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.

• Gula Jan vs Jan Wali2020 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-19Read full judgment →
• Gul Zameen vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2021 PLD Peshawar 68, 2020 PHC 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-07Read full judgment →
• Gul Rehman vs Government & others2021 MLD 154, 2020 PHC 362 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Rehman & three others vs Federation2020 PLC (C.S) 1529, 2020 PHC 180 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-04
  regularization of servicescontract employeesNational Bank of Pakistanright to livelihoodforced labourdiscriminationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple writ petitions filed by contract employees of the National Bank of Pakistan seeking regularization of their services on the analogy of similarly placed employees whose services had already been regularized by the bank. The core legal question is whether the respondent bank can deny regularization to contract or outsourced employees performing permanent nature jobs, keeping them indefinitely on meager payments, and whether such practice constitutes forced labor and discrimination. The Peshawar High Court held that keeping employees on temporary contracts for indefinite periods for permanent work is a form of forced labor and violates constitutional rights. The court ruled that the petitioners are entitled to regularization from the date of filing their respective writ petitions, with pensionary and long-term benefits calculated from their initial appointments. The key principle laid down is that public institutions cannot exploit workers through artificial contractual arrangements to deny them permanence, livelihood, and equal treatment under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees performing permanent nature jobs in a public institution are entitled to regularization of their services?
  • Does keeping employees on temporary contracts for indefinite periods constitute forced labor and a violation of constitutional rights?
  • From which date are successfully regularized employees entitled to their pensionary and other long-term benefits?
  • Can a public bank deny regularization to its low-paid workers under the pretext of employing them through contractors?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs State through Superintendent District Jail Timergara2020 P Cr. L J 784, 2021 YLR 1302, 2020 PHC 384 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-16
  constitutional petitionconcurrent sentencessection 382-B CrPCmitigating circumstancesremissionjail manualprobation release
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Peshawar High Court through a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by an octogenarian prisoner seeking the concurrent running of his sentences, the grant of the benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and remission of his remaining imprisonment due to old age and infirmity. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court in its constitutional or inherent jurisdiction could order sentences passed in separate trials to run concurrently where previous appellate orders omitted such directions, and how executive remission and probation laws apply to aged, bedridden convicts. The Court held that in the absence of aggravating circumstances and in light of mitigating factors, sentences from different trials can be ordered to run concurrently to prevent miscarriage of justice, and extended the benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. The key principle laid down is that courts take a charitable view in matters affecting life and liberty, and technicalities should not bar substantial justice in extreme hardship cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can order sentences in two different trials to run concurrently in exercise of its constitutional or inherent jurisdiction when the appellate court omitted to do so?
  • Can the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be extended to a convict retrospectively to prevent hardship?
  • What is the scope of executive authorities under the Jail Manual and relevant statutes to consider the release of old, infirm, and bedridden prisoners who have completed substantial terms of imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Mast Khan & others vs Israr & others2021 CLC 776, 2020 PHC 450 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
• Gohar Ali vs Mst. Gulraiza and others2020 YLR 2474 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-01Read full judgment →
• Gohar Ali vs Mst. Gulraiza & others2020 PHC 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Tariq Mahmood & others2021 YLR 1474, 2020 PHC 88 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Shah (Deceased) through L.Rs. and 11 others vs Muhammad Khalid Khan2020 MLD 1017 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
• Ghauso Rehman etc vs State through A.A.G. etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1371 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-12
  appeal against acquittalQatl-i-khatarash and negligent drivingDiyatDamanalteration of chargesuperdari
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment of the Peshawar High Court resolves two criminal appeals arising from the acquittal of an accused charged under Sections 279, 320, 337-G, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding a fatal vehicular collision. The trial court had acquitted the accused on the basis that no eye-witness saw him driving the vehicle. Re-evaluating the evidence, including eye-witness testimony, the site plan, and the accused's application for superdari of the involved vehicle, the High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident. However, the prosecution failed to prove that the driving was rash or negligent beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal, ruling that where rashness or negligence is unproven in a fatal road accident case, the offense falls under Qatl-i-khata under Section 318, PPC, punishable under Section 319, PPC. The Court altered the charge under Section 237, Cr.P.C. and convicted the respondent to pay Diyat and Daman.

  Questions settled

  • Can an acquittal be reversed if the prosecution fails to establish rash and negligent driving in a vehicular accident resulting in death?
  • Whether an accused charged under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be convicted under Section 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the appellate stage using Section 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an application for superdari of a vehicle be used as evidence to establish the accused's possession and driving of the vehicle at the time of an accident?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Mehmood and others vs Arshad Hussain and others2020 CLC 1406, 2020 PHC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-06Read full judgment →
• Fazal Maula vs State2020 P Cr. L J 1524, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 980 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-08
  narcoticschain of custodyforensic analysiscriminal appealacquittalrecovery memosafe custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 4000 grams of charas. The prosecution alleged that the narcotics were recovered from a secret cavity in the appellant's vehicle. Upon review, the Court identified multiple fatal discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including contradictory statements regarding the location of the recovery, the presence of police witnesses, and the timing of the sealing of samples. Crucially, the Court found that the chain of custody for the forensic samples was broken, as there was an unexplained delay and improper handling of the samples before they reached the Forensic Laboratory. Citing the principle that the prosecution must establish an unbroken, secure chain of custody for narcotic samples to sustain a conviction, the Court held that the forensic report could not be relied upon. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted due to the shaky and unreliable nature of the prosecution's evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody of narcotic samples vitiate the reliability of a forensic report?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of narcotics contains material contradictions?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove an unbroken chain of custody for seized narcotics from the point of recovery to the laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Dad and others vs Allah Dad and others2021 CLC 383, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 109, 2020 PHC 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan vs The State, etcPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 692, 2020 PHC 380 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali vs Sani Gul and another2020 MLD 1284 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-10
  criminal appealmurderappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusadverse inferencerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant contradictions in the evidence regarding the place of occurrence, the arrest of the accused, and the recovery of the weapon. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies: the complainant's narrative was contradicted by independent witnesses and the physical evidence, the recovery of the weapon was disputed by police witnesses, and the prosecution failed to produce natural witnesses present at the scene. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution's evidence unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case through consistent, credible evidence, and any significant doubt arising from contradictions or the withholding of best evidence—such as failing to examine natural witnesses—must be resolved in favor of the accused, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine natural witnesses at the scene of the crime warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence regarding the place of occurrence and the recovery of the weapon is internally contradictory?
  • Is the practice of handing over the FIR and murasila to the Investigating Officer at the spot of occurrence contrary to the fundamental principles of criminal justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Farjan Khan vs Kamran Khan and others2020 PHC 386, 2021 PLD Peshawar 29, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 131 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
• Farhan Zaib vs Govt of KPK& others2020 PLC (C.S) 1574, 2020 PHC 244 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-03
  repatriationdeputationparent departmentborrowing departmentvested rightconstitutional petitionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court via a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by the petitioner challenging his repatriation from the Local Council Board back to his parent department, the Galiyat Development Authority. The core legal question revolves around whether a deputationist whose services were placed at the disposal of a borrowing department can claim permanent absorption or a vested right to continue serving in the borrowing department indefinitely, and whether repatriation to the parent department is unlawful. The court held that a deputationist has no vested right to serve the entire period of deputation and can be repatriated to their parent department at any time by the competent authority, and that services cannot be deemed absorbed without explicit lawful orders. The key principle laid down is that deputation is a temporary arrangement and a borrowing department is under no obligation to retain a deputationist, whose repatriation to the parent department causes no legal prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a deputationist has a legal or vested right to serve the entire period of deputation in the borrowing department?
  • Can an employee on deputation be deemed to have been permanently absorbed in the borrowing department without express orders?
  • Whether an order of repatriation of a deputationist to their parent department can be challenged when the borrowing department no longer requires their services?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Shah and others vs Mst Bakhat Bibi and others2021 YLR 803, 2020 PHC 412 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-22Read full judgment →
• Fakhr ud Din and 34 others vs Govt. of KPK through Secretary2021 PLC (C.S.) 632, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 8, 2020 PHC 500 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-01
  writ jurisdictionlachesdelayequitable reliefservice matterdisputed questions of facttermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by thirty-five petitioners seeking the declaration of their termination notifications as illegal and requesting reinstatement into service. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners were entitled to reinstatement despite significant delays in filing the petition and whether the High Court could resolve disputed questions of fact regarding their employment status and termination. The Court held that the petition was unsustainable, noting that the record contradicted the petitioners' claims regarding their job designations and that the petitioners had failed to substantiate their alleged reinstatement. Crucially, the Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of laches, observing that the petitioners had waited approximately six years after their termination in 2013 to seek relief. The Court affirmed the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable, and it cannot be invoked by those who sleep on their rights. Furthermore, the Court held that constitutional jurisdiction is inappropriate for resolving complex, disputed questions of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of laches bar a constitutional petition filed several years after the cause of action arose?
  • Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding employment and termination?
  • Is a party who fails to act with diligence entitled to equitable relief under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Khan vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 471 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-27
  quashment of FIRFIA jurisdictionForeign Exchange Regulation Actcognizable offenceswrit jurisdictioninvestigation process
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, sought the quashment of an FIR registered under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947, alleging that the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) lacked the competence to investigate such offences and questioning the status of the offences as cognizable and non-bailable. The Court examined the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 and the relevant Federal Government notification, confirming that offences under Section 23 of the Act were declared cognizable and non-bailable for the period ending 30th June 2021. Furthermore, the Court held that under the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974, the FIA is statutorily empowered to investigate offences specified in its Schedule, which includes those under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. The Court emphasized that quashing an FIR during the investigation stage, absent exceptional circumstances, would improperly interfere with the investigative process. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner must face the ordinary course of investigation and trial.

  Questions settled

  • Are offences under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 cognizable and non-bailable?
  • Is the Federal Investigation Agency competent to investigate offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
  • Can the High Court quash an FIR during the investigation stage when a cognizable offence is alleged?
  Read full judgment →
• Executive Officer Cantt, Board vs Saadullah Khan2020 PHC 62, 2020 MLD 1469 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad & others vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2020 CLC 2094, 2020 PHC 178 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Amjad Farooq, Senior Registrar Surgical Department, Abbottabad vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary Health, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 6 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 804 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-07
  writ jurisdictionpromotion quotamedical faculty appointmentexperience certificatePM&DC regulationsservice lawestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a Senior Registrar seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Professor (Urology) against a 50% quota reserved for in-service institutional employees. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner possessed the requisite teaching experience as mandated by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) Regulations 2011 and whether he could claim promotion after participating in an open recruitment process for the same post. The Court held that the petitioner’s experience certificates were invalid as they failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Clause 7 of the PM&DC Regulations 2011, which necessitates certification by the Principal or Dean. Furthermore, the Court held that having participated in the open selection process, the petitioner was estopped from claiming the post was reserved for promotion. The judgment affirms the principle that when the law prescribes a specific manner for an act to be performed, it must be done in that precise manner and not otherwise.

  Questions settled

  • Does an experience certificate issued by a Medical Superintendent without the countersignature of the Principal satisfy the requirements of the PM&DC Regulations 2011?
  • Can a candidate who participates in an open recruitment process subsequently claim the post was reserved for promotion?
  • What is the legal consequence when a statute prescribes a specific manner for performing an act?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr Mazhar ul Haq Kaka Khel vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau2021 PLD Peshawar 17, 2020 PHC 422 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-03Read full judgment →
• Doraj etc vs The State2021 MLD 1253, 2020 PHC 284 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-20Read full judgment →
• Director General Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) and 22020 YLR 1869 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-06Read full judgment →
• Dilawar vs Qasim Ali and 2 others2020 YLR 654 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-08
  murdercapital punishmentmitigating circumstanceunproven motivesolitary eyewitnessforensic ballisticscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference 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 death, alongside compensation and default terms. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a solitary and related eyewitness, the sufficiency of a single witness in a capital case without corroboration, and whether an unproven motive can serve as a mitigating circumstance for altering the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness, being natural, trustworthy, and corroborated by medical and positive forensic firearms evidence, was sufficient to maintain the conviction. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive, the court found it to be a mitigating circumstance. The court laid down the principle that while a conviction for a capital charge can be legally sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a single trustworthy eyewitness, the failure of the prosecution to establish the stated motive operates as a mitigating factor warranting the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction in a capital charge be recorded on the basis of the solitary statement of an eyewitness?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Does the close relationship of an eyewitness to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or make them an interested witness in the absence of established ill-will?
  Read full judgment →
• Deedar Gul and 2 others vs Wazir Gulam2020 MLD 238 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-20Read full judgment →
• Dad Mir vs The State2020 MLD 629 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-13
  narcoticspossessioncriminal appealacquittalknowledge of contrabandsentence reductionControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of two appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 100 kilograms of charas found in a vehicle. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the recovery and the appellants' knowledge of the contraband. The Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the driver, Gohar Ali, due to his control over the vehicle, the evidence regarding the quantity of narcotics was discrepant, warranting a reduction in his sentence. Conversely, the Court acquitted the co-appellant, Dad Mir, finding that the prosecution failed to prove he had knowledge of the narcotics concealed beneath marble scrap in the vehicle, as he was merely a passenger who had requested a lift. The key principle laid down is that mere presence in a vehicle containing narcotics is insufficient for conviction; the prosecution must prove the accused had exclusive knowledge or control over the concealed contraband to establish guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an individual in a vehicle containing narcotics constitute sufficient evidence to prove possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is a passenger who has requested a lift in a vehicle liable for narcotics concealed within that vehicle without proof of their knowledge of such concealment?
  • Can discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence regarding the weight of recovered narcotics serve as a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Peshawar Zone, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs Syed Adnan Shah & another2020 PHC 434, 2020 PTD 2151, 2022 PCTLR 645 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-10Read full judgment →
• Collector Sales Tax vs Army Welfare TrustNizampur Cement Plant &2021 PLJ Peshawar 70, 2020 PHC 508, 2021 PTD 130, PTCL 2022 CL 382 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-09Read full judgment →
• Collector Of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Peshawar vs Muhammad Mashhood and others2021 PLJ Peshawar 54, 2020 PTD 1943 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-29Read full judgment →
• Collector Land Acquisition Haripur & another vs Col. Sardar Ahmad Yar2021 CLC 255, 2020 PHC 202 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Peshawar vs Cantonment Board, Peshawar2021 MLD 346, 2021 PLJ Peshawar 79, 2020 PHC 504 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-24Read full judgment →
• Chairman Pwn vs Govt of KP2021 CLC 28, 2020 PHC 342 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-20Read full judgment →
• Bismillah Jan and others vs The State and another2020 YLR 1211 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-06
  common intentionvicarious liabilitymurderrelated witnesschance witnesscriminal appealsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and revision against a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Swat, which convicted four appellants for murder under Section 302(b)/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the co-accused, who were present at the scene and held farming tools, shared a common intention with the principal accused who committed the fatal stabbing. The Court held that while the principal accused's conviction was justified, the co-accused did not share a common intention to kill, as evidenced by their failure to use their weapons despite opportunities during the altercation. The Court established the principle that vicarious liability under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, requires proof of a pre-arranged plan or a common intention that can be inferred from conduct, and mere presence or participation in a scuffle does not automatically establish such liability for a murder committed by a co-accused. Consequently, the Court acquitted the co-accused, dismissed the appeal of the principal accused, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of co-accused at the scene of a crime automatically establish vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the testimony of a related witness be discarded solely on the ground of relationship to the deceased?
  • Under what circumstances can a chance witness's testimony be considered reliable?
  • Is a pre-arranged plan required to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or can it develop at the spur of the moment?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Jan vs The State2021 P Cr. LJ 323, 2020 PHC 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-01
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprostitutionsearch warrantcriminal procedurebail concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Bilal Jan, who was charged under Section 371-AB of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged involvement in the buying/selling of persons for prostitution. The petitioner was apprehended during a police raid at a plaza. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail, noting that the prosecution's case required further inquiry. The Court reasoned that the record lacked evidence of prior complaints, witness statements from the plaza owner, or medical reports to substantiate the charges. Furthermore, the failure to obtain a search warrant rendered the case against the petitioner arguable for bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation and that co-accused had already been granted bail, establishing a precedent for the petitioner's release.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a search warrant in a raid case entitle an accused to the concession of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the prosecution fails to provide evidence of prior complaints or medical reports to substantiate the charges?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when they are no longer required for further investigation and co-accused have already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Bawar Khan vs The State2020 PHC 232 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-06Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs State through A.A.G. and another2020 YLR 1443 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
• Bara Khan vs Rasheeda Ashraf2020 MLD 272 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-14Read full judgment →
• Bakht Munir vs The Govt of KPK & others2021 PLC (C.S.) 913, 2020 PHC 242 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-03
  constitutional petitionlocus poenitentiaefraudulent appointmenttampered testimonialsservice matterrescission of orderprimary school teacher
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment as a Primary School Teacher (PST). The core legal question was whether an appointment order secured through tampered educational testimonials and fraud could be rescinded by the competent authority, and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae barred such withdrawal. The Peshawar High Court held that where an appointment or order is obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or tampering with official records, the exception to the principle of locus poenitentiae applies, and the authority retains the power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to rescind or recall the fraudulent order. The court laid down that fraudulent acts vitiate all solemn transactions and that perpetual rights cannot be claimed on the basis of an illegal or void order secured through fabricated documents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply when an appointment order is secured through fraud or tampered educational testimonials?
  • Can an authority rescind an order under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 if the initial order was obtained unlawfully?
  • Whether an employee can claim vested rights on the basis of a service appointment obtained through fabricated documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahramand Khan & another vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Senior Member Board of Revenue, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others2021 PLD Peshawar 27, 2020 PHC 456 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-15Read full judgment →
• Bahadar and 82 others vs Collector Land Acquisition 13 Others2020 PLJ Peshawar 124, 2021 YLR 84, 2020 PHC 162 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Azmat Ullah vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forestry, Environment & Wildlife, Peshawar etc2020 PHC 16 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ayub Khan etc vs The District Land Acqusition Collector Mardan etc2021 MLD 140, 2020 PHC 358 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
• Ayesha Batool and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary, Higher Education Department, Peshawar and others2020 PHC 208 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs The State2020 PHC 112, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1216, 2021 YLR 1683 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
• Asif vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 656, 2020 PHC 374 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-24Read full judgment →
• Asif Raza Masih vs Mst. Sofia alias Pinky etc2021 PLD Peshawar 41, 2020 PHC 426 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-14Read full judgment →
• Asghar Khan vs SHO PS Saidu Sharif & others2020 YLR 1341, 2020 PHC 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
• Asad vs The State2020 PHC 48 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain vs The State through A.A.G. and 2 others2020 YLR 589 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-18
  criminal appealmurderjuvenile offenderocular evidenceFIRlife imprisonmentmedical evidencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision challenge the conviction and sentence handed down by the trial court for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-mention of an eye-witness in the FIR, minor overwriting in official documents, and the appellant's juvenility. The Court held that the prosecution established guilt through consistent ocular evidence from natural witnesses, which was corroborated by medical evidence. The Court affirmed that the failure to name an eye-witness in the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution's case where the witness is credible. Furthermore, the Court held that minor discrepancies or clerical overwriting in documents are inconsequential when the overall evidence is consistent. Regarding juvenility, the Court ruled that while it is a relevant factor, it does not mandate acquittal or sentence reduction for grave offenses. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were maintained, and the revision for enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to name an eye-witness in the FIR render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Is juvenility of an accused sufficient ground for acquittal or reduction of sentence in a murder case?
  • Does minor overwriting in the FIR and medical reports invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is corroboration required for ocular evidence that is otherwise reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain etc. vs State through Addl. A.G., K.P.K. and othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 383 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-18
  criminal appealocular evidencejuvenile offendermurderFIRmedical evidenceconvictionsentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-mention of eye-witnesses in the First Information Report, alleged procedural irregularities like overwriting in official documents, and the validity of joint pointation for weapon recovery. The court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction and sentence, finding the ocular evidence consistent and corroborated by medical reports. The court held that the non-mention of eye-witnesses in an FIR is not fatal to the prosecution's case if the witnesses are natural and credible. Minor discrepancies in evidence do not warrant acquittal when the core testimony remains consistent. Furthermore, while juvenility is a relevant factor in sentencing, it does not mandate acquittal for grave offenses. The court also clarified that overwriting in official documents, when explained, does not necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case, and that ocular evidence, if reliable, does not require corroboration from circumstantial evidence like weapon recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to name an eye-witness in the First Information Report render their testimony inadmissible or unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence despite minor discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative?
  • Does the juvenility of an accused person constitute sufficient grounds for acquittal in a murder case?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon based on joint pointation of multiple accused legally valid and sufficient for corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan vs Chairman WAPDA, WAPDA House and 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 136 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-06
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitystatutory ruleswrit jurisdictionPESCOpublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court seeking a declaration that the refusal of the respondents to appoint him against the vacant post of Driver was illegal, and prayed for a direction for his appointment. The core legal question addressed was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against the Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO) in the absence of statutory rules or violation of any law or constitutional right. The Court held that PESCO is a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance and lacks statutory rules, and since the petitioner failed to point out the violation of any statutory rules, law, or constitutional right, the constitutional petition was not maintainable. The key principle laid down is that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked against a corporate entity lacking statutory rules when no statutory violation or infringement of a constitutional right is established.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against PESCO in the absence of statutory rules?
  • Can the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked without establishing the violation of a legal or constitutional right?
  • Does the refusal to appoint a person to a post in a non-statutory body give rise to a valid claim under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali vs District Magistrate Dir Upper & others2020 PLD Peshawar 44, 2020 PHC 12 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-05Read full judgment →
• Amshad Ali vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 445 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-12
  narcoticschain of custodybenefit of doubtsafe transmissionchemical examiner reportcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of contraband charas. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the recovered narcotics and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court found significant contradictions in the prosecution's case, including discrepancies in the motorcycle registration number, failure to produce the motorcycle as evidence, and a failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Specifically, the court noted the absence of the official who transmitted the samples and the failure to examine the police official responsible for the Malkhana. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that any break in the chain of custody or lapse in the control of possession of narcotic samples vitiates the reliability of the chemical report and entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution's evidence contains significant contradictions?
  • Must the prosecution produce independent evidence to establish the safe custody of recovered contraband in the police Malkhana?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad vs Waliullah Khayal2020 PLD Peshawar 158 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-06Read full judgment →
• Amin Jan vs The State, etc2020 MLD 1707, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1201, 2020 PHC 144 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-14Read full judgment →
• Aman-Ul-Haq vs State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 P Cr. L J 1263 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-18
  narcotics controlgovernment analystchemical examiner reportmandatory provisionschain of custodyspecial lawconstitutional petitionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of narcotics testing laboratories and the qualifications of Government Analysts in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal question was whether the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, particularly regarding analyst qualifications and reporting protocols, are mandatory, and whether non-compliance invalidates chemical analysis reports used for convictions. The Court held that these provisions are mandatory. It directed the provincial government to appoint qualified analysts meeting the criteria in Rule 3 and to ensure laboratories strictly follow the testing protocols prescribed in Rule 6. The Court established that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as a special law, overrides general provisions like Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, a chemical report failing to adhere to the statutory protocols or prepared by an unqualified person is unreliable and cannot serve as conclusive proof of an offense. The integrity of the chain of custody and strict adherence to statutory rules are essential for the safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, regarding the qualifications of Government Analysts mandatory?
  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, override the general provisions of Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the admissibility of chemical reports?
  • What are the consequences of a failure to follow the testing protocols prescribed in Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Is a chemical analysis report prepared by an unqualified person sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Allaudin vs State through Prosecutor-General NAB, Islamabad and another2020 P Cr. L J 819 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-15
  accountability courtframing of chargecriminal appealcorruption and corrupt practicesdue processremandvague charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and sentence rendered by an Accountability Court under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The appellant, a former Postmaster, was convicted for allegedly embezzling public funds through fake pension arrears. The core legal question is whether a conviction is sustainable when the trial court fails to specify the exact clause of Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, under which the accused is charged, thereby rendering the charge vague. The Court held that the framing of a precise charge is essential to ensure the accused is not misled and can effectively prepare a defense. Because the trial court failed to cite the specific clause of Section 9, the accused was prejudiced in his defense. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for a fresh trial, allowing the parties to decide whether to record new evidence or rely on the existing record after the framing of a specific, legally compliant charge.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction sustainable if the trial court fails to specify the exact clause of Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, under which the accused is charged?
  • What is the legal consequence when an accused is misled in their defense due to a defective or vague charge?
  • Does the failure to specify the exact statutory provision in a charge sheet constitute a material defect requiring the setting aside of a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• All Swat Sabzi Mandi Association through President vs Secretary Local2020 CLC 1955 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-17
  unregistered associationlocus standifreedom of trade and businessNo Objection Certificatevegetable marketlocal governmentconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the orders of the Tehsil Municipal Officer and the Secretary Local Government Khyber Pakhtunkhwa refusing to grant a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and license to an unregistered association for establishing a private vegetable market at a self-selected site in Swat. The core legal questions pertained to the maintainability of a constitutional petition by an unregistered association, the extent of the fundamental right to freedom of trade and business under Article 18, and the authority of local administrations to regulate markets and refuse NOCs based on public interest and environmental feasibility. The Peshawar High Court held that an unregistered association lacks the legal personality and locus standi to institute a writ petition or espouse individual members' grievances. Furthermore, the Court held that the fundamental right to carry on a trade or business under Article 18 is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, licensing systems, and public policy considerations such as environmental impact and urban traffic management. The petition was consequently dismissed as both incompetent and meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unregistered association of persons has the legal capacity and locus standi to maintain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the fundamental right to freedom of trade and business under Article 18 of the Constitution prevent the government from regulating markets through a licensing system?
  • Whether the refusal of a No Objection Certificate for establishing a private market based on environmental unsuitability and traffic concerns constitutes a lawful restriction?
  • Can an unregistered association file a writ petition for the redressal of personal and individual grievances of its members?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs Abdul Wahab & another2020 KLR Criminal Cases 302 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad and another vs Aga Khan Health Service Pakistan through Chief Executive and 7 others2020 CLC 326 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-02Read full judgment →
• Ali Azim Afridi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and others2020 PLD Peshawar 105, 2020 PHC 228 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-30
  independence of judiciarytrichotomy of powersrevenue officersconstitutional petitionouster clauseland revenue administrationjudicial functionsultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the vires of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, specifically provisions empowering revenue officers to perform judicial functions, arguing they violate the doctrine of trichotomy of powers and the independence of the judiciary under Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether the executive, through revenue officers, can exercise judicial powers, including the adjudication of title disputes. The Peshawar High Court held that provisions allowing revenue officers to function as courts are ultra vires the Constitution, as they infringe upon the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. The Court ruled that while revenue officers may handle administrative partition matters where title is undisputed, any dispute of title must be adjudicated by civil courts. Consequently, the Court ordered that pending matters involving title disputes be transferred to the jurisdiction of civil courts and judicial magistrates. This judgment reinforces the principle that judicial functions must be exclusively performed by an independent judiciary, and executive officers cannot be vested with judicial authority through statutory deeming clauses.

  Questions settled

  • Do provisions of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 that empower revenue officers to act as courts violate the doctrine of trichotomy of powers?
  • Can a revenue officer adjudicate a dispute of title in property partition proceedings?
  • Does the exercise of judicial functions by executive officers violate the independence of the judiciary under Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are statutory deeming clauses that confer judicial status upon executive officers valid when they conflict with constitutional separation of powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar and 8 others vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Peshawar2020 PLC (C.S.) 566 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-26
  contract appointmentwithdrawal of appointmentpromissory estoppellegitimate expectationpublic functionariesconstitutional petitionmaladministration
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected writ petitions challenging the withdrawal of the petitioners' appointments to fixed-term contract positions under the Community-Driven Local Development (CDLD) project by the Deputy Commissioner, Buner. The core legal questions involved whether a public functionary can arbitrarily withdraw appointment orders based on irrelevant considerations such as local district reservations not stipulated in the advertisement and whether appointees with higher qualifications are barred from holding posts with lower prescription. The Peshawar High Court held that the impugned withdrawal order was based on alien and irrelevant considerations, lacked legal justification, and violated the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. The court ruled that public functionaries cannot act whimsically or rescind transparently made appointments under external pressure. The petitions were consequently allowed, and the impugned withdrawal order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public functionary withdraw an appointment order based on considerations not stipulated in the initial recruitment advertisement?
  • Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked against arbitrary executive actions that rescind commitments made to citizens?
  • Does a Tehsil Council have the legal mandate to interfere in the administrative affairs of the Provincial Government?
  • Is the appointment of a candidate holding a higher qualification than the prescribed minimum an illegality that justifies termination?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamgir son of Ibrahim vs Mst. Bakht Siraja wife of Bakht Zada2020 PHC 264 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Alam Khan vs Habib Bank Ltd: & others2020 PLC 247, 2020 PHC 370 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-08
  workmangrievance petitionNational Industrial Relations Commissionmanagerial dutiessupervisory dutiescompulsory retirementmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the concurrent judgments of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Single Bench and Full Bench) which dismissed his grievance petition filed under section 37 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010 as not maintainable. The petitioner, who served as an OG-III/Manager Operation at a commercial bank, was compulsorily retired following an inquiry into an unauthorized withdrawal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a 'workman' under the relevant labor laws. The Peshawar High Court held that the determination of whether an employee is a workman depends on the nature of the duties actually performed rather than mere designation or status. Upon examining the job description and admissions showing that the petitioner's duties were supervisory and managerial in nature, the court concluded he did not fall within the definition of a workman. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, affirming the concurrent findings of the NIRC forums.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the designation of an employee is the sole determining factor for classifying them as a workman under labor laws?
  • Does a bank employee performing supervisory and managerial duties fall within the definition of a workman?
  • Can a grievance petition filed by a bank manager against compulsory retirement be entertained by the National Industrial Relations Commission if he is not a workman?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Said Gul and 2 others2020 PLD Peshawar 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-19Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and another vs Khair Muhammad and others2020 PLJ Peshawar 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sultan vs State, etc2020 P Cr. L J 1543, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1241, 2020 PHC 58 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-17
  acquittal appealdelayed FIRbenefit of doubtfsl reportplanting of evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the trial court in a murder and robbery case registered under Sections 302 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the assessment of inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report, the reliability of uncorroborated ocular and circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of delayed forensic dispatch of crime empties, and the strict standard required for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The Peshawar High Court held that the inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report against unknown persons, broken chain of information, material discrepancies in witness statements, planted recoveries, and delayed transmission of weapon and empties to the forensic laboratory rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and appellate interference is warranted only for compelling and substantial reasons. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report against unknown persons creates doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Can a delayed transmission of crime empties and weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory undermine the prosecution's forensic evidence?
  • What are the compelling and substantial reasons required for an appellate court to interfere with an acquittal judgment?
  • Is uncorroborated ocular testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction when the chain of events and recoveries are found to be doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Afsar Khan vs The State2021 MLD 272, 2020 PHC 230 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-05-06Read full judgment →
• Afsar Ali vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 705, 2020 PHC 492 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-22
  criminal appealmurdercommon intentionvicarious liabilityocular testimonyabscondencerelated witnessfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 302(b), 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of prolonged abscondence, and the application of vicarious or joint criminal liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where multiple accused fire at a deceased. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, recoveries, and established common intention. The key legal principles laid down are that the statement of a related witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of relationship if their presence is established, prolonged abscondence without reasonable explanation serves as a corroborative piece of evidence, and under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, once a common intention is proved, the specific injury inflicted by a particular accused becomes immaterial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eyewitness can be disbelieved solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Does prolonged abscondence by an accused without a reasonable explanation serve as a valid corroborative piece of evidence of guilt?
  • Is it necessary to determine whose specific shot proved fatal when multiple accused act with a common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the necessary ingredients for the applicability of vicarious or joint criminal liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Khan vs The State & another2020 P Cr. L J 1001, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1336, 2020 PHC 26 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-02
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcompromisedishonestly issuing a chequecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent on the basis of a compromise in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail can be made conditional upon terms set in a private compromise deed and whether the prerogative to seek bail cancellation can be delegated to the complainant by mutual agreement. The Peshawar High Court held that the provisions of Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be made subservient to the consent or will of the complainant, and the court's prerogative to cancel bail cannot be shifted to a private individual through a compromise deed. The court established that conditional bail agreements alien to statutory criminal administration of justice cannot override the law, and in the absence of misuse of bail concession or tampering with evidence, a petition for bail cancellation based on a breach of private compromise terms is not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be made conditional upon terms stipulated in a private compromise deed between the parties?
  • Whether the court's prerogative to cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be shifted to the complainant based on mutual agreement?
  • Does the failure to honor a private compromise condition automatically warrant the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Khan vs Govtt: of KPK through Secretary & others2020 PHC 518, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 550 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-29
  constitutional petitiondomicile certificateprimary school teacherfactual controversywrit jurisdictionappointment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court challenging the appointment of respondents No. 6 and 7 as Primary School Teachers (PST) in District Dir Lower on the ground that they originally belonged to District Mardan and allegedly obtained domiciles of District Dir Lower unlawfully. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the private respondents' domiciles and whether disputed questions of fact regarding permanent residence could be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction. The court held that since the competent authorities had duly issued domiciles for District Dir Lower and cancelled the prior domiciles of District Mardan before the cut-off date, and both CNICs and domiciles verified their status, the appointments were lawful. Furthermore, the court held that factual controversies regarding a person's permanent abode cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction and must be agitated before a civil court. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court determine disputed questions of fact regarding a candidate's permanent residence and domicile in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether a domicile certificate can be substituted or acquired subsequently under the law?
  • Does a primary school teacher appointment require the candidate to belong to the same union council or district based on their CNIC and domicile?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Bacha son of Gulzar Bahadur, r/o Panjpir District Swabi vs The State2020 YLR 2094, 2020 PHC 396 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-02Read full judgment →
• Abubakar Sadique vs The State2021 MLD 31, 2020 PHC 366 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-10
  post-arrest bailunnatural offencesodomyjuvenile offenderprohibitory clausemedical reportnon-compoundable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner Abubakar Sadique seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 380 dated 9.6.2020 registered under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act 2010 at Police Station Katlang, District Mardan, on charges of committing an unnatural offence with a minor. The core legal questions involve whether the absence of an FSL report at the bail stage, the alleged juvenility of the accused, and a compromise by the complainant warrant the grant of bail in a heinous offence. The Peshawar High Court held that the medical report prima facie connects the accused to the heinous crime falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that juvenility is not a license to commit such offences, and that a compromise is immaterial since the offence is non-compoundable. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that heinous offences against minors disentitle an accused to bail despite juvenility or lack of an FSL report at the preliminary stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-availability of an FSL report at the bail stage entitle an accused to post-arrest bail in a case of sodomy?
  • Whether juvenility by itself serves as a ground for the grant of bail in heinous offences?
  • Can a compromise between the complainant and the accused form the basis for granting bail in a non-compoundable offence?
  • Does an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Alam vs Govt. of Pakistan & others2020 PHC 52 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq vs Irfan Ahmad etc2020 PHC 152 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid through Legal Heirs vs Syed Fida-Ur-Reham Shah through Legal Heirs and others2020 YLR 975 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wali Khan & others vs Govt: of KPK & others2021 PLC (C.S. ) 473, 2020 PHC 266 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-03
  Patwari recruitmentvested rightsservice rules amendmentconstitutional jurisdictionseniority listrecruitment policyLand Record Manual
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who had passed the Patwar examination and were on the seniority list for appointment as Patwaris, challenged a government notification and subsequent advertisement requiring appointments to be made via test and interview rather than strictly by seniority. They contended that the Land Record Manual mandated seniority-based appointments and that the amendment to service rules could not retrospectively divest them of their vested rights. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the government possesses the authority to amend service rules to prescribe new recruitment criteria. The Court clarified that the previous judgment relied upon by the petitioners was based on rules prevalent at that time, which had since been validly amended. Furthermore, the Court ruled that mere inclusion in a list of qualified candidates does not confer a vested right to appointment, nor does it preclude the government from changing the selection methodology. Consequently, the Court upheld the validity of the amended service rules, affirming that appointments must be made in accordance with the current recruitment policy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of a candidate's name in a seniority list for appointment confer a vested right to be appointed?
  • Can the government amend service rules to change the method of recruitment from seniority-based to test and interview-based?
  • Does the Land Record Manual provide an all-inclusive procedure for the appointment of Patwaris that overrides subsequent service rule amendments?
  • Is a previous court judgment holding a recruitment process illegal binding if the underlying service rules have been subsequently amended?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wakeel vs The State through Additional Advocate General Khyber2020 YLR 2402 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-18
  arms licenseconfiscation of case propertyunauthorized possessionreturn of case propertyacquittalKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Swat, insofar as it omitted to order the return of a seized SMG rifle following the appellant's acquittal under Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act. The core legal question was whether an informal authorization to possess arms, granted by military or police officers during a period of insurgency, constitutes a lawful license under the Arms Act entitling the holder to the return of the weapon upon acquittal. The Peshawar High Court held that the officers who granted the permission were not competent authorities notified under the Arms Act to issue licenses, and therefore the possession was not backed by law. The Court ruled that criminal courts are not under a compulsion to return seized property upon acquittal, and discretionary disposal—including confiscation to the State—is permissible where possession itself is unauthorized. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an informal authorization to keep arms granted by local military or police officers during insurgency constitutes a valid license under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013?
  • Is a criminal court under a legal compulsion to return seized property to the accused upon acquittal?
  • Can a weapon held without a valid statutory license be returned to the accused after an acquittal under the Arms Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wajid and 10 others vs Tehsil Municipal Administration and others2020 CLC 1279 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and others vs Government and others2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 177 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-08
  master and servantmaintainability of writ petitionstatutory rulesemployment statuscolony boarddissolution of board
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, claiming to be regular employees of Telephone Industries of Pakistan (TIP) or associated entities like the T&T Colony Board, challenged the management's stance treating them as employees of the Colony Board rather than TIP, following steps taken toward the Board's dissolution. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were employees of TIP or the Colony Board, whether the matter was barred by past and closed transactions, and whether the writ petitions were maintainable given the absence of statutory service rules. The Peshawar High Court held that the T&T Colony Board was a distinct, charitable entity separate from TIP, that the employment of the petitioners was not governed by statutory rules thereby invoking the master-and-servant principle, and that previous judicial determinations by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal had attained finality. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as non-maintainable, while noting that a mutually agreed compensation and adjustment package offered by the stakeholders was fair and equitable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees whose services are not governed by statutory rules can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
  • Does an employee of a non-profit colony board established by multiple independent entities qualify as an employee of a private limited manufacturing company operating in the same compound?
  • Can a past and closed transaction concerning employment status that has attained finality through competent labour courts be reopened in subsequent constitutional proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 198, 2020 PHC 480, 2022 MLD 448 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-07-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs Mst. Nazima Shaheen and others2020 PHC 218, 2021 PLD Peshawar 22, 2022 [M] CLR 785, 2022 PCTLR 654 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mateen vs The State2020 PHC 106, 2022 MLD 464 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and another vs The State and another2020 YLR 1278 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-12
  murderbenefit of the doubtchance witnessesmedical evidence contradictiondelayed FIRabscondencemotive as a double-edged weaponcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected criminal revision challenge the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b)/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the trial court, alongside a prayer for sentence enhancement. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative circumstances, despite significant delays in FIR registration and material contradictions among witnesses. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, finding the eye-witnesses to be chance and interested witnesses whose testimonies conflicted with medical evidence regarding firing distances and blackening. The Court emphasized that abscondence and motive cannot substitute for missing or doubtful substantive evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and the revision petition for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can abscondence alone serve as a substitute for direct and convincing evidence to uphold a conviction?
  • Does the presence of blackening on bullet wounds override the ocular account when witnesses state a firing distance inconsistent with medical jurisprudence?
  • Whether material contradictions and an unexplained delay in reporting the crime render eyewitness testimony unreliable for sustaining a murder conviction?
  • How does the existence of a prior blood feud impact the evidentiary value of an alleged motive in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs The State etc2020 PHC 294, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1408, 2022 YLR 1478 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs State and 4 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1408 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-22
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidenceQatl-i-Amdappellate jurisdictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal filed under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of respondents in a murder case (Qatl-i-Amd) under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions, including an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and an implausible ocular account where witnesses claimed to be present during indiscriminate firing without sustaining any injuries. The Court affirmed that once the ocular account is disbelieved, no other evidence suffices for conviction. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court will only interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's findings are perverse, fanciful, or arbitrary. Furthermore, a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal, as the prosecution must prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does the existence of a single reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Is it possible to secure a conviction on a capital charge if the ocular account is disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1094 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-19
  acquittalcriminal appealnarcotics smugglingstatement of co-accusedfutile exercise
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellant's application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Special Court (CNS) Peshawar. The core legal question revolves around whether an accused can be acquitted under Section 265-K without recording evidence when the sole incriminating material is an inadmissible statement of an acquitted co-accused. The Peshawar High Court held that where the only evidence against the accused is the police statement of a co-accused carrying no legal worth, there is no probability of conviction, rendering further proceedings a futile exercise. The court laid down the principle that an accused is entitled to acquittal under Section 265-K at any stage if there is no probability of conviction based on admissible evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording evidence?
  • Is the statement of a co-accused recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible evidence to warrant a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor & others vs Sabir Rehman & others2020 PHC 146, 2020 CLC 2055 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit son of Nawab Jan, r/o Damgari Siraj Khel, Takht-e-Nasrati,2020 PHC 352 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-06-16
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencedishonest improvementabscondencecircumstantial evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the provided ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was riddled with material contradictions, dishonest improvements, and discrepancies regarding the sequence of events and the place of occurrence. The court observed that the witnesses were likely procured and their presence at the scene was doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a conviction must rest on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt. It establishes that when direct ocular testimony is disbelieved due to material improvements and inconsistencies, circumstantial evidence—such as the recovery of crime empties—cannot independently sustain a conviction, and mere abscondence of an accused is insufficient to establish guilt in the absence of other corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the direct ocular account is disbelieved?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused person constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction in the absence of other proof?
  • What is the legal effect of material improvements and contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses on the reliability of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a witness not named in the First Information Report be relied upon as an eyewitness?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baqi and another vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1488, 2020 P Cr. L J 321 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-28
  narcotics controlrecovery from vehiclesecret cavitiesconscious possessiondriver liabilitypassenger acquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged transportation of 54 kilograms of heroin concealed in secret cavities of a vehicle. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence regarding the driver's responsibility and the standard of proof required to establish the conscious possession and knowledge of a co-accused sitting as a passenger in the vehicle. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the appellant who was driving the vehicle, as control and possession of the contraband are naturally attributed to the driver. However, regarding the passenger sitting on the front seat, the Court held that mere presence in a vehicle is insufficient to establish conscious knowledge of hidden compartments without cogent additional evidence. Consequently, the High Court maintained the conviction and life imprisonment of the driver while setting aside the conviction of the passenger and acquitting him of the charge. The key principle laid down is that while a driver is presumed responsible for contraband concealed in a vehicle, a passenger cannot be convicted of possession without independent proof of conscious knowledge or abetment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the driver of a vehicle can be held criminally responsible for narcotics recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle?
  • Does the mere presence of a passenger on the front seat of a vehicle containing concealed narcotics establish conscious knowledge and possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the standard of proof required to connect a passenger sitting in a vehicle with contraband hidden in secret cavities?
  • Whether a slight variation in prosecution evidence is sufficient to discard the testimony of police witnesses in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Nooristani vs Shams-Ul-Mulk and 15 others2020 CLC 23 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ali vs Mst. Sani and 3 others2020 MLD 1091 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ahad Alias Idress vs The State2020 PHC 522 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-23Read full judgment →
• (Dr.) Muhammad Hamayun Professor & 31 others vs Chief Secretary govt.2020 KLR Criminal Cases 143 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zia-ul-Haq etc vs Abdul Ghafoor2019 PLD Peshawar 176, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 160, 2019 PHC 28 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Majeed vs Govt.2020 PLC (C.S.) 1025, 2019 PHC 414 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21
  constitutional petitionvires of statutesurplus poolcontractual serviceregular employeesstatutory interpretationpresumption of constitutionality
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court challenging the vires of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tourism Act, 2019, specifically sections 8 and 32, on the grounds of being arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional, particularly regarding apprehensions that regular employees would be converted to contract employees. The core legal questions revolved around the constitutionality of the enactment and the interpretation of the statutory provisions concerning the service status of existing employees. The Court held that the petitioners failed to provide valid legal grounds for declaring the legislation unconstitutional, relying on established principles regarding the presumption of constitutionality. The Court interpreted sections 8 and 32 of the Act, holding that the statutory provisions adequately protected the rights of existing regular employees by placing them in a surplus pool with safeguarded benefits, and that section 32 applies only to future hirings rather than existing regular employees. The key principles laid down include the presumption of constitutionality of statutes, the rules for judicial review of legislative enactments, and the principles of statutory interpretation to ascertain legislative intent.

  Questions settled

  • What are the established principles for declaring a legislative enactment unconstitutional?
  • Whether the provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tourism Act, 2019 convert the regular service of existing employees into contractual service?
  • Does section 32 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tourism Act, 2019 apply to the existing regular employees of the respondent authority or only to future hirings?
  Read full judgment →