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.

• Akram Khan Durrani and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhutnkhwa2022 PLD Peshawar 171 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-02Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zaman vs The State2022 PHC 282, 2022 PCRLJ 1822 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-11
  bail on medical groundsunsound mindbipolar affective disordertrial adjourned sine diedetention of lunaticmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a bail application on medical grounds filed by the accused-petitioner, who is facing trial for double murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether an accused suffering from a mental illness, specifically bipolar affective disorder, is entitled to release on bail under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the trial court correctly adjourned the proceedings sine die. The Peshawar High Court held that Section 466 CrPC does not automatically warrant the release on bail of an accused facing serious criminal charges, particularly where conflicting medical board reports exist and the accused has a history of other criminal cases. The court ruled that the trial court acted appropriately by ordering the accused to be detained in a mental hospital for treatment and adjourning the trial sine die until recovery. The key principle laid down is that an accused claiming unsoundness of mind during trial may be remanded to safe custody for medical treatment rather than being released on bail, when conflicting medical opinions and the severity of the allegations so dictate.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused person suffering from bipolar affective disorder entitled to automatic release on bail under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court adjourn proceedings sine die when an accused is found temporarily unfit to face trial due to mental illness?
  • Does Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply strictly to every case involving an accused of unsound mind regardless of criminal history and conflicting medical reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajdar Ali vs The State2022 PCRLJ 967 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-10
  qatl-i-amdmurdereyewitness testimonyforensic evidencesentence enhancementcross-examination contradictionsconfessional statementcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 15-AA, along with a connected criminal revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment to death. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitness account, the corroborative value of the forensic and medical evidence, and the sufficiency of grounds for sentence enhancement. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through prompt registration of the FIR, natural and consistent eyewitness testimony, positive forensic matching of the crime weapon with recovered empties, and supportive medical evidence. The court laid down the principle that minor contradictions or confusion elicited during lengthy cross-examination cannot discredit an otherwise trustworthy witness whose testimony aligns with the overall circumstances of the case, and that sentence enhancement requires strong and compelling grounds. Consequently, both the appeal against conviction and the revision petition for enhancement were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction extracted during lengthy cross-examination warrant the rejection of an otherwise natural eyewitness testimony?
  • Whether prompt registration of an FIR and corroboration by forensic and medical evidence are sufficient to sustain a conviction for qatl-i-amd?
  • On what grounds can an appellate court decline to enhance a sentence of life imprisonment to death?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Kamal etc vs The State etc2022 PHC 134 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-12Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Secretary LCB, Civil2022 PHC 190, 2022 PLD Peshawar 229 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• Aftab vs The State And Another2022 PHC 642 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-01Read full judgment →
• Adnan vs State & another2022 PHC 526 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-21Read full judgment →
• Adnan Malik vs Govt KPK2022 PHC 504 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-08Read full judgment →
• Abdur Raqib & 04 others vs Secretary E&SE KPK & others2022 PHC 462 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs State & another2022 PHC 322 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-17Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim etc vs The State etc2022 PHC 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim etc vs Mst. Sitara Shaheen2022 PHC 476 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum vs Govt of KpK2022 PHC 448 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadoos & others vs PHA and others2022 PHC 382 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Khattak and another vs Muhammad Irshad2022 PHC 406 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-26
  labour lawmisconductminimum wagesreinstatementindustrial relationsfreedom of associationdomestic inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This labour appeal challenged the order of the Labour Court, Mardan, which had reinstated a respondent-employee dismissed for alleged misconduct. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s actions—specifically, advocating for the implementation of minimum wage notifications and communicating with the labour department—constituted 'misconduct' justifying dismissal, or if such actions were protected rights. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the allegations of inciting an illegal strike or subversive behaviour. The Labour Court’s decision to reinstate the respondent was upheld. The Court established that merely demanding secured legal rights, such as minimum wages, or addressing grievances to the labour department, does not constitute misconduct. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Labour Courts possess the jurisdiction to look behind departmental dismissal orders to assess the legality and propriety of the penalty imposed. It was emphasized that suppressing a worker’s voice for claiming legal rights violates the fundamental right of association and cannot be countenanced, as the management must prove the charges of misconduct during a domestic inquiry beyond mere procedural compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Does advocating for the implementation of minimum wages constitute misconduct by an employee?
  • Can a Labour Court examine the underlying evidence of a domestic inquiry to determine if a dismissal was justified?
  • Is it permissible for an employer to dismiss an employee for addressing grievances to the labour department regarding legal rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif And others vs Secretary Worker Welfare Board Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at Peshawar And others2022 PHC 654 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abd-us-Samad vs The State, Hameed Gul2022 PHC 662 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-26Read full judgment →
• 1. Abdul Wahab s/o Qalam khan 2. Muhammad Farooq s/o Abdul Rehman2022 PHC 35 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar son of Abdul Ghaffar vs The State etc.2021 PHC 384 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-02
  murderdying declarationcapital sentencemitigation of sentencecriminal appealacquittaldomestic disputeocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences of two appellants, Zulfiqar and Abdul Ghaffar, for the murder of Mst. Nighat. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the dying declaration, the sufficiency of ocular evidence, and the appropriate quantum of sentence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the husband, Abdul Ghaffar, through a dying declaration, ocular testimony of minor children, and medical evidence, particularly noting his unexplained abscondence and failure to explain his wife's death in their shared room. However, the court acquitted the co-accused, Zulfiqar, finding insufficient evidence of his participation, given his separate residence and the circumstances of his arrest. Regarding the sentence, the court held that while the husband's conviction was maintained, the death penalty was excessive given the sudden flare-up of a domestic dispute and the welfare of the surviving children. Consequently, the court reduced the husband's sentence to life imprisonment and acquitted the co-accused, establishing that domestic circumstances and the nature of the provocation are valid grounds for mitigating capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration recorded in the form of a Murasila is admissible when the deceased was conscious at the time of reporting?
  • Does the unexplained abscondence of a husband following the murder of his wife in their shared room constitute a strong incriminating circumstance?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the murder resulted from a sudden flare-up during a domestic dispute?
  • Is the acquittal of a co-accused justified when evidence shows they resided separately and were not present at the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• ZTBL vs Sami Ullah2021 PHC 392, 2022 CLD 238 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah vs The State2021 YLR 2273 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-27
  narcotics traffickingexclusive possessionconscious knowledgeshift of burden of proofchassis tamperingcriminal appealacquittalheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, following the recovery of a large quantity of heroin from a secret cavity of an oil tanker. The core legal questions involve the assessment of exclusive possession and conscious knowledge of narcotics in a vehicle occupied by multiple persons, and the proof required for tampering with vehicle identification under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the exclusive possession and control of the driver (appellant Zia Ullah) over the contraband, shifting the burden under section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which he failed to discharge, while acquitting the passenger (appellant Saddam Hussain) due to lack of proof of conscious knowledge. The court further held that convictions under sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code were unsustainable without evidence linking the appellants to the vehicle's chassis tampering. The key principles laid down include the standard of proof for passenger liability in narcotics transport cases and the requirement of direct evidence connecting an accused to document or chassis forgery.

  Questions settled

  • Does a passenger sitting in a vehicle carrying concealed narcotics share criminal liability without proof of conscious knowledge?
  • How does the statutory shift of burden of proof operate under section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can an accused be convicted for tampering with a vehicle's chassis number in the absence of direct investigative evidence linking them to the forgery?
  Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah son of Momin Khan, r/o Banda Nabi, Pabbi District Nowshera vs2021 PHC 22 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah Khan & 5 others vs Govt: of Pakistan through secretary Interior &2021 PHC 326, 2022 PLD Peshawar 122 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-29Read full judgment →
• Zarmash and another vs Haji Naeem Shah2021 PHC 124, 2022 PLD Peshawar 33 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-30Read full judgment →
• Zain-ud-Din vs Noor Muhammad etc2021 PHC 54 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ali Shah and others vs Board Of Revenue, Peshawar and others2021 CLC 1483 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-12Read full judgment →
• Zahid vs The State and another2021 MLD 1097 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-15
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtmurder trialocular evidencemedical evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibusacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for the murder of Taimoos Khan. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the evidence. The Peshawar High Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, including conflicts between the site plan and recovery memos regarding the place of occurrence and the number of crime empties recovered. Furthermore, the court noted inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence, the failure to produce key witnesses, and improvements in the complainant's testimony. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, and the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal. The court applied the principle that where prosecution witnesses are found to be untruthful, the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies, rendering their testimony unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for abandoning a material eyewitness?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Does the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply when prosecution witnesses are found to have made deliberate improvements in their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Akhtar vs Mst. Saima Zia and others2021 PLJ Peshawar 13 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-24Read full judgment →
• Zahid Akhtar vs Mst. Saima Zia and 6 others2021 YLR 570 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-24Read full judgment →
• Yousaf vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1339 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-16
  post-arrest bailjuvenile accusedconscious knowledgenarcoticsSection 9-D CNSArecovery from vehiclecriminal antecedents
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-D of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 10,160 grams of chars from under the seat of a vehicle he was driving. The primary legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted to a juvenile driver when conscious knowledge of the contraband requires determination at trial. The Peshawar High Court granted bail, holding that power to grant bail is not punitive and the key considerations are availability for trial and non-tampering with evidence. The Court observed that given the petitioner was 16 years old according to his National Identity Card, his conscious knowledge and possession of the narcotics remained a matter for trial. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of criminal antecedents and ordered the investigation officer to trace the owner of the vehicle. The principle laid down is that conscious knowledge is an essential ingredient of possession under narcotics laws, which must be proved at trial when dealing with a minor driver with no previous record.

  Questions settled

  • Is conscious knowledge of contraband an essential ingredient of possession that must be proved at trial?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted to a juvenile accused driving a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered where conscious possession is yet to be established?
  • Are lack of criminal antecedents and juvenile age valid considerations for granting bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmad Khan vs NAB2021 PHC 402, 2022 PCr. LJ 309 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
• Waheed Khan and others vs Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1114 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-04
  recruitment rulesamendment of rulesteaching cadreprofessional qualificationexecutive policyestoppel by acquiescenceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an advertisement dated 14 December 2017 for teaching cadre posts under the Elementary and Secondary Education Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which omitted the pre-condition of professional qualifications stipulated in earlier recruitment rules of 2012, and sought to direct authorities to re-advertise posts with professional qualifications and provide additional marks to certain teaching cadres. The core legal question was whether the executive is competent to amend recruitment rules and policies to remove professional qualifications for initial appointment in favor of mandatory in-service training, and whether such policy changes are open to judicial review. The Peshawar High Court held that the enactment, framing, and amendment of service rules and recruitment policies are the exclusive prerogative of the executive government to meet the exigencies of service, and courts cannot substitute their views on policy matters unless the rules violate the Constitution, law, or suffer from mala fides. The court further held that petitioners who participated in the selection process are estopped by acquiescence from challenging it. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the executive government has the legal competence to amend service recruitment rules and prescribe or alter qualifications for government posts?
  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution substitute its own views for a policy decision or rule amendment framed by the executive?
  • Does participation in a selection process by a candidate who later challenges it amount to estoppel and acquiescence?
  Read full judgment →
• Wafa Gul D/o Hazrat Gul, and others (House Job Officers Rehman Medical2021 CLC 1039, 2021 PHC 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
• Usman Shah vs The State2022 YLR 821 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-12
  narcotics smugglingsafe custody of contrabandbenefit of doubtcriminal appealforensic analysis delaynon-production of case propertyQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 8 kilograms of charas. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the recovery, safe custody, and transmission of the contraband. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Key evidentiary gaps included the failure to produce the vehicle in court, the absence of the Moharrir to testify regarding the safe custody of the contraband in the Malkhana, and the unexplained three-day delay in transmitting samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Furthermore, the court noted procedural violations regarding the investigation officer's authority. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must establish safe custody and transmission of evidence; failure to do so, or the presence of any reasonable doubt, entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right rather than concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce the case property before the trial court vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution's failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of contraband samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory fatal to a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when the prosecution abandons key witnesses?
  • Does a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Nazir vs Mukaram Khan2021 MLD 1676 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-01Read full judgment →
• Umair Kaleem & others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa though2021 PHC 260 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Noroz Khan alias Abu Bakar2021 MLD 2069, 2021 PHC 118 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-09
  appeal against acquittalnocturnal identificationdouble presumption of innocenceinjured witnessanti-terrorismreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court acquitting the accused-respondent of charges under sections 302/324/458/337-D/148/149 PPC and 7 ATA. The core legal question involves the reliability of nocturnal identification by injured witnesses and the strict scope of interference in appeals against acquittal. The Peshawar High Court held that where witnesses admitted they did not previously know the accused, descriptions were absent from the first information report, no identification parade was held, and material contradictions existed between medical and ocular testimony, the identification of the accused was doubtful. The court reiterated that the presence of an injured witness establishes presence at the scene but does not automatically guarantee truthfulness, and that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence which will not be interfered with unless the trial court's judgment is perverse or based on gross misreading or non-reading of evidence. The appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the presence of an injured witness at the scene of the crime automatically establishes the truthfulness of their testimony regarding the identification of the accused?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in a judgment of acquittal where the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence?
  • Does the failure to conduct an identification parade or provide a physical description in the first report create a reasonable doubt regarding the identity of an accused unknown to the witnesses?
  • Is a single material contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence sufficient to impeach the credibility of a witness in a capital case?
  Read full judgment →
• Tehsildar, Mardan and 5 others vs Asif Bacha2021 PLD Peshawar 166 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood Aryani vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar & others2021 MLD 2035, 2021 PHC 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• Taimoor vs Muhammad Yawar Ubaid and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1712 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-16
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecheatingforgeryimpersonationbail rule and exception
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1 dated 01.01.2021 registered under Sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gumbat, District Kohat, relating to the alleged sale of a non-custom paid vehicle with forged documents and impersonation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail when the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that since the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the general rule and its refusal is an exception, and the respondent failed to establish any exceptional circumstances. The petition was accordingly allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing appropriate surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that in criminal cases where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the grant of bail become the rule and refusal an exception in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahsin Ullah vs The Chairman Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Public Service2021 PHC 66 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tahsin Ullah vs Chairman Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Public Service Commission2021 PLC (C.S.) 1611 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-14
  public service commissionwaiting list policynon-joining of selecteerecruitment policyconstitutional petitionsubject specialist appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission's refusal to recommend him for the post of Subject Specialist (Statistic) despite being at the top of the waiting list following the non-joining of a previously selected candidate. The core legal question was whether the Commission was obligated to recommend the next candidate on the merit list when a selectee failed to join, specifically considering the government's policy on waiting lists. The Court held that the Commission's refusal was illegal, finding that the selectee in question had not actually joined the service, as evidenced by the appointing department's clarification that he had not undergone the mandatory medical examination or character verification. The Court affirmed that under the prevailing recruitment policy, the Commission is required to maintain a waiting list for three months or until the commencement of pre-service training, allowing for the recommendation of the next eligible candidate in the event of a non-joiner. Consequently, the Court directed the Commission to recommend the petitioner for the post.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Public Service Commission required to recommend the next candidate on the merit list if a selected candidate fails to join the service?
  • Does the failure of a candidate to undergo mandatory medical examination and character verification constitute a non-joining for the purpose of the waiting list policy?
  • What is the permissible duration for maintaining a waiting list for recruitment under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir and 4 others vs Hafeez-Ur-Rehman and 3 others2021 MLD 401 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-06Read full judgment →
• Syeda Humaira Sultana vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and 3 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1074 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-08
  FATA mergerconstitutional amendmentpublic office successiontermination of serviceeducational institution regulationwrit jurisdictionadministrative authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated writ petitions challenging the authority of the Deputy Commissioner, Bajaur, to terminate the services of a school principal and initiate recruitment for school staff. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Commissioner, as a successor to the former Political Agent, possessed the legal authority to manage the affairs of Bajaur Public School, including personnel decisions, following the merger of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner lacked such authority, as the office of the Political Agent ceased to exist upon the repeal of Article 247 of the Constitution and the 25th Constitutional Amendment. The Court ruled that succession to public office requires explicit statutory authorization, which was absent here. Consequently, the termination was declared illegal, and the recruitment process was set aside. The Court mandated the Provincial Government to establish a proper legal framework for these educational institutions within three months, emphasizing the state's constitutional obligation under Article 25-A to provide education and regulate such schools effectively.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Deputy Commissioner of a district automatically succeed to the powers and functions of the former Political Agent in FATA post-merger?
  • Can a public official claim succession to a public office without an affirmative law or rule providing for such devolution?
  • Does the repeal of Article 247 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 terminate the regulatory framework previously governing Model Schools in FATA?
  • Is the Provincial Government constitutionally obligated under Article 25-A to provide a legal framework for educational institutions previously governed by FATA-specific regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahin Shah vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Khyber2021 PLC (C.S.) 1589, 2021 PHC 114 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-23
  Audit and Accounts Allowancereasonable classificationintelligible differentiaequal protection of lawdiscriminationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, sought directions for the respondents to issue a notification granting the petitioner, a Deputy Director (Finance & Accounts) in the Local Government & Rural Development Department, the Account and Audit Allowance at 20% of his basic pay, mirroring the allowance granted to employees of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Treasury Service. The core legal question was whether denying the said allowance to an employee serving in a different department, despite similar job functions, violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 4 and 25. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the restriction of the allowance specifically to the Treasury Service constitutes a valid and reasonable classification based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, and does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The key principle laid down is that the guarantee of equal protection does not forbid reasonable classification of persons or groups based on intelligible differentia, and identical treatment in unequal circumstances is not mandated by law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the restriction of a specific departmental allowance to a particular service group constitutes unconstitutional discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • What are the essential conditions for a classification to pass the test of permissible classification under the equal protection clause?
  • Does identical treatment in unequal circumstances amount to inequality under Pakistani constitutional law?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Maqbool Shah son of Hassan Shah, r/o Badaber District, Peshawar vs2021 YLR 1517, 2021 PHC 14 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Jawad Hussain vs The State2021 MLD 1951 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-03
  narcoticscriminal appealrecovery discrepancybenefit of doubtchemical analysisconfiscation of vehicleburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the possession of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of contraband. The court found that the prosecution's case was fatally undermined by significant discrepancies: the number of packets recovered at trial did not match the number alleged in the FIR, and representative samples for chemical analysis were not taken from all recovered packets. The court held that these inconsistencies created sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal, reiterating the principle that the prosecution must produce reliable evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that any significant doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside. Additionally, the court dismissed a separate appeal for the return of the vehicle used in the crime, holding that the claimant, having purchased the vehicle after the registration of the case, lacked the requisite ownership status at the relevant time.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the number of contraband packets alleged in the FIR and those produced at trial vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is a purchaser of a vehicle involved in a narcotics case entitled to its return if the purchase occurred after the registration of the FIR?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to take representative samples from all recovered contraband packets?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman Khan vs The State2021 PHC 376, 2022 MLD 937 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-25Read full judgment →
• Subhan Ullah Khan son of Rozamin Khan vs The State through A.A.G2021 PHC 150 · Peshawar High Court
  murder convictionsolitary eyewitnesscapital punishmentsentence mitigationhostile witnessbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, alongside a connected appeal against the acquittal of two co-accused. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a solitary eyewitness, the impact of a hostile witness on the prosecution's case, and whether the circumstances warranted a reduction in the capital sentence. The Court held that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness was consistent, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, thereby sustaining the conviction. However, noting minor inconsistencies in the prosecution's case—specifically regarding the timing of the occurrence and the status of certain witnesses—the Court exercised its discretion to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. The appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused was dismissed, affirming that they were entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the double presumption of innocence. The judgment reinforces the principle that while a single reliable witness can sustain a conviction, minor evidentiary inconsistencies may justify mitigating a capital sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness?
  • Are courts justified in ignoring the testimony of a witness declared hostile?
  • Can minor inconsistencies in prosecution evidence justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • What is the standard for overturning an acquittal of co-accused in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Prosecutor General Accountability vs Adeel Butt and another2021 P Cr. L J 799 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07
  acquittalbenefit of doubtcivil liabilitycheatingaccountabilityappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the National Accountability Bureau against the judgment of the Accountability Court, which acquitted the respondents of corruption and corrupt practices charges. The core legal question was whether the prosecution produced sufficient evidence to establish charges of cheating, fraud, and criminal breach of trust against the respondents. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges, noting that the principal complainant admitted to receiving back his invested amount along with substantial profit, and the transaction involving the second respondent merely constituted a civil liability rather than a criminal offence. The court laid down the principle that mere civil liability cannot be converted into a criminal charge without proof of dishonest intention ab initio, and that benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when prosecution evidence is scanty and inconsistent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-production of a material witness leaves the allegations against an accused unproven?
  • Does the return of the principal amount along with profit negate a charge of cheating and fraud?
  • Whether a financial transaction backed by a promissory note and an agreement constitutes a criminal offence or a civil liability?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Shahid Hussain2021 P Cr. L J 1274 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-16
  narcoticsacquittalcall detail recordsecondary evidenceFSL reportsafe custodybenefit of doubtdouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed an appeal against the judgment of the Special Court/Sessions Judge, Kohat, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of a charge under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of Call Detail Record (CDR) data without independent verification from a cellular company, the integrity and safe transmission of narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and the principles governing appeals against acquittal. The Peshawar High Court held that unverified CDR data lacking stamps, signatures, or official testimony from the cellular company cannot be relied upon as secondary evidence, that a delay in sending samples to the FSL combined with a failure to prove safe custody vitiates the chemical report, and that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence which will not be interfered with unless there is misreading or non-reading of evidence. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Call Detail Record (CDR) data obtained from a cellular company can be relied upon as secondary evidence without the endorsement, stamp, signature, and testimony of an authorized representative of the company?
  • Does a delay in transmitting narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory and failure to establish their safe custody vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • What is the standard of proof and appraisal of evidence required when the State appeals against an order of acquittal?
  • Can a narcotics conviction be sustained solely on unverified telephonic data and flawed chemical analysis reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat & others vs Federation of Pakistan etc2021 PHC 192, 2022 PTD 11 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-26
  income tax exemptioncivil servantsEx-PATAtax liabilitystatutory interpretationTwenty-fifth Amendmentsalary taxation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of writ petitions filed by provincial government employees serving in the former Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Ex-PATA). Following the merger of these areas into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa via the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2018, the Federal Government issued SRO No. 1213(1)/2018 granting certain tax reliefs. The core legal question was whether these employees, by virtue of their domicile and posting in the Ex-PATA region, were entitled to exemption from income tax deductions on their salaries under the said SRO. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the claimed tax exemption. The ratio decidendi is that the tax relief provided by SRO No. 1213 applies only to income that was not chargeable to tax prior to the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Since the salaries of government employees were already subject to income tax regardless of their place of posting, they did not qualify for the exemption. The Court affirmed that civil servants are liable to pay income tax on salaries, and mere posting in a specific region does not confer tax immunity absent a specific statutory exemption.

  Questions settled

  • Are provincial government employees serving in the former Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Ex-PATA) exempt from income tax on their salaries following the Twenty-fifth Amendment?
  • Does SRO No. 1213(1)/2018 grant income tax exemption to government employees whose salaries were already subject to tax prior to the merger of tribal areas?
  • Is a civil servant's liability to pay income tax on salary affected by their place of posting within the province?
  Read full judgment →
• Shukat Ali vs Govt of KP2021 PHC 370 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
• Shereen Zada vs Director FIA, Zonal and 2 others2021 MLD 1330 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman Khan & others vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2021 PHC 148, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1335 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-16
  Khasadar Forcecompulsory retirementsuperannuation ageabsorptionservice ruleswrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Police
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the compulsory retirement of Khasadars/Sepoys of the Bajaur Levies, who sought to set aside retirement orders issued upon their reaching 50 years of age. The petitioners contended that following their absorption into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Khasadar Force Act, 2019, they were entitled to the 60-year superannuation age applicable to provincial civil servants. The core legal question was whether the new legislative framework superseded the previous service rules regarding the age of retirement. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Khasadar Force Act, 2019, and its associated rules did not repeal the existing retirement age provisions. The Court affirmed that the Khasadar Force remains governed by its specific legal dispensation, and the mere absorption into the provincial police structure does not automatically extend general civil service retirement ages to the force. The principle established is that specific service rules governing a force continue to apply unless explicitly amended or repealed by new legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absorption of the Khasadar Force into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police automatically entitle its members to the 60-year superannuation age applicable to provincial civil servants?
  • Do the existing service rules regarding retirement age for the Khasadar Force remain in effect after the promulgation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Khasadar Force Act, 2019?
  • Can a retirement order be considered invalid solely because it was issued after the employee reached the age of superannuation due to administrative delays?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Wali vs The State and 5 others2021 MLD 1709 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-26
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilityacquittal of co-accusedfurther inquiryabscondencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two post-arrest bail petitions filed in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i)(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail in a case where multiple co-accused have already been acquitted and the principal accused was absolved of charges, making their vicarious liability and common intention a matter of further inquiry. The court decided to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioners. The key principles laid down are that the benefit of the acquittal of co-accused can be extended to an accused at the bail stage under peculiar circumstances, that abscondence alone is not sufficient to deny bail if the accused otherwise makes out a case on merits, and that tentative assessment of the record is required without indulging in deeper appreciation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused can be extended as a benefit to an accused seeking post-arrest bail?
  • Does abscondence alone suffice to disentitle an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail if a case for further inquiry is made out on merits?
  • Can petitioners be saddled with vicarious liability for murder when the principal accused has been acquitted and their own intent requires deeper trial evaluation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Afzal vs State2021 PHC 158 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ullah and 2 others vs Gul Umar through L.Rs. and 5 others2022 YLR 628 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-15Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs The State2021 PHC 360, 2024 MLD 1700 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Shahpur Jan vs Govt of KP2021 PHC 372, 2022 CLC 928 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Colonel Sharifud-Din &others vs The Settlement Officer Districts2021 PHC 256 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahzada Colonel Sharif-Ud-Din and others vs The Settlement Officer2021 CLC 1968 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-28
  civil revisiontemporary injunctionpecuniary jurisdictionforum of appealimplied repealbalance of convenienceconstruction at own risk and cost
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged an appellate order passed by the District Judge, which had set aside a temporary injunction granted by the trial court and allowed the respondents to raise construction on the disputed property at their own risk and cost. The core legal questions revolved around the forum of appeal for interlocutory orders under Section 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in light of amendments introduced by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendments) Act, 2020, versus notifications under the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, and whether an appellate court can permit construction during a pending title suit. The Peshawar High Court held that the subsequent primary legislation (Section 106 of the Code) impliedly repealed or took precedence over inconsistent subordinate legislation and notifications regarding appellate forums, ensuring appeals against orders lie to the next higher court in hierarchy. On merits, the Court held that since the plaintiffs were out of possession and the defendants claimed title via registered sale deeds, allowing construction at the defendants' own risk and cost—supported by an undertaking not to claim compensation—properly balanced convenience and prevented irreparable loss. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amendments to Section 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Code of Civil Procedure (Amendments) Act, 2020 prevail over notifications issued under Section 18 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962?
  • Does a subsequent primary legislation impliedly repeal inconsistent provisions of earlier subordinate legislation regarding the forum of appeal?
  • Can an appellate court permit a defendant to raise construction on a disputed property at their own risk and cost during the pendency of a title and possession suit?
  • Whether the balance of convenience lies in allowing ongoing construction at the builder's own risk and cost when the plaintiff is out of possession and claims title?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Aman Room & others vs Miangul Hilal & others2021 PHC 166, 2022 CLC 659 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-22Read full judgment →
• Shahid Nadeem vs State2021 PHC 382, 2022 PCr. LJ 872 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
• Shahid Iqbal vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2021 PLC (C.S.) 711, 2021 PHC 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-26
  writ petitiontermination of servicepublic sector companymaster and servantnatural justiceunbridled discretioncontractual employment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed as Chief Financial Officer of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Economic Zones Development & Management Company (a public sector company), challenged his termination from service. His services were terminated by the Board of Directors under Clause 5.1 of his employment contract, which allowed termination with one month's notice or salary in lieu, without any charge, inquiry, or hearing. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the relationship was governed by the principle of master and servant. The Peshawar High Court held that contract employment in public sector companies falls within the scope of public employment and is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. On the merits, the Court ruled that the Board of Directors exercised its discretion arbitrarily and without independent application of mind, ignoring inquiry reports that favored the petitioner. The Court declared that the doctrine of pleasure and unbridled discretion are alien to the rule of law, and allowed the petition, setting aside the termination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employment in a public sector company fully owned or controlled by the government is amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
  • Whether the principle of master and servant applies to contract employees of public sector companies and corporations?
  • Can a public sector employer terminate a contract employee under a termination-at-will clause without providing an opportunity of hearing or showing reasonable cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheryar Gul vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Principal Secretary to Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar and others2021 PHC 352, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 985 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-27
  service terminationmajor penaltynatural justicedepartmental inquirybiasnemo debet esse judex in propria sua causawrit jurisdictioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioner, a Computer Operator, from service by the Provincial Ombudsman. The core legal questions were whether a major penalty of removal from service could be imposed without conducting a regular departmental inquiry, and whether the authority who issued the show cause notice—being the subject of the alleged misconduct—could validly act as the competent authority to decide the case. The Court held that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of service jurisprudence. It ruled that imposing a major penalty without a regular inquiry is a violation of the principles of natural justice, as it denies the civil servant the right to defend themselves. Furthermore, the Court applied the maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa, holding that the authority who is the complainant or subject of the alleged misconduct cannot act as the judge in the same matter. Consequently, the Court set aside the termination order and reinstated the petitioner with full back benefits, reaffirming that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.

  Questions settled

  • Can a major penalty be imposed upon a civil servant without conducting a regular departmental inquiry?
  • Does the principle of natural justice prohibit an authority from acting as a judge in a case where they are the complainant or subject of the alleged misconduct?
  • Is an order of removal from service valid if the competent authority is biased or has a personal interest in the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Hussain vs Din Muhammad etc2021 PHC 208, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 158, 2022 MLD 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Shad Nabi vs The State2021 PHC 222 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-28
  post-arrest bailmurderabsconsionrule of consistencyprohibitory limbcriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 198 dated 15.07.2016 under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Jarma, District Kohat, involving allegations of firing and murdering the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on grounds of further inquiry, considering the acquittal of a co-accused with a similar role and alleged discrepancies in the medical and ocular evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was directly nominated in the FIR, supported by forensic science laboratory reports indicating multiple weapons used, and that his case was distinguishable from the acquitted co-accused because the petitioner had absconded during the trial. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that the petitioner was prima facie connected to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that an absconding accused cannot claim parity for bail purposes with a co-accused who faced trial and was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who absconded during trial can claim the benefit of parity for bail based on the acquittal of a co-accused with a similar role?
  • Does direct nomination in an FIR coupled with corroborative forensic evidence attract the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a tentative assessment of the material sufficient at the bail stage to establish a prima facie connection of the accused with the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Sawab Khan vs The Vice Chancellor Agriculture University, Khyber2021 PHC 112, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 217 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-23
  service lawpersonal gradeupgradationpromotionwrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretationeligibility criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the refusal of the Agriculture University, Peshawar, to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director Sports (BPS-18). The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having been granted a "personal grade" in BPS-17 as Assistant Director Physical Education, was entitled to promotion to BPS-18 based on his length of service and experience. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the grant of a "personal grade" or "upgradation" is distinct from a formal promotion. The court clarified that personal grade is person-specific and does not equate to a promotion to a higher post, which requires adherence to the specific selection procedures and criteria mandated by the University Statutes. Consequently, the petitioner failed to satisfy the eligibility requirements for the higher post. The court reaffirmed the principle that where the law prescribes a specific mode for an action, it must be performed in that manner, and what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved indirectly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of a personal grade or upgradation constitute a formal promotion to a higher post?
  • Can an employee claim promotion to a higher grade based solely on a personal grade without undergoing the prescribed selection process?
  • Is there a legal distinction between promotion and upgradation in service law?
  Read full judgment →
• Sartaj and eight others vs Mst. Waheeda Gul &another2021 PHC 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
• Sartaj and 8 others vs Mst. Waheeda Gul and another2022 YLR 181 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz and 6 others vs Abdul Ghafoor and 3 others2021 MLD 1219 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Ramzan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and four others2021 PHC 358 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar Attique ur Rehman vs The State & 05 others2021 P Cr. L J 1216, 2021 PHC 44, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-02
  cancellation of FIRpolice reportnatural justiceaudi alteram partemjudicial discretionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought the annulment of an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate whereby a criminal case registered under sections 380, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code was cancelled upon a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved whether a Magistrate can mechanically cancel an FIR by merely agreeing with the police without recording independent reasons, and whether a complainant must be granted a right of audience under the principles of natural justice before such cancellation. The Peshawar High Court held that the power under section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not arbitrary, requires conscious application of mind with independent reasons, and cannot be exercised without adhering to the audi alteram partem rule. The court laid down the principle that Magistrates must act judicially rather than mechanically follow police opinions, and that principles of natural justice and the right of hearing must be observed in all proceedings affecting the rights of parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate can cancel a criminal case by simply agreeing with the police opinion without recording independent reasons?
  • Does section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confer an arbitrary power upon a Magistrate?
  • Whether the principles of natural justice and the right of audience must be extended to a complainant before cancelling an FIR?
  • Is a Magistrate required to act judicially when considering a police report for the cancellation of a registered criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Babar son of Zakaullah Babar, Ex.S.F. C&W Department, Peshawar vs The State_National Accountability Bureau, through its Chairman NAB Headquarters, Islamabad and others2021 PHC 200, 2022 PCr. LJ 213 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-03
  assets disproportionate to known sources of incomeNational Accountability Ordinancecorruption and corrupt practicesburden of proofforfeiture of propertyrebuttal of statutory presumptionabatement of appeal upon death
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and connected writ petitions challenged the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellant under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for accumulating assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, and ordering the forfeiture of properties belonging to him and his family members. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant passed away, and his legal heirs were impleaded, while his wife and son challenged the forfeiture of their respective properties. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution successfully established a case of corruption and whether the statutory presumptions under the NAO, 1999, were duly rebutted by the defense. The Peshawar High Court held that while the prosecution proved the existence of the properties, it failed to provide any evidence of corruption, misuse of official capacity, or acquisition of assets through illicit funds. Conversely, the defense successfully accounted for the properties through inheritance, salaries, pensions, and profitable real estate transactions. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, fine, and forfeiture of properties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statutory presumption under Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, relieves the prosecution of its primary duty to establish a foundation of corruption before the burden shifts to the accused?
  • Can an accused successfully rebut the allegation of holding assets disproportionate to known sources of income by demonstrating legal sources such as inheritance, family resources, and profitable real estate transactions?
  • Whether the forfeiture of properties belonging to family members and dependents can be sustained when the underlying conviction and the charge of corruption itself are not proved by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah vs The State2021 PHC 374, 2022 PLD Peshawar 251 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-19
  post-arrest transit bailjurisdictionAnti-Terrorism CourtFederal Investigation Agencycyber crimeblasphemy
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest transit bail in a case registered at Islamabad under various provisions including the Pakistan Penal Code, Anti-Terrorism Act, and Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, after the Anti-Terrorism Court at Peshawar returned the initial bail application for lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question concerns the territorial jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court at Peshawar to entertain a post-arrest bail petition in a case registered by the Counter Terrorism Wing of the Federal Investigation Agency at Islamabad. The Peshawar High Court held that under Section 4 and Section 5 of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, read with the Ministry of Interior's notification extending the jurisdiction of the FIA Counter Terrorism Wing across Pakistan and empowering local trial, the Anti-Terrorism Court at Peshawar possesses the requisite jurisdiction to hear and decide bail petitions arising from such cases. The court laid down the principle that Anti-Terrorism Courts within a province are competent to entertain bail applications and try cases registered by central investigative agencies where the statutory notification and territorial nexus so permit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Anti-Terrorism Court at Peshawar has jurisdiction to entertain a post-arrest bail petition in a case registered by the Counter Terrorism Wing, FIA, Islamabad?
  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have the authority to investigate cyber-terrorism and related offences across Pakistan under its statutory powers and notifications?
  • Are officers of the Federal Investigation Agency empowered to exercise powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station throughout Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Khan and 39 others vs President Pakistan Veterinary Medical2021 MLD 424 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-07-03Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah vs Rehmat Ullah2021 PHC 410, 2022 MLD 681 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Samar Gul vs The Regional Director, Employees Old Age Benefits Institution, Peshawar and others2021 PLC 268 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-14
  old-age pensionseasonal workerlength of serviceinsurable employmentconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by the petitioner seeking a directive for the respondents to pay him monthly old-age pension from the date of his superannuation in accordance with Section 22 of the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The core legal question concerned the correct method for calculating the length of service of a seasonal worker under Section 2(q) of the said Act to determine eligibility for an old-age pension requiring fifteen years of qualified service. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondents misapplied the formula for calculating the petitioner's service days by improperly evaluating a year's service. The Court ruled that for a seasonal factory worker where weekly holidays are not paid, the total days served must be divided by 312 days pursuant to Section 2(q) to constitute a complete year. Upon correct calculation, the petitioner's service exceeded fifteen years, making him fully eligible for the pension. The petition was consequently allowed.

  Questions settled

  • How is a year of insurable employment calculated for a seasonal worker under the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • What is the qualifying period of contributions required for an insured person to become entitled to a monthly old-age pension under Section 22 of the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • When is an insured person entitled to an old-age grant instead of an old-age pension under the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamatullah vs State2021 PHC 270, 2022 MLD 638 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-14
  probationwrit of mandamusright of representationpublic functionaryfundamental rightsIslamic injunctionsadministrative delayconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary Home to decide the petitioner's pending application for release on probation. The petitioner, a life convict, had previously been directed to exhaust administrative remedies, yet his subsequent representations remained unaddressed by the authorities. The core legal question was whether a public functionary is obligated to adjudicate upon a representation or appeal filed by an aggrieved citizen within a reasonable timeframe. The Court held that the right of an aggrieved person to lodge a protest or representation is an inherent right sanctioned by both the Constitution and Islamic teachings. Consequently, public functionaries are under a mandatory legal obligation to decide such representations fairly and without inordinate delay. The Court allowed the petition, directing the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation within one month, emphasizing that the failure to adjudicate grievances constitutes a violation of human dignity and the principles of fair administration.

  Questions settled

  • Is a public functionary legally obligated to decide upon a representation or appeal filed by an aggrieved person within a reasonable time?
  • Does the failure of a public authority to respond to a representation violate the fundamental rights of a citizen?
  • Can a High Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel a government authority to decide a pending application for probation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Akbar vs State etc2021 PHC 316, 2022 MLD 1325 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sajid-Ur-Rehman vs Mst. Nusrat Bibi and 2 others2021 YLR 540 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
• Sajid Khan vs The State2021 YLR 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-21
  narcotic smugglingsafe custody of sampleschain of custodycriminal appealacquittalforensic science laboratoryreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offense of smuggling 12 kilograms of heroin, recorded by the trial court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of narcotics, the integrity of the chain of custody, and the reliability of prosecution witnesses. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted significant discrepancies, including the trial court's physical observation that the alleged secret cavities in the vehicle did not exist, contrary to the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of the narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, as the police official responsible for the transmission was not examined. Relying on established precedent, the Court ruled that the failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of samples renders the chemical report unreliable. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court's physical observation of the crime scene have an overriding effect on conflicting prosecution evidence?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to examine the police official responsible for the transmission of samples to the laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Said-Ur-Rehman vs Raj Muhammad and another2021 CLC 1206 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-16Read full judgment →
• Said Alam vs The State and another2022 YLR 117 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-29
  post-arrest bailmurderdying declarationPakistan Penal Codefirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 584 registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Haved, District Bannu, after his bail plea was dismissed by the lower court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where he was directly charged by name with a specific weapon in a dying declaration, notwithstanding arguments regarding the correspondence between the number of injuries and the number of accused persons. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was prima facie connected to the heinous offense and that the dying declaration and recovery of empties negated the grant of bail at this stage, particularly as the mental state and consciousness of the deceased at the time of the report are matters for trial. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reinforcing the principle that accused persons directly charged with specific roles in serious crimes via dying declarations are not routinely enlarged on bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused directly charged with a specific role and weapon in a dying declaration is entitled to post-arrest bail for an offense under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a discrepancy between the number of firearm injuries and the number of accused persons charged automatically warrant the grant of bail?
  • Is the question of whether a deceased was conscious and oriented while making a dying declaration to be determined at the bail stage or during the trial after recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Khan vs Govt: of KPK through Chief Secretary and others2021 PHC 408, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1197, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-16
  constitutional petitionpublic appointmentscivil servantsmerit and transparencyillegal appointmentsexecutive interferencedepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the appointment of private respondents to various posts, alleging that the selection process violated the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989 and was influenced by extraneous pressures rather than merit. The court ordered an official inquiry, which revealed severe irregularities including a lack of candidate interviews, absence of scrutiny committees, and failure to follow statutory appointment procedures. The Peshawar High Court held that public appointments made in disregard of merit, transparency, and statutory rules through political or external interference are illegal and void. The court disposed of the petitions by directing the Special Secretary of the Health Department to constitute a committee to conduct hearings, decide the fate of the appointees, and initiate departmental proceedings against the delinquent officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether public appointments made in violation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989 can be sustained?
  • Can public representatives interfere in the executive and administrative domain of appointments, promotions, and transfers of civil servants?
  • What is the legal duty of a civil servant when faced with illegal or incompetent orders or directions from a superior authority?
  • Does selecting unqualified or less qualified individuals for public service through nepotism constitute a breach of public trust?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq vs The State2021 PHC 214 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-17Read full judgment →
• S. M. Wajeehuddin vs The State2021 PLD Peshawar 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-29
  criminal appealdrug court convictionshort supply of drugscorporate criminal liabilitydrug registration withdrawal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Chief Executive Officer of Messrs Pfizer Pakistan Limited, filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Chairman Drug Court, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar, convicting him under section 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976 for violating Rule 30(4)(5) of the Drugs Registration, Licensing and Advertising Rules, 1976. The case arose from an allegation of short supply of life-saving drugs. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant could be held criminally liable for a shortage when alternative drugs were available, prior intimation of discontinuation/withdrawal of registration had been given to the authorities, and the appellant was not the Chief Executive Officer at the relevant time. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish criminal culpability, as alternative medicines were available, the company had previously informed the Registration Board regarding the withdrawal and discontinuation of the products, and the appellant was not holding the office of Chief Executive during the period of the alleged shortage. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Chief Executive Officer can be held criminally liable for a drug shortage that occurred prior to assuming charge of the company?
  • Can a manufacturer be penalized for drug shortages when prior intimation regarding the withdrawal or discontinuation of the product has been communicated to the Registration Board?
  • Does the prosecution need to prove knowledge and consent of a director or officer under section 34 of the Drugs Act 1976 to establish corporate criminal liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Bibi vs DEO (F) Buner and others2021 PL C (C.S.) 582 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-25Read full judgment →
• Roohul Amin vs Telenor Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited Company through Executive2021 MLD 592, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 233 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-14Read full judgment →
• Rohaid Ali Shah vs The State and others2021 MLD 1997 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-01
  post-arrest bailcross-versioncross-casestentative assessmentmurdercriminal liabilitybail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a violent incident resulting in three deaths and multiple injuries. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds of a cross-version, arguing that he and his brother also sustained injuries during the same occurrence, which should entitle him to bail under established precedents regarding cross-cases. The core legal question was whether the existence of a counter-version and injuries sustained by the accused automatically entitles them to the concession of bail in a case involving multiple fatalities. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the mere presence of injuries on the accused does not mandate bail, especially when the prosecution's case involves significant loss of life and prompt reporting. The court emphasized that the nature of the injuries and their origin—whether self-inflicted or caused by the complainant—remains a matter for trial, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version or counter-case automatically entitle an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Can injuries sustained by an accused during the same occurrence form the sole basis for the grant of bail in a murder case?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ullah vs The State2021 YLR 1241 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-11
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsrule of consistencyprocedural irregularitysearch and seizuremandatory compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of heroin, opium, and chemicals from a residential house. The prosecution alleged the petitioner was found in possession of three kilograms of heroin during a police raid. The Court observed that while a significant quantity of contraband was recovered, several procedural irregularities undermined the prosecution's case. Specifically, the Court noted the absence of a lady constable during the raid, the failure to comply with the mandatory search requirements under the relevant narcotics legislation, and the lack of documentary evidence proving that the raid on the dwelling house was authorized by senior officers as required by law. Furthermore, the Court applied the Rule of Consistency, noting that a co-accused had already been granted bail. Emphasizing that the investigation was complete and the petitioner was not a previous convict, the Court held that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to comply with the search and arrest procedures under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019 entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can the Rule of Consistency be applied to grant bail to an accused when a co-accused has already been released?
  • Is the absence of a lady constable during a search of a dwelling house a relevant factor in determining bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ali Khan and 2 others vs Director.General, Peshawar Development2021 PLC (C.S.) 366 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21
  service lawdepartmental inquirymandatory proceduremisconducttermination from serviceconstitutional petitionback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the erstwhile Provincial Urban Development Board serving as housing officers, challenged their termination from service and preceding show-cause notices issued by the Peshawar Development Authority. The core legal question was whether the departmental proceedings and subsequent termination of the petitioners complied with the mandatory procedural requirements under the governing service rules. The Peshawar High Court held that the departmental proceedings, conducted by dispensing with an inquiry and issuing show-cause notices instead of following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 23 of the PUDB Service Rules, 1978, were void ab initio. The Court set aside the impugned termination orders, reinstated the petitioners with back benefits, and ruled that where a law requires something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner. The Court further affirmed that holding an inquiry is mandatory under the governing rules when proceeding against an official for misconduct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental proceedings initiated without holding a mandatory inquiry under the governing service rules are legally sustainable?
  • Does the failure to provide copies of record and documents to an employee facing disciplinary action violate the right to a defense?
  • Can an authority dispense with an inquiry when the applicable service rules mandate a specific procedure for disciplinary action?
  • What is the legal effect when a statute or rule requires a thing to be done in a particular manner and that procedure is not followed?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Gul vs State2022 P Cr.L J 10, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1228 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-10
  narcotic traffickingdestruction of case propertychain of custodyburden of proofcriminal appealSection 9(c) CNSAnarcotics seizure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 18,000 grams of narcotics. The core legal questions concerned whether the destruction of the bulk of the seized narcotics without specific prior notice to the accused prejudiced his defense and whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound based on consistent ocular and documentary evidence. The Court held that the law governing the destruction of seized narcotics under Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, does not mandate prior notice to the accused, and the presence of the accused during the destruction proceedings constitutes sufficient notice. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to prove his innocence. The chain of custody was found to be intact and properly maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Does the destruction of seized narcotics under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require prior notice to be served upon the accused?
  • Does the presence of an accused during the destruction of seized narcotics satisfy the requirement of notice?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the accused in cases involving the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Gul son of Hayat Gul, r/o Mamozai Orakzai vs The State2021 PHC 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-28
  narcotics traffickingdestruction of case propertychain of custodyburden of proofcriminal appealSection 9(c) CNSAjudicial supervision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, resulting in life imprisonment for the trafficking of narcotics. The core legal questions concern whether the destruction of seized narcotics case property without prior notice to the accused vitiates the trial proceedings, and whether the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The Court held that neither Section 33(4) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 nor Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandates prior notice to an accused for the destruction of seized narcotics. The destruction of narcotics under judicial supervision does not prejudice the accused's defense, provided the procedure is transparent and samples are preserved. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. Consistent ocular and documentary evidence, combined with a positive chemical analysis report, sufficiently establishes guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the destruction of seized narcotics under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require prior notice to the accused?
  • Does the failure to provide notice to an accused before the destruction of narcotics case property prejudice the defense?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case?
  • Is the destruction of narcotics case property permissible under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate before the conclusion of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Ali Khattak, Superintendent, Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, and three others vs Vice Chancellor, Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan and 2 others2021 PHC 116, 2022 P LC (C.S.) 1540 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-24
  contractual employmentregularization of servicesvested rightuniversity employeeswrit jurisdictiontermination of servicecontract expiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioners, who were contractual employees of the Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, and sought a directive for their regularization. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as contractual employees, possessed a vested right to regularization and whether their termination upon the expiry of their contract period was unlawful. The Court held that the petition was without merit. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that contractual employees have no inherent right to regularization in the absence of specific statutory provisions. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners' appointments were made under specific statutory limitations regarding the duration of temporary posts, and upon the expiry of their contract period, the employment relationship ceased by operation of law. The Court affirmed that the University, as the employer, acted within its discretion to dispense with services upon the expiration of the contract. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the Court emphasized that contractual employees cannot claim parity with regular employees or seek regularization as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Do contractual employees have a vested right to seek regularization of their employment in the absence of a specific statutory provision?
  • Can a university terminate the services of contractual employees upon the expiry of their contract period without violating the law?
  • Does the expiration of a contract period under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act 2012 automatically terminate the employment relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Rata Shah vs Superintendent Central Prison, Peshawar2021 PHC 274 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-29
  criminal revisionconcurrent sentencesconsecutive sentencesreformative punishmentjudicial discretiondishonoured chequesentencing guidelines
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an appellate court's dismissal of the petitioner's request to convert consecutive sentences into concurrent sentences. The petitioner had been convicted in four separate cases under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving separate sentences of three years' imprisonment in each. The core legal question concerned the scope of the court's discretion under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order sentences from separate trials to run concurrently. The Court held that while Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to convictions at a single trial, Section 397 grants the court wide discretion to order concurrent sentences based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Emphasizing that the philosophy of imprisonment is reformative rather than merely punitive, the Court ruled that excessive consecutive sentences should be avoided to prevent unnecessary incarceration. Consequently, the Court ordered that the petitioner's sentences run concurrently, establishing that appellate and revisional courts possess the authority to exercise this discretion to ensure substantial justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate or revisional court exercise discretion under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order sentences from separate trials to run concurrently?
  • Does the failure to serve a notice under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon an accused admitting guilt invalidate the conviction process?
  • Is the power to order concurrent sentences limited to the trial court, or can it be exercised by an appellate or revisional court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Zaman vs The State2021 PHC 306, 2022 MLD 1227 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-22
  narcotics smugglingchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealsafe custodytesting protocols
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act for the alleged possession of 14,000 grams of charas. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody of the recovered narcotics and whether the chemical examiner’s report, lacking detailed testing protocols, could sustain a conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples, noting significant contradictions in witness testimonies and a lack of documentation regarding the receipt and dispatch of the case property. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the chemical examiner’s report was unreliable because it failed to specify the full testing protocols as required by law. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms that any break in the chain of custody or failure to adhere to mandatory testing protocols renders the prosecution's case insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody of recovered narcotics vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is a chemical examiner's report admissible if it fails to provide the full protocols of the tests applied?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the safe transmission of samples to the laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheem Gul vs NADRA etc2021 PHC 310, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ahmad vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc2021 PHC 52 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-08
  writ petitionPatwari appointmentLand Record Manualage relaxationtemporary appointmentseniority rightsservice rulescivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a temporary Patwari, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the appointment of respondents as regular Patwaris. The petitioner claimed seniority and a preferential right to regular appointment. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner, having accepted a temporary appointment with no seniority rights, could claim regular appointment, and whether he remained eligible for selection despite his existing employment and age status. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner’s acceptance of a temporary post rendered him unavailable for the approved list of candidates under the Land Record Manual. The Court further held that the petitioner was ineligible due to being overage, noting that specific departmental rules governing Patwaris strictly limit age and preclude the application of general age relaxation rules applicable to other civil servants. The key principle established is that terms of appointment regarding seniority are binding, and specific service rules governing a particular cadre override general recruitment policies regarding age relaxation and eligibility.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acceptance of a temporary appointment with no seniority rights preclude a candidate from claiming seniority for regular appointment?
  • Does employment in a temporary post render a candidate unavailable for the approved list of Patwari candidates under the Land Record Manual?
  • Are the general age relaxation rules for provincial civil servants applicable to the post of Patwari?
  • Can a candidate claim age relaxation for the post of Patwari beyond the limit prescribed by the specific departmental rules?
  Read full judgment →