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.

• Rabnawaz vs Z.T.B.L. Katlang Branch Mardan through Branch Manater2021 CLD 1301, 2022 PCTLR 427 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-24Read full judgment →
• Qazi Laique Ahmad and 3 others vs Chairman Nab and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 567 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21
  accountability courtproduction of documentsrecovery memosadditional evidencewrit of certiorarilachesinterlocutory orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges two interlocutory orders passed by the Accountability Court in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference, wherein the trial court refused to remove exhibit marks from certain documents produced by the Investigating Officer and subsequently permitted the prosecution to exhibit original recovery memos during the examination-in-chief. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution can produce additional documents or recovery memos through an investigating officer during a trial, and whether a delayed challenge to an interlocutory order via constitutional jurisdiction is barred by laches. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court has wide powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, read with Section 17 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, to allow the production of relevant documents essential for the just decision of a case, provided the accused are given full opportunity of cross-examination without suffering legal prejudice. Furthermore, the Court held that a constitutional petition challenging an interlocutory order after an unexplained delay of nearly six months suffers from laches and is barred. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution produce additional documents or recovery memos through the Investigating Officer during his examination-in-chief in a trial?
  • Whether the provisions of Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to proceedings before an Accountability Court under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the production of original recovery memos at the stage of the Investigating Officer's evidence cause legal prejudice to the accused when cross-examination is yet to be conducted?
  • Is a constitutional petition challenging an interlocutory order of a trial court after a lapse of nearly six months barred by laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Province Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary to Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Irrigation Department, Peshawar and 2 others vs Technicon Engineers And Epc Contractor Group through authorized agent and 3 others2021 CLC 818 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-08Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad, Vice Chancellor Gomal University, Di K_6bd7b76a2021 PHC 302, 2022 PLD Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-22Read full judgment →
• Noor-Ul-Haq etc vs State through A.A.G. and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1618, 2022 YLR 537 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-24
  benefit of doubtcircumstantial evidenceforensic reporthostile witnessburden of proofhonour killingcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences of two appellants, Noor-ul-Haq and Zakir Ullah, for the murder of Mst. Hajira Bibi. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given that all eyewitnesses resiled from their statements and the circumstantial evidence was weak. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden of proof. The court found that the forensic evidence (matching a pistol to a crime empty) was unreliable because the empty shell was not sent to the laboratory promptly, but was held by the police pending the recovery of the weapon. Furthermore, the court clarified that while the death of a vulnerable person in the accused's house shifts some onus to the accused to explain the circumstances, this does not shift the entire burden of proof or allow for conviction based on suspicion alone when the prosecution's own case is unproven. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted both appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to immediately send a crime empty to a forensic laboratory vitiate the evidentiary value of a subsequent matching report?
  • Does the death of a vulnerable person in the accused's house shift the entire burden of proof to the accused?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of suspicion when the prosecution's eyewitnesses have resiled from their statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Khan vs The State, etc2021 PHC 174 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-14Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Khan through Legal Heirs vs The State and others2021 P Cr. L J 1758 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-14
  criminal appealacquittalocular evidencemedical evidenceforensic evidencechain of custodymotivepresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent in a murder case registered under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on sound reasoning and whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquittal was justified. The court found significant material contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence, noting that the seat of injuries did not align with the prosecution's version of the incident. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody of forensic evidence, specifically the recovered empties, rendering them unreliable. Additionally, the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged motive. The court reaffirmed the principle that in an appeal against acquittal, the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence, and where medical evidence conflicts with ocular testimony, the former prevails. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating the dismissal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence prevail when it conflicts with the ocular account of a crime?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to prove an alleged motive on the overall case?
  • Can forensic evidence be relied upon if the prosecution fails to establish its safe custody and chain of transmission?
  • What is the standard of review for an appellate court when hearing an appeal against an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Bahar, etc vs The State2021 KLR Criminal Cases 183 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-09Read full judgment →
• Noor Bahar etc vs The State2021 PHC 82 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-09Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad etc vs Muhammad Anwar etc2021 PHC 152 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• Nijat Ali & another vs Asmat Ara & 2 others2021 PHC 252, 2022 CLC 479 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1461 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-24
  narcotics traffickingchain of custodychemical analysis reporttest protocolsbenefit of doubtconfessional statementacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for trafficking 74 kilograms of narcotics. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the chain of custody of the seized contraband, the validity of the chemical analysis report, and the voluntariness of the appellant's confession. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to significant evidentiary flaws. These included an unexplained 13-day delay in transmitting samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, failure to specify test protocols in the chemical report as required by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and material contradictions regarding the handling of seized parcels and documentation. Furthermore, the appellant's confession was deemed unreliable due to procedural irregularities. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody and that chemical reports lacking specified test protocols lack evidentiary value, necessitating the benefit of the doubt be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Forensic Science Laboratory report lacking specified test protocols possess evidentiary value?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained delay in transmitting narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Is a confessional statement valid if the accused was not provided a proper opportunity to engage counsel?
  • Must the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of custody for seized narcotics to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazr-ul-Islam vs The State etc2021 PHC 216, 2022 YLR 1429 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-18Read full judgment →
• Naveed Daud vs The State2021 PHC 266 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-09
  narcotics traffickingreasonable doubtFSL reportfair trialchain of custodycriminal appealacquittalevidentiary lacunae
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for transporting 36 kilograms of narcotics. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the validity of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, and whether the appellate court could permit re-testing of samples to cure evidentiary defects. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Significant discrepancies in the testimonies of police witnesses, the absence of mandatory daily diary entries regarding police movement, and the failure to establish a secure chain of custody created reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the court ruled that an FSL report authored by an unqualified analyst is invalid. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that allowing the prosecution to conduct re-testing at the appellate stage to fill evidentiary gaps would violate the fundamental right to a fair trial and the adversarial principle. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, emphasizing that the court acts as a neutral arbiter and cannot assist the prosecution in improving a deficient case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce police daily diaries regarding the movement of a raiding party create reasonable doubt in a narcotics case?
  • Can an appellate court permit the prosecution to re-test narcotics samples when the original FSL report is found invalid due to an unqualified analyst?
  • Is an FSL report prepared by a person not qualified as a Government Analyst under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 admissible as evidence?
  • Does allowing the prosecution to fill evidentiary gaps at the appellate stage violate the constitutional right to a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Nauman Khan vs The State etc2021 PHC 32 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
• National Bank Of Pakistan City Branch, Peshawar through Manager vs Haroon Qayyum2021 CLD 1248 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-28Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs Mst. Zakia2021 MLD 1532 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-09
  criminal revisiondischarge of accusedframing of chargeinsufficient evidenceabetmenttrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the complainant challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Katlang Mardan, which discharged the accused (respondent) from charges under Sections 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to discharge the accused before framing a charge due to insufficient evidence. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, noting that the prosecution failed to provide direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the respondent to the alleged murder conspiracy. The court held that the framing of a charge is not an automatic process and that trial courts are not merely conduits for police reports. It affirmed that when the material on record is insufficient to establish a prima facie case, the court has the authority and duty to discharge the accused under Section 265-D to prevent futile litigation. The revision petition was consequently dismissed as the impugned order was found to be well-reasoned and legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Is the framing of a charge an automatic process upon the submission of a police report?
  • Under what circumstances may a trial court discharge an accused under Section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to scrutinize prosecution documents before framing a charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasim Ullah Khan vs The State & others2021 PHC 186 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-24Read full judgment →
• Najeeb Ullah son of Muhammad Ilyas vs The State through A.A.G2021 PHC 194, 2022 YLR 853 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
• Shah Zal vs The State2021 YLR 202 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-23
  consecutive sentencesrepeal of lawsFrontier Crimes RegulationFATA mergerpast and closed transactionmaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal was filed by the appellant against the judgment of the former FATA Tribunal Peshawar, which had dismissed his second appeal regarding the consecutive running of his sentences. The appellant had been convicted of triple murder and attempted murder by the Political Agent Kurram Agency under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 11 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901. The conviction and consecutive sentences had previously been restored and finalized by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The appellant argued that following the repeal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901 via the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution, his sentences should be reviewed to run concurrently. The Peshawar High Court held that under Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the repeal of a law does not affect any penalty or punishment incurred under that law. Consequently, the appellant's criminal liability and sentences remained protected. The Court further held that the matter was a past and closed transaction, and since a right of appeal is a substantive statutory right, a second appeal was not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901 affect punishments and criminal liabilities incurred and finalized prior to its repeal?
  • Are past and closed transactions protected from being reopened under Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 upon the repeal of a statute?
  • Can a second appeal be maintained before the High Court in the absence of an express statutory provision granting such a right?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Taj Re-rolling & Steel Mills through Manager Imports vs Government of2021 PHC 220, 2022 PTD 171 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• M/s Poly Foam (Private) Limited vs Government of Pakistan and others2021 PHC 92 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• M/s New Mohmand Steel Mills through its attorney Abdul Majeed Khan vs2021 PHC 354, 2022 PTCL 552, 20222 PTD 254 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mustajab-ul-Hassan vs The State2021 PHC 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-08-03Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Fayaz & 2 others2021 PHC 122 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muntazir Khan vs The State2021 PHC 210, 2022 PCr. LJ 517 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-30Read full judgment →
• Munawar Lal vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary & 062021 PHC 344, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1004 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-21
  Cantonment Board electiondisqualification of candidateservice of statutory bodycontract employeewrit jurisdictionnomination paperselection appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Appellate Authority/District Judge, Bannu, which allowed a candidate to contest the Cantonment Board elections after his nomination papers were initially rejected by the Returning Officer. The core legal question was whether the respondent, a contract employee of the University of Science & Technology Bannu, was disqualified from contesting the election under Section 60(1)(g) of the Cantonment Ordinance, 2002, on the grounds of being in the service of a statutory body. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Appellate Authority's decision. The court held that, pursuant to Section 3 of the University of Science and Technology Bannu Service Statutes, 2018, contract employees are expressly excluded from the application of the university's service statutes. Consequently, the court determined that the respondent did not fall within the disqualification criteria of being in the 'service of a statutory body' as contemplated by the Cantonment Ordinance, 2002. The impugned order was found to be free from jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract employee of a university qualify as being in the service of a statutory body for the purpose of disqualification under Section 60(1)(g) of the Cantonment Ordinance, 2002?
  • Are contract employees governed by the service statutes of the University of Science & Technology Bannu?
  • Can an appellate authority set aside the rejection of nomination papers if the candidate does not fall under the disqualification criteria of the Cantonment Ordinance, 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtaj etc vs State etc2021 PHC 328 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mukammal Shah vs Secretary C&W and others2021 CLC 81 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mujahid son of Hikmat Khan, R/O Allah Dher, Tehsil Lahore, District Swabi vs2021 P Cr. L J 1114, 2021 PHC 20 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-26
  circumstantial evidencemurder referenceforensic delaybenefit of doubtrecovery of weaponacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and death sentence under Sections 302(b) and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II/Camp Court Lahore Swabi. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a pistol, cash, and a mobile phone on the pointation of the appellant, alongside a positive forensic report matching crime empties. The Peshawar High Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish ocular account, and the circumstantial evidence was riddled with contradictions. Specifically, there was an unexplained delay in sending the recovered weapon and empties to the forensic laboratory, which compromised the integrity of the forensic evidence. Furthermore, the place of occurrence was highly doubtful, and the testimony of the deceased's father was deemed belated and uncorroborated. Applying the principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of crime empties and a weapon sent to the forensic laboratory with unexplained delay?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when the chain of circumstances is broken and contradictory?
  • Whether the benefit of a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhtaddin and 3 others vs Saeed Ali alias Syed Zali and 3 others2021 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muheeb Ullah vs State through Additional Advocate General, K.P.K2021 YLR 2033 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-25
  murdercriminal appealvisual identificationsuspect evidenceabscondencebenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his step-brother under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on a single eye-witness and circumstantial evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found the eye-witness testimony unreliable due to the implausible circumstances of her presence and the lack of proof regarding visibility at the time of the nocturnal occurrence. Furthermore, the court noted that the forensic report did not match the recovered weapon to the crime scene evidence, and the motive remained unproven. The court reiterated that visual identification at night is suspect evidence requiring strong corroboration. Additionally, it held that abscondence alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction when the primary evidence is doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an accused's abscondence?
  • Is visual identification of an accused at night considered reliable without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive weaken the overall case when other evidence is doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when the forensic report contradicts the prosecution's recovery of the crime weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman and others vs Syed Zain-ul Abideen and others2021 PHC 164, 2022 CLC 277 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman alias Kotay vs The State and another2021 PHC 182 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahir Shah vs Amin-ur-Rehman2021 PHC 366 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zada vs The State through Additional Advocate General and 22021 YLR 1415 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-28
  superdarichassis tamperingbona fide purchasermotor vehicle registrationforensic science laboratory reportvehicle seizure
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple criminal petitions seeking the return (superdari) of various motor vehicles seized by police on suspicion of chassis number tampering. The core legal question is whether vehicles with tampered, welded, or refitted chassis numbers can be released to petitioners who claim to be bona fide purchasers. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that such vehicles cannot be allowed to ply on public roads. The court affirmed that forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports regarding chassis tampering carry a presumption of truth. It established that a claim of bona fide purchase does not entitle a petitioner to the custody of a tampered vehicle, as such vehicles pose significant security risks and violate motor vehicle regulations. The court directed that petitioners must seek redress against vendors in civil courts. Additionally, to ensure procedural integrity, the court mandated that police must photograph vehicles and their chassis plates at the time of seizure, noting that recovery memos lacking such documentation may be rejected by Judicial Magistrates during inquiries under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle with a tampered, welded, or refitted chassis number be released on superdari to a claimant?
  • Does a claim of being a bona fide purchaser entitle a person to the custody of a vehicle with a tampered chassis?
  • What is the legal requirement for police regarding the documentation of seized vehicles to ensure procedural integrity?
  • Are owners of motor vehicles legally required to report transfers of ownership and alterations to the registering authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zabit vs The State2021 PHC 272, 2022 P Cr. L J 1385 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-16
  guilty pleasentencingnarcoticscriminal appealprocedural fairnessmitigation of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court following the appellant's plea of guilt in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 360 grams of chars. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the sentence awarded after a guilty plea and whether the trial court adhered to the necessary procedural safeguards before accepting such a plea. The Court held that while Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restricts appeals against convictions based on guilty pleas, the appellate court retains the authority to review the legality and extent of the sentence. The judgment establishes that when an accused pleads guilty, the court must ensure the plea is voluntary and that the accused fully understands the implications of the charge. Furthermore, it emphasizes that if a court intends to impose a severe sentence despite a guilty plea, it must forewarn the accused. Finding the original four-year sentence harsh, the Court modified it to the period already served and set aside the fine.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar an appeal against the extent of a sentence imposed after a plea of guilt?
  • What procedure must a trial court follow before accepting a plea of guilt to ensure it is voluntary and informed?
  • Is a trial court required to forewarn an accused of the potential severity of a sentence if it intends to impose a maximum punishment despite a guilty plea?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1695 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-08
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaynarcotics recoverysafe custody of samplesFSL report
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Yaqoob, sought post-arrest bail on the fresh ground of statutory delay in a case registered under Section 9-D of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, arising from the alleged recovery of 2020 grams of heroin and 2075 grams of chars from his motorbike. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of statutory delay and debatable safe custody of the recovered narcotics. The Peshawar High Court held that the safe custody of the contraband was a matter of further probe due to delays and discrepancies in transmitting samples to the FSL, and noted that the trial had been delayed due to the non-availability of prosecution witnesses. The court accepted the petition and admitted the accused to post-arrest bail, establishing that unexplained delays in sample transmission and prosecution lapses regarding witness attendance can constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delayed transmission of narcotic samples to the FSL makes the safe custody of the contraband a matter of further probe?
  • Can statutory delay arising from the non-availability of prosecution witnesses serve as a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics disentitles an accused to bail when trial delays are attributable to the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2021 PHC 16 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-26
  constitutional petitiondeceased employees quotabeneficial legislationretrospective operationassistance package policyfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, where the petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to consider his appointment against the quota reserved for sons of deceased employees based on the Assistance Package Policy, despite his father having passed away prior to the July 2005 cut-off date stipulated in the policy. The core legal question was whether a beneficial executive policy regarding job quotas for deceased employees' children can be applied retrospectively to dependents whose fathers died before the promulgation of the policy. The Peshawar High Court held that beneficial legislation and executive orders conferring rights should be construed liberally and given retrospective effect, provided they do not destroy vested rights or violate constitutional provisions. The court ruled that the Assistance Package is beneficial legislation applicable to the petitioner, thereby allowing the writ petition and establishing the principle that welfare measures for government employees should not arbitrarily discriminate against classes similarly placed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a beneficial executive policy regarding deceased employees' quotas can be applied retrospectively to cases where the employee died before the policy's promulgation?
  • Does restricting the benefit of an assistance package to employees dying after a specific cut-off date violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Should remedial and beneficial legislation be interpreted liberally to advance the object of the enactment rather than given a restrictive meaning?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uzair vs The State & others2021 PHC 232, 2022 MLD 368 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taimur son of Fazal Elahi, r/o House No.835, Block-C, Phase-62021 PHC 330, 2022 PCr. LJ 1000 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir and others vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2021 PLD Peshawar 171 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Syed Ali Shah through legal heirs vs Syed Noor Din Shah2021 PHC 296, 2022 CLC 127 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suhail vs The State & othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C.1629, 2021 PHC 130, 2022 YLR 2108 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher Khan vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1811 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-29
  post-arrest bailmurdermedical evidencedeeper appreciation of evidenceprima facie casecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Sher Khan, following the dismissal of his bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat. The petitioner was charged under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Khalil ur Rehman. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the allegations of direct eyewitness testimony, the recovery of forensic evidence, and the petitioner's contention that medical evidence regarding charring marks and lacerations contradicted the prosecution's narrative of the shooting distance. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was prima facie connected to the commission of the offence. The court reasoned that while the defense raised arguments regarding the medical evidence and the nature of the injuries, resolving these discrepancies would require a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, affirming that the prima facie case against the accused remained intact.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence during the adjudication of a post-arrest bail petition?
  • Does the presence of conflicting medical evidence regarding injury characteristics automatically entitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when there is prima facie evidence connecting them to the commission of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Shah and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet Division, Islamabad and others2022 PLC (C.S.) 930 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-08
  18th Amendmentdevolution of powersPTDClayoffconstitutional petitionservice structureex-gratia package
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by employees of the Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation (PTDC) challenging the decision of the Board of Directors to lay off staff following the devolution of tourism to provinces under the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioners sought to invalidate the layoff decision and compel the Provincial Government to absorb them into provincial service. The core legal question was whether the PTDC’s layoff package violated the petitioners' guaranteed rights and whether the court could mandate their absorption. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any legal provision guaranteeing their absorption into provincial service. Furthermore, the Court observed that the ex-gratia package offered by the PTDC was more lucrative than the statutory entitlements provided under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the grievances, ruling that the management's decision did not infringe upon any guaranteed rights, and thus, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the devolution of a federal subject to provinces under the 18th Amendment automatically entitle federal employees to absorption into provincial service?
  • Can a court compel a provincial government to absorb employees of a federal corporation upon the transfer of its assets?
  • Is the ex-gratia package offered by a corporation upon closure legally sufficient if it exceeds the statutory entitlements under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saqib vs State2021 PHC 388, 2022 PCRLJ 659 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-06
  post-arrest bailnarcotic offencespossession of contrabandvehicle searchcriminal liability of drivertentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two connected bail petitions arising from FIR No. 853, involving charges under Section 9-D of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1865. The core legal question was whether the driver and passengers of a vehicle, from which 3600 grams of charas were recovered from secret cavities, are entitled to post-arrest bail. The Court held that the driver, being in full command and control of the vehicle, could not feign ignorance of the narcotics, thus establishing a prima facie connection to the offence and disentitling him to bail. Conversely, the passengers were granted bail as their mere presence in the vehicle did not establish the same level of culpability at the tentative assessment stage. The key principle laid down is that while a driver of a vehicle containing contraband may be held liable due to their control over the vehicle, mere passengers may be entitled to bail unless specific evidence links them to the contraband's possession or knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle containing narcotics in secret cavities prima facie liable for the offence?
  • Are passengers in a vehicle containing narcotics automatically liable for the possession of the contraband?
  • Does the recovery of narcotics from secret cavities of a vehicle establish sufficient grounds to deny bail to the driver?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau2021 PLJ Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Chairman NAB etc2022 P Cr.L J 101, 2022 P Cr.L J 59, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 111, 2021 PHC 136 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-27
  pre-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureauassets beyond known sources of incomemala fidepolitical victimizationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed before the Peshawar High Court by Muhammad Safdar seeking pre-arrest bail in an inquiry conducted by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 regarding the alleged accumulation of assets beyond known sources of income. The core legal question centered on whether the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for pre-arrest bail and whether the issuance of warrants of arrest by NAB was tainted with mala fide and political victimization. The Court held that while evaluating pre-arrest bail in accountability matters, the High Court does not determine the merits of the assets but examines the existence of mala fide and a prima facie case. Finding clear indicators of political victimization, simultaneous parallel proceedings, and unexplained gaps in inquiry notices linked to political criticism, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, ruling that protection against arbitrary arrest is essential to uphold the presumption of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court examine the legitimacy of accumulated assets while deciding a pre-arrest bail petition under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • What factors must a constitutional court consider when determining mala fide in a pre-arrest bail application against the National Accountability Bureau?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused in a National Accountability Bureau inquiry if the arrest is found to be tainted with political victimization?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rustam vs Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and 22022 PLC (C.S.) 1239 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-22
  upgradationretrospective upgradationcivil servants promotion policyretired employees parityconstitutional petitionstagnation in serviceterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired Private Secretary of the Peshawar High Court, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the orders of the Administrative Committee which dismissed his representation and review petition seeking retrospective proforma upgradation to BPS-20 based on the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Promotion Policy, 2009. The core legal question was whether a retired civil servant is entitled to retrospective upgradation and parity with serving employees under the promotion and upgradation policies. The court held that upgradation is not a promotion, serves to address stagnation in isolated posts, is subject to specific criteria including a minimum stay in the post, and that retired civil servants form a distinct class from serving employees and cannot claim parity with subsequent revisions or upgradations granted after their retirement. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired civil servant can claim retrospective upgradation of his post after retirement?
  • Does upgradation of a post under government policy constitute promotion?
  • Can retired civil servants claim parity with serving employees regarding revised pay scales or upgradations granted after retirement?
  • What are the pre-conditions and length of service requirements for the upgradation of posts due to individual hardship cases under the government policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz etc vs Hassan Dad etc2021 CLC 1230, 2021 [M] C L R 1315, 2021 PHC 40 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs State and two others2021 P Cr. L J 1362, 2021 PHC 50 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-26
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceocular accountmedical evidenceforensic reportadverse inferencecriminal appealQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents in a murder case under Sections 302/324/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to overcome the double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court’s judgment was well-reasoned and based on the record. The Court established that an acquittal cannot be reversed unless the findings are arbitrary or perverse. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove its case due to material contradictions: the ocular account conflicted with medical evidence regarding the firing distance, and the forensic report, indicating the use of a single weapon, contradicted the complainant’s allegation of two shooters. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution withheld key independent witnesses, invoking an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the Court reaffirmed that even a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal, and the prosecution failed to establish the motive or the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses at the crime scene.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal judgment carry a double presumption of innocence that requires extraordinary circumstances to overturn?
  • Can a court draw an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution fails to produce the best available evidence?
  • Does a conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony regarding the distance of fire create reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal?
  • Is a forensic report indicating the use of a single weapon sufficient to discredit an ocular account alleging multiple shooters?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and 4 others vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2021 CLC 1335 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and others vs The State & another2021 PHC 64, 2024 MLD 521 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nisar vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1692 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nisar vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and 6 others2021 YLR 341 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan & 2 others vs Bahadur Nawaz Khan & 17 others2021 PHC 106, 2022 CLC 202 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir, Deputy Director (Technical) Roads BPS.18, Peshawar2021 PHC 324, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 139 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-29
  deputationpromotionservice ruleslegitimate expectationgood governancewrit jurisdictionlateral entryPeshawar Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenged the illegal transfer and posting of various respondents on deputation to the Peshawar Development Authority (PDA) against posts reserved for the promotion of existing employees. The core legal question was whether the executive authorities could bypass established service rules—specifically the PUDB Employees Service Rules 1978, which mandate that certain posts be filled by promotion—by inducting outsiders on deputation without demonstrating exigency or necessity. The Court held that the impugned transfers were illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of good governance and legitimate expectation. The ratio established is that discretionary powers, including those related to lateral entry or deputation, cannot be exercised in a vacuum or to the detriment of the vested rights of existing employees when the governing service rules provide a clear mechanism for promotion. The Court emphasized that in the absence of new rules under the PDA Act 2017, the existing service rules remain operative, and executive authorities must act in accordance with law, fairness, and transparency rather than on the whims of the administration.

  Questions settled

  • Can executive authorities fill posts reserved for promotion under existing service rules by inducting outsiders on deputation?
  • Do the PUDB Employees Service Rules 1978 remain operative despite the enactment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa PDA Act 2017 if no new rules have been framed?
  • Is the exercise of discretionary power for deputation valid if it is not supported by a demonstrated exigency or the consent of the borrowing department?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 to set aside administrative transfers that violate established service structures and deprive employees of their right to promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer vs The State and others2021 MLD 509 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-02
  criminal appealocular evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtchance witnessmurderacquittalmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and attempted murder under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the reliability of the ocular evidence and the alleged motive. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. The court determined that the complainant was a chance witness whose presence at the scene was doubtful, and the ocular account conflicted significantly with medical evidence regarding the nature and seat of injuries. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive. The court emphasized that when motive is alleged but not established, the prosecution must suffer the consequences. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in cases of conflict between ocular and medical evidence, medical evidence is preferred, and the benefit of the slightest doubt must always go to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is medical evidence to be preferred over ocular testimony when there is a direct conflict between the two?
  • Can the abscondence of an accused person serve as conclusive proof of guilt in the absence of other reliable evidence?
  • Does the failure to examine an important witness lead to an adverse presumption against the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Karim and others vs United Bank Limited and others2021 CLD 1396 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamal vs Jamshid Khan and another2021 YLR 646 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-09
  juvenile justicedetermination of ageossification testplea of minorityNADRA recordcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the trial court's order determining that the petitioner was a major at the time of the commission of the offence in a murder case arising from FIR No. 101 dated 27.07.2012. The core legal question involved the determination of the petitioner's age and plea of juvenility pursuant to an inquiry mandated after an appellate review noted a disparity in the recorded age. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court's inquiry—incorporating National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) records, family trees, school registers, and an ossification test—correctly established that the petitioner was a major at the relevant time. The court laid down the principle that a plea of minority is a special plea with the onus of proof on the accused, and where documentary evidence like NADRA records and medical ossification tests outweigh inconsistent or belated school records, the accused cannot claim the statutory protection meant for juveniles.

  Questions settled

  • Upon whom lies the onus to prove a plea of minority in a criminal trial?
  • Can a trial court rely solely on school leaving certificates without an ossification test or formal inquiry to determine the age of an accused claiming juvenility?
  • What is the proper procedure for conducting an inquiry into the age of an accused under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does a belated claim of minority raised for the first time during appeal warrant an adverse inference against the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamal vs Mst. Ayesha Kauser and 5 others2021 MLD 288 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr vs The State and another2021 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-11
  video conferencingelectronic evidencealways speaking statutewitness examinationcriminal trialconstructive presenceremand of casewitness protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment decides multiple criminal appeals and revisions arising from convictions under Section 302 and other provisions of the PPC. The core legal question addressed by the Peshawar High Court was whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses in a criminal trial can be recorded through modern video applications (such as IMO, Skype, or WhatsApp) and whether such evidence is admissible under Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) and Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court held that the Cr.P.C. is an 'always speaking' ongoing statute, and the term 'presence' in Section 353 includes virtual presence via video linkage. However, to ensure court decorum, prevent witness coaching, and preserve the integrity of the trial, such video evidence must be recorded under strict judicial or executive supervision. Finding that the testimonies of key witnesses in the trials below were recorded via video calls without proper safeguards, the Court set aside the convictions, remanded the cases for fresh recording of evidence, and laid down detailed, mandatory guidelines for conducting video-link proceedings in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

  Questions settled

  • Can the evidence of a prosecution witness in a criminal trial be recorded through video conferencing or modern electronic applications under Section 353 of the Cr.P.C.?
  • Does the term 'presence' of the accused or witness in Section 353 of the Cr.P.C. require physical presence, or does it encompass virtual or constructive presence?
  • What is the admissibility of evidence recorded via modern electronic devices under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What safeguards and protocols must a trial court observe when recording the statement of an overseas or out-of-jurisdiction witness via video link?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry2022 PLC (C.S.) 955 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-16
  constitutional petitiondistrict zakat committeestatutory interpretationage restrictionappointment validity
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court challenging the appointment order of respondent No.11 as Chairman of the District Zakat Committee, alleging that the appointee was under 45 years of age in violation of Section 12(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Zakat and Ushr Act, 2011. The core legal question was whether the age restriction of 45 years applies to the appointment of a Chairman of the District Zakat Committee under the said enactment. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory age bar relied upon by the petitioner applies specifically to the appointment of the Chairman of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Zakat and Ushr Council and does not extend to the Chairman of a District Zakat Committee. The key principle laid down is that statutory provisions restricting appointments must be strictly construed according to their specific application within the relevant enactment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the age restriction under Section 12(4) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Zakat and Ushr Act, 2011 apply to the appointment of a Chairman of the District Zakat Committee?
  • Can an appointment to a local statutory committee be challenged based on a misinterpretation of statutory age limitations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees Khattak vs Govt. of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry2021 PHC 68 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees Khattak vs Government Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 4 others2021 PLD Peshawar 135 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs State etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 910 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-18
  post-arrest bailmedical groundssick or infirm personmurderjail treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a 75-year-old accused facing trial under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in case FIR No. 98 dated 28.07.2018 at Police Station Bara, sought post-arrest bail on medical grounds. The Peshawar High Court ordered the constitution of a Standing Medical Board, which reported that the petitioner suffers from multiple severe chronic ailments including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and severe osteoarthritis, requiring tertiary care facilities unavailable within jail premises. The core legal question was whether an accused charged with a capital offense can be released on bail on medical grounds when his treatment is not possible in custody. The court held that the gravity of a serious disease outshines the gravity of the offense when specialized treatment is necessary and continued detention is hazardous to life. The key principle laid down is that sick or infirm persons may be granted bail under the first proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, provided their ailment cannot be properly treated in jail, subject to the prosecution's right to seek bail cancellation if the accused's health improves.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged with a capital offence can be released on post-arrest bail on medical grounds?
  • Does the gravity of a severe disease outshine the gravity of the offence for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Can bail be granted on medical grounds when the ailment of the accused cannot be properly treated within jail premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain son of Zelainir Khan, r/o Malk Din Khel Bara District2021 MLD 907, 2021 PHC 2 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif son of Muhammad Nawaz, r/o Bara Qamber Khel vs The2021 PHC 6 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Khan vs Mst. Umar Dara and 3 others2021 PLD Peshawar 184 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gulfam and another vs The State and another2021 PHC 368 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baaz vs Halqa Putwari Muza Mathra, Peshawar and another2021 CLC 689 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz son of Ali Haider, r/o Qadra Gadoon, District Swabi vs2021 PHC 346 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz Gul vs The State2021 MLD 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-04
  de-sealing of case propertynarcotics casefair trialmarginal witnessrecovery memoconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenges an order of the Special Court dismissing the petitioner's request to de-seal the case property during the trial of a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether case property can be de-sealed during the testimony of a marginal witness to the recovery memo when no such request was made when the property was exhibited during the seizing officer's statement. The Peshawar High Court held that the case property can be de-sealed in the presence of the marginal witness to the recovery memo, emphasizing that denying such a request prejudices the accused's defense and violates the right to a fair trial. The court laid down the principle that the testimony of a marginal witness is as crucial as that of the seizing officer, and an accused has an absolute right to request the de-sealing of case property in open court during the examination of relevant recovery witnesses to ensure due process and a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can case property be de-sealed during the statement of a marginal witness of a recovery memo if no request was made when it was exhibited by the seizing officer?
  • Does the refusal to de-seal case property upon the request of the defence violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the testimony of a marginal witness to a recovery memo considered essential alongside the testimony of the seizing officer in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Awaais Razzaq etc vs PESCO and others2021 PHC 226, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 590 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-01
  writ jurisdictionmaintainabilityservice matterscorporate entitystatutory rulessuspension grantconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Junior Engineers at the Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO), filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging an administrative decision that denied them payment of a suspension grant for a specific period following their reinstatement. The core legal question was whether employees of a corporate entity like PESCO, whose service terms are regulated by adopted rules rather than statutory regulations, can invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to redress service-related grievances. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that PESCO is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and its service rules, even if adopted from WAPDA, lack statutory force. Consequently, the Court established the principle that in the absence of a violation of statutory rules or law, an employee of a corporation or company cannot press into service the constitutional jurisdiction for seeking relief relating to the terms and conditions of their service. The petitioners were directed to seek redressal from the appropriate alternative forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee of a corporate entity invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction for service-related grievances in the absence of statutory rules?
  • Do service rules adopted by a company from another organization, without being framed as statutory regulations, acquire statutory status?
  • Is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, amenable to writ jurisdiction regarding the service terms of its employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Khan vs Mst. Umar and 03 others2021 PHC 178 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Khan vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1305 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-26
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionfurther inquirycriminal procedureKP-CNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition is directed by the accused-petitioner, Muhammad Arshad Khan, seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 169 dated 25.03.2021 registered under Section 9-D of the KP-CNSA at Police Station City, District Kohat, involving the alleged possession of 6000 grams of charas. The core legal question revolves around whether the accused is entitled to bail despite a large quantity of narcotics recovered, given the prosecution's lapses in the investigation and record-keeping. The Peshawar High Court held that cumulatively, the slackness in the investigation, the absence of vehicle registration details or the driver's statement, the lack of entry register copy, and the discrepancy between the narcotics described in the FIR and the Forensic Science Laboratory report make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, since the investigation was complete, continued incarceration served no useful purpose. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail upon furnishing appropriate security bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether discrepancies between the substance described in the FIR and the FSL report can make a case one of further inquiry for bail?
  • Does slackness on the part of the prosecution in maintaining investigation records entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused be granted bail in a narcotics case involving a prohibitory clause when further incarceration serves no useful purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Mst. Bahrawar Sultana and 2 others2021 CLC 1707 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Wazir (Mna) and another vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 P Cr. L J 165 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-31
  writ petitionchange of venuejail trialanti-terrorismpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court challenging notifications issued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which ordered their trials in specific criminal cases to be held within the premises of Central Jail Haripur. The core legal question was whether the continuation of trial proceedings inside the jail premises remained justified after the petitioners were released on bail and their circumstances had materially changed. The court held that since the petitioners were now on bail and neither the parties nor the witnesses belonged to Haripur, holding the trial inside the jail was no longer sensible or appropriate. The court set aside the impugned notifications and directed that the trial be conducted at Peshawar before the designated Anti-Terrorism Court, while granting liberty to the respondents to seek a change of venue if valid safety concerns subsequently arose.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government direct a trial under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to be held within jail premises?
  • Does the release of accused persons on bail justify changing the venue of a trial previously ordered to be held in jail?
  • Whether a trial ordered to be held inside a prison can be relocated to an ordinary court when security grounds change?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Atlas Khan and 2 others2021 CLC 678 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid vs Gomal University, D.I.Khan through Chancellor and others2021 PHC 90 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mudassir vs The State and another2021 MLD 2093 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-01
  post-arrest bailmurderprohibitory clausetentative assessmentFSL reportprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Mudassir, sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an FIR alleging he shot and killed the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the material available on record. Upon tentative assessment, the Court observed that the complainant had promptly charged the petitioner in the FIR, and this version was corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of blood-stained earth, and blood-stained garments. Although the petitioner argued that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report indicated the recovered empties were fired from different weapons, the Court held that this did not, at the bail stage, entitle the accused to relief, as a prima facie case existed. The Court declined to delve into the merits of the FSL report to avoid prejudicing the trial. Consequently, the Court held that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and dismissed the bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does an FSL report indicating that recovered empties were fired from different weapons automatically entitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and there is a prima facie case?
  • Should a court comment on the merits of forensic evidence during the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudasir Nazar & 35 others vs Bank of Khyber through M.D, Peshawar & 32021 PHC 198, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 668 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-17
  regularization of servicessham outsourcingcontract employeesfundamental rightsservice protectioncore banking functionsprinciple of parity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a writ petition filed by contract employees of the Bank of Khyber seeking regularization of their services, alleging that the bank's outsourcing arrangement via third-party contractors was a sham designed to deny them service protection and fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, despite being hired through contractors, were effectively employees of the Bank of Khyber entitled to regularization based on the nature of their duties and the principle of parity. The Court held that the outsourcing arrangement was a sham, as the petitioners were performing core banking functions, were subject to the bank's supervision, and were utilized wherever the bank required, rather than being restricted to specific outsourced projects. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, declaring the petitioners to be employees of the bank. The key principle laid down is that where an organization exercises control and supervision over workers, and those workers perform core functions of the organization, the outsourcing arrangement is considered a sham, and the workers are entitled to regularization as employees of the principal organization, regardless of the contractual facade.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees hired through a third-party contractor to perform core functions of a bank are entitled to regularization as employees of that bank?
  • Does the performance of core banking functions by outsourced staff render an outsourcing arrangement a sham?
  • Can a bank deny service protection to employees by labeling them as contract workers while exercising direct control and supervision over their duties?
  • Is the principle of parity applicable to contract employees performing duties identical to those of regular staff?
  Read full judgment →
• Muallim vs State2021 YLR 841 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-30
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoverychain of custodyspeedy trialseizing officer authorityprocedural infirmity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 10 kilograms of charas from a vehicle. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the quantity of narcotics recovered, whether the delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory created doubt in the prosecution's case, and whether the seizing officer, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, possessed the requisite authority to conduct the seizure under the relevant narcotics legislation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the petitioner had been incarcerated for a significant period without the commencement of trial, violating his right to a speedy trial. Furthermore, the Court found that the four-day delay in dispatching samples to the laboratory broke the chain of custody, and the seizing officer, being below the rank of Sub-Inspector, lacked the statutory authority to effect the seizure under the applicable provincial narcotics law. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, emphasizing that the heinousness of the offense alone does not disentitle an accused to bail when the prosecution's case suffers from procedural infirmities.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending narcotics samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory affect the prosecution's case for bail?
  • Is an Assistant Sub-Inspector authorized to seize narcotics under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019?
  • Can the heinousness of an offense alone justify the denial of bail when the trial is not likely to commence in the near future?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst: Jehan Pasa vs State2021 PHC 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-25
  explosive substanceconscious knowledgecriminal liabilityrecoveryacquittalanti-terrorismcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under sections 5 and 6 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Explosive Substances Act, 2013 and section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for possessing an explosive substance. The core legal question was whether a person carrying a container with an explosive substance can be convicted without proof of conscious knowledge regarding the presence of the prohibited material. The Peshawar High Court held that mere recovery of a container holding illegal items from an individual is insufficient for conviction unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed conscious knowledge of the contents. The court established the principle that in the absence of evidence proving conscious knowledge of the illicit nature of the recovered item, an accused carrier cannot be held criminally liable, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person be convicted for possessing an explosive substance found in a container without proof of conscious knowledge?
  • Is the mere recovery of a banned item from a carrier sufficient to establish criminal liability?
  • Does the prosecution need to prove that an accused carrier was aware of the contents of a recovered box before securing a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sitwat Teacher and others vs Chairman Board Of Governors, Peshawar Public School & College and 2 others2021 PLJ Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Reshma vs Mst. Shabana2022 YLR 944 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabiyaz Bibi vs Matiur Rehman and 04 others2021 PHC 180, 2022 CLC 686 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-20
  family suitdowerdowry articlesmaintenance allowanceburden of proofexhibition of documentspleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the petitioner's family suit for dower in the form of gold ornaments, dowry articles, and maintenance allowance was partially dismissed, granting only maintenance for the iddat period. The core legal question was whether the petitioner successfully proved her claim for dower and dowry articles through sufficient evidence and whether the exhibition of a document dispenses with the requirement of proving it under the law of evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that mere exhibition of a document does not amount to its formal proof, and a party asserting a fact bears the burden of proof in accordance with pleadings and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. The court laid down the principle that exhibition of a document is distinct from its legal proof, and documents must be formally proven through cogent evidence rather than relying solely on being exhibited without objection.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exhibition of a document in evidence dispense with the requirement of proving it in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order?
  • Can a party succeed on a claim without proving the material facts pleaded in the plaint through cogent and reliable evidence?
  • Whether mere mention of dowry articles in an undated and unsigned list without formal proof is sufficient to grant a decree for dowry?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naveeda vs The State etc2021 PHC 244 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadia w/o Parvez, r/o Batkhel, Dagar Buner vs The State2021 PHC 294 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadia & others vs Govt: of KPK & others2021 PHC 206, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1275 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-10
  regularization of servicecivil servantcontractual employmentPPHIprivate agencyArticle 199service of the provincediscrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Lady Health Visitors appointed by a private entity (Sarhad Rural Support Program) under a management contract with the provincial government, sought regularization into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa civil service. They alleged discrimination, citing the regularization of similar staff in other districts. The core legal question was whether these employees, hired by a private agency, could be deemed civil servants entitled to regularization under provincial law. The Court held that the petitioners were not government employees, as their appointments were made by a private entity with sole discretion over human resources, and no employer-employee relationship existed with the government. The Court emphasized that regularization requires appointment under the relevant Civil Servants Act or a specific regularization statute, neither of which applied here. Furthermore, the Court rejected the discrimination claim, noting that the comparators were hired directly by the government against permanent posts, whereas the petitioners were project-based employees of a private contractor. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, affirming that private agency staff cannot be regularized into the provincial civil service absent statutory authorization.

  Questions settled

  • Can employees hired by a private entity under a government contract claim the status of civil servants for the purpose of regularization?
  • Does the doctrine of discrimination apply when comparing employees hired by a private agency to those hired directly by the government?
  • Are employees of a private entity contracted by the government entitled to regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act 2018?
  • Does an agency relationship exist between the government and a private entity simply because the entity provides services under a government contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtaj Bibi vs The State and another2021 MLD 1972 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-30
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysupplementary statementmurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner Mst. Mukhtaj Bibi seeking release in case FIR No. 340 registered under sections 302, 148, 149, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail given the delayed and uncorroborated supplementary statement implicating her and the lack of connecting evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the subsequent statement of the complainant introduced new facts without explanation or independent corroboration, and the recovered articles lacked proof of ownership linking them to the deceased. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under the law. The key principle laid down is that where an afterthought statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lacks supporting independent evidence and recovery links remain unestablished, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delayed statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicating a new accused without independent corroboration warrants post-arrest bail?
  • Is unverified recovery of personal articles sufficient to establish prima facie participation in a murder offense?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the scope of further inquiry under bail adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Momina vs Fahad Sajjad, etc2021 YLR 1954, 2021 PHC 38 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehnaz Bibi & 2 others vs Muhammad Tahir & another2021 PHC 176, 2022 MLD 945 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Laila Hussain vs Board Of Intermediate And Secondary Education, Peshawar through Chairman and 4 others2022 YLR 952 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khanam Bibi vs Mst. Fozia Bibi and 5 others2022 YLR 664 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija Begum vs Chairman, Board Of Intermediate And Secondary2021 YLR 759 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Islam Bibi widow of Rehmat Khan, r/o Central Colony Sadda, District2021 PHC 364, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1196 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-10
  pensionary benefitslegal heirswrit jurisdictionlocus standicivil servantconstitutional petitionvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, widow of a deceased Sepoy of the Kurram Levy Force, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court seeking a writ to compel the payment of pensionary benefits for her late husband. The respondents contended that the deceased had resigned prior to his death, a claim the court found unsubstantiated and dubious, noting the lack of evidence and the implausibility of such a resignation after twenty-three years of service. The core legal question was whether the widow of a deceased civil servant has the locus standi to file a writ petition for pensionary benefits, given that Service Tribunals generally lack jurisdiction over legal heirs. The Court held that the petitioner, as a legal heir, has the standing to pursue this claim. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that pensionary benefits are a vested right, not a bounty, and that legal heirs are entitled to these benefits. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the widow of a deceased civil servant have the locus standi to file a writ petition for pensionary benefits?
  • Are pensionary benefits considered a vested right or a bounty for a civil servant?
  • Do Service Tribunals possess the jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed by the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant?
  • Can the benefit of a judgment regarding pensionary rights granted to specific civil servants be extended to others who were not parties to the litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussna Bibi through LRs vs Ubaid-urRehman & others2021 PHC 264, 2022 CLC 163 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Husna Bibi vs The State2021 PHC 350, 2022 PCRLJ 707 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-25
  post-arrest bailsearch of womennarcotics controlmandatory safeguardsmalafide police action
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Mst. Husna Bibi sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1807 registered under Section 9-D of the KP Control of Narcotic Substances Act, following the alleged recovery of 3280 grams of heroin. The core legal question concerned the legality of the search and detention of a female accused by male police personnel on a public road in violation of statutory safeguards, alongside the delayed transmission to a women police station and the absence of a forensic report. The Peshawar High Court allowed the bail petition, holding that the search of a female accused by male police personnel on a public road without regard to decency, coupled with exclusive male custody and delayed transfer to a women police station, created serious doubts regarding the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that mandatory statutory safeguards regarding the search of women by female personnel must be strictly observed, and failure to do so, along with prolonged detention without an FSL report, entitles the accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female accused is entitled to bail when searched by male police personnel in violation of statutory safeguards?
  • Does the absence of an FSL report within a considerable period warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the retention of a female accused in exclusive male police custody vitiates the search proceedings?
  Read full judgment →