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.

• Mst. Hafsa vs Khan Bacha and another2021 PHC 356, 2022 PCr. LJ 372 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bina Shahzada vs Rauf Khan etc2021 PHC 98, 2022 PCr. LJ 821 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mosa Khan vs The State2021 PHC 314 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Yahya & others vs Govt: of KPK through Secretary Forest &2021 PHC 146, 2022 MLD 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
• Moambar vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary2021 PHC 168, 2022 CLC 1605 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-24Read full judgment →
• Misal Khan and another vs Amjad Khan and another2021 YLR 2153 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-13
  Criminal AppealBenefit of DoubtAdverse InferenceRecoveryForensic Science LaboratoryCommon IntentionMotiveEye-witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 324 and 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a shooting incident. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the impact of an unproved motive, the effect of withholding a key eye-witness, and the validity of forensic evidence and weapon recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that when the prosecution sets up a motive and fails to establish it, the prosecution must suffer the consequences. Furthermore, the unexplained withholding of the primary eye-witness necessitated an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Additionally, the court found the recovery of the weapon unreliable due to the lack of independent witnesses as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and an unexplained one-month delay in submitting forensic samples. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a motive, once set up, entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution withholding the best available evidence, such as a key eye-witness?
  • Can a forensic report be relied upon when there is an unexplained delay in transmitting the recovered weapon and empties to the laboratory?
  • Is a recovery valid when conducted in disregard of the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirbad Khan (Late) through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Umer and others2021 PHC 86 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Miraj Bibi and other vs Akbar Khan2021 PLD Peshawar 159, 2021 PHC 78 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mian Shehzada Jan & others vs Muhammad Israr & others2021 PHC 144, 2022 PLD Peshawar 147 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Fareed vs Khalid Wadood2021 CLC 1093, 2021 PHC 26 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mian Humaun Shah vs Registrar, Peshawar High Court and others2022 YLR 790 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
• Mian Humaun Shah son of Mian Fayaz Ali Shah, r/o Humaun Shah market2021 PHC 286 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tameer Steel Zone through Authorise Representative vs Government Of Pakistan through Federal Secretary Finance and others2021 PTD 1423 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Poly Foam (Private) Limited vs Government Of Pakistan through Federal Secretary Finance and Revenue Division, Islamabad and 10 others2021 PTD 1998, 2021 PHC 92, 2022 PCTLR 448 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hamdaan Enterprises through Proprietor and another vs Collector2021 PTD 1273 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hadi Khan Silk Mills and another vs Government Of Pakistan, through Federal Secretary Finance and 7 others2021 PTD 1842, 2022 PCTLR 627 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs A.Q. Customs Agency through Proprietor and others vs Federation2022 PTD 406, PTCL 2022 CL.498 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali Khan, Managing Director Spinghar Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Charbagh, District Swat vs State Bank of Pakistan through its Governor & others2021 PCTLR 1398 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali Khan, Managing Director Spinghar Silk Mills Pvt. Limited2021 CLD 1377 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
• Medi.Quips (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Authorized Representative vs Government2021 PCTLR 1477, 2021 CLC 1939, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 145 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Malik Tajamal Hayat Khan vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary Home and 4 others2021 MLD 1627 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Shah Jahan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Provincial Police Officer_IGP, Peshawar and others2021 PHC 340 · Peshawar High Court
  service matterwrit jurisdictionArticle 212departmental inquirycriminal acquittallachescivil servantService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions challenging the dismissal of police constables from service following departmental inquiries. The petitioners contended that their dismissal was illegal, particularly given their subsequent acquittal in related criminal cases, and argued that the departmental proceedings violated natural justice. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to adjudicate service-related disputes, and whether acquittal in criminal proceedings necessitates the setting aside of departmental dismissal orders. The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain these petitions due to the express bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution, which mandates that matters regarding the terms and conditions of civil servants fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings; thus, acquittal in the latter does not automatically absolve a civil servant of departmental liability. Additionally, the petitions were found to be barred by the principle of laches due to the significant delay in filing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Does an acquittal in criminal proceedings automatically absolve a civil servant of departmental liability?
  • Can a writ petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches if there is an unreasonable delay in challenging a departmental dismissal order?
  • Are departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings independent of each other?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Zahid vs Fida Muhammad and 3 others2021 PHC 276, 2022 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-08-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Naveed vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2021 PLC (C.S.) 855 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-10
  regularization of servicesspecial police officersconstitutional petitionequal protection of lawreinstatementservice lawarbitrary administrative action
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the exclusion of the petitioner, a Special Police Officer, from a notification regularizing the services of similarly situated officers under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Special Police Officers (Regularization of Services) Act, 2019. The core legal question is whether an employee, who was dismissed but subsequently reinstated with effect from the date of dismissal, is entitled to the benefits of a regularization notification issued during the interim period of his dismissal. The court held that because the petitioner’s reinstatement was effective from the date of his dismissal, he was legally in service at the time the regularization notification was issued. Consequently, the respondents' failure to include the petitioner in the regularization process was arbitrary, discriminatory, and lacked legal justification. The court affirmed that statutory functionaries cannot make individual distinctions for extraneous reasons and must ensure equal treatment for similarly placed citizens. The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to regularize the petitioner’s services in accordance with the notification, ensuring he received the same benefits as his colleagues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee reinstated with effect from the date of dismissal is entitled to the benefits of a regularization notification issued during the interim period?
  • Does the exclusion of a similarly placed employee from a regularization notification violate the constitutional principle of equality?
  • Can administrative authorities deny regularization benefits to an employee who was undergoing departmental proceedings at the time of the notification's issuance?
  Read full judgment →
• Makil Tajamal Hayat Khan vs Government of KPK thorugh Secretory Home2021 PHC 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• Maaz Ullah vs Secretary Interior, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad and 32021 YLR 589 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Lais Khan & another vs The State etc2021 PHC 58 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-16Read full judgment →
• Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Textile Mills Association vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 MLD 1325 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
• Khwaja Muhammad Bilal Sethi & 95 others vs Edwards College through its2021 MLD 1271, 2021 PHC 8 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• Khurshid and others vs Altaf Hussain and others2021 YLR 1901, 2022 KLR Revenue Cases 17 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ullah alias Khalil vs Awas Khan and another2021 CLC 456 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
• Khalid vs Pakistan Tobacco Company Akora Khattak, District Nowshera, KP2021 PHC 236, 2022 PLC 15, 2022 PCTLR 99, 2022 [M] CLR 41 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-08
  workman definitionindustrial relationstermination of servicelabour lawwrit jurisdictionNIRCstanding orders
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenge the judgment of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission, which reversed a Single Bench order reinstating the petitioners, who were employed as Field Officers by the respondent company. The core legal question was whether the petitioners qualified as "workmen" under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, to claim protection against termination. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners did not fall within the definition of "workmen." The court established that the status of a "workman" is determined by the nature of duties performed, not by job designation. It held that where an employee's primary duties involve intellectual exertion, independent decision-making, specialized knowledge, or supervision—rather than routine manual or clerical labor—they are excluded from the definition of "workman." The court emphasized that manual or clerical tasks must constitute the "pith and substance" of the employment, and ancillary manual duties performed by a supervisory or managerial employee do not confer "workman" status under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee qualify as a 'workman' if their primary duties involve intellectual exertion and decision-making rather than manual labor?
  • Is the designation of an employee conclusive in determining their status as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can ancillary manual duties performed by a supervisory employee bring them within the definition of a 'workman'?
  • What is the test for determining whether an employee is a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood and 3 others vs Umara Khan deceased through Legal2021 YLR 391 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-26Read full judgment →
• Khaista Muhammad vs The State through A.A.G. and others2021 P Cr. L J 1323 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-19
  dying declarationconfessional statementreduction of sentencemitigating circumstancesmurder trialappellate reviewocular testimonyweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of his daughter, along with a conviction under Section 15 of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the deceased victim's dying declaration, the evidentiary value of a delayed judicial confession, and whether mitigating circumstances warrant the reduction of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Peshawar High Court held that the dying declaration, corroborated by natural eye-witnesses and medical evidence, alongside a voluntary confessional statement and weapon recovery, conclusively proved the guilt of the appellant. However, considering mitigating factors such as societal norms influencing the motive, minor weaknesses in prosecution evidence, and the advanced age of the appellant (68 years), the court upheld the conviction but altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that mitigating circumstances and evidentiary weaknesses, while insufficient for an outright acquittal, can be validly invoked to reduce a capital sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration form the sole basis of a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession automatically render it inadmissible or unreliable?
  • Whether mitigating circumstances and minor weaknesses in prosecution evidence can be pressed for the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is the presence of natural eye-witnesses inside a house at the time of an occurrence rendered doubtful merely by their omission from the initial FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Khaista Gul son of Jan Gul, r/o Khan Mast Colony District, Peshawar vs The2021 PHC 348 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs Zahir Shah Subedar Malakand Levies and others2021 PHC 162, 2022 PLD Peshawar 237 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-03Read full judgment →
• Kamran Sher and another vs Mst. Sadia and 2 others2021 MLD 1694 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-04Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Ullah vs The State and 5 others2021 P Cr. L J 943 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-17
  quashment of FIRsecond version of FIRJustice of Peacecriminal investigationcross-version incidentconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of an order passed by the Justice of Peace and the subsequent FIR registered against him, arguing that a separate FIR for the same incident was legally impermissible. The core legal question was whether a separate FIR can be registered for a new version of an incident when an FIR regarding the same occurrence has already been registered. Relying on the principle established in 'Mst. Sughran Bibi v. The State' (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595), the Court held that only one FIR can exist for a single incident. Multiple versions of the same event must be recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 within the existing case, rather than by registering a new FIR. Consequently, the Court set aside the order of the Justice of Peace and quashed the impugned FIR, directing that the complainant's version be recorded as a statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. for investigation within the original case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a separate FIR be registered for a new version of an incident when an FIR for the same occurrence has already been registered?
  • How should an investigating officer handle multiple versions of the same criminal incident?
  • Is a Justice of Peace empowered to direct the registration of a second FIR for an incident already under investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Ullah vs Nasib Ur Rehman and 2 others2021 PHC 126, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 124, 2022 YLR 990 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-08Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Ullah Khan vs Nasib-Ur-Rehman and 2 others2021 PLJ Peshawar 124 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-08Read full judgment →
• Junaid Khan Babar and 02 others vs Mst. Farhad Begum and 03 others2021 PHC 338, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 6, 2022 MLD 259 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Junaid Ahmad vs Secretary Local Council Board, Government Of Khyber2021 PLC (C.S.) 1546 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-16
  constitutional petitionchange of nomenclatureservice matterup-gradationillegal promotionnepotism and favoritismTehsil Municipal Administration
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, filed before the Peshawar High Court, challenged the illegal practice of changing the nomenclature of employees from one post to another within the Tehsil Municipal Administration to favor certain individuals for promotion without lawful authority or adherence to prescribed rules. The core legal question was whether an appointing authority or Tehsil Municipal Officer possesses the legal competence to alter the nomenclature and grade of sanctioned budgetary posts without following statutory procedures and rules. The court held that the arbitrary change of nomenclature and subsequent up-gradation of employees by pick and choose is void ab initio, discriminatory, and a manifestation of nepotism. The court laid down the principle that sanctioned budgetary posts cannot have their nomenclature altered arbitrarily to bypass initial recruitment quotas or promote favorites, and that two wrongs cannot form the basis to perpetuate illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointing authority or Tehsil Municipal Officer have the legal power to change the nomenclature of sanctioned and budgetary posts without statutory backing?
  • Can employees claim the benefit of unlawful orders or actions taken by a department in favor of others on the ground of discrimination?
  • Whether the change of nomenclature of a post can be utilized as a back-door method for promotion and up-gradation to higher scales without open competition and recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Junaid Ahmad son of Javed Akhtar, Baildar BPS.1, Office of TMO, Mardan vs Secretary Local Council Board, Govt of KP, Peshawar and others2021 PHC 248 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Johar Ali son of Muzamil Khan, r/o Mirjai PayanDistrict Nowshera vs The2021 PHC 398 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jawad Khan alias Sohail vs The State2021 MLD 1503, 2021 PHC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-08
  post-arrest bailterrorismprohibitory clauseabscondancetentative assessmentalias identificationheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused-petitioner, Jawad Khan alias Sohail, in connection with a terrorist attack on the PAF Camp Badhber, which resulted in significant casualties among military personnel. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of bail given the allegations of his involvement, despite the initial FIR being lodged against unknown culprits. The petitioner argued that his name, Jawad Khan, did not match the name 'Sohail' mentioned by a co-accused in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was prima facie connected to the heinous offence. The Court reasoned that aliases are common in such cases and that the petitioner's prolonged abscondance for over four years further disentitled him to bail. The Court affirmed that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, necessitating the denial of bail for such serious crimes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of an alias by an accused in a criminal case create a valid ground for bail when the FIR initially named unknown culprits?
  • Does prolonged abscondance of an accused disentitle them to the concession of bail?
  • Can an accused be denied bail if they are prima facie connected to an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Javedullah & Anwar Khan vs The State etc2021 PHC 56 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-16Read full judgment →
• Javed Khan vs The State & another2021 PHC 298 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Govt of KPK etc2024 PHC 372, 2025 PLJ Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-10Read full judgment →
• Israr Khan vs The State2021 YLR 529 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Irfanullah vs Standard Chartered Bank Of Pakistan through CEO/Executive2021 CLD 1345 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
• Irfanullah vs M/s. Standard Chartered Bank Of Pakistan through2021 PLJ Peshawar 171 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Irfan vs The State2021 PHC 284, 2022 PCr. LJ 945 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali vs The State & another2021 PHC 320, 2022 P Cr.LJ 1222 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Khan vs Ministry Of Defence Government Of Pakistan through Defence Secretary of Pakistan Pasb Secretariat, Rawalpindi and 4 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1237 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-16
  pensionary benefitsdaily wages employmentqualifying serviceCivil Aviation Authoritystatutory bodywrit jurisdictionvested rightregularization
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) employee, filed this constitutional petition seeking to include his nine-year daily-wage service period in his qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The core legal questions were whether the CAA is a statutory body amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, and whether an employee can be contractually barred from counting prior daily-wage service toward pension entitlement. The Court held that the CAA is a statutory body, and its service regulations are statutory, rendering the petition maintainable. The Court further ruled that the condition in the petitioner's regularization order, which waived his right to count prior daily-wage service, was the result of compulsion and therefore unenforceable. The Court established that pension is a vested right and not a bounty; consequently, continuous daily-wage service followed by regularization must be counted toward qualifying service under the Civil Service Regulations. State functionaries cannot impose coercive conditions to deprive employees of their legal rights to pensionary benefits, and such actions are subject to judicial scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Civil Aviation Authority a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can an employee be legally barred from counting prior daily-wage service towards pensionary benefits through a conditional regularization agreement?
  • Does continuous daily-wage service followed by regularization count towards qualifying service for pension under the Civil Service Regulations?
  • Is the right to pension a vested right that cannot be arbitrarily abridged by an employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali vs The State2021 PHC 292 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-17Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar & another vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2021 PHC 342, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 855 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-21
  writ of mandamusvires of statuteallotment of official accommodationdiscriminatory legislationintelligible differentiatrichotomy of powersfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the vires of amendments made to Section 2 sub-clause (iv) and (v) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018, which included employees of the Provincial Assembly and Medical Teaching Institutions (MTI) as eligible for official residential accommodation, resulting in the cancellation of allotments previously held by employees of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission. The core legal question was whether the inclusion of MTI and Provincial Assembly employees and the alleged exclusion of the petitioners amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. The Peshawar High Court held that the classification had a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved—specifically ensuring that medical staff required for emergencies are housed nearby—and was based on intelligible differentia under the principle of "Salus Populi Suprema Lex esto". Furthermore, the legislature possesses plenary law-making powers, and the court cannot interfere with policy matters or legislation in the absence of a violation of fundamental rights or legislative incompetence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amendment to Section 2 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018, including MTI employees for residential accommodation, is discriminatory and ultra vires the Constitution?
  • Does the inclusion of Medical Teaching Institution employees for official accommodation based on emergency medical requirements satisfy the test of intelligible differentia?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a plenary legislation enacted by the provincial legislature in the absence of a proven violation of fundamental rights or lack of legislative competence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibraheem Khan vs The State through Additional Advocate General, Peshawar and another2021 YLR 995 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-04
  criminal appealtransposition of statementabsconding accusedright to fair trialcross-examinationsole eye-witnessremandmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi Malakand at Batkhela convicting the appellant under sections 302(b), 324, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court legally transposed the previous statement of the sole eyewitness, recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the appellant's absconsion, without strict proof of the witness's non-availability or inability to attend, thereby violating the right to a fair trial and cross-examination. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court failed to exercise due diligence and relied solely on a casual statement of a DFC without strict proof satisfying the requirements for admitting previous statements. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter back to the trial court to make all-out efforts to procure the attendance of the eyewitness for direct examination. The key principle laid down is that the transposition of a statement recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is an exceptional procedure that requires strict compliance, adherence to foundational proof of non-availability, and robust safeguards to protect the fundamental right to cross-examination and a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statement recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be transposed to the main trial without strict proof of the witness's non-availability?
  • Is the right to cross-examine witnesses an essential component of the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What degree of care and caution must a trial court exercise before resorting to exceptions to the general rule of recording viva voce evidence on oath?
  Read full judgment →
• I.R NAB vs Muhammad Salim Arif2021 PHC 404 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
• Hira Bibi vs Managing Director Lead Campus School2021 PHC 250, 2022 YLR 686 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-16Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ullah Khan vs Mirza Ali Khan2021 MLD 837 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-01Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Said and others vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 551 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-18
  pensionary benefitspay revisionservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional equalityreasonable classificationcivil servantswrit of mandamus
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired civil servants, challenged the 2011 pay revision scheme, alleging it was discriminatory and violated Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. They contended that merging certain allowances into basic pay for employees retiring after July 1, 2011, created an irrational classification, denying them equal pensionary benefits. The respondents argued the petition was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, as the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court first addressed the jurisdictional challenge, holding that it possessed jurisdiction because the relief sought—a command to the authorities to treat the petitioners at par with others—was beyond the scope of the Service Tribunal's authority. On the merits, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the classification between employees retiring before and after the pay revision was reasonable. It held that serving employees and retirees constitute distinct classes, and pensioners cannot claim benefits of subsequent pay revisions. Consequently, the Court found no violation of the constitutional right to equality.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to government authorities regarding pensionary benefits when the Service Tribunal lacks the power to grant such a command?
  • Does the classification of civil servants based on their date of retirement for the purpose of pension calculation violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can retired civil servants claim the benefits of a pay revision scheme that was introduced after their date of retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Amin and 8 others vs Mst. Nishat Begum and another2021 CLC 1249 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-08Read full judgment →
• Hashmat son of Mahmood, r/o Pushtakhara Payan, Peshawar vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 913, 2021 PHC 4 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz and another vs Habib Bank Limited through Manager, Paf2021 CLD 1367 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-14Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ullah vs The State2021 PHC 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-16
  resampling of narcoticsretesting of drugsdeficient FSL reportadversarial systemfair trialfilling lacunasCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order of the trial court allowing the prosecution's application for resampling and retesting of narcotics during the pendency of the trial. The core legal question was whether a trial court can permit the prosecution to draw fresh samples and conduct retesting to rectify a deficient chemical examiner report or fill gaps in its case. The Peshawar High Court held that allowing resampling and retesting amounts to granting a premium to the prosecution for its mistakes and permits it to fill lacunas, which is contrary to the adversarial system of justice and violates the right to a fair trial. Relying on binding precedents of the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that courts cannot order fresh testing or re-investigation, though ambiguities in an existing report can be clarified by summoning the analyst based on the existing record. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order for resampling and retesting was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can permit the prosecution to draw fresh samples and retest narcotics to cure a deficient chemical report?
  • Does allowing the prosecution to conduct re-testing of case property amount to filling gaps and giving an unfair advantage in an adversarial system?
  • How can a trial court resolve ambiguities in a Government Analyst's report without permitting a fresh test or new report?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Iqbal vs Additional Assistant Commissioner Revenue through Advocate General, Khyberpakhwa and another2021 P Cr. L J 1772 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-17
  summary trialhoardingfood stuffs controlspecial magistratecriminal procedureconviction quashment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions challenging the convictions and sentences of the petitioners by a Special Magistrate for simple imprisonment and a fine under the Food Stuffs Control Act, 1958, following a summary trial. The core legal questions concern the legality of conducting summary trials for offences carrying punishments exceeding six months and the validity of convictions where the accused were neither named in the initial official report nor linked to the alleged offences by any evidence on record. The Peshawar High Court held that summary trials under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are restricted to offences punishable with imprisonment of less than six months, and convictions cannot be sustained in the absence of any incriminating evidence connecting the accused to the charged offences. The court laid down the principle that statutory provisions authorizing summary trials must strictly adhere to the jurisdictional limits prescribed by law, and criminal liability cannot be fastened upon individuals without proper legal process and supporting evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can offences carrying a maximum imprisonment term exceeding six months be legally tried through a summary trial under Chapter XXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Whether a conviction can be sustained against an accused person who was neither named in the initial official report nor connected to the alleged offence through any evidence on record?
  • Do the Food Stuffs Control Act, 1958 and the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 provide a statutory right of appeal against convictions rendered by Special Magistrates?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhajereen & others vs Akbar Said & others2021 PHC 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Mohammad Riaz and another vs Khalid Mehmood Abbasi and others2021 CLC 408 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Mirza Karim & others vs Residents of Denin Lasht through Wali2021 PHC 170, 2022 MLD 303 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Haji Fazal Ghani vs Fazle Ahad and 4 others2021 YLR 1055 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02
  civil revisionnecessary partiesnon-impleadmentlimitation periodrejection of plaintproperty disputecondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a property dispute concerning the ownership of shops, where the petitioner challenged the dismissal of an appeal by the appellate court. The core legal questions involved whether an appeal or revision is maintainable when necessary parties, specifically the legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff, are not impleaded, and whether the petition was filed within the statutory limitation period. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the failure to implead all necessary legal heirs rendered the appeal and the subsequent revision incompetent and fatal. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petition was time-barred under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it was filed beyond the ninety-day limitation period, and the petitioner failed to file an application for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that the non-impleadment of necessary parties in an indivisible transaction or suit involving legal heirs renders the proceedings incompetent, and the limitation period for filing a revision commences from the date copies are prepared for delivery, not the date of collection.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to implead all legal heirs of a deceased party in an appeal render the proceedings incompetent?
  • From what date does the limitation period for filing a civil revision run when obtaining copies of a judgment?
  • Is a civil revision maintainable if filed beyond the ninety-day statutory period without an application for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdur Rashid Arif vs Bank Of Khyber through Bank Manager and 72021 CLD 1224 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-20Read full judgment →
• Gul Shah Peeri vs The State and another2021 PHC 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-09Read full judgment →
• Gul Sahib Khan & 39 others vs Abdul Rashid Khan and 23 others2021 PHC 290, 2022 CLC 308 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-16Read full judgment →
• Gul Ayaz Plastic Industry vs Tribal Areas Electric Supply Company, Wapda2021 PTD 795 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-01
  erstwhile FATAsales tax exemptionadvance income taxelectricity consumptionconstitutional petitiontax immunitytribal areas
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court by the owner of a manufacturing industrial unit situated in the erstwhile Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA), now part of Khyber District, seeking a declaration that electricity consumed by the unit is not subject to Sales Tax and advance Income Tax. The core legal question was whether industrial units located in erstwhile FATA are exempt from the impost of Sales Tax and advance Income Tax on electricity consumption following the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2018. The Court held that individuals and corporate entities domiciled and operating within the territorial limits of erstwhile FATA enjoy explicit statutory exemption from Income Tax and Sales Tax on electricity consumption until June 30, 2023, pursuant to relevant S.R.O.s and the Finance Act of 2019. Consequently, the demand for advance income tax and sales tax through electricity bills was declared illegal. The key principles laid down are that Chapter XII of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 does not apply to erstwhile FATA due to specific second schedule exemptions, relieving taxpayers from obtaining section 159 exemption certificates, and that electricity supplies to qualifying industries in those areas are exempt from sales tax.

  Questions settled

  • Are industrial units located in the erstwhile FATA exempt from Sales Tax and advance Income Tax on electricity consumption following the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2018?
  • Is a taxpayer whose business is exclusively located in the erstwhile FATA required to obtain an exemption certificate under Section 159 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to claim tax immunity?
  • Does Section 235 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 empower the Revenue to collect advance income tax through electricity bills from consumers protected by tribal area exemptions?
  • What is the legal effect of Clause 152 of the Second Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, 1990 regarding electricity supplies to industries in tribal areas?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Asif Bacha and others2021 PHC 254 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary (E&S) Education2021 PHC 288, 2022 CLC 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
• GM HBFCL vs Muhammad Fayaz Khan2021 PHC 406 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State & another2021 PHC 318, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 119 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Regional Commissioner for Federal Ombudsman2021 PHC 80, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 15 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-05
  harassment at workplaceombudsman jurisdictiondisciplinary proceedingscivil servantmajor penaltycompulsory retirementconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the orders of the Federal Ombudsman, which had imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner, a civil servant, following allegations of harassment under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether the Ombudsman possesses the statutory authority to directly impose major or minor penalties on a civil servant, or if such powers remain exclusively with the 'competent authority' of the organization under the relevant service rules. The Court held that the Ombudsman lacks the jurisdiction to directly impose penalties such as compulsory retirement. The ratio established is that the Ombudsman's role is to conduct inquiries and make recommendations, but the actual imposition of disciplinary penalties must be carried out by the competent authority of the organization in accordance with the applicable Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Consequently, the Court set aside the penalty imposed by the Ombudsman and directed that the inquiry proceedings be forwarded to the petitioner's department for action in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Ombudsman have the jurisdiction to directly impose major or minor penalties on a civil servant under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010?
  • Is the Ombudsman empowered to bypass the competent authority and Efficiency and Discipline Rules when penalizing an employee for harassment?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an order of the Ombudsman that is passed without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jan vs The State & another2021 PHC 62, 2022 YLR 1547 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-17Read full judgment →
• Fazal Raziq vs The Government of Pakistan through Secretary2022 PHC 314, 2023 PLJ Peshawar 20, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1419 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-18
  writ petitioncivil servantpromotionadverse PERsuncommunicated ACRscountersigning officerreporting officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a retired civil servant seeking promotion from back dates and the expungement of adverse remarks in his Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs). The core legal questions involved whether uncommunicated or average ACRs/PERs could be used to deny promotion, and the legal weight to be attached to conflicting remarks between a Reporting Officer and a Countersigning Officer. The Peshawar High Court held that uncommunicated ACRs or average reports cannot be utilized to the prejudice of a civil servant, and where a conflict exists, the views of the Countersigning Officer prevail over those of the Reporting Officer. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion through the Selection Committee in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can uncommunicated ACRs or average performance evaluation reports be utilized to the prejudice of a civil servant?
  • What is the legal effect when there is a conflict between the remarks of a Reporting Officer and a Countersigning Officer in an ACR?
  • Can promotion be withheld on the basis of earning an average ACR?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rahman vs Mst. Fahmida & others2021 PHC 207, 2022 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-24Read full judgment →
• Fazal Dayan vs The State, etc2021 PHC 42 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-23
  dying declarationbenefit of doubtmurder trialdark night occurrenceforensic evidencesafe custody of emptiescapital punishmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of a transgender person, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved the reliability and scrutiny of a dying declaration in a dark-night occurrence without a verified source of light, the capability of the deceased to make a statement while in shock, and the evidentiary value of delayed firearms forensics and broken safe custody chains. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, as the dying declaration was suspicious, uncorroborated, and contradicted by medical evidence regarding the time of arrival and consciousness, and the weapon recovery was compromised by unexplained delays. The court laid down the principle that a dying declaration, much like an interested witness's testimony, must undergo strict judicial scrutiny regarding the declarant's fitness of mind, capacity, and absence of external manipulation, and that any reasonable doubt arising from prosecution lapses must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration can be relied upon to sustain a conviction without corroboration when the medical evidence contradicts the victim's physical and mental capacity to make such a statement at the relevant time?
  • Does an uncorroborated dying declaration suffice for proof of guilt in a capital case where the occurrence took place at night without any established source of light for identification?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a forensic ballistics report when there is an unexplained delay in sending the crime weapon and recovered empties to the forensic laboratory and the safe custody chain is not proved?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right in criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq vs The State2021 PHC 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-07
  criminal appealmurder convictioninterested witnessjuvenile offenderocular evidenceappreciation of evidencesentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for the murder of a thirteen-year-old boy, alongside a criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of eyewitness testimony from relatives of the deceased, the impact of minor evidentiary discrepancies, the necessity of proving motive, and the sentencing limitations for a juvenile offender. The Court upheld the conviction, finding that the eyewitnesses provided a consistent, confidence-inspiring account of the daylight occurrence, and that their relationship to the deceased did not inherently render them unreliable absent evidence of animosity or a motive to falsely implicate. The Court held that minor discrepancies in testimony are natural and do not undermine the prosecution's case, and that the failure to prove motive does not invalidate otherwise reliable ocular evidence. Regarding the revision, the Court affirmed that under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2018, a juvenile offender cannot be awarded the death penalty, thereby dismissing the request for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive invalidate otherwise reliable eyewitness testimony?
  • Can a juvenile offender be awarded the death penalty under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2018?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses warrant the rejection of the entire prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Farman Ullah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2021 PHC 10, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 635 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-25
  seniority-cum-fitnesspromotioncivil servantconstitutional jurisdictionvested rightdepartmental promotion committeetyping test
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated constitutional petitions filed by Class-IV employees challenging their non-promotion to the post of Junior Clerk. The petitioners alleged that the fitness criteria applied by the Department were unjust and that they were unfairly superseded by a junior colleague. The core legal questions were whether the Department's fitness criteria were arbitrary and whether the petitioners had a vested right to promotion. The Court held that while the petitioners had a right to be considered for promotion, they possessed no vested right to be promoted. It clarified that 'seniority-cum-fitness' allows for the selection of a junior candidate who is demonstrably more fit, provided the process is objective. Crucially, the Court found that the petitioners failed the mandatory typing test, which was a sine qua non for the post. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that departmental promotion committees have the authority to assess fitness, and judicial interference is unwarranted absent proof of malice or jurisdictional error. The judgment reinforces that promotion is not automatic and depends on meeting all prescribed qualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to be promoted to a higher post?
  • Can a junior employee be promoted over a senior employee under the principle of seniority-cum-fitness?
  • Is a typing test a valid and mandatory requirement for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere in matters regarding the determination of fitness for promotion where no appeal lies before a Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Amin & two others vs The State2021 PHC 386 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-06
  post-arrest bailunnatural offencenon-compoundable offenceabductionprohibitory limbtransgender rightstentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by three accused persons charged under FIR No. 2086 for offences including abduction, unnatural offence, and criminal intimidation against a transgender victim. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail, particularly given their claim of a compromise with the complainant party. The Peshawar High Court, upon tentative assessment of the record, noted that the victim had consistently implicated the accused in her statements under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's version. The Court held that the offences charged were serious, affronted societal morality, and fell within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court established that a compromise between parties cannot be considered for bail in non-compoundable offences. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that the accused were prima facie connected to the commission of the offence and thus disentitled to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise between the parties be considered for the grant of bail in non-compoundable offences?
  • Does an offence falling under the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically disentitle an accused to bail?
  • Is a tentative assessment of the record sufficient to deny bail in cases involving serious offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem vs The State and another2021 YLR 1680 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-20
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtmurderevidentiary contradictionsprohibitory clausetender age
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail petition arises from a murder charge under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being declined by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary material, specifically the delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of eyewitnesses, and contradictions between the statements of a key witness recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry because the witness had resiled from her earlier statement, and the recovered weapon belonged to an absconding co-accused rather than the petitioner. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the petitioner's tender age and the tentative nature of the evidence favored the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of doubt can be extended at the bail stage, and an accused should not be incarcerated as punishment when the case warrants further investigation, particularly when evidentiary contradictions exist.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Does a contradiction between a witness's statement under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the recovered weapon of offense belongs to an absconding co-accused?
  • Should an accused be kept in jail as punishment merely because the offense falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad Ullah Gul vs VC KMU etc2021 PHC 308, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 18, 2022 MLD 1259 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
• Fahad Khan vs Mst. Farukh Tabbassum and others2021 MLD 109 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-15Read full judgment →
• Dr.Aamir Zeb vs Chief Controller of Examination, CPSP & others2021 PHC 190, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 508 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-12
  constitutional petitionprinciples of natural justiceaudi alteram partemdisciplinary committeemedical examinationright of hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by a medical practitioner challenging the orders of a disciplinary committee and an appellate authority of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan (CPSP), whereby he was debarred from appearing in examinations for three years and directed to write a new dissertation due to allegedly submitting a fake certificate regarding the approval of his thesis. The core legal question was whether the imposition of a major penalty without affording a proper opportunity of hearing and violating the principles of natural justice was sustainable in law. The Peshawar High Court held that the rules of natural justice, including the maxim audi alteram partem, are deemed to be ingrained in every statute authorising the levy of punishment, and the mere informal interview of the petitioner during inquiry did not suffice as due process. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed that a fresh inquiry be conducted after confronting the petitioner with written allegations and granting him a personal hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles of natural justice must be read into a statute or rule even if it does not explicitly provide for them?
  • Does a brief interview during an inquiry committee proceeding satisfy the requirement of a proper opportunity of hearing before imposing a major penalty?
  • Can disciplinary orders passed without providing written allegations and a personal hearing be sustained in a court of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Tanveer Shah vs Registrar, University Of Agriculture, Peshawar and 4 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 495 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-06
  constitutional petitionnon-joinder of necessary partyservice matterappointment criteriastatutory interpretationwrit jurisdictionUniversity of Agriculturerescission of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the withdrawal of the petitioner's appointment as an Assistant Professor at the University of Agriculture, Peshawar. The core legal questions were whether the petition was maintainable without impleading the University as a party, and whether the withdrawal of the petitioner's recommendation was lawful given the conflicting application of the 2000 and 2016 University Statutes. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the University of Agriculture, Peshawar, is a body corporate and a "person" under Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; therefore, the failure to implead it as a necessary party rendered the petition non-maintainable. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that the selection process must strictly adhere to the N.W.F.P. Agriculture University Teachers Appointment and Scales of Pay Statutes, 2000, rather than the 2016 Statutes. The Court also established that, under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, an authority possesses the inherent power to rescind or withdraw its own orders until they have been acted upon, justifying the withdrawal of the petitioner's recommendation due to ineligibility.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable if the University, a body corporate, is not impleaded as a party?
  • Does the power to issue an order include the power to rescind or withdraw it under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Can a university apply selection statutes that have been declared inapplicable by the High Court in previous judgments?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sakar (Heart Specialist) and 4 others vs Government Of Pakistan2021 MLD 811 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-22Read full judgment →
• Dr. Karim Shah vs Chairman, Search and Nomination Council/Health2019 PHC 328, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 235, 2019 PHC 310 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-30
  master and servantmedical teaching institutionregular inquirymisconductremoval from servicedelegation of powersstatutory postwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed as Hospital Director of Medical Teaching Institution D.I. Khan under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015, challenged various explanation letters, a show-cause notice, and his eventual removal from service. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the writ petitions under the master-and-servant principle, the authority of the Board of Governors' Chairperson to initiate disciplinary action independently, and the necessity of a regular inquiry when facing serious misconduct allegations. The Peshawar High Court held that because the petitioner's post was created by statute and governed by statutory rules, the master-and-servant principle did not apply, giving the court writ jurisdiction under Article 199. It further held that the Chairperson could not unilaterally delegate or exercise removal powers without the full Board, and that imposing a major penalty like removal upon serious misconduct allegations without conducting a regular inquiry violates due process and fair play. The petitions were consequently allowed, setting aside the impugned orders with liberty for fresh lawful proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the employment of a statutory post created under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015 is governed by the principle of Master and Servant?
  • Does the Chairperson of the Board of Governors possess the unilateral authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a Hospital Director without the approval of the full Board?
  • Is a regular inquiry mandatory before imposing a major penalty of removal from service upon an employee facing serious allegations of misconduct when applicable efficiency and discipline rules are silent?
  • Whether an administrative authority can delegate statutory powers of appointment or removal in the absence of express or implied statutory backing?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Arif Dawood Harekar vs M/s Sea Breeze (Pvt) Ltd and Ors2021 SHC 348, 2022 MLD 51 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Director-General (Headquarters) Civil Works Organization through Authorized Officer vs Haji Banaras and 2 others2021 YLR 1222 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
• Director General (Headquarters) Civil Works Organization, Rawalpindi2021 CLC 909 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-07
  land acquisitionexecution petitionlimitationdoctrine of mergerenhanced compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from the dismissal of objection petitions by the executing court concerning the execution of a decree for enhanced land compensation. The core legal question was whether the execution petition was barred by limitation, having been filed more than three years after the initial Referee Court award, but within three years of the High Court's appellate judgment upholding the award. The court held that under the doctrine of merger, when a lower forum's judgment is affirmed, modified, or reversed by a higher forum, it attains finality from the date of the higher forum's decision, making the limitation period run from that final adjudication. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of merger applies to appellate decisions, and the period of limitation for execution is computed from the date of the final appellate judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of merger apply when a lower court judgment is affirmed by a higher forum?
  • From which date is the limitation period for filing an execution petition calculated when an appeal has been decided by a higher forum?
  • Are execution petitions filed within three years of the final appellate judgment considered within time?
  Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad vs The State etc2021 PHC 184 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-21Read full judgment →
• Dilnawaz Khan etc vs Mst Naik Bibi2021 PHC 128, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 120, 2022 YLR 418 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-22Read full judgment →
• Dilawar vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 998 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-25
  narcotic possessionchain of custodyreasonable doubtcriminal appealsafe custody of samplesforensic science laboratory reportacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court for the possession of 12 kg of narcotics (chars garda) under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the contraband and maintained the chain of custody of the case property and samples. The High Court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, specifically noting that the weight and physical state of the recovered packets contradicted the FIR, and the chain of custody was broken due to the non-examination of key witnesses and the failure to account for the delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused, and that the failure to prove the safe custody of case property and samples is fatal to the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the weight of narcotics stated in the FIR and the weight found during trial proceedings create a reasonable doubt?
  • Is the failure to examine the official responsible for the custody of case property fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory affect the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody of contraband from the time of seizure until its production in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Dil Nawaz Khan and 3 others vs Mst. Nek Bibi and 3 others2021 PLJ Peshawar 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-22Read full judgment →