with a mere additional charge lacks the legal authority to make appointments, and recruitment done in clear violation of mandatory prescribed rules without advertisement or competition is void ab initio. The Court further held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without establishing a jurisdictional error or illegality. The key principle laid down is that where a statute or law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and not otherwise, and appointments made by incompetent authorities without following transparent recruitment procedures confer no vested right or protection through regularisation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an officer holding a temporary additional charge to look after routine official matters make fresh public appointments in a district?
  • Whether appointments made without advertising vacant posts or routing them through the employment exchange are legally sustainable?
  • Does a civil court possess jurisdiction to challenge public appointments made in violation of recruitment rules?
  • Can the principle of locus poenitentiae be invoked to protect appointments made by an incompetent authority through a flawed procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz and another vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1070 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-14
  murder trialocular evidencechance witnesscriminal appealacquittalappreciation of evidencedishonest improvementabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's ocular account and whether the circumstantial evidence sufficiently supports the conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the eye-witnesses were "chance witnesses" whose presence at the scene was not established, and their testimonies suffered from glaring contradictions and dishonest improvements. Furthermore, the court noted that the medical evidence suggested a single assailant, contradicting the prosecution's claim of two shooters. The court emphasized the principle that once an ocular account is disbelieved, other evidence, even of high value, is insufficient for conviction on a capital charge. Additionally, the court reiterated that motive is a double-edged weapon and that abscondence, while corroborative, cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable primary evidence. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, setting aside the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of abscondence when the primary ocular evidence is disbelieved?
  • Does the presence of dishonest improvements in a witness's testimony render their entire statement unreliable?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness sufficient to support a conviction if their presence at the scene is not convincingly established?
  • Does the principle of motive as a double-edged weapon apply when the prosecution fails to prove the primary charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Reverend Jimmy Mathew vs Bishop Peters and others2022 PLD Peshawar 118 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Rehman alias Shina son of Sher Muhammad, r/o Khan Abad Razar District2022 PHC 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-07Read full judgment →
• Raziq Jan vs Iqbal Khan2022 PHC 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-27
  murder referencecircumstantial evidenceexhumationpointation memojudicial confessiondeath penaltycorpus delictidisappearance of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals by convicts Raziq Jan and Ghulam Rasool, along with a Murder Reference, arising from convictions under Sections 302(b), 364-A, and 201 PPC for the murder, kidnapping, and burial of an 8/9-year-old minor. The prosecution's case rested purely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's pointation of the burial site leading to the exhumation of the dead body, voluntary judicial confessions, and medical evidence proving ligature strangulation. The Peshawar High Court held that discovery of a dead body pursuant to an accused's disclosure is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and does not require compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C. regarding local witnesses. Furthermore, remanding an accused to police custody after recording a confession does not automatically invalidate a voluntary confession. The Court affirmed Raziq Jan's conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) PPC, and Ghulam Rasool's conviction under Section 201 PPC. However, the Court acquitted Raziq Jan under Section 364-A PPC due to lack of proof of abduction, and under Section 201 PPC on the principle that the actual killer cannot be concurrently convicted for causing disappearance of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the discovery and recovery of a dead body on the pointation of an accused require compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does remanding an accused back to police custody after the recording of a confession render that confession inherently inadmissible or involuntary?
  • Can an accused who is convicted as the principal offender for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be simultaneously convicted under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the disappearance of evidence of that murder?
  • Can a conviction and sentence of death be sustained entirely on circumstantial evidence corroborated by the pointation and recovery of the deceased's body?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs Haji Javaid and others2022 PLJ Peshawar 205 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-25Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs Haji Javaid & others2022 PHC 304 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-25Read full judgment →
• Raza Ali Khattak and 3 others vs Vice Chancellor, Abdul Wali Khan2022 PLJ Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rashim Khan vs Fida Hussain & two others2022 PHC 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Zubair and others vs Government Of Khyber2022 PLD Peshawar 100, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 778 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-07-24
  caretaker governmentelections actadministrative continuityremoval from serviceconstitutional petitionshort-term appointmentsmala fide exercise of power
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the removal of the petitioners from their positions as Law Officers and the subsequent appointment of respondents by the caretaker government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal question was whether the caretaker government possesses the authority under Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017, to remove existing Law Officers and appoint new ones during its interim tenure. The Court held that the impugned notifications were illegal, void ab-initio, and issued without jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the caretaker government's mandate is restricted to routine, non-controversial, and urgent matters necessary for administrative continuity and facilitating free and fair elections. It determined that Section 230(2)(e) of the Elections Act, 2017, does not grant caretaker governments the power to dismiss or terminate public officials, nor does it permit major appointments. The Court established that the caretaker government is limited to making acting or short-term appointments only when necessary, and the mass removal of Law Officers to replace them with new appointees constitutes a mala fide exercise of power exceeding the statutory mandate.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017, grant a caretaker government the power to terminate or remove public officials?
  • Is a caretaker government authorized to make major appointments of public officials?
  • What is the scope of the caretaker government's authority regarding administrative continuity during the interim period?
  • Can a caretaker government remove existing Law Officers solely on the basis of a loss of confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Tahir Ayub vs Muhammad Irfan Qureshi2022 PHC 438 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Rahman Ghani vs Yaqoob Khan & others2022 PHC 494 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-07Read full judgment →
• Raheem Gul vs Nadra and others2022 MLD 749 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
• Rabnawaz vs Mst. Sabu Bibi & others2022 PHC 410 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz s/o Shehbaz Khan r/o Janak Shakardara, Kohat vs The State,2022 PHC 364 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Qasim Shah Marble Factory Umary, District Bajur through Proprietor vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Finance and Revenue Division, Islamabad and 6 others2022 PTD 981 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali Shah & another vs Govt: of KPK & others2022 PHC 272 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Shah and 6 others vs The Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary Health, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 478 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-17
  Class-IV appointmentpolitical pressurewithdrawal of appointmentEmployment ExchangeDepartmental Selection CommitteeCivil Servants (Appointments, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989back benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the withdrawal of appointment orders for Class-IV government employees, specifically Ward Attendants, a Chowkidar, and Drivers, by the Medical Superintendent of DHQ Hospital, Charsadda. The core legal questions were whether appointment orders could be withdrawn on the grounds of "political pressure" and whether candidates registered earlier with the Employment Exchange possess a superior legal right to appointment over others. The Court held that the withdrawal of appointment orders solely due to "political pressure" is legally unsustainable and arbitrary, thus setting aside the impugned order. Regarding the connected petition, the Court clarified that while the Civil Servants (Appointments, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, mandate that appointments to Basic Pay Scale 3 to 5 must be made via the Departmental Selection Committee and the District Employment Exchange, these rules do not establish a priority right based on the seniority of registration with the Employment Exchange. Consequently, the Court affirmed the petitioners' appointments and dismissed the connected petition as infructuous, establishing that administrative actions must rest on valid legal grounds rather than extraneous political considerations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department withdraw an appointment order solely on the ground of political pressure?
  • Does registration with an Employment Exchange prior in time confer a superior right to appointment for Class-IV posts under the Civil Servants (Appointments, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989?
  • Is the recommendation of a Departmental Selection Committee a mandatory requirement for appointments in Basic Pay Scale 3 to 5?
  Read full judgment →
• Project Director New Thakot Bridge & Others vs Sher Zada & Others2022 PHC 552 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-10Read full judgment →
• Peshawar High Court Bar vs The State etc2022 PHC 344, 2022 PLD Peshawar 248 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-15Read full judgment →
• PESCO, through Chief Executive PESCO House Peshawar and others vs Mohib Ullah Khan and another2022 PHC 164 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Norab Khan vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 402 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-19
  narcoticssafe custody of sampleschain of custodycriminal appealacquittalFSL reportcontradictions in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court (CNSA), Kurram, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(D) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine following the alleged recovery of 5000 grams of charas from a motorcar driven by him. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the chain of safe custody of the recovered samples was maintained. The Peshawar High Court held that numerous contradictions in the prosecution evidence, overwriting on the FIR, and an unexplained delay in sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, coupled with the failure to examine the constable who transported the samples, broke the chain of safe custody, rendering the FSL report unreliable. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must establish an unbroken and secure chain of safe custody of narcotic samples from recovery to testing, and any lapse vitiates the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of safe custody of narcotic samples vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Whether contradictions regarding the quantity of separated samples and delayed transmission to the FSL are sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce the official who transported the samples to the forensic laboratory to authenticate safe transit?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ullah vs The State etc2022 PHC 358 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Shah Ali Khan alias Nawarish Ali Khan deceased through legal heirs2022 PHC 24, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-02Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State through A.G Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 PHC 246 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Anwar vs Haji Zar Badshah2022 PHC 644 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-07Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Anwar & 33 others vs Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad2022 PHC 634 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
• Noor Haider vs State2022 PHC 372 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Habib Shah vs State2022 PHC 548 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
• Noor Aslam son of Muhammad Khan resident of Aba Khel Tehsil and Dist_a2a0f8e52022 PHC 12, 2024 MLD 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-19Read full judgment →
• Nisar Bibi w/o Gohar Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Through2022 PHC 142 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ningyali vs The State2022 PHC 350 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad through legal heirs vs Deputy Commissioner, Swat and Others2022 PHC 510 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nazar Khan, alias, Nan vs The State, etc2022 PHC 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-05
  murder convictiondeath sentence reductionocular evidencebenefit of doubtmotivecriminal appealabscondance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence to establish guilt and the appropriateness of the capital sentence. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular testimony, which was corroborated by the recovery of empties and a site plan, despite minor discrepancies. However, the court found that the prosecution failed to definitively establish the alleged motive or the precise circumstances leading to the incident. Consequently, the court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The judgment lays down the principle that while medical evidence is confirmatory, direct, trustworthy ocular testimony prevails. Furthermore, it establishes that when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive or the exact cause of the crime, the principle of benefit of doubt may be applied to mitigate the quantum of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence prevail over direct ocular testimony in criminal trials?
  • Can the principle of benefit of doubt be applied to the quantum of sentence when the motive is not proven?
  • Is the abscondance of an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction without other evidence?
  • Does the failure to prove a motive require the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Nayab Khan vs Chief Executive Office PESCO Peshawar and others2022 PHC 244 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-20Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan vs The State etc2022 PHC 622, 2024 YLR 457 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
• Naveed, Mst. Sidra Farhad vs State2022 PHC 454 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-05Read full judgment →
• Naveed Zafar & another vs Dr. Fazal Hamid2022 PHC 610 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-30Read full judgment →
• Nasir Abbas Noori vs The State2022 PHC 92 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• Naseeb Khan vs The State & Another2022 PHC 538 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• Naik Awaz & Umer Zaman vs The State2022 PHC 326 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-03Read full judgment →
• Naeem Ahmad Khattak Advocate vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PHC 264 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-10Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Khan vs Maqbali Khan Khalil2022 PHC 318 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sohail Steel GL Sheet Company, Deewana Baba Road, Buner2022 PHC 486 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Yar Steel Mills, Bringan Chakdara, Lower Dir, Timergara, District2022 PHC 498, 2024 PLD Peshawar 184, 2024 PTD 1258 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• M/s Noman ul Haq Kakakhel vs The State2022 PHC 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• M/s Kamran Filling Station etc vs M/s Habib Bank Ltd etc2022 PHC 588 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
• M/s Cherat Cement Co. Ltd, Nowshera through its Senior Manager2022 PHC 568 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Cemtech-Jiangsu JV, Islamabad through its Authorized2022 PHC 444 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Alla-ud-Din Khan and sons JV With Peer Muhammad & Company,2022 PHC 122 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s A.K Tariq Foundry vs Government of Pakistan & others2022 PHC 670, 2023 PLJ Peshawar 64, 2024 PTD 1335 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muzafar-ul-Mulk Khan and Others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 MLD 1879 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Ali Shah & Another vs The State etc2022 PHC 590 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-08Read full judgment →
• Musafar vs The State & another2022 PHC 54 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muqadas Khan vs The State & another2022 PHC 362 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-06Read full judgment →
• Muneeb Hassan vs The State and another2022 PHC 238 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-05
  murderinterested witnessesblood feudbenefit of doubtforensic science laboratoryabscondanceplea of alibiacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction, a criminal revision seeking enhancement of sentence, and a complainant's appeal challenging the acquittal of a co-accused, arising out of a murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal issue was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of related, inimical eyewitnesses and uncorroborated recovery of crime empties. The Peshawar High Court held that the presence of the interested eyewitnesses at the crime scene was inherently improbable and contradicted by material discrepancies, site plan observations, and unnatural behavior. Furthermore, the failure of the investigating officer to submit the recovered firearm empties to the forensic science laboratory rendered the corroborative evidence unreliable. Because the substantive ocular evidence collapsed, the accused's alleged abscondance could not independently support a conviction. Consequently, the High Court accepted the convict's appeal, acquitted him, upheld the co-accused's acquittal, and dismissed the revision for enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Can uncorroborated testimony of closely related and inimically disposed eyewitnesses sustain a capital conviction where material contradictions exist?
  • Does the failure of the investigating agency to send recovered crime empties to the forensic science laboratory render such recovery doubtful?
  • Can abscondance of an accused person alone form the basis of a conviction when substantive direct evidence is disbelieved?
  • Can an accused be convicted when the prosecution throws its net too wide by exaggerating the number of assailants and attributing identical firing roles inconsistent with the physical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar ul Haq vs D.P.O Swat2022 PHC 192 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
• Mukhtaj and 4 others vs Ebn-E-Amin and another2022 MLD 384 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-15
  criminal appealdying declarationocular accountbenefit of doubtforensic evidencemurderacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment sentences imposed by the trial court for murder and related offenses, while a connected criminal revision sought enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The Court found the ocular account unreliable, noting the witness's presence at the crime scene was doubtful and unexplained. Regarding the dying declaration, the Court ruled it inadmissible, citing potential interference by a relative and the declarant's severe physical condition, which made a detailed narration improbable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the site plan failed to corroborate the incident's narrative, and the lack of forensic evidence linking specific weapons to the accused in a multi-accused case created fatal gaps. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the revision petition as infructuous, reiterating the fundamental principle that the benefit of any doubt in criminal proceedings must always accrue to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon if the declarant's physical condition makes it improbable that they could narrate the incident?
  • Does the presence of a relative during the recording of a dying declaration affect its credibility?
  • Is an ocular account credible if the witness's presence at the crime scene is not satisfactorily explained?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to produce forensic evidence linking specific weapons to the accused in a multi-accused murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zada vs Govt2022 PHC 214, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1027, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 175 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-05
  Constitutional petitionClass-IV appointmentDiscriminatory treatmentEquity before lawPublic employmentReasonable classificationService matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, concerns the petitioner’s grievance regarding the denial of appointment to a Class-IV (Chokidar) position. The petitioner, having participated in the prescribed test and interview process, sought appointment after learning that other candidates were appointed to similar posts, while his specific position remained vacant and was subsequently filled via transfer. The core legal question was whether the department’s failure to appoint the petitioner, while appointing others through the same process, constituted discriminatory treatment. The Court held that the department’s actions were discriminatory and violated the norms of justice. Rejecting the department's justification regarding the transfer/adjustment of another employee, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be treated in the same mode and manner as other appointees. The key principle laid down is that "Equity before Law" mandates that like should be treated alike, forbidding discrimination between persons substantially in similar circumstances, as reasonable classification is only permissible between unequals.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to appoint a candidate who participated in a selection process, while appointing others to similar posts, constitute discriminatory treatment?
  • Is the principle of 'Equity before Law' violated when a public department treats similarly situated candidates differently without a reasonable classification?
  • Can a public department justify the non-appointment of a candidate by citing an internal transfer/adjustment process after the post was advertised and interviews were conducted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs 1.Hamed Farooq Khan, 2. Shahid Farooq Khan, 32022 PHC 14, 2022 MLD 1495 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waqif vs The State etc2022 PHC 152 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs State2022 PHC 558 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad vs Ibrar Gul2022 PHC 332 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and others vs Haidar Ali and others2022 PHC 638 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs Syed Tahir Abbas Shah and others2022 PHC 96, 2022 CLC 1193 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza Shah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Others2022 PHC 618 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-20
  civil servanttransfer and postingservice tribunalconstitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicebar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Sub-Divisional Education Officer and civil servant, challenged his transfer order through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, after his appeal before the Service Tribunal was initially returned as premature. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a constitutional petition regarding the posting and transfer of a civil servant, given the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Peshawar High Court held that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, including posting and transfer, exclusively fall within the domain and jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212, and the High Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters or issue interim orders. The key principle laid down is that the High Court cannot assume jurisdiction over service matters expressly barred by the Constitution and that posting and transfer disputes must be agitated exclusively before the appropriate Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition against the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
  • Do matters relating to the posting and transfer of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can the High Court direct the Service Tribunal to entertain an appeal or grant interim injunctive relief in service matters where jurisdiction is barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Noman & another vs The State etc.2022 PHC 428 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Niqab vs NBP, Takht Bhai Branch, District Mardan2022 PHC 560 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs Govt of KPK & Others2022 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs Govt of KP & Others2022 PHC 450 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Karim vs Muhammad Imran and others2022 PHC 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Karim and others vs United Bank Limited and others2022 PCTLR 444 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jalil vs Mst. Nagina Bibi and others2022 PHC 436 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jalal ud Din vs Govt of KPK etc2022 PHC 356 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran and others vs Sajjad Ahmad Jan and others2022 PHC 302 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-15Read full judgment →