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.

• Sirhind Zada vs Amir Zada & others2021 YLR 1373, 2020 PHC 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-20Read full judgment →
• Siraj Hussain vs Aashiq Hussain and 2 others2020 MLD 1893 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-01Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat & others vs Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2020 PHC 176 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
• Sher Wali vs The State another2020 PHC 534 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
• Sher Alam and others vs Muhammad Haroon Khan and others2020 MLD 514 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-11Read full judgment →
• Shamsher Ali vs Jamshid and others2020 P Cr. L J 1467, 2020 PHC 250 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-21
  illegal dispossessionconstitutional petitionpreamble interpretationco-ownersQabza groupjurisdictional defectsummary dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the summary dismissal of a complaint filed under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question concerned whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is maintainable against co-owners or persons not belonging to a noted Qabza group, and the proper role of a preamble in statutory interpretation. The Peshawar High Court held that the summary rejection of the complaint by the trial court was a jurisdictional defect and that the substantive provisions of Section 3 apply to any person who unlawfully dispossesses another, regardless of whether they belong to a specific Qabza group or are co-owners, as earlier restricted views have been overruled by the Supreme Court. The court laid down the key principles that the preamble of a statute cannot restrict clear and unambiguous substantive provisions, and that co-owners do not enjoy immunity from the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the preamble of a statute can override or restrict clear and unambiguous substantive provisions?
  • Can co-owners be prosecuted under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does a person have to belong to a specific 'Qabza group' to fall within the purview of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsheer Khan vs Govt of KPK2021 CLC 699, 2020 PHC 278, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-08Read full judgment →
• Shamraiz Khan and others vs Rustam and others2020 PHC 186 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
• Shahid Khan vs The State2020 YLR 2538 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-19
  narcotics recoverychain of custodydelay in sending samplesdirectory provisionsCNSA 1997charascriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, convicting and sentencing the appellant under sections 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of a large quantity of charas from a vehicle driven by him. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the establishment of an unbroken chain of custody, and whether a minor delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) vitiated the trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent and reliable evidence establishing safe custody and transmission of the contraband. The Court ruled that rules regarding the timeframe for sending samples to the FSL are directory rather than mandatory, and minor delays unaccompanied by proof of tampering do not invalidate the proceedings or render the recovery doubtful. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a minor delay in transmitting narcotics samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiates the trial?
  • Are the rules prescribing timeframes for sending samples under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 mandatory or directory?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 oust the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in narcotics cases?
  • What is the effect of an unbroken chain of custody on the prosecution's case in drug smuggling offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Qaimoos Khan and 4 others vs Faizullah Khan and another2020 CLC 111 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-01Read full judgment →
• Shah Naraz vs The State2021 YLR 1584, 2020 PHC 468 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
• Shah Mehmood vs The State2021 MLD 46, 2020 PHC 56 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-15Read full judgment →
• Shah Fahad vs The State & anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1250, 2021 YLR 449, 2020 PHC 82 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-02Read full judgment →
• Shah Alam Khan and 2 others vs Board Of Revenue N.W.F.P. and 47 others2020 YLR 2440 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Ali Shah vs Mst. Nasrin Akhtar and others2020 PLD Peshawar 148, 2020 PHC 204 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-09
  sale considerationdelivery of possessionrevenue mutationtitle deedcivil revisionimmovable propertyconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the respondent's suit for recovery of sale consideration or alternatively cancellation of a property mutation was decreed. The core legal question was whether a valid sale of immovable property was established in the absence of payment of sale consideration and delivery of possession, and whether a revenue mutation confers title. The Peshawar High Court held that since the essential ingredients of a valid sale—namely, the payment of sale consideration and delivery of possession—were missing, and because a revenue mutation does not by itself confer title, no valid sale took place in the eye of the law. The court laid down the principle that mutation is not a title deed and that when the foundational transaction fails for lack of consideration and possession, the super-structure built upon it, including the mutation, is null and void. The petition was partially allowed, setting aside the monetary recovery decree while maintaining the concurrent findings declaring the mutation null and void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether payment of sale consideration and delivery of possession are essential ingredients of a valid sale of immovable property?
  • Does a revenue mutation confer title or ownership of property?
  • Can a mutation be sustained when the underlying transaction and essential elements of sale are missing?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain Gigyani, Advocate vs Government Of Khyber2020 PLD Peshawar 52 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
• Seema Khan vs Vice-Chancellor, Kyber Medical University, Peshawar and 42020 YLR 734 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
• Seema Khan vs The Vice-Chancellor, Kyber Medical University Peshawar2020 YLR 702 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Govt. of KPK, Peshawar etc vs Tajdar Khan etc2021 YLR 1160, 2020 PHC 394 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-08-20Read full judgment →
• Saleem Khan alias Gul vs The State, etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1230, 2020 PHC 172 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-03Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Hussain vs Mst. Rubina Shaheen and 2 others2020 PLJ Peshawar 85 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain Constable No.1076, Special Force District Swat vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Home Secretary and 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 822 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-17
  contractual employmentwrit jurisdictiondoctrine of lachespolice servicetermination of serviceequal treatmentservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioner, a contract-based police constable, following his involvement in a criminal case. The core legal questions were whether a contract employee could maintain a writ petition for reinstatement, whether the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches, and whether the petitioner was entitled to equal treatment with regular employees previously reinstated by the Service Tribunal. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that a contract employee possesses no inherent right to maintain a writ petition for reinstatement in service. Furthermore, the Court found the petition barred by the doctrine of laches due to the significant delay between the termination in 2012 and the filing of the petition in 2018. The Court established that contract employees are not similarly placed with regular employees, as the latter's rights are governed by specific service rules, whereas contract employees lack such statutory protections. Consequently, the departmental authority was not bound by the inquiry officer's recommendations, particularly regarding a time-barred appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract employee maintain a writ petition for reinstatement in service?
  • Is a writ petition challenging termination of service barred by the doctrine of laches if filed after a significant delay?
  • Is a contract employee entitled to the same procedural protections and inquiry rights as a regular employee?
  • Is a departmental authority bound to accept the recommendations of an inquiry officer regarding a time-barred appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2020 CLC 360 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-28Read full judgment →
• Saiful Haq vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary and 4 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 276 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-26
  recruitment policywaiting listnon-joining selecteemerit listpublic appointmentconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the non-appointment to the post of Drawing Master, despite being the next eligible candidate on the merit list following the non-joining of a selectee. The core legal question was whether a candidate on a waiting list is entitled to appointment against a vacancy created by the non-joining of a selectee, in light of established recruitment policies and Supreme Court precedents. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the appointment. Relying on the principle established in Naimatullah v. N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission, the Court clarified that while Musa Wazir v. N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission previously prohibited maintaining long-term waiting lists, the subsequent Naimatullah judgment modified this by allowing the filling of vacancies created by non-joining selectees up to the commencement of training for the same selection batch. Since the petitioner was the next eligible candidate and the appellate committee had already validated his claim, the Court directed the respondents to issue an appointment order, rejecting the argument that the request was made at a belated stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public department fill a vacancy created by the non-joining of a selectee from a waiting list?
  • What is the time limit for filling a vacancy created by a non-joining selectee according to the Naimatullah judgment?
  • Does the judgment in Musa Wazir v. N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission completely prohibit the maintenance of waiting lists for government appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Bakhshad vs The State & another2020 PLD Peshawar 129, 2020 PHC 252 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-25
  cognizable offenceprivate loansJustice of PeaceFIR registrationstatutory interpretationwrit jurisdictioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the registration of an FIR under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2016, contending that an FIR could only be registered upon the order of a Justice of Peace under Section 6 of the Act. The core legal question was whether Section 6 mandates a prior judicial order for FIR registration or if the police possess independent authority to register cases. The Peshawar High Court held that Section 9 of the Act explicitly declares offences to be cognizable, non-compoundable, and non-bailable, thereby empowering the police to register and investigate offences without prior authorization. The Court clarified that Section 6 provides a supplemental remedy for complainants, similar to Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, rather than a mandatory procedural prerequisite. It further established that statutory headings cannot override clear, unambiguous legislative language, and that a Justice of Peace is not a court of law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the police acted within their statutory authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 6 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2016, require a prior order from a Justice of Peace before the police can register an FIR?
  • Are offences under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2016, cognizable by the police without prior judicial authorization?
  • Can the heading of a statutory section be used to override the clear and unambiguous language of the provision itself?
  • Is a Justice of Peace considered a court of law for the purpose of entertaining a complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahib Zaman & another vs Haji Noor Zada & others2020 PLD Peshawar 121, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1379, 2020 PHC 292 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sahib Singh son of Arjun Singh and six others, Members of Pakistan Sikh2021 PLD Peshawar 93, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 64, 2020 PHC 484 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sadiq Imran vs The State2020 YLR 289 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-20
  narcotic drugssafe custody of samplessafe transmissionulterior motivesbenefit of doubtcriminal appealCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and safe transmission of the narcotics samples to the forensic laboratory, and whether the prosecution case was vitiated by mala fides and personal grudge. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the samples during the interregnum period, and that the evidence established a personal grudge between the complainant and the appellant, who was a former police gunner. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him of the charge. The key principle laid down is that where the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples are not established through independent evidence, and where malafide or personal enmity by the complainant is proven, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples to the laboratory vitiate the conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when evidence reveals a personal grudge and ulterior motives on the part of the complainant police officer?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when there is a break in the chain of safe custody of recovered narcotics samples?
  Read full judgment →
• Sain Muhammad & 04 others vs Muhammad Aslam2020 PLC (C.S.) 918, 2021 YLR 924, 2020 PHC 424 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-11
  Section 12(2) CPCfraud and misrepresentationnecessary partylocus standivoid decreeprospective overrulingcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal challenges a judgment accepting an application under Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which set aside a previous decree obtained through alleged fraud and misrepresentation. The core legal questions concerned the locus standi of a non-party to challenge a decree, the validity of a decree passed without impleading necessary parties, the maintainability of a fresh Section 12(2) application after a prior one was returned for lack of jurisdiction, and the correct forum for such applications following shifts in judicial precedent. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the decree was obtained through fraud and was void. It affirmed that a non-party whose rights are jeopardized by a fraudulent decree has standing to invoke Section 12(2) CPC. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a decree passed without impleading necessary parties is a nullity. It held that changes in judicial precedent regarding the forum for Section 12(2) applications operate prospectively and do not invalidate proceedings already pending under the previous legal understanding. Ultimately, the Court emphasized that technicalities should not obstruct the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who was not a party to the original suit file an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a decree obtained without impleading necessary parties liable to be set aside?
  • Does a change in judicial precedent regarding the forum for Section 12(2) applications apply retrospectively to pending proceedings?
  • Can a fresh application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be filed after a previous application was returned for lack of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Rooh-ul-Amin & another vs The State & another2020 PHC 274 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-13Read full judgment →
• Roidad Khan vs The State & another2020 PHC 78, 2022 MLD 660 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-02Read full judgment →
• Rifaqatullah vs The State etc2020 PHC 68, 2020 P Cr.L J 1361 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-25
  murderdying declarationchance witnessbenefit of doubtabscondencecapital punishmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt relying on a dying declaration and the testimony of an alleged eyewitness. The Peshawar High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court determined that the alleged eyewitness was a "chance witness" whose presence at the crime scene was unproven and whose conduct was unnatural. Furthermore, the court found the dying declaration unreliable as it lacked medical certification regarding the declarant's mental fitness and capacity to speak, especially given the declarant's state of severe shock. The court reaffirmed that a dying declaration is weak evidence requiring independent corroboration and that abscondence alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction when the primary evidence is doubtful. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration that lacks medical certification of the declarant's fitness?
  • Does the presence of a chance witness require independent corroboration to be admissible in a criminal trial?
  • Is the abscondence of an accused sufficient to prove guilt in the absence of reliable primary evidence?
  • What criteria must be met for a court to accept a dying declaration as a reliable piece of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 352, 2020 PHC 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Khan vs Muhammad Ramzan, etc.2020 PLJ Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Hayat & others vs Rafiq Ahmad Khan and others2020 PHC 526, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 32, 2021 YLR 607 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-18Read full judgment →
• Rasool Khan vs Saif-Ur-Rehman & others2021 MLD 745, 2020 PHC 364 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan vs Mst Momna2021 MLD 725, 2020 PHC 210 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-11Read full judgment →
• Raheem Jan alias Kaki vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1664 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-03
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesauthorized officerSpecial Courtmandatory provisionsstatutory non-compliancetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9-D of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, following the alleged recovery of 4017 grams of charas from his house. The core legal questions involved whether the search and arrest were conducted by an authorized officer as defined by the statute, and whether the production of the accused before an ordinary Court of Sessions fulfilled the mandatory statutory requirement of production before a Special Court when no such courts had been established. The Peshawar High Court held that the record was silent regarding the proper authorization of the complainant by the Regional Police Officer, and in the absence of notified Special Courts, the mandatory provisions of the statute were not complied with. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principles laid down are that special laws regarding search, seizure, and production must be strictly followed in letter and spirit, and non-compliance with mandatory statutory procedures entitles an accused to the concession of bail on tentative assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police officer who is not specifically authorized by the Regional Police Officer can legally exercise powers of entry, search, seizure, and arrest under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019?
  • Does the production of an accused and seized narcotic substances before an ordinary Court of Sessions fulfill the mandate of section 33 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 in the absence of notified Special Courts?
  • Does non-compliance with mandatory procedural provisions regarding search, arrest, and production under a special statute entitle an accused person to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Raham Din vs State, etc2020 YLR 2609, 2020 PHC 220 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• Qutab Khan & another vs District Police Officer, D.I Khan2021 P Cr. L J 638, 2020 PHC 444 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-07
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peacepowers of investigationconstitutional petitionarray of accusedCNSAcriminal procedurepolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed the petitioners' application seeking a direction to the police to include a third party as an accused in a narcotics case. The core legal question concerned the scope and limits of the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, specifically whether such an authority can direct the police to alter the array of accused persons or interfere with the independent functions of the investigating agency. The Peshawar High Court held that the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace are ministerial and administrative, not judicial, and are strictly confined to the matters enumerated in Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that a Justice of the Peace cannot step into the shoes of the investigating agency, direct who should be declared an accused, or interfere with criminal investigations. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has the jurisdiction under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to direct the police to include a specific person as an accused in a criminal case?
  • Are the powers exercised by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace judicial in nature or ministerial and administrative?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace interfere with or direct the independent functioning of the police investigating agency?
  Read full judgment →
• Qari Muhammad Arshad & two others vs State2021 P Cr. L J 1192, 2021 P Cr. L J 1194, 2020 PHC 332 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-08
  post-arrest bailterrorism financingconfessional statementsprohibitory clauseAnti-Terrorism ActCode of Criminal Procedurebail principles
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the post-arrest bail of three accused persons charged under the Anti-Terrorism Act for alleged involvement in terrorism financing. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail given the nature of the prosecution's evidence, primarily consisting of confessional statements. The Court held that the accused were entitled to bail, noting that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court expressed significant doubt regarding the reliability of the confessional statements, which were recorded during police custody under questionable circumstances, and observed a lack of other incriminating material connecting the petitioners to the alleged crimes. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. This principle remains applicable even under special laws, and courts must not act mechanically, as the liberty of the citizen is involved.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of bail become the rule rather than the exception when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can confessional statements recorded during police custody be the sole basis for denying bail when their reliability is questionable?
  • Are the provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable even in cases involving special laws like the Anti-Terrorism Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadeem Shah vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 612 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-05
  murderocular testimonyabscondanceappreciation of evidencecriminal appealFSL reportconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his brother, arising from a dispute over joint property. The core legal questions concern the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of ocular testimony, the impact of the prosecution's failure to examine certain witnesses, the necessity of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports for recovered crime empties, and the evidentiary value of the appellant's prolonged abscondance. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through a promptly lodged FIR, consistent ocular testimony, and supportive medical evidence. The Court ruled that the non-examination of family members as witnesses was natural given the familial relationship, and that FSL analysis of crime empties is unnecessary where only a single accused is charged. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that prolonged, unexplained abscondance serves as corroborative evidence of guilt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were maintained, with the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, extended to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to send crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory when only a single accused is charged?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine all witnesses mentioned in the FIR automatically invalidate the conviction?
  • Can prolonged abscondance of an accused be considered as corroborative evidence of guilt?
  • Is the testimony of a complainant who is a close relative of the accused and the deceased inherently unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadar Khan vs Political Agent/District Magistrate Agency and 2 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1086 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-20
  criminal revisionFrontier Crimes RegulationControl of Narcotic Substances ActFSL reportchemical examinerrecovery of narcoticstribal area conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the judgments of the Political Agent/District Magistrate Kurram and the Commissioner FCR Kohat Division, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 6, 7, 8, and 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act read with Section 11 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, and sentenced to 25 years rigorous imprisonment for the recovery of hashish. The core legal question was whether a conviction for narcotics offences can be sustained without a Forensic Science Laboratory report or chemical examiner's opinion on the recovered contraband, and where conscious knowledge and ownership of the premises are not established. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution must bring on record the FSL report as required by the law, and in the absence of such a report and proof of conscious knowledge, the conviction cannot be sustained. The court laid down the principle that procedural and substantive evidentiary requirements, such as chemical examiner reports under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, remain mandatory even for occurrences in tribal areas, and convictions cannot be based on mere assertions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act be sustained without a Forensic Science Laboratory report?
  • Is the requirement of an FSL report applicable to narcotics cases originating in tribal areas under the Frontier Crimes Regulation?
  • Does the mere assertion of an individual suffice to prove that recovered material is contraband without chemical examination?
  • Must the prosecution establish conscious knowledge and ownership in narcotics recovery cases from a house?
  Read full judgment →
• Qabil etc vs State through Additional Advocate General etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1359 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-08
  murdermatrimonial homebenefit of doubtchance witnessdelayed FIRunnatural deathdelay in 161 statementburden of proofhomicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife. The Peshawar High Court examined the prosecution's case, which relied on testimony from delayed and chance eye-witnesses and the fact that the deceased suffered an unnatural firearm death within the matrimonial home. The High Court found the eye-witnesses untrustworthy due to unexplained delay in recording their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, unnatural conduct, and contradictions with medical evidence and the FIR. It held that where prosecution fails to discharge its initial burden, the mere fact that a wife died an unnatural death inside the shared matrimonial house—where other family members also resided—does not shift the burden to the husband or justify conviction alone without corroborative evidence. Granting the benefit of doubt, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, dismissing the connected revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to discharge its initial burden shift the onus onto the accused husband to explain his wife's unnatural death in the matrimonial home?
  • Can an uncorroborated statement of a chance witness recorded after unexplained delay form the sole basis for a murder conviction?
  • Does the mere occurrence of a spouse's unnatural death inside a shared house automatically justify a conviction for murder under Section 302(b) PPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Provincial2020 YLR 1563 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Project Director NHA and 2 others vs Nayyar Zaman and another2020 CLC 442 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-13Read full judgment →
• Professor Akhtar Khan vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 506, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1247, 2020 PHC 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-01
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryhate speechelectronic crimesdouble jeopardysocial media offencestentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, a lecturer, charged under Sections 10 and 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly disseminating hate speech and fake information against State institutions via social media. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offences and the evidentiary status of the case. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the offences were punishable by imprisonment or fine, and denying bail could result in 'double jeopardy' if the ultimate sentence was only a fine. Furthermore, the Court determined that the actual usage of the social media accounts by the petitioner remained a question of evidence, rendering the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court emphasized that bail is a change of custody, not an acquittal, and granted the petition subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the offence charged is punishable by either imprisonment or a fine?
  • Does the uncertainty regarding the actual usage of social media accounts by an accused constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the grant of bail constitute an acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• PESCO through Chief Executive Officer vs The State and 43 others2020 P Cr. L J 249 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-24
  electricity theftcognizance of offencenon-obstante clausecriminal quashmentstatutory interpretationElectricity Utilities Court
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal miscellaneous quashment petitions were filed by PESCO against a consolidated judgment of the Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan, which had dismissed police challans regarding electricity theft and left the complainant at liberty to file individual complaints. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the provisions of section 462-O of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or the Schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, govern the cognizance of offences relating to electricity theft covered under Chapter XVII-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that section 462-O contains an overriding non-obstante clause which expressly excludes the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and any other law, meaning a court can only take cognizance of offences under Chapter XVII-B upon a complaint by a duly authorized officer, not upon police reports or challans. The Court further laid down the principle that the main provisions of an Act prevail over its Schedule in case of conflict, and affirmed that when the law prescribes a particular manner for doing an act, it must be performed in that exact manner or be treated as a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 462-O of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 override the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding cognizance of electricity theft offences?
  • Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Chapter XVII-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon a police challan or report?
  • Does the enabling provision of a parent statute prevail over its Schedule in the event of an irreconcilable conflict?
  • What is the effect under the law if a mandatory statutory procedure for taking cognizance of an offence is not followed?
  Read full judgment →
• Pehlwan Shah & others vs Liaqat Shah & Anwar Shah2020 MLD 2071, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 104, 2020 PHC 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-18Read full judgment →
• Pak Muhammad vs Mst. Rozeena Waseem and another2020 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
• Noyeser Khan Jadoon vs Khan Afsar Jadoon2020 CLC 1648, 2020 PHC 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
• Noorzali vs The State etc2020 PHC 372 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Zaman vs The State etc2021 YLR 1711, 2020 PHC 458 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad alias Manoor and Wazir Rehman vs Mst. Dil Shad Bibi2020 PHC 328 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Noor Jan and others vs Mst. Buzarga & others2020 CLC 1482, 2020 [M] C L R 664 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-27Read full judgment →
• Nihad Ali vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1368, 2019 PHC 150 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-10Read full judgment →
• Nek Nawaz alias Shikar vs The State and Habibullah2021 YLR 872, 2020 PHC 462 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-28Read full judgment →
• Nawab Sher and another vs Ismaeel2020 MLD 14 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-30Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan son of Hassan Khan, r/o Besak Gadoon, District Swabi vs The2020 PHC 124 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nawab Ali vs The State2020 MLD 1350 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-28
  criminal appealconcurrent sentencesarms ordinancemurder trialsentence reductioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Swabi, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. At the hearing, the appellant's counsel did not contest the case on merits but requested that the sentence in the arms case be ordered to run concurrently with the sentences awarded in a separate murder case under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, where the appellant's death sentences were earlier commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether multiple sentences imposed on the same convict in different trials could be directed to run concurrently. The Peshawar High Court held that under Section 397 read with Section 35(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is empowered to order different sentences inflicted upon one accused to run concurrently. The court accordingly accepted the request and directed that the sentences in both cases shall run concurrently.

  Questions settled

  • Whether multiple sentences inflicted upon one accused in different trials can be ordered to run concurrently?
  • Does the court have the power under the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct sentences in separate cases to run concurrently?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Aziz and another vs The State2020 YLR 1429 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-24
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsconscious knowledgefurther inquiryrecovery from vehicleControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two accused, Nasir Aziz and Abid Ali, who were apprehended in a vehicle from which eleven kilograms of heroin were recovered. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were passengers in the vehicle driven by a co-accused, could be denied bail despite the absence of direct recovery from their persons and the lack of evidence regarding their conscious knowledge of the narcotics stored in the vehicle's trunk. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting that while the quantity of narcotics was significant and the offense heinous, the mere nature of the crime does not disentitle an accused to bail when the case requires further inquiry. The court established the principle that in cases of recovery from a vehicle, the issue of 'conscious knowledge' regarding the contraband by passengers is a matter for trial, and where the prosecution fails to establish immediate possession or prior involvement, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics from a vehicle automatically disentitle passengers to the concession of bail?
  • Is the question of 'conscious knowledge' of narcotics stored in a vehicle's trunk by passengers a matter for trial rather than bail stage?
  • Does the absence of direct recovery from the person of an accused in a narcotics case warrant the grant of bail on the basis of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Khan vs The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad2020 PLD Peshawar 74 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-18Read full judgment →
• Nasar Shah vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 952, 2020 PHC 54 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-23
  criminal appealjudgment writingCode of Criminal Proceduremandatory provisionssentencingAnti-Terrorism Actunlawful assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted the appellant under sections 324/34 and 353/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sections 7(c) and 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and section 15-AA of the Arms Act. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s judgment, which contained internal contradictions regarding the findings on specific charges and failed to explicitly address or sentence the accused under sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, complied with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which requires specific findings and distinct sentences for each offense. The court established that a conviction cannot be implied or presumed; rather, the trial court must explicitly award a distinct sentence for every offense of which the accused is found guilty. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for re-writing.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court judgment that fails to explicitly address charges under sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 violate Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court impliedly sentence an accused for an offense without explicitly awarding a distinct sentence in the judgment?
  • Is a trial court required to provide separate sentences for each offense of which an accused is found guilty under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeemullah vs Controlling Authority, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Malakand Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 227 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-11
  service lawdiscretionary powerspromotiondeputationcontrolling authoritygood governanceconstitutional petitionBISE Malakand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an Assistant Controller Examinations seeking a declaration that he is eligible and should be considered for promotion or posting as Controller of Examinations in the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Malakand, alleging that the respondents' refusal to consider him was illegal and discriminatory. The core legal question was whether the Controlling Authority, while possessing the discretion under the relevant rules to fill the post of Controller of Examinations by direct recruitment, deputation, or promotion, is bound to exercise that discretion fairly, transparently, and without discrimination against internal eligible candidates. The Peshawar High Court held that although the Controlling Authority holds discretion in filling the post, discretionary powers must be exercised reasonably, judiciously, and in a non-discriminatory manner in accordance with good governance and fundamental rights. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for the post by strictly adhering to the applicable rules and criteria within one month.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Controlling Authority is bound to exercise its discretion in a judicious and non-discriminatory manner when deciding to fill the post of Controller of Examinations by promotion or deputation?
  • Does an employee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education possess a right to be considered for promotion alongside external candidates under the applicable service rules?
  • Can administrative discretion regarding appointments in statutory boards be exercised arbitrarily without considering eligible internal candidates?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Ikram Ullah Associates and 08 others vs Government of Khyber2020 PTD 1060, 2020 PHC 122 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muzammil Shah vs Chairman Board of Technical Education2020 PLC (C. S. ) 785, 2020 PHC 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-14
  writ petitionprobationary periodwillful absenceaudi alteram partemdoctrine of lachestermination of servicenatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the 2009 termination of the petitioner from his position as a Junior Clerk by the Board of Technical Education, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal questions were whether the termination of a probationer for willful absence without a prior opportunity of hearing rendered the order void, and whether the petition was maintainable after an eight-year delay. The Court held that the termination was lawful under Regulation 5(a) of the North West Frontier Province Board of Technical Education Regulations 1994, as the petitioner’s willful absence rendered the right of hearing a mere formality. The Court further held that the petition was non-maintainable due to the doctrine of laches, given the inordinate delay in seeking relief. The key principles laid down are that the doctrine of audi alteram partem is not of universal application and does not apply where an employee’s conduct makes a hearing impossible or futile, and that constitutional petitions filed after excessive, unexplained delays are liable to be dismissed on the grounds of laches.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to the termination of a probationer who is willfully absent from duty?
  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches if filed eight years after the impugned order?
  • Is an order of termination passed under the North West Frontier Province Board of Technical Education Regulations 1994 void if no prior hearing was provided?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed vs The State through Deputy Attorney General, Khyber2020 P Cr.L J 1618, 2020 P Cr. L J 1212 · Peshawar High Court
  constitutional petitionnarcotics controldepartmental enquirytrial court observationsacquittalvexatious arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by an Inspector of the Anti Narcotics Force seeking to set aside judicial observations and directions for a departmental enquiry against him. The petitioner had recovered narcotics leading to a criminal case wherein the accused was eventually acquitted by the Special Court, Control of Narcotic Substances, with strictures passed against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether a Special Court can competently direct a departmental enquiry against a complainant or recovery officer upon acquitting an accused. The Peshawar High Court held that while the Trial Court possesses powers under section 26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to initiate criminal proceedings for vexatious seizures, it lacks the legal authority to order a departmental enquiry against a recovery officer, and personal observations extending the benefit of doubt beyond record limits are unwarranted. The court laid down the principle that directions for departmental proceedings by criminal trial courts upon acquittal must strictly remain within statutory confines.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 have the authority to order a departmental enquiry against a recovery officer upon acquittal of an accused?
  • Can a Trial Court direct criminal proceedings against a delinquent officer under section 26 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 without establishing that the seizure and arrest were vexatious and unnecessary?
  • Are personal observations made by a Trial Court extending the benefit of doubt to an accused beyond the scope of its authority maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Musharaf Khan and another vs The state etc2020 PHC 304 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Murad Ali son of Mian Said vs The State2020 PHC 514, 2021 MLD 1238 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
• Mukaram Khan son of Akram Khan, r/o Mughalki, Mohallah Khan Khalil,2021 MLD 176, 2020 PHC 400 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-03
  abatement of appealdeath of convictcompensationSection 544-A Cr.P.C.Section 431 Cr.P.C.criminal appealstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for murder and attempted murder under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Following the appellant's death while the appeal was pending, the Court addressed whether the appeal abated under section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding both corporal punishment and the compensation ordered under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandates the abatement of appeals upon the death of an appellant, with an exception only for sentences of "fine." Relying on the principle of strict interpretation of penal statutes, the Court determined that compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is legally distinct from a "fine" and does not prevent abatement. Consequently, the appeal abated regarding the murder conviction and compensation. Regarding the attempted murder conviction, which included a fine, the Court reviewed the merits, found insufficient evidence, and set aside the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against conviction and sentence abate upon the death of the appellant?
  • Is compensation awarded under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a 'fine' for the purposes of Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an appeal abate regarding compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the death of the appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukammal Shah vs Secretary C& W & others2020 PHC 254 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mujtaba Hassan vs The State etc2021 YLR 2233, 2020 PHC 90 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →
• Mujahid vs The State2020 PHC 282, 2021 P Cr. L J 849 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-09
  post-arrest bailunnatural offensechild protectionprohibitory clausemoral turpitudetentative assessmentchild at risk
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 01/2020, involving allegations of unnatural acts and video recording against a minor victim under Section 377 and Section 355 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act 2010. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the gravity of the offense, the incriminating evidence, and the applicability of the Child Protection and Welfare Act. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the accused was directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR, with corroborating evidence including a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, FSL reports, and recovery of the mobile phone used for the recording. The Court emphasized that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and constitutes a heinous act of moral turpitude. The Court affirmed that the victim qualified as a 'child at risk' under the Act of 2010, justifying the denial of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense involving the recording of an unnatural act against a minor fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the definition of 'child at risk' under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act 2010 applies to victims of unnatural acts?
  • Can bail be granted when the accused is directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR supported by forensic evidence and a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid vs Mst. Noor Ul Huda2020 YLR 2591 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zada son of Shamroz resident of Bati Bund Shinko MadyanPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 106, 2020 PHC 474 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman and another vs Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PHC 270, 2021 PLC (C.S.) 727 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-10
  recruitment criteriaservice rules amendmentvested rightconstitutional petitionPhysical Education Teacherestoppel against statutecivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the amendment of recruitment criteria for the post of Physical Education Teacher (BPS-15) in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Elementary and Secondary Education Department. The petitioners, holding specialized degrees in Health and Physical Education, contested the notification that removed the mandatory requirement of specialized qualifications for the post, arguing that the change adversely affected their merit position and that they held a vested right to be considered under the previous rules. The core legal question was whether the government is competent to amend service rules to remove specific qualifications and whether such amendments can be challenged on the grounds of vested rights or estoppel. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the government has the prerogative to amend recruitment rules to enhance service standards and that no candidate possesses a vested right to be governed by superseded criteria. The court affirmed that recruitment rules applicable at the time of appointment govern the process, and no estoppel can be pleaded against statutory rules or the government’s policy-making authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate have a vested right to be considered for a government post based on recruitment rules that were in force at the time of their qualification?
  • Can the government amend recruitment criteria for civil service posts to remove previously required qualifications?
  • Is the doctrine of estoppel applicable against statutory rules or the government's power to amend recruitment policies?
  • Does mere participation in a selection process or written examination create a fundamental right to appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Afridi vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary2020 PLD Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs Akhtar Ali and 2 others2020 MLD 864 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-03
  appeal against acquittalfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusdouble presumption of innocencemurder trialappreciation of evidencewitness credibilitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the acquittal of the respondents in a murder case registered under Sections 302/324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was sustainable given significant contradictions in the complainant’s testimony and the prosecution's failure to produce key witnesses. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence. The Court found the complainant’s testimony unreliable due to material improvements and contradictions regarding his presence at the scene and the sequence of events. Applying the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the Court held that a witness found lying on a material fact must be disbelieved entirely. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that an acquittal grants the accused a double presumption of innocence, which cannot be overturned without demonstrating that the judgment was based on surmises. The prosecution's failure to produce independent witnesses and the unnatural conduct of the accused in sparing the complainant further weakened the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' apply to witness testimony in criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • What is the standard of evidence required to overturn an acquittal in a criminal appeal?
  • Does the failure to produce a material witness, such as the driver who transported the deceased, adversely affect the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appeal against acquittal be maintained when the complainant's testimony contains material contradictions and improvements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2020 PHC 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 974 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-11
  writ petitioncivil serviceillegal appointmentRescue 1122selection committeemerit and transparencypublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court challenging the appointment of private respondents to the post of District Emergency Officer (DEO, BPS-18) in Rescue 1122, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and seeking direction for the petitioner's own appointment to the post. The core legal question was whether a Departmental Selection Committee can rely on a general advertisement clause to recommend and appoint candidates to a higher post for which they either failed the prescribed screening test or never applied. The High Court held that general clauses empowering selection committees to appoint shortlisted candidates to suitable posts do not authorize authorities to ignore merit, bypass prescribed qualification tests, or transfer candidates shortlisted for a lower post (BPS-17) to a higher post (BPS-18). The court declared the appointments of the private respondents illegal, null, and void due to misuse of authority and lack of transparency. Directing the official respondents to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner, the court affirmed that selection processes must strictly adhere to advertised merit criteria and transparent evaluation without arbitrary discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental selection committee appoint a candidate to a post for which the candidate failed the mandatory recruitment test?
  • Does a general advertisement clause authorizing candidate placement permit selection authorities to amalgamate shortlist candidates of a lower post into a higher post shortlist?
  • Whether the non-consideration of a higher-merit candidate based on arbitrary experience criteria constitutes unlawful discrimination in public appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shiraz vs The State etc2020 PHC 324 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah & others vs Govtt: of KPK through & others2021 PLJ Peshawar 16, 2021 YLR 736, 2020 PHC 528 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State2021 MLD 307, 2020 PHC 336 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salam & 04 others vs The State etc2020 KLR Criminal Cases 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadeeq vs The State2020 MLD 448 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-01
  narcotic smugglingrecovery contradictionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealchain of custodyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court for the possession of 150 kilograms of charas, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence presented. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the recovery process, the presence of an official vehicle, the source of the weighing scale, and the chain of custody of the seized contraband. Furthermore, the court noted the failure to establish the appellant's ownership or control over the vehicle, as no driving license or vehicle documents were seized. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that multiple material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses create significant doubt, and where the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the benefit of such doubt must be extended to the accused, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure by the prosecution to establish the chain of custody for narcotic samples entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when material contradictions exist between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery process?
  • Is the failure to produce ownership documents or a driving license for a vehicle used in a drug smuggling case fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs State2020 MLD 2022, 2020 PHC 256 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State and others2020 MLD 1595, 2020 PHC 320 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and another vs The State2020 PHC 326 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim Shah and others vs Muhammad Ghamash and others2020 [M] C L R 1383 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Jamroz Khan and another2020 YLR 669 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-16
  murder appealcircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtdelayed forensic analysisdoubtful recoveryhearsay evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of his sister and another person, resulting in life imprisonment on two counts. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through direct or circumstantial evidence, and whether the alleged recovery of the weapon and the ocular account were trustworthy. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case as the ocular witnesses were not actually eye-witnesses, the FIR was based on hearsay, the arrest and recovery of the crime weapon from the accused's house soon after the occurrence appeared unnatural and doubtful, and an eleven-day delay in sending the weapon and empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory broke the chain of circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and extended the benefit of doubt by acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can secure a conviction for a capital charge solely on circumstantial evidence without establishing an unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime empties and a recovered weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the recovery doubtful?
  • Whether a conviction can be sustained when the initial report is based on hearsay and the designated star witnesses do not support the prosecution's ocular account?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery made from an accused person's house shortly after the alleged occurrence under unnatural circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid Khan vs Inspector General of Prisons, Khyber2021 MLD 232, 2020 PHC 344 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamran vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 452 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-20
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscontraband recoveryindependent witnessprohibitory limbtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Section 9-B of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 400 grams of contraband. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the nature of the offence. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, primarily because the investigation was complete, the petitioner was a first offender, and there was no independent witness associated with the recovery of the contraband. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence charged did not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as the potential punishment is less than ten years. The key principle laid down is that while Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, may not strictly apply to narcotics cases due to Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the absence of independent witnesses remains a significant factor in assessing the strength of the prosecution's case at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics recovery case entitle an accused to bail?
  • Does the non-applicability of the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make the grant of bail a rule?
  • Is the association of private witnesses required for the recovery of contraband under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs Jamshed Khan2020 PLD Peshawar 163, 2020 PHC 60 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jan etc vs Roshan Gul etc2021 CLC 68, 2020 PHC 360 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaffar Khan vs The State2020 PHC 108, 2020 CLD 950, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1188 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr son of Siraj alias Wali Muhammad, R/o Marghuz, District2020 PHC 272 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Sahib Zada and 9 others2021 CLC 483, 2020 PHC 330 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan vs The State & another2021 P Cr. LJ 195, 2020 PHC 224 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-15
  post-arrest bailraperule of consistencytentative assessmentdelay in FIRnon-compoundable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Irfan, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 376/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 53 of the Child Protection Act, involving allegations of rape. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, particularly given the delay in reporting the FIR, negative DNA results, and the fact that a co-accused had been granted bail following a compromise. The Court held that the petition was devoid of merit and dismissed the bail application. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was directly charged in a daylight occurrence, and the delay in reporting was natural given the sensitive nature of the offence involving the victim's honour. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the ruptured hymen supported the prosecution's case. The Court clarified that the rule of consistency did not apply because no compromise had been effected with the petitioner, and the offence was non-compoundable. The Court affirmed that bail proceedings require only a tentative assessment of evidence rather than a deeper appreciation of the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications where a co-accused has been released on the basis of a compromise in a non-compoundable offence?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR in a rape case sufficient ground to grant bail?
  • What is the scope of evidence appreciation by a court while deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs Sardar Muhammad Asif, Aag2021 MLD 877, 2020 PHC 300 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-27
  post-arrest bailattempted murdernon-vital part injuryfurther inquirypersonal libertytentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by Muhammad Idrees, who was charged under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the complainant sustained injuries to a non-vital part of the body and the absence of recorded eyewitness statements. The Court held that the case required further inquiry, particularly regarding the applicability of Section 324 PPC and the potential for Ta'azir punishment under Section 337 N(2) PPC. The Court emphasized that bail is a change of custody rather than an acquittal and that curtailing personal liberty is a serious judicial step requiring careful assessment. The holding established that where injuries are inflicted on non-vital body parts and the accused is not a previous convict, the case warrants further probe, thereby justifying the grant of bail. The Court further clarified that observations made during bail proceedings are tentative and must not influence the trial court's independent appraisal of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the infliction of firearm injuries on a non-vital part of the body constitute grounds for further inquiry regarding the intent to commit Qatl-e-Amd?
  • Is the absence of recorded eyewitness statements a relevant factor in determining the entitlement to post-arrest bail?
  • Do observations made by a High Court in a bail order bind the trial court during the subsequent trial of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Shakeel Ahmad etc2020 PLD Peshawar 179, 2020 PHC 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →