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.

• Imtiaz Ali Khan vs Raza Uddin Khan, A.A.G.,Naeem Hussain DSP (Legal).2022 PLC (C.S.) 1467 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-11
  Shuhada packagepolice martyrscivil servant pensionlegal heirsfamily definitionconstitutional petitionsalary continuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the brothers and sister of a martyred lady constable, challenging the authorities' decision to stop the payment of the martyr's salary following the death of their mother. The petitioners contended that as legal heirs, they were entitled to the continuation of the salary package. The core legal question was whether siblings of a martyred police official fall within the definition of "family" under the applicable pension rules to qualify for the continued salary benefits provided under the Shuhada package. The Court held that the petition was devoid of merit. It determined that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Pension Rules, 2021 explicitly define "family" in a restrictive manner, encompassing only spouses, children, and parents under specific dependency conditions. The Court laid down the principle that the Shuhada package benefits, specifically the continuation of salary, are strictly limited to the defined "family" members. Consequently, as the petitioners did not fall within this statutory definition, they were not entitled to the salary, and the administrative decision to cease payments was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Are adult brothers and sisters of a martyred police official entitled to the continuation of the martyr's salary under the Shuhada package?
  • Does the definition of 'family' under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Pension Rules, 2021 include siblings of a deceased civil servant?
  • Can legal heirs who fall outside the definition of 'family' claim the continuation of salary benefits meant for Shuhada?
  Read full judgment →
• Imdadullah through L.Rs vs Mst. Zahida and others2022 CLC 2136 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-13Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain vs The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Islamabad and others2022 PHC 8, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 653 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-13
  deputationrepatriationcivil servantvested rightconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging an order whereby the petitioner, a civil servant serving on deputation, was repatriated to his parent department prior to the completion of his stipulated deputation period. The core legal question was whether a deputationist possesses a vested or statutory right to complete their full term of deputation and whether an order of repatriation containing adverse remarks requires prior departmental proceedings or a right of hearing. The Peshawar High Court held that a deputationist has no vested or legal right to remain on deputation for a stipulated period and can be repatriated at any time by either the borrowing or lending department without assigning reasons and without formal departmental proceedings. The key principle laid down is that deputation is not a matter of right, and the competent authority retains the prerogative to curtail a deputation tenure and recall or return an employee in the exigencies of public service or on administrative grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to complete the entire stipulated period of deputation?
  • Can a borrowing department repatriate a deputationist prior to the expiry of the deputation period without assigning reasons?
  • Does an order repatriating a deputationist back to his parent department require prior departmental proceedings or a right of hearing?
  • Can the curtailment of a deputation period be challenged as a violation of the terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad son of Mayaz Khan, Mst. Tasleem Bibi daughter of Mutabar2022 PHC 612 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ihtesham Ul Haq vs The State2022 MLD 695 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-17
  criminal appealright to counselcross-examinationtrial procedureremandembezzlementanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellant by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Central) for embezzlement and corruption-related offenses. The core legal question addressed by the Peshawar High Court was whether the trial court's decision to record the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in the absence of the appellant's engaged counsel, while compelling the appellant to conduct the cross-examination himself, vitiated the trial proceedings. The High Court held that such a procedure was legally impermissible and violated the right to legal representation. The ratio of the decision is that when an accused has engaged a lawyer, the trial court is legally obligated to adjourn proceedings in the lawyer's absence rather than forcing the accused to act as their own counsel. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision, mandating that the appellant's counsel be given the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of cross-examination in the absence of an accused's engaged counsel vitiate the trial proceedings?
  • Is a trial court legally bound to adjourn proceedings when an accused's counsel is absent?
  • Can a trial court compel an accused to cross-examine witnesses when they have already engaged a lawyer?
  Read full judgment →
• IDBP vs M/s Kaghan Ghee Mills etc2022 PHC 2 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
• Hussain Khan and another vs Habib Bank Limited through Manager2022 PCTLR 423 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-25Read full judgment →
• Hussain Agriculture Medicine vs M. Bilal etc2022 PHC 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Wali vs The State2022 PHC 628 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Hayatullah vs The State etc2022 PHC 544, 2024 PCRLJ 202 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-11
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidenceabscondencepost-mortem delayacquittalcapital charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account provided by related witnesses, the impact of unexplained delays in post-mortem examinations, and the evidentiary value of abscondence. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions, particularly regarding the presence of eyewitnesses and the timing of the incident, which were belied by medical evidence. Furthermore, the unexplained delay in the post-mortem examination raised a reasonable inference that the time was consumed in fabricating the prosecution's case. The Court emphasized that abscondence is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable primary evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that when the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can abscondence alone sustain a conviction in a criminal case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the post-mortem examination cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of related eyewitnesses sufficient for conviction when their presence at the scene is doubtful?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to establish a motive it has specifically set up?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayat Ullah Khan vs Secretary Communication & Works Department2022 PHC 348 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-16
  civil servanttransfer and postingconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalouster of jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged his frequent transfers by the Communication and Works Department through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, alleging that the transfers were arbitrary and lacked cogent reasons. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the transfer of a civil servant, which is a term and condition of service, or whether such matters are exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the jurisdiction of all other courts, including the High Court, is ousted in matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that even allegations of mala fide do not confer jurisdiction upon the High Court to interfere in such matters. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, directing the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to adjudicate the transfer of a civil servant?
  • Can allegations of mala fide in a transfer order confer jurisdiction upon the High Court to interfere in service matters?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Haris son of Aleem ud Din, r/o Muhammad Zai Kohat vs Zahoor Khan son of2022 PHC 70 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs Zeba Rasheed and others2022 PHC 312 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-21Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz and another vs HBL Manager, Paf Branch2022 PCTLR 438 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-14Read full judgment →
• Hameedullah Khan vs Nazir Khan And The State2022 PHC 648 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-13Read full judgment →
• Hameed Khan vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1291 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-10
  honour killingfasad-fil-arzcompoundable offencecriminal revisioncompromisejuvenile justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Juvenile Court, Swabi, which refused to allow the petitioner to compound an offence of murder committed in the name of honour. The petitioner, having killed his mother on the pretext of 'ghairat' (honour) while she was under police escort, sought acquittal based on a compromise with the legal heirs. The core legal question was whether an offence committed in the name of honour can be compounded to secure acquittal, notwithstanding a compromise. The Court held that the trial court correctly rejected the compromise. It reasoned that under the amended legal framework, specifically the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the name or pretext of Honour) Act, 2016, offences committed in the name of honour constitute 'fasad-fil-arz'. Consequently, even where legal heirs pardon the offender, the court retains the discretion to impose punishment, and specifically, the law mandates a sentence of life imprisonment for honour killings, rendering the offence non-compoundable in a manner that would result in acquittal. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offence committed in the name of honour be compounded to secure an acquittal?
  • Does a compromise with legal heirs in an honour killing case exempt the accused from punishment?
  • What is the mandatory punishment for an offence committed in the name of honour under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the court have the discretion to reject a compromise in cases involving fasad-fil-arz?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamayun vs The State etc2022 PHC 232, 2024 YLR 427 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Sher Muhammad & others vs Aftab Ahmad &another2022 PHC 500, 2024 MLD 1143 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Sher Alam and another vs The State & another2022 PHC 74 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad vs The State2022 PHC 102 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-31
  superdaricustody of vehiclenarcotics controlright to be heardconfiscation of vehicleownership claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order of the Special Court (CNS) Peshawar, which dismissed the appellant's petition for the superdari (custody) of a seized Hino Truck. The trial court had denied the request on the grounds that the appellant was not the registered owner and the vehicle was allegedly used in the smuggling of Acetic Anhydride. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the superdari petition without providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard regarding his claim of ownership, despite the appellant having appeared during the trial to assert such a claim. The High Court held that the trial court was legally obligated to issue notice to the claimant and provide an opportunity to explain his position before confiscating or denying custody of the vehicle. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision after affording the appellant a proper hearing regarding his ownership claim.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to provide a hearing to a claimant of a vehicle before denying a superdari petition?
  • Does the lack of registered ownership automatically bar a person from seeking superdari of a seized vehicle?
  • Can a trial court dismiss a superdari petition without issuing notice to a claimant who has appeared to assert ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhajereen and 6 others vs Akbar Said and 4 others2022 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Hafiza Bushra Gul vs University of Science & Technology, Bannu through its2022 PHC 564 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Habib Ullah and others vs Chaman and others2022 PHC 176, 2022 PCRLJ 1730 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-31
  illegal dispossessionrestoration of possessioncivil litigation barindependent criminal proceedingsmens rea and actus reusquashment petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple connected petitions arising from orders passed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question involved whether the pendency of long-standing civil litigation between the parties bars criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, and whether restoration of possession through execution is legally sustainable once illegal dispossession is proved up to the Supreme Court. The Peshawar High Court held that civil litigation does not bar criminal proceedings under the Act, and once illegal dispossession is established, the trial court is bound to restore possession to the lawful owner or occupier. The court laid down the principle that civil and criminal remedies are independent, and a person cannot evade penal consequences under the Illegal Dispossession Act on the pretext of pending civil proceedings regarding the same immovable property.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of civil litigation bar criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a criminal court order the demarcation of property during proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What are the prerequisites for invoking Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Whether the restoration of possession to a dispossessed owner is mandatory upon proof of an offence under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul-e-Andam vs Chairman WAPDA etc2022 PHC 464 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Gul Ghajan son of Rozi Khan, r/o Maro Khel Alizai, Lower Kurram, District2022 PHC 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-10Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary Defence and 3 others vs Shaukat Ali and another2022 YLR 1205 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-10Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest Department2022 PHC 602 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary & others vs Jehanzeb Khan deceased through legal heirs & others2022 PHC 598 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs The State2022 PHC 230 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-21Read full judgment →
• Ghaffar Khan and another vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 786 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-27
  qatl shibh-i-amdsudden fightwatta satta marriagebenefit of doubtculpable homicidemedical evidenceocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a trial court judgment convicting the appellants under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the fatal assault, committed during a sudden altercation arising from a domestic dispute regarding an exchange marriage, constituted intentional murder or a lesser form of homicide, and whether the complicity of the co-accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without premeditation or intent to kill, and that using a stone in a sudden fight brought the offense within the ambit of qatl shibh-i-amd, converting the conviction of the principal accused to section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting the co-accused due to insufficient evidence and benefit of doubt. The key principles laid down are that a sudden fight arising from a domestic dispute negates premeditation for murder, transforming the liability to qatl shibh-i-amd, and that relationship to the deceased alone does not disqualify natural eye-witnesses whose presence is established and unimpeached.

  Questions settled

  • Does a fatal assault committed with a stone during a sudden altercation arising from a domestic dispute constitute qatl-i-amd or qatl shibh-i-amd?
  • Whether the relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased is sufficient ground to discard their testimony when their presence is established?
  • Can a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to section 316 in the absence of pre-planning or intent to murder?
  • Is a co-accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when the role attributed of holding the deceased is improbable in the presence of family members?
  Read full judgment →
• General Manager, SNGPL, Peshawar & another vs M/s Al-Madina CNG2022 PHC 86, 2022 PLD Peshawar 213 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• General Manager, House Building Finance Company Ltd., Peshawar2022 CLD 227 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
• General Manager National Highway Authority & others vs Norang Khan &2022 PHC 170, 2022 CLC 1980 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
• Fida Ullah Khan vs President Habib Bank Limited, Head Office, Habib Bank2022 PHC 398 · Peshawar High Court
  workman statusburden of proofNIRC jurisdictionmanagement cadrepower of attorneybank employeewrit petition
  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 Single Bench order reinstating the petitioner, a former Bank Manager (Band-I). The core legal question was whether the petitioner, given his designation and duties, qualified as a 'workman' entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the NIRC. The Court held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving his status as a workman. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that the status of an employee is determined by the nature of duties performed, not merely by designation. The Court found that as a Manager holding a power of attorney and classified under the Management Cadre, the petitioner was not a workman. Consequently, his employment was governed by his contract of service rather than labour laws. The principle laid down is that the initial burden of proof lies on the person approaching the labour forum to establish their status as a workman, and bank officers in management cadres or power of attorney holders generally fall outside the definition of a workman.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof lie on the employee to establish their status as a workman when approaching a labour forum?
  • Can a bank manager holding a power of attorney be classified as a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Is the status of an employee as a workman determined by their job designation or the actual nature of their duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazle Qadir and others vs Fazle Rehman and others2022 YLR 1813 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-01Read full judgment →
• Fazl-e-Khaliq vs Neloofar Yousafzai2022 PHC 394 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
• Fazal Subhan etc vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PHC 266 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-10Read full judgment →
• Fazal Qadar son of Abdur Rehman vs The State, etc2022 PHC 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• Fazal Khan and others vs Additional Deputy Commissioner and others2022 PHC 310 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-13Read full judgment →
• Fawad Afzal Khan vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2022 CLC 142 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-08Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali & Yousaf Ali vs The State etc2022 PHC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-08Read full judgment →
• Farooq vs The State2022 MLD 915 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-07
  criminal appealmurderjuvenile offenderrelated witnesseseyewitness testimonymotivesentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder of a thirteen-year-old boy, alongside a criminal revision filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the significance of minor discrepancies, the proof of motive, and the legality of awarding the death penalty to a juvenile offender. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of close relatives who witnessed the offender fleeing from the scene immediately after the gunshot was confidence-inspiring and truthful, that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the prosecution case, and that failure to prove motive is immaterial when ocular testimony is reliable. Furthermore, the Court held that under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, a juvenile offender cannot be sentenced to death. Consequently, the conviction and life imprisonment were maintained, and the revision for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of related eyewitnesses be relied upon in a murder trial absent any proven enmity or motive to falsely implicate?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive adversely affect otherwise reliable eyewitness testimony?
  • Whether a juvenile offender at the time of the commission of an offence can be awarded the punishment of death under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses warrant the rejection of the entire prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Farman Hussain vs The State2022 PHC 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-28Read full judgment →
• Farid Khan vs Fazal Maula & Others2022 PHC 512 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Farhana Bibi vs Govt: of KPK & others2022 PHC 468 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
• Faisal Khan vs The State2022 YLR 1341 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-22
  hostile witnesscross-examinationimpeachment of creditcriminal trialprosecution evidenceright of defenseQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged a trial court order permitting the prosecution to re-summon a witness and declare him hostile after the defense had already completed cross-examination. The core legal question was whether the prosecution can seek to declare a witness hostile and impeach their credibility based on concessions made during cross-examination by the defense. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution cannot declare a witness hostile after the defense has concluded cross-examination. The Court clarified that the concept of a hostile witness is strictly applicable to statements made during examination-in-chief. If a witness provides testimony favorable to the defense during cross-examination, the benefit of that doubt accrues to the accused, and the prosecution cannot circumvent this by seeking to cross-examine its own witness later. The Court established that allowing such a practice would defeat the purpose of the right to cross-examination and negate the principles of evidence law. Consequently, the trial court's order was set aside, and the petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution declare a witness hostile after the defense has completed cross-examination?
  • At what stage of a criminal trial can a witness be declared hostile by the prosecution?
  • Does a witness's statement during cross-examination favorable to the accused justify the prosecution in seeking to impeach that witness?
  • Is the prosecution entitled to re-summon a witness to impeach their credibility regarding statements made during defense cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Executive Engineer FATA Constitution Division TESCO, Peshawar and others2022 PHC 404 · Peshawar High Court
  regularization of servicepermanent workmanwork-charged employeecontinuous cause of actionlabour lawgrievance petitionindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This labour appeal challenged a Labour Court order that allowed a grievance petition seeking regularization of service for a work-charged employee. The core legal question was whether a long-serving work-charged employee, who performed duties of a permanent nature without breaks, acquired the status of a permanent workman and was entitled to regularization, despite the employer's contention regarding the nature of the appointment and limitation. The Court held that the respondent, having served continuously since 1993 without breaks and having received benefits akin to regular employees, attained the status of a permanent workman under the relevant labour laws. The Court further held that the claim for regularization constitutes a continuous cause of action, thereby rejecting the plea of limitation. The key principle laid down is that the nature of the work performed, rather than the nomenclature of the appointment, determines the status of a workman, and that discriminatory treatment in regularization for similarly placed employees violates constitutional guarantees of equality and fair treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a work-charged employee who serves continuously for a long period without breaks attain the status of a permanent workman?
  • Is a claim for regularization of service considered a continuous cause of action for the purpose of limitation?
  • Does the nature of the work performed determine whether a workman is permanent or temporary?
  • Can an employer discriminate in the matter of regularization among similarly placed employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Fiaz Rasan vs Chairman NAB2022 PHC 368 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-16Read full judgment →
• Durre Shehwar vs National Accountability Bureau Through Chairman2022 MLD 1835 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-24Read full judgment →
• Duniya Gul & another vs Niaz Muhammad and 02 others2022 PHC 542, 2024 YLR 1290 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sher Wali Khan vs Govt: of KPK & others2022 PHC 478 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rafiullah etc vs University of Sawabi2022 PHC 380 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Khurshid Iqbal, District & Session Judge vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PLJ Peshawar 147 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Jehanzeb and others vs Govt of KPK2022 PHC 374 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hazrat Khan vs The State and others2022 PHC 300 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ghulam Abbas Miana vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc2022 PHC 492 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Fahad Iqbal, Dhis-Coordinator, District Health Officer Office, Mardan2022 PHC 52 · Peshawar High Court
  constitutional petitionupgradationcivil servantretrospective upgradationstagnationpromotionBPS-18
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by Management Cadre officers in the Health Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, seeking a declaration against alleged discriminatory treatment and praying for the upgradation of their posts to BPS.18 with retrospective effect from the date other posts were upgraded. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether civil servants can claim upgradation of their posts as a matter of right and whether such upgradation can be granted retrospectively (ante-dated). The Peshawar High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that upgradation is not a vested right or a form of promotion, but rather a policy-based measure meant to alleviate stagnation for employees stuck in a grade for a considerable period without promotion avenues. The court established that upgradation cannot be claimed as a matter of right, does not involve seniority advancement, and cannot be granted retrospectively in the absence of a statutory provision or requisite length of service.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim upgradation of a post as a matter of right?
  • Whether the benefit of upgradation can be granted retrospectively?
  • What is the legal distinction between promotion and upgradation of a post?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Amjad Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief2022 PHC 188 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Abdus Saboor vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health and others2022 PHC 44 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Doctor Khan vs The State2022 PHC 212, 2022 PCRLJ 1690 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-05
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailfunctus officionarcotics controlappellate jurisdictioncriminal appealinterim relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 426(2B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail pending the final disposal of a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner, convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, had his appeal dismissed by the High Court, but subsequently obtained leave to appeal from the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 426(2B) to suspend a sentence when the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the application, holding that once the High Court has decided an appeal, it becomes functus officio. Consequently, it is improper for the High Court to grant interim relief when the petitioner has no legal impediment to seeking such relief directly from the Supreme Court, which possesses the authority to stay sentences under its own rules. The principle established is that the High Court’s seisin does not revive to grant bail pending appeal before the Supreme Court absent specific justification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court retain jurisdiction to suspend a sentence under Section 426(2B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal?
  • Is the High Court considered functus officio regarding a criminal case after it has dismissed the appeal and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court?
  • Can a convict seek suspension of sentence from the High Court when there is no legal impediment to approaching the Supreme Court for such relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Director Intelligence and Investigation, (Customs), Peshawar vs Messrs2022 PTD 1496 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan, Sardar Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2022 PHC 664, 2024 MLD 1295 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-21Read full judgment →
• Dila Baz and others vs Balqiaz and others2022 PHC 160, 2022 MLD 1673 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-31Read full judgment →
• Dawood Khan And Another vs Mst. Raffat Begum And others2022 PHC 640 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-10Read full judgment →
• Danish Khan Afridi vs The State2022 PHC 338 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
• Daman Ali vs The State2022 PHC 80 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs Messrs2022 PTD 1776 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Peshawar vs M/s. Tribal Areas ElectricityPTCL 2022 CL. 599 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Peshawar vs Messrs2022 PTD 1616 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Jamrud Road, Peshawar vs Messrs Khyber Tea And Food Company and 2 others2022 PTD 1477 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
• Captain (R) Muhammad Safdar vs Inspector General of Police, Khyber2022 PCRLJ 1342 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-22
  quashment of FIRSection 196 CrPCseditionwaging war against Pakistanabuse of processpolitical criticismpre-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arose out of a constitutional writ petition seeking the quashment of a First Information Report (FIR) registered under Sections 121, 121-A, 124-A, 131, 153, 505, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside related petitions for pre-arrest bail and disclosure of cases. The police registered the FIR based on an unverified social media video clip of a press conference conducted by the petitioner criticizing government policies and leadership. The core legal questions involved whether the registration and cognizance of offences under Chapter VI and Section 505 PPC were barred under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without prior authorization from the Federal or Provincial Government, and whether political criticism equates to waging war against the State. The Peshawar High Court held that Section 196 Cr.P.C. strictly bars proceedings without requisite governmental authority, and that criticizing the government does not constitute waging war or inciting mutiny without incriminating material. The Court quashed the FIR as an abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be lodged for offences under Chapter VI of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without prior authorization or complaint from the Federal or Provincial Government under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does severe political criticism of government policies by a citizen constitute the offence of waging war against Pakistan under Section 121 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a criminal case under Sections 121, 121-A, and 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on an unverified social media video clip without forensic analysis or corroborative incriminating material?
  Read full judgment →
• Bismillah Din vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through its Chief2022 PHC 540 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bilal vs The State2022 PHC 340 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-31Read full judgment →
• Bibi Farida and 2 others vs Gul Rehman and others2022 YLR 1720 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
• Baz Muhammad Khan vs The SP Chamkani, Peshawar and others2022 PHC 23, 2022 MLD 1517 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-01Read full judgment →
• Bakht Alam Khan vs Waseem Khan & others2022 PHC 600 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
• Bacha Ayaz vs Umer Hayat2022 PHC 432 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-23Read full judgment →
• Ayaz-Ul-Haq vs State through NAB2022 MLD 1287 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-04
  mudariba businesscorruption and corrupt practicescheatingcriminal breach of trustpublic at largeNational Accountability Ordinancecontractual dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(a)(ix) and (x) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for alleged corruption and corrupt practices related to a failed mudariba investment scheme. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s failure to return invested funds or pay promised profits constituted the criminal offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust, and whether the complainants represented the public at large. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish dishonest intention at the inception of the contract, noting that the appellant acted as a guarantor and the complainants had voluntarily entered into investment agreements. The Court determined that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, arising from a breach of contract rather than criminal conduct. Furthermore, it held that a small number of complainants did not satisfy the statutory requirement of public at large. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing that mere violation of a contract does not ipso facto attract penal consequences for cheating or criminal breach of trust.

  Questions settled

  • Does a breach of a mudariba investment contract automatically constitute the offence of cheating under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • What constitutes the public at large for the purpose of establishing an offence under Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is the mere failure to pay promised profits on an investment sufficient to prove dishonest intention at the inception of a contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Muhammad and others vs Mst. Nargis and others2022 CLC 1545 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb & Others vs Tehsil Municipal Administration Mansehra2022 PHC 522 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-27Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb & another vs Adam Khan Jadoon & others2022 PHC 336 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-19Read full judgment →
• Ateeq-Ur-Rahman and others vs The State through A.A.G and others2022 PHC 418 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-18Read full judgment →
• Assistant Director Mines & Mineral Department, Swabi vs Fazal Sadiq and others2022 PHC 38, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 142, 2022 CLC 1392 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-21Read full judgment →
• Asmat vs Sahib Rokhan2022 PHC 528 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-03Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ullah Khan vs Govt of KPK & Others2022 PHC 584 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-14Read full judgment →
• Asma Shaheen vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & Others2022 PHC 488 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-15Read full judgment →
• Arshad Sohail son of Abdul Rasheed Khan, r/o House No.177 Mohallah2022 PHC 128 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Anyi Sundy alias Joe vs The State & others2022 PHC 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-14Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa thorugh Chief Secretary2022 PHC 516 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Amir Zeb vs Mst. Shamrozai and Others2022 PHC 652 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
• Amir Ullah son of Abdul Aziz vs Director "Zamung Kor", Charsadda road2022 PHC 472 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ameer Muhammad vs The State2022 PHC 594 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-26
  confiscation of vehiclenarcoticsbona fide ownerremandopportunity of hearingspecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Court, Shabqadar, which ordered the confiscation of a motorcar in favour of the State following the conviction of the accused for transporting narcotics. The appellant, claiming to be the bona fide owner of the vehicle, contended that the car was rented out through a rental service and used in the crime without his knowledge. The Peshawar High Court examined the procedure for confiscation under the provincial narcotics law. It observed that under Section 34B of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, the Special Court is mandated to provide an opportunity of hearing and allow the production of evidence to any person claiming a right to the seized article before ordering its confiscation. Since the trial court failed to observe this mandatory procedure despite the appellant's ownership claim, the High Court set aside the confiscation order and remanded the matter for proper inquiry and evidence recording.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Court can order the confiscation of a vehicle used in a narcotics offence without providing an opportunity of hearing to a third-party claimant?
  • What is the mandatory procedure to be followed under Section 34B of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 before ordering the confiscation of a seized article?
  • Can a confiscation order stand if the trial court fails to record the evidence of a person claiming ownership of the seized vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali Khan Jadoon vs Election Commission of Pakistan, through, Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and 05 others2022 PHC 208, 2022 YLR 2325 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah vs Tufail Ahmad and 3 others2022 CLC 1245 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Aman Khan vs The State and Another2022 PHC 660 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-04Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain son of Bakht Zamin Khan resident of Sanaam, Tehsil Adenzai, District Dir Lower vs The State through Advocate General2022 PHC 90 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The State, etc2022 KLR Criminal Cases 109 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-09Read full judgment →
• Alamzeb and others vs Mian Masaud and others2022 PHC 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• Alam Raheel alias Alam Raseel vs The State etc2022 PHC 162 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-07Read full judgment →
• Al-Zahid Heavy Equipment through Zahid Hussain vs Pakistan Railways2022 MLD 1143 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-02Read full judgment →