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.

• Muhammad Hanif through legal heirs vs Watan Nabi and 33 others2020 MLD 75 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal vs The State and others2020 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21
  judicial confessioncircumstantial evidenceretracted confessioncriminal appealmurdersentence enhancementforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the crime weapon and a judicial confession recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained based on a retracted confession and circumstantial evidence, and whether the sentence warranted enhancement as requested by the complainant. The Court held that the judicial confession was voluntary, free from coercion, and corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports. The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no grounds for interference or enhancement. The judgment establishes that a judicial confession, when recorded with strict adherence to procedural safeguards and corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence, constitutes sufficient proof for conviction, even if subsequently retracted at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on a retracted judicial confession if it is corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence?
  • What procedural safeguards must a Magistrate follow to ensure a judicial confession is voluntary?
  • Does the absence of eye-witnesses preclude a conviction in a murder case where other incriminating evidence exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs State and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 728 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-28
  murderbenefit of the doubthearsay evidencemental illnessschizophreniaabscondencemedical evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife. The core legal questions involve the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the legal effect of a murder occurring inside the accused's house, the evidentiary value of a previous plea of guilt made while suffering from mental illness, and the reliability of recoveries and abscondence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the primary witnesses were not eyewitnesses, the recovery of the weapon from an accessible crime scene was inconclusive, and a plea of guilt made during a period of chronic schizophrenia was unreliable. The court laid down that in the absence of direct or substantial evidence, a conviction cannot be sustained merely on account of the failure to explain a murder occurring inside one's house, and that medical evidence and abscondence cannot cure inherent defects in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the accused's failure to explain a murder committed inside his house in the absence of direct or substantial evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a plea of guilt made by an accused person who was suffering from mental illness and unfit to plead during trial?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused remedy inherent defects and gaps in the prosecution's case?
  • Can medical evidence alone identify the assailant or connect an accused to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State2020 PHC 302 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf & another vs The State etc2021 MLD 202, 2020 PHC 348 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam and 6 others vs Senior Member Board Of Revenue and 28 others2020 PLJ Peshawar 101, 2020 PLD Peshawar 101 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zill-e-Huma vs Secretary Education (Higher Education) College &2020 PLC (C.S.) 45, 2019 PHC 194 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-27
  constitutional petitionservice rulesqualification criteriareasonable classificationprinciple of discriminationassociate professorpublic service commission
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the requirement of eleven years of experience for the post of Associate Professor under the Directorate of Higher Education as advertised by the Public Service Commission, arguing discrimination because a related post under the Directorate of Commerce Education & Management Sciences required only five years of experience. The core legal questions were whether different qualification criteria across different government directorates constitute unconstitutional discrimination, and whether an advertisement criteria based on statutory service rules can be challenged without challenging the rules themselves. The Peshawar High Court held that different departments can prescribe distinct qualification and experience criteria based on their specific functional requirements, constituting a reasonable classification with an intelligible differentia, and that the petitioner could not challenge the advertisement criteria without challenging the underlying service rules. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prescribing different experience criteria for similar posts in different government directorates amounts to unconstitutional discrimination?
  • Can qualification and experience criteria provided in an employment advertisement be challenged without challenging the underlying service rules?
  • Whether the guarantee of equal treatment under the law mandates identical treatment for all public sector employees regardless of departmental differences?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmeen Gul vs Muhammad Zubair and 02 others2020 PLD Peshawar 173, 2020 PHC 132 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Bibi alias Sharjika Bibi vs The State etc2021 YLR 777, 2020 PHC 238 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaista Gul d/o Muhammad Zafar Ali, r/o Khema, Union Council2020 PHC 24 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Shabana Younas & others vs Chief Secretary, Govt: of Khyber2021 PLJ Peshawar 39, 2020 PHC 506 · Peshawar High Court
  service appealabatement of proceedingslegal representativespensionary benefitsconstitutional jurisdictionproportionalitycivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, legal representatives of a deceased civil servant, challenged the removal of their predecessor from service after his death caused the abatement of his pending service appeal. The core legal questions were whether the cause of action for service-related benefits survives the death of a civil servant and whether the High Court possesses constitutional jurisdiction to entertain such a petition when the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over legal heirs. The Court held that the right to pensionary benefits is not purely personal and survives the death of the civil servant; therefore, the proceedings do not abate. Furthermore, because the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to civil servants, the High Court may exercise constitutional jurisdiction to provide a remedy where none exists. The Court found the removal order procedurally improper and disproportionate, noting the department concealed the deceased's serious medical condition from the competent authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the removal order and remanded the matter for the determination of pensionary benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of a civil servant during the pendency of a service appeal cause the cause of action to abate?
  • Can legal heirs of a deceased civil servant approach the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction when the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain their claim?
  • Is the removal of a civil servant for absence from duty disproportionate when the department was aware of the civil servant's serious medical condition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sana Gul and 3 others vs Usman Khan and 2 others2020 YLR 1850 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safina Shah vs The State etc2021 YLR 1135, 2020 PHC 486 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia Basri vs Abdul Waheed2020 YLR 1019 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrata vs Govt2020 PLC (C.S.) 1046, 2020 PHC 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-06
  Shuhada PackageFrontier ConstabularyShaheed definitioncommencement of leavedeath compensationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the widow of a deceased sepoy of the Frontier Constabulary, who was gunned down by militants on the day he was granted casual leave, seeking the grant of the Shuhada Package. The core legal question was whether an employee killed on the exact day casual leave was granted, prior to its legal commencement under the rules, falls within the definition of 'Shaheed' under the Payment of Compensation Rules, 2014. The Peshawar High Court held that according to Rule 27 of the Civil Servants Rules, 1986, leave commences from the day following the day charge is handed over, meaning the deceased was still on bona fide government duty on the day of the incident. The court ruled that the deceased qualified as 'Shaheed' and allowed the petition, directing respondents to award compensation in accordance with the applicable schedule.

  Questions settled

  • When does the period of casual leave officially commence for a civil servant or member of a uniformed force under the Civil Servants Rules, 1986?
  • Does an employee killed on the same day casual leave is granted qualify as 'Shaheed' under the Payment of Compensation Rules, 2014?
  • Are the heirs of a Frontier Constabulary sepoy killed by militants while technically on duty entitled to the Shuhada Package and death compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noreen Gul vs Govt.2020 PHC 318 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor-ul-Sahar & Anabiya Tahir Khan vs Tahir Naqash Khan Khattak2021 CLC 374, 2020 PHC 368 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Najm-un-Nisa vs Govt. of KP through Secretary Education2021 PLC (C.S. ) 434, 2020 PHC 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-19
  constitutional petitionpermanent residencemarried woman domicileCNIC permanent addressteacher appointmentunion council quota
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, addresses the eligibility of married women applying for posts of Primary School Teachers (PST) on a union council basis, where the criteria require candidates to be permanent residents of the specific union council. The core legal question revolves around determining the permanent place of residence of a married woman for public employment when her Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) reflects her husband's residence versus her prior domicile. The Peshawar High Court held that the permanent place of residence of a married woman before entering service is deemed to be that of her husband, and the entry in her CNIC serves as evidence of her permanent residence, irrespective of whether the CNIC was updated after the job advertisement. The court established that a married woman normally follows the domicile or permanent residence of her husband during the subsistence of the marriage for the purpose of such appointments.

  Questions settled

  • What is the determinative factor for the permanent place of residence of a married woman applying for a government post on a union council basis?
  • Does a married woman normally follow the domicile or permanent residence of her husband during the subsistence of the marriage?
  • Can a candidate rely on a CNIC updated after the publication of a job advertisement to claim permanent residence in a specific union council?
  • Does the fundamental right to reside and settle in any part of Pakistan under Article 15 of the Constitution override local residency criteria for public employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Lala Rukh Yousafzai vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PLC (C.S.) 198 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-13
  disabled quotaappointmentmerit listlocus poenitentiaeblindnesseducational qualificationcut-off dateconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a visually impaired candidate, challenged the refusal of her appointment as a Secondary School Teacher (S.S.T.) despite topping the merit list under the disabled quota. The respondents justified the rejection on two grounds: the petitioner’s blindness rendered her incapable of performing teaching duties, and her Master’s degree was acquired after the application cut-off date. The core legal questions concerned whether blindness constitutes an automatic disqualification for teaching and whether qualifications obtained after an application cut-off date can be considered for merit evaluation. The Court held that blindness per se is not a hindrance to teaching, and in the absence of expert evidence, such an objection is invalid. Furthermore, where rules are silent, additional marks for higher qualifications obtained before the actual evaluation of candidature are permissible. While the Court set aside the impugned order, it invoked the principle of locus poenitentiae to protect the appointment of the already-appointed respondent, directing the authorities to appoint the petitioner to the post. The judgment establishes that disability is not an inherent bar to employment and that merit evaluation should account for qualifications held at the time of assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Does blindness per se constitute a valid ground for disqualifying a candidate from a teaching position?
  • Can a candidate be awarded additional marks for a higher degree obtained after the application cut-off date but before the evaluation of candidature?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect the appointment of a candidate already in service despite the selection process being found flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom Bibi vs Javed Iqbal and others2020 YLR 2224 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Bano vs Mst. Asia Khatoon2021 PLJ Peshawar 1, 2020 PHC 496, 2021 CLC 855 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gul Sanga etc vs The State & others2021 P Cr.LJ 66, 2020 PHC 66 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fozia Inayat and 35 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PHC 418, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 341 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-16
  Class-IV appointmentsbackdoor entrypublic advertisementEmployment Exchangelocus poenitentiaecivil servantslocal council service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by the petitioners to challenge the appointments of private respondents (respondents No. 13 to 155) to various Class-IV and other low-scale posts in the Tehsil Municipal Administration. The petitioners contended that the appointments were made without any public advertisement or requisition from the District Employment Exchange, in violation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules 1989 and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Council Servants Rules 1980. The official respondents admitted that no advertisement was published and no requisition was made, but argued that the employees were not civil servants and thus not bound by those rules. The Peshawar High Court held that the rules of 1989 and the notifications of 2008 apply to local council recruitments in the absence of explicit local policies. The Court ruled that backdoor appointments made without public advertisement or employment exchange registration violate the constitutional guarantee of equality and freedom of profession under Article 18. Consequently, the Court set aside the appointments and directed a fresh selection process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether initial recruitment to Class-IV posts in local government can be lawfully made without public advertisement or registration with the District Employment Exchange?
  • Can the principle of locus poenitentiae be invoked to protect public employment appointments obtained in violation of the prescribed statutory procedure?
  • Do the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules 1989 apply to local council servants in matters not specifically provided for in their own service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farzana vs The State2020 MLD 49 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-07-31
  narcoticsconscious possessioncriminal appealevidentiary gapsrecovery proceedingsacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II/Judge Special Court, Takht Bhai, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 15,000 grams of charas. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and whether the mere presence of the appellant in a vehicle containing contraband constitutes sufficient evidence of conscious possession. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to significant evidentiary gaps, including the failure to independently weigh each packet of contraband and inconsistencies regarding the timing of the raid and the recovery process. Furthermore, the court emphasized that mere presence in a vehicle is insufficient to establish criminal liability without proof of conscious knowledge of the illicit activity. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered her immediate release, reiterating the principle that the prosecution must prove its case through reliable, confidence-inspiring evidence to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an individual in a vehicle containing contraband constitute sufficient evidence of conscious possession to sustain a conviction?
  • Is it mandatory for the prosecution to weigh each packet of recovered contraband independently in narcotics cases?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce evidence regarding the specific recovery process create a reasonable doubt requiring acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farhat Imam vs Sajid Nazif2020 CLC 1874, 2020 CLC 1878, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 121, 2020 PHC 158 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Dilara Bibi vs The State through-General, Kyber Pakhtunkhwa and another2020 MLD 949 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Basri Irshad vs Touqir Hayat & others2021 YLR 1267, 2020 PHC 188 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst Safeena Shah vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 668, 2020 PHC 488 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-22
  bailcash securitysuretyunder-trial prisonerpersonal bondbank guarantee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed by an under-trial prisoner seeking permission to deposit cash security in lieu of furnishing bail bonds, following a previous grant of bail. The core legal question was whether the Court has the authority to order cash security under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while Section 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not authorize a Court to demand cash security of its own motion, it permits the Court to accept such a request if made by the accused, particularly when the accused faces genuine difficulty in arranging local sureties. The Court emphasized that the statutory language 'permit him to deposit' implies that cash security is an enabling provision for the accused's benefit rather than a coercive power of the Court. Consequently, the Court allowed the applicant to deposit the surety amount in cash, provided she also furnished a personal bond and a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the relevant Judicial Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 authorize a Court to demand cash security from an accused?
  • Under what circumstances can a Court permit an accused to deposit cash security instead of furnishing bail bonds?
  • Can a Court order the deposit of cash security on its own motion?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst Nargis Begum vs Asfandyar2020 PHC 476 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-15Read full judgment →
• Mst Farah Deeba vs Said Muhammad alias Toti2021 MLD 580, 2020 PHC 248 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mst Bibi Roza vs Wali ur Rehman2021 CLC 746, 2020 PHC 416 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-12Read full judgment →
• Mr. Taj Ali Khan & others vs Dr. Khalid Mahmood2020 CLC 1840, 2020 PHC 260 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-28Read full judgment →
• Momin vs The State and another2020 KLR Criminal Cases 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07
  juvenile justiceunnatural offencespecial law versus general lawoverriding effectframing of chargechild protectionde-novo trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Juvenile Court convicting the appellant under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for sodomy committed against a minor. The core legal question revolves around whether the trial court erred in framing the charge under the Pakistan Penal Code instead of the special provincial legislation, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010. The Peshawar High Court held that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 is a special law possessing an overriding effect under Section 61, which prevails over the general provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 unless the latter is more protective. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter for a de-novo trial with directions to properly frame the charge under the applicable special law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 override the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in cases involving offences against children?
  • What is the effect of framing a charge under a general law when a special law is applicable?
  • Can an appellate court remand a matter for a de-novo trial due to a defective charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Misal Khan vs Directorate of Industries & others2020 PHC 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Riaz and other vs Mst. Marhaba and others2020 MLD 1436, 2020 PHC 200 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mian Latif Shah vs Munir Khan and another2021 CLC 650, 2020 PHC 410 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-22Read full judgment →
• Mian Din Muhammad and others vs Mst. Zaitoon and others2020 YLR 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sham Wedding Hall vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PTD 2063 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Meher Taj vs Ajmal Khan and 7 others2020 MLD 1948 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
• Meher Shah Bacha vs Anjam Ali Khan2020 CLC 286 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mehboob-ur-Rehman etc vs the State & another2021 YLR 1560, 2020 PHC 280 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-08Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Shah vs Sardar Ali Khan and 10 others2020 YLR 2073, 2020 PHC 116 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mazullah Khan vs Mst. Taraja Begum and others2020 YLR 2206, 2020 PHC 98 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
• Master Ali son of Matlab Khan R/O Chamkot Hayaserai, Tehsil Lal Qilla,2020 PHC 536 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mardan Institute of Sciences vs Vice-Chancellor Abdul Wali Khan2020 MLD 1745, 2020 PHC 136 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mangal vs Taj Muhammad & another2020 PHC 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-02Read full judgment →
• Malik Wajid vs The State & others2020 P Cr. L J 1416, 2020 PHC 118 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-11
  quashment of FIRsui jurisNikahabductionfree consentIslamic jurisprudenceguardian consentwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under Section 365-B/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging the abduction of Mst. Faiza Bibi. The core legal question addressed was whether a sui juris Muslim female possesses the legal capacity to contract a valid marriage without the consent of her Wali (guardian), thereby negating the allegation of abduction. The Peshawar High Court held that a sui juris Muslim female of sound mind has the absolute right to enter into a valid Nikah of her own free will without requiring the consent of her guardian. Relying on established principles of Islamic jurisprudence and precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged victim. Furthermore, given the victim's statement confirming her free-will marriage and the complainant's subsequent compromise, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the quashment of the FIR, emphasizing that the criminal proceedings were no longer sustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sui juris Muslim female contract a valid marriage without the consent of her Wali?
  • Does the free-will marriage of an alleged victim of abduction constitute grounds for the quashment of an FIR?
  • Is the consent of a guardian required for the Nikah of an adult Muslim female under Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Sarfaraz Khan vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and 7 others2020 CLC 1712 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Eftikhar and another vs Syed Abid Hussain and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 646 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-03
  murderocular accountrelated witnessesmedical evidencemotiverecovery of weaponsquantum of sentencemitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Peshawar, convicting the appellants under Sections 302(b)/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing them to life imprisonment and imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the establishment of motive arising from a property dispute, and the corroboration of ocular testimony with medical evidence and weapon recoveries. The Peshawar High Court held that mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render their testimony unreliable if they are natural witnesses, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports of weapon matches. The court affirmed that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, including the motive and recoveries, and that the trial court exercised proper judicial discretion in awarding life imprisonment instead of the death penalty by considering mitigating circumstances. The appeal and the connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of related eye-witnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Does the proof of motive alone suffice for a conviction in a murder case without corroborating ocular evidence?
  • Whether positive forensic matching of crime empties with recovered weapons corroborates the ocular account in a criminal trial?
  • Is the existence of multiple accused persons considered a valid mitigating circumstance for awarding life imprisonment instead of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Malay Khan vs The State & another2021 MLD 379, 2020 PHC 222 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-14Read full judgment →
• Luck Cement vs Govt GM SNGPL2020 CLC 1799, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 131, 2020 PHC 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-23Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector E-35 & others vs Mst. Resham Jan2021 YLR 32, 2020 PHC 212 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-12Read full judgment →
• Lal Sherin vs The State and another2020 PHC 490, 2022 YLR 878 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Laiqat Ali vs Govt of KP2021 PLC (C.S.) 390, 2020 PHC 96 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-23
  regularization of servicecontract employeeunpaid salarieswrit jurisdictionback benefitsservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed on a contract basis, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking regularization of his services from January 21, 2013, with all back benefits, and the release of unpaid salaries from June 2016 onwards. The petitioner alleged that despite continuous service until June 2018, he was denied salary payments and was not treated equally compared to similarly situated employees. Upon reviewing the arguments and the record, the Peshawar High Court noted that the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a judgment dated November 21, 2019, had upheld a previous High Court ruling regarding similar service matters. Consequently, the Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the instant petition directly. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case strictly in accordance with the guidelines and principles established in the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment, ensuring compliance with the settled legal position on the regularization and payment of contract employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court direct the consideration of a service matter in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court?
  • Is a contract employee entitled to seek regularization and unpaid salaries through a writ petition under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Maria Jabeen vs Govt of KP2021 PLC (C.S.) 258, 2020 PHC 428 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-16
  constitutional petitionpublic employmenteligibility criteriacut-off dateamendment of rulesassistant sub-inspectorservice laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by Mst. Maria Jabeen challenging the refusal of the respondent-Department to appoint her as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Female) despite topping the merit list in the written test and interview. The core legal question was whether a candidate must fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria and qualifications on the last date specified in the advertisement, and whether a subsequent amendment to the recruitment rules can render an ineligible candidate eligible. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that eligibility for public employment must be judged strictly with reference to the cut-off date provided in the service rules or the advertisement. The Court laid down the principle that a candidate who does not possess the required qualification on the last date for submitting applications cannot claim a right to appointment based on subsequent amendments to the rules, as doing so would prejudice other potential candidates who refrained from applying due to lack of the originally prescribed qualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the eligibility of a candidate for public employment is to be determined with reference to the last date specified in the advertisement?
  • Does a subsequent amendment to recruitment rules confer a right of appointment on a candidate who was unqualified on the last date for submission of applications?
  • Can a candidate who lacked the prescribed educational qualification at the inception be considered for public appointment based on subsequent relaxation or rule changes?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Shahzada vs Muhammad Israr and others2020 CLC 1491 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-26Read full judgment →
• Khan Bahadur and others vs Mir Abdul Qayyum and another2020 CLC 893 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-27Read full judgment →
• Khan Afsar vs The State etc2020 PHC 338 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-14Read full judgment →
• Khair-ud-din vs Mst. Sabiha and others2021 PLD Peshawar 85, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 25, 2020 PHC 524 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-22Read full judgment →
• Khadim Nabi vs Rasheed Ur Rehman and another2020 P Cr. L J 433 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-02
  murderdeath sentence enhancementocular accountrelated witnessesmotivemitigating circumstancescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, with a cross-petition seeking enhancement to the death penalty. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony from related and interested witnesses, the evidentiary value of unverified crime empties, and the existence of mitigating circumstances to warrant a lesser sentence than death in a premeditated murder. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of related eye-witnesses, being natural, prompt, and consistent, was reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction without strict corroboration, and that a land dispute motive established pre-planning and the absence of mitigating circumstances. The court dismissed the appellant's appeal, allowed the complainant's revision petition, and enhanced the sentence from imprisonment for life to the normal penalty of death. The key principles laid down include that a related witness is not necessarily an interested witness if natural to the occurrence, and that the absence of mitigating circumstances in a pre-planned murder warrants the normal penalty of death.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of related or interested eye-witnesses if their statements inspire confidence?
  • Whether the absence of forensic reports regarding crime empties is fatal to the prosecution case when trustworthy ocular testimony is available?
  • Does a pre-planned land dispute and indiscriminate firing by the accused preclude the finding of mitigating circumstances for awarding a lesser sentence than death?
  • What are the legal requirements for an appellate court to enhance a sentence of life imprisonment to the normal penalty of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Kausar Ali Shah vs Regional Police Officer and others2020 PLD Peshawar 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-22Read full judgment →
• Kashif vs The State & another2021 MLD 493, 2020 PHC 240 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-31Read full judgment →
• Karim Dad vs Mst. Sharifzadgai2021 MLD 642, 2020 PHC 316 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-08Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ullah vs The State and another2020 MLD 153 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-16
  post-arrest bailSection 380 PPCSection 411 PPCprohibitory clauseunwitnessed crimesource of informationfurther inquiryrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by Karamat Ullah seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 380, 411, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an unwitnessed theft at a shop. The core legal questions pertained to whether an accused is entitled to bail when named in an FIR without the complainant disclosing the source of information, where no recovery is made directly from the accused, and where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition and granted bail. The Court held that the complainant failed to disclose the source of satisfaction or information for nominating the accused in an unwitnessed occurrence, and the recovered items were handed over by the petitioner's brother rather than recovered from the petitioner's personal possession or pointation. Furthermore, the offences did not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Cr.P.C., where grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail when nominated in an FIR for an unwitnessed occurrence without the complainant disclosing the source of information and satisfaction?
  • Does the recovery of incriminating articles from a relative of the accused, rather than from his personal possession or pointation, disentitle the accused to bail?
  • Whether post-arrest bail should generally be granted as a rule when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Ali vs Amanullah & others2020 MLD 1753, 2020 PHC 86 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →
• Kamil Khan vs Govtt: of KPK through Secretary & others2021 PLJ Peshawar 21, 2020 PHC 520 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Ullah son of Mir Aslam Khan, r/o village Bar Ghazi Kalan, District2020 PHC 530 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kaleem Anwar vs The State etc2020 PHC 334 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-11Read full judgment →
• Kausar Ali Shah vs Rpo etc2020 PHC 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-21Read full judgment →
• Jehangir vs The State etc2020 PHC 460 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-12Read full judgment →
• Jehangir Khan through Attorney vs Mst. Saeeda Begum and 2 others2020 YLR 2350 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs The State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-19Read full judgment →
• Jamshed vs Noor Hayat2021 CLC 637, 2020 PHC 414 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-22Read full judgment →
• Jabir Ali Shah son of Amjad Ali Shah, r/o Panj Pir District Swabi vs The State2020 PHC 398 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-02Read full judgment →
• Ismail son of Muhammad Khitab, r/o Afghanistan, presently Ghafoor Abad2020 PHC 356 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-29Read full judgment →
• Ismail Khan and 08 others vs Mst. Shahnaz Begum and 07 others2021 YLR 703, 2020 PHC 446 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-30Read full judgment →
• Islam-ud-Din & others vs Mst Haji Begum & others2020 PHC 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Irshad Khan son of Enayat Ullah Khan r/o Mohallah Gul Bacha Wadpaga,2020 PLD Peshawar 154, 2020 PHC 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02
  juvenile justicecriminal trialspecial courtchild protectionjurisdictionjuvenile offenderchild at risk
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged an order refusing to transfer the trial of a juvenile accused from a Special Court constituted under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection & Welfare Act, 2010, to a Juvenile Court established under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The core legal question was whether a juvenile accused of committing an offense against an adult falls under the jurisdiction of the 2010 Act or the 2018 Act. The Court held that the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 governs the criminal justice system for juveniles accused of offenses, whereas the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection & Welfare Act, 2010 is designed for the protection and welfare of 'children at risk' (victims). Consequently, the Court ruled that offenses committed by a juvenile against an adult are triable by a Juvenile Court under the 2018 Act, not the 2010 Act. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was ordered to be transferred to the appropriate Juvenile Court for further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a juvenile accused of an offense against an adult is triable by a Juvenile Court under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018?
  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection & Welfare Act, 2010 apply to the trial of a juvenile accused of an offense against an adult?
  • What is the distinction between a 'juvenile' under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 and a 'child at risk' under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection & Welfare Act, 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqra Salim daughter of Muhammad Salim Khan, r_o Bazar Garhi Chamkani, District, Peshawar vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief Secretary and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 936, 2020 PHC 404 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-10
  termination from servicenatural justiceright of hearingmedical officerswrit petitioncolourable exercise of powerback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, medical officers at Lady Reading Hospital (MTI), Peshawar, challenged their termination orders issued after they handed over their RFID attendance cards to a class-IV employee to swipe while they attended to a critically ill patient. The Peshawar High Court addressed the core question of whether public employees can be terminated through unilateral orders without a show cause notice, opportunity of hearing, or inquiry for minor attendance irregularities. Holding that the petitioners were present on duty and that the termination was a punitive measure taken without codal formalities or natural justice, the Court set aside the termination orders as illegal, unlawful, void ab initio, and the result of a colourful exercise of power. The key principle laid down is that major penalties such as termination cannot be imposed without adhering to principles of natural justice, conducting a proper inquiry, and providing the affected employee an opportunity of being heard.

  Questions settled

  • Whether public employees can be terminated from service without a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does handing over an attendance card to another person while present on duty warrant termination from service?
  • Whether an inquiry conducted after the issuance of a termination order satisfies the requirements of due process?
  • Are termination orders passed without following codal formalities and rules considered void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Rabbani and 3 others vs Noor-ul-Ain and 2 others2020 [M] C L R 1063 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-05Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Khan and another vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 202 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-04-10
  narcotic traffickingcriminal appealSection 342 examinationprocedural irregularityforensic analysisacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged trafficking of narcotics. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the trial court's conviction given the vague framing of charges, the failure to confront the accused with incriminating evidence during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and procedural irregularities regarding the forensic testing of seized samples. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that a trial court must frame charges with precision and that the examination of an accused under Section 342 is a fundamental requirement of the doctrine of audi alteram partem, necessitating that all incriminating evidence be confronted to the accused. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the unexplained deviation from mandatory procedures for sending samples to the nearest laboratory, coupled with the lack of evidence regarding the qualifications of the report signatories, created fatal gaps in the prosecution's case, entitling the appellants to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to confront an accused with incriminating evidence during an examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a conviction?
  • Is a trial court required to specify the individual roles of co-accused when framing charges in a narcotics case?
  • Does the unexplained failure to send narcotic samples to the nearest available laboratory constitute a procedural defect sufficient to create doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ali Shah & another vs The State & anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1219, 2020 PHC 142 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ikramullah vs The State etc2020 PHC 354, 2022 YLR 1450 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-22Read full judgment →
• Ikram Shah vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau and five others2020 P Cr.L J 1594, 2020 PHC 128 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-11
  National Accountability Bureauforfeiture of propertycorruption convictionassets beyond meanswrit jurisdictioncriminal sentenceset-off
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the forfeiture proceedings initiated by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against the petitioner. The petitioner, previously convicted for corruption, argued that his payment of the imposed fine should preclude the state from confiscating his properties. The core legal question was whether the payment of a fine, imposed as part of a criminal sentence, automatically absolves a convict from a separate, independent sentence of property forfeiture, or if the 'set-off' provision allows for the retention of forfeited assets. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the forfeiture of properties and the payment of a fine are distinct, independent sentences under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Court affirmed that the 'set-off' provision only permits the recovery of unpaid fines from forfeited assets and does not serve as a mechanism to reclaim property already forfeited due to being acquired beyond known sources of income. Consequently, the forfeiture order remains a valid, enforceable penalty regardless of the subsequent payment of the fine.

  Questions settled

  • Are the sentences of fine and forfeiture of property under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, independent of each other?
  • Does the payment of a fine imposed under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, automatically nullify a separate order for the forfeiture of assets?
  • Can the 'set-off' provision in the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, be utilized to prevent the execution of a forfeiture order for assets acquired beyond known sources of income?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Hussain son of Gulab Hussain, Ex-Alm Pabbi No.1 Sub-Division2021 P Cr. L J 1250, 2020 PHC 454 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-13
  plea bargainNational Accountability Ordinancefrivolous litigationlimitation periodcondonation of delaycorruptionappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 challenges an Accountability Court order that approved the appellant's plea bargain regarding corruption charges involving the supply of sub-standard transformers. The core legal questions concern whether the appeal is time-barred and whether the plea bargain was entered into voluntarily without coercion. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding it hopelessly time-barred as it was filed eight months after the impugned order, without any application for condonation of delay. Furthermore, the Court found the plea bargain was voluntary, noting the appellant had paid the agreed amount and failed to retract the plea during proceedings. The Court emphasized that a party cannot engage in frivolous, vexatious litigation to challenge a valid plea bargain after benefiting from it, and that limitation periods apply strictly even against alleged void orders unless properly justified. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs of one million rupees on the appellant for wasting judicial time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 is maintainable if it is filed beyond the statutory limitation period without an application for condonation of delay?
  • Can a plea bargain agreement be challenged on the grounds of coercion if the accused voluntarily paid the agreed amount and failed to retract the plea during trial proceedings?
  • Does a court have the authority to impose costs on a party for initiating frivolous and vexatious litigation after benefiting from a plea bargain?
  Read full judgment →
• Hospital Director Ath, Mti Abbottabad vs Mujahid Ahmad2021 MLD 1452, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1419, 2020 PHC 314 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-30Read full judgment →
• Hina Khan & others vs Registrar University of Swat & others2020 PHC 20 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-18Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ullah son of Nusrat Khan, r/o Karapa Samana District Hangu vsPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 683, 2020 PHC 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-28Read full judgment →
• Hayat Ullah Khan vs SMBR, Peshawar2020 PHC 64, 2020 YLR 1776 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-17Read full judgment →
• Hashim Ali vs The State2021 MLD 1113, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1227, 2020 PHC 156 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-21Read full judgment →
• Haris Malik vs The State2020 MLD 1724, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1207, 2020 PHC 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Hanifullah alias Pentar & 4 others vs The State etc2021 YLR 899, 2020 PHC 466 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-01Read full judgment →
• Haji Turab vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 408, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1255, 2020 PHC 74 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-01
  post-arrest bailanti-terrorismproscribed organizationfund raisingfurther inquiryprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Sections 11-N and 11-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for allegedly collecting funds and soliciting support for a proscribed organization. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the charges and the evidence available. The court held that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court observed that, aside from the complainant's statement, there was no prima facie incriminating evidence to connect the petitioner to the offence, thereby warranting further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted bail, emphasizing that bail is not an acquittal but a change of custody, and that these findings were based on a tentative assessment for the purpose of the bail petition only, without prejudice to the trial court's independent appraisal of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of fund-raising for a proscribed organization under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the absence of incriminating evidence beyond the complainant's statement sufficient to warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the grant of bail constitute an acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Sher Zaman vs Govt2020 CLD 1232, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 143, 2020 PHC 310 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Pervez s/o Abdul Malik, r/o Mohallah Akhunzadgan, Ternab, Tehsil &2021 CLC 1114, 2020 PHC 482 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Mukaram Khan vs Haji Badshah Khan & others2020 CLC 1286, 2020 PHC 22 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Mohammad Riaz & another vs Khalid Mehmood Abbasi & others2020 PHC 432 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Bahadar Khan vs Habib Ahmad and others2021 CLC 114, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 47, 2020 PHC 494 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-21Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Abdul Salam vs Hassan Din2020 YLR 2297, 2020 PHC 214 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-12
  ex parte decreecourt auction saleauction purchasersetting aside saleOrder XXI CPCbona fide purchaserrestitutioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a long-standing property dispute involving a mortgage executed in 1961, an ex parte preliminary and final decree obtained by the mortgagees/decree-holders, and a subsequent court auction sale in 1971. The auction-purchasers later sold the suit property to a third party. Thereafter, the judgment-debtor successfully had the ex parte decree set aside, leading lower courts to invalidate the court auction sale and subsequent transfers on the premise that setting aside the underlying decree automatically nullified all execution proceedings. The Peshawar High Court examined whether an execution sale of immovable property, followed by confirmation and issuance of an auction sale certificate, becomes automatically invalid to the detriment of an auction-purchaser or bona fide transferee merely because the decree is subsequently set aside. The High Court held that the Code of Civil Procedure provides an exclusive mechanism (Order XXI, Rules 89–91) for setting aside execution sales. In the absence of an order under those provisions, an execution sale does not automatically collapse upon reversal of the decree. The revision was partially allowed, setting aside the lower courts' rulings to the extent of invalidating the auction sale, while reserving liberty for the judgment-debtor to file an application under Order XXI CPC.

  Questions settled

  • Does the setting aside of an ex parte decree automatically invalidate a court auction sale conducted in execution of that decree without resorting to Order XXI Rules 89 to 91 CPC?
  • Does the title of an auction-purchaser of immovable property relate back to the date of sale under Section 65 CPC once the sale becomes absolute?
  • Can a judgment-debtor recover property sold in execution to an innocent purchaser merely because the underlying decree was subsequently reversed on appeal or set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulbaz vs The state and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1422, 2020 PHC 286 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-20Read full judgment →