Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Zameen & 2 others vs Mata Khan & 2 others2019 PLD Peshawar 188, 2020 PLJ Cr.C (Peshawar) 229, 2019 PHC 102 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-11Read full judgment →
- Zahir Shah vs The state etc2020 YLR 2683, 2019 PHC 371 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
- Zahir Shah vs Ayaz Ali etc2020 P Cr.L J 387, 2019 PHC 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, alongside a connected criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the deceased victim's dying declaration, the credibility of ocular testimony by related witnesses in a case involving a single accused, the significance of prompt reporting, and the corroborative value of the appellant's long-term abscondence. The Peshawar High Court dismissed both the appeal and the revision, holding that the prompt dying declaration made by a conscious injured person, corroborated by consistent eyewitness accounts and the appellant's prolonged abscondence, sufficiently proved the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. The court laid down that substitution of a single accused is a rare phenomenon in criminal jurisprudence, that a prompt report to the police eliminates the possibility of consultation or concoction, and that a dying declaration made in extremity carries high evidentiary value even though the injured survives for several days before succumbing to injuries.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be safely based on a dying declaration when the injured person survived for several days after recording the report?
- Whether substitution of an innocent person for a single accused is a probable phenomenon in murder cases?
- What is the evidentiary weight of an accused's long-term abscondence in corroborating direct and circumstantial evidence?
- Does the absence or weakness of a motive adversely affect an otherwise proven prosecution case?
- Zahid Sultan vs State & another2019 YLR 2798, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 709 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of 3437 grams of charas and a .30 bore pistol from his residential room. The core legal questions were whether the search conducted by the police was legally valid given the expiration of the search warrant and the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing Magistrate, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court observed that the search warrant, issued under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, had expired by the time of the raid. Furthermore, the Court held that a Judicial Magistrate lacks the jurisdiction to issue search warrants for cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as such authority is exclusively vested in the Special Court under Section 20 of that Act. Additionally, the absence of an FSL report and the lack of independent witnesses rendered the prosecution's case subject to further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing that procedural violations regarding search warrants and jurisdictional errors by Magistrates in narcotic cases constitute valid grounds for bail.
Questions settled- Does a Judicial Magistrate have the authority to issue a search warrant for cases registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Does a search warrant issued under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, remain valid after the expiration of the time limit specified therein?
- Is the absence of an FSL report a relevant factor when considering a bail petition in a narcotics case?
- Zafrullah Khan vs Taj Ali & the State2019 PHC 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
- Yousaf Islam vs The State2020 YLR 317, 2019 PHC 176 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
- Yameen Khan vs Inspector General of Police, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLC (C.S.) 1511 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioners seeking directions for the issuance of their appointment orders as Police Constables in District Kohistan on the analogy of similarly placed candidates. The core legal question was whether qualified candidates, duly recommended for appointment by the Selection Board against available vacancies, could be arbitrarily denied appointment by the respondents. The Peshawar High Court held that once candidates successfully complete the selection process and are recommended by the competent board, a vested right accrues to them, and denying appointment without plausible reasons or despite the availability of vacancies is illegal and malafide. The court laid down the principle that similarly placed candidates who have qualified the recruitment process are entitled to consistent treatment, and the defense of laches cannot be invoked where valid vacancies existed and previous coordinate petitions were accepted.
Questions settled- Whether candidates who have qualified the NTS test and interview for public office can be denied appointment despite recommendations by the Selection Board?
- Does the principle of laches apply when qualified candidates are ignored for appointment while vacancies remain available?
- Are similarly placed candidates entitled to the same treatment and relief granted in earlier judgments of the court?
- Waseem-Ur-Rehman & another vs Qari Fathat Ullah & others2019 CLC 1817, 2019 PHC 144 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
- Waqas Khan vs Dr. Seema Hanif2019 PLD Peshawar 180, 2019 PHC 98 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-25Read full judgment →
- Waqar Ahmad vs Ahmad Hussain2019 CLC 1632, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 140, 2019 PHC 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-15Read full judgment →
- Wajid Khan and others vs The State etc2020 P Cr.L J 454, 2019 PHC 298 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions seeking the quashment of FIRs registered against the petitioners for alleged violations of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mineral Sector Governance Act, 2016. The core legal question was whether an FIR for offences under the Act could be registered by a person other than the 'Licensing Authority' or an officer authorized by it, given the specific reporting requirements stipulated in Section 83 of the Act. The Court held that the FIRs were registered in violation of the law because the reporting was not initiated by the designated authority. The Court emphasized that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act to be performed, it must be strictly followed. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle that in cases of conflict between a special law and a general law, the special law prevails. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned FIRs, ruling that the general provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, must be read in conjunction with, and effectively limited by, the specific requirements of the special statute.
Questions settled- Can an FIR for offences under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mineral Sector Governance Act, 2016 be registered by a person other than the Licensing Authority or an authorized officer?
- Does a special law prevail over the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding the registration of an FIR?
- Is the requirement that an act be done in a particular manner under a statute a mere technicality?
- Wahid Khan son of Shamshi Khan vs The State etc2019 PHC 300 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for the Qatl-e-Amd of his wife. The core legal question concerns whether circumstantial evidence, specifically the death of the deceased within the matrimonial home and the appellant’s subsequent abscondence, suffices to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the sentence warrants enhancement. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstances. It affirmed the conviction, ruling that when a spouse is murdered within the shared matrimonial residence, the husband bears a legal burden to provide a plausible explanation for the unnatural death. The appellant’s failure to offer such an explanation, combined with his unexplained abscondence and the medical evidence of torture, created a strong inference of guilt. The Court dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement, noting that the interests of the surviving children were best served by maintaining the life sentence rather than imposing capital punishment. The judgment reinforces the principle that exclusive access to the crime scene and subsequent flight constitute significant incriminating evidence.
Questions settled- Does the death of a wife within the matrimonial home shift the burden of proof to the husband to explain the circumstances of her death?
- Can willful abscondence of an accused following the death of his spouse be considered a strong incriminating circumstance?
- Is a complainant entitled to file an appeal against the acquittal of an accused under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013?
- Umar Hayat vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C.(Peshawar)396, 2020 YLR 1398, 2019 PHC 180 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-11Read full judgment →
- The Land Acquisition Collector, (WAPDA) Tarbela Dam Ghazi District2020 YLR 1363, 2019 PHC 376 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-14Read full judgment →
- Telenor Pakistan vs Presiding Officer Labour Court2019 PLC 240, 2019 PHC 174 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses writ petitions filed by Telenor Pakistan (Pvt) Limited challenging orders passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Haripur, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeals against directions of the Wages Authority under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of claim petitions against trans-provincial establishments under provincial wage legislation following the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and the mandatory requirement of depositing the decretal amount as a pre-condition for filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013. The court held that the provincial payment of wages legislation applies to commercial establishments within the province regardless of their trans-provincial status under industrial relations laws, and that the statutory requirement to deposit the decretal amount for an appeal is mandatory. The court laid down the principle that failure to comply with mandatory pre-conditions for statutory appeals bars invocation of the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, and dismissed the petitions as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether the deposit of the decretal amount is a mandatory pre-condition for maintaining an appeal under section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013?
- Does the promulgation of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 oust the jurisdiction of the Provincial Wages Authority over trans-provincial establishments?
- Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked when a statutory remedy of appeal is bypassed due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-conditions?
- Are private security agencies operating on telecommunication towers covered under the definition of commercial establishments for the payment of wages?
- Tariq Hussain son of Dost Muhammad vs The statePLJ 2019 Cr.c. 1565, 2019 PHC 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
- Syed Naeem Shah and another vs Khawaja Zahoor Iqbal and 2 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1374, 2019 YLR 757 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-20Read full judgment →
- Syed Aziz-ud-Din Kaka Khel vs Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through its2019 PLD Peshawar 145, 2019 PHC 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the appointment of the Advocate General of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the vires of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Appointment of Law Officers Act, 2014. The core legal questions involved whether an upper age limit of 62 years applies to the appointment of an Advocate General based on the retirement age of High Court judges, whether prior consultation with the Chief Justice is mandatory, and whether removal under the pleasure of the Governor constitutes a disqualification under the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973. The Peshawar High Court held that while an Advocate General must possess qualifications similar to a High Court judge under Article 193, the retirement age limit of 62 years prescribed under Article 195 does not apply to the appointment. The Court further held that removal of an Advocate General during the Governor's pleasure is a removal simpliciter carrying no stigma, and dismissed the petition while upholding the statutory framework.
Questions settled- Whether the retirement age limit prescribed for High Court judges applies as a disqualification for the appointment of an Advocate General?
- Does the Constitution require prior consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court for the appointment of an Advocate General?
- Does the removal of an Advocate General during the pleasure of the Governor constitute a removal carrying stigma that disqualifies him from re-appointment?
- Whether the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Appointment of Law Officers Act, 2014 is ultra vires the Constitution?
- Syed Asghar Shah vs The Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar2020 PLC (C.S.) 454, 2019 PHC 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves four appeals filed by the appellant, a former Additional District & Sessions Judge, seeking to set aside and expunge adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 by the Administration Committee of the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question was whether adverse remarks recorded and communicated long after the appellant's compulsory retirement, and in violation of prescribed timelines and instructions, could be legally sustained. The court held that the impugned adverse remarks were vitiated due to unreasonable delay, lack of support from the overall service record, and non-compliance with the applicable ACR Instructions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government. The key principles laid down are that unexplained and inordinate delay in recording and communicating adverse remarks casts doubt on their authenticity, that ACR instructions regarding timely communication in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are mandatory rather than merely directory, and that adverse entries cannot be validly recorded or utilized to reinforce allegations after a judicial officer has already been compulsorily retired from service.
Questions settled- Whether adverse remarks recorded in Annual Confidential Reports after a civil servant's compulsory retirement are legally sustainable?
- Are the ACR Instructions regarding timely communication of adverse remarks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa mandatory or directory in nature?
- Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in communicating adverse remarks vitiate their authenticity?
- Can adverse remarks be recorded to reinforce allegations raised in a prior show-cause notice?
- Syed Abdul Hameed vs Mian Izhar Ahmad etc2020 [M] C L R 949, 2019 PLD Peshwar 154, 2019 PHC 17 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
- Sultani Room vs Muhammad Inam and others2019 PHC 146 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-15Read full judgment →
- Sohail Nasir son of Nasir vs The State etc2020 YLR 834, 2019 PHC 268 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder and beheading of the deceased, alongside a connected revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven its case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, including police pointation recoveries, against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented—ranging from dubious police pointations and unverified weapon recoveries to contradictory arrest timelines and unproven nexus between the accused and the crime scene—failed to form a complete and unbreakable chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant of the charges, and dismissed the sentence-enhancement revision petition. The key principle laid down is that where a prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, every single link in the chain of circumstances must be securely connected and point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused, and any missing links or serious doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the links in the chain of evidence are incomplete or doubtful?
- Whether doubtful police recoveries made on the pointation of an accused can form the basis of a murder conviction?
- What is the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence where the prosecution fails to establish a clear nexus between the accused, the crime scene, and the weapon of offence?
- Does the benefit of a missing link in circumstantial evidence invariably go to the accused?
- Sohail Ahmed and 3 others vs National Bank of Pakistan through its2019 PLJ Peshawar 37 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- SNGPL Abbottabad through Regional Manager vs Ahzaz CNG Station and 2 others2019 YLR 1402 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-23Read full judgment →
- Sham Lal and 6 others vs M.E.O. Abbottabad and Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others2019 CLC 591 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-13Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Khan vs The State etc2019 MLD 951, 2019 PHC 13 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
- Shahid Ullah son of Rasool Khan vs The State etc2020 MLD 1303, 2019 PHC 282 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant against his conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court for committing murder with a knife. The prosecution case rested on prompt reporting, eyewitness testimony of the complainant and an independent shopkeeper, medical evidence, recovery of the crime weapon, and the appellant’s absconsion. The Peshawar High Court evaluated whether the established facts warranted conviction for intentional murder under Section 302(b) PPC or culpable homicide under Section 302(c) PPC. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant caused the deceased's death, but observed that the incident was devoid of premeditation or personal motive. It arose out of a sudden altercation and brawl regarding the return of a friend's pigeon, during which the appellant acted in the heat of passion without cruelty or undue advantage. Consequently, the conviction was altered to Section 302(c) PPC, and the sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment.
Questions settled- Whether an offence falls under Section 302(c) PPC rather than Section 302(b) PPC when a fatal injury is inflicted during a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation?
- Can substitution of a singularly charged accused in a murder case be readily inferred in the absence of previous enmity?
- Does the absence of personal motive and premeditation justify altering a murder conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) PPC?
- Shahid Hamid Khan and others vs Project Director NHA and another2019 PLD Peshawar 165 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-28Read full judgment →
- Shahid Habib vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Department Peshawar and 3 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1426 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to issue his appointment order as a Primary School Teacher (PST). The petitioner had qualified the NTS examination, secured the fifth position on the merit list, and was placed on the waiting list. After one of the initial appointees' appointment was withdrawn due to fake documents, the petitioner claimed entitlement to the vacant post. The respondents resisted the petition, relying on a provincial government policy and precedent from the Supreme Court of Pakistan which prohibited maintaining a general waiting list, requiring vacant posts due to non-joinder or withdrawal to be re-advertised, subject to the exception that vacancies created on account of non-joinder or withdrawal of a selectee may be filled up to the commencement of training of the appointees of the same selection. The court held that since the respondents failed to establish that the selectees had already undergone training prior to the withdrawal of the appointment order, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Questions settled- Whether a candidate on the waiting list can be appointed to a vacancy created by the withdrawal of an appointment order of a selectee?
- Up to what point in time can vacancies created on account of non-joinder or withdrawal of a selectee be filled from the waiting list?
- Does the maintenance of a waiting list for public appointments violate the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Shahbaz Gul Shinwari vs TMO Kohat etc2020 MLD 703, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 34, 2019 PHC 324 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
- Shah Zaman through Special Attorney vs Painda alias Raja and 3 others2019 YLR 1337 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-11Read full judgment →
- Shah Faisal & another vs The Chancellor, Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan etc2020 YLR 229, 2019 PHC 196 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-30Read full judgment →
- Shah Alam Khan & others vs Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa &2019 PHC 332 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shafi-Ul-Ibrar through L.Rs vs Central Government through Secretary2019 MLD 1371 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-16Read full judgment →
- Shabir-ur-Rahman vs The State etc2019 PHC 418 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
- Shabir Jan Afridi and Muhammad Yousaf vs The State2019 PHC 202 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-02Read full judgment →
- Shabib Hussain son of Muhammad Hanif vs The State etc2019 PHC 240 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for the qatl-e-amd of a religious scholar under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, resulting in a death sentence, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt through prompt FIR lodging, eyewitness testimony, red-handed arrest of the appellant at the scene with the crime weapon, and forensic corroboration. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent ocular accounts, prompt reporting eliminating deliberation, positive forensic firearm reports, and recovery of identification documents on the spot. The court laid down the principle that the substitution of a real culprit charged directly and singularly is a rare phenomenon in criminal jurisprudence, and that committing a sectarian-motivated murder of a religious leader constitutes an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, warranting capital punishment without mitigating circumstances.
Questions settled- Whether prompt lodging of an FIR eliminates the possibility of consultation and false implication?
- Does the murder of a religious leader for sectarian reasons constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Whether the substitution of a real culprit charged directly and singularly is a common occurrence in criminal cases?
- Does a positive FSL report matching crime empties with the recovered weapon strongly corroborate the ocular account?
- Sanaullah Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary of Education, Peshawar and 4 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1215 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant, filed a writ petition seeking promotion from BPS-15 to BPS-16 after his departmental appeal against the denial of promotion was rejected. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to adjudicate a service matter concerning promotion, or whether such jurisdiction is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, ruling that matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of civil service, including promotion, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming the principle that the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, as established by the Supreme Court in I.A. Sharwani and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch cases.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition regarding the promotion of a civil servant?
- Is a dispute regarding the promotion of a civil servant considered a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal Act, 1974?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, bar the High Court from adjudicating service matters?
- Sana Ullah vs Naik Muhammad and others2019 YLR 2699 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-25Read full judgment →
- Sana Ullah Khan vs Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 22019 MLD 781 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
- Samiullah and others vs Aqal Mand & others2020 [M] C L R 1425, 2020 YLR 529, 2019 PHC 182 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-14Read full judgment →
- Saleem Wazir Professor Community, Medicine and 6 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health Peshawar and 2 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1336, 2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 256, PLJ 2019 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three connected writ petitions relating to disciplinary and procurement issues at the Ayub Medical Teaching Institution (AMTI). The core legal questions involved the authority of the Chairman of the Board of Governors (BoG) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against and dismiss the Dean of the Medical Teaching Institution, and whether major penalties could be imposed without a regular inquiry. The Peshawar High Court held that under Section 9(6) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Institutions Reforms Act, 2015, the power to appoint and remove the Dean vests exclusively in the BoG, which cannot be delegated to the Chairman, and that disciplinary matters entailing major penalties involving controversial facts require a regular inquiry rather than a hasty show-cause procedure. The court set aside the show-cause notice and the termination letter, establishing the principle that statutory powers granted specifically to a governing board cannot be sub-delegated without express authority, and that natural justice mandates regular inquiries for major disciplinary penalties.
Questions settled- Whether the Chairman of the Board of Governors has the authority to initiate disciplinary action against or remove the Dean of a Medical Teaching Institution under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Institutions Reforms Act, 2015?
- Can a statutory governing board delegate its powers of appointment and removal regarding statutory managerial positions without express statutory provision?
- Is a regular inquiry mandatory before imposing a major penalty of dismissal on an officer when controversial facts and allegations are involved?
- Whether the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011 are applicable to the removal of a Dean holding a tenure managerial post in a Medical Teaching Institution?
- Sakhawat Hussain vs Mst. Rubino Shaheen and 02 others2020 CLC 803, 2019 PHC 334 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
- Sajid Khan vs The State etc2019 YLR 1838, 2019 PHC 26 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-04Read full judgment →
- Saifullah Mohib Kakakhel vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2020 CLC 937, 2019 PHC 422 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
- Saif Ullah vs The State2020 YLR 151, 2019 PHC 216 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-27Read full judgment →
- Saida Gul vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1345 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court through a bail petition filed by Saida Gul seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 160 dated 4.3.2019 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Badhber, Peshawar. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the contraband was recovered from secret cavities of a vehicle driven by a co-accused, with the petitioner sitting on the front seat, and where the question of conscious knowledge and direct possession requires further inquiry at trial. The court held that since the contraband was not recovered from the direct possession of the petitioner, his conscious knowledge is yet to be established, he is not a previous convict, and investigation is complete, the petitioner makes out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment at the bail stage favors an accused where direct possession and conscious knowledge of narcotics hidden in a vehicle by a co-accused remain to be determined through recording of evidence at trial.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when narcotics are recovered from secret cavities of a vehicle driven by a co-accused rather than from the direct possession of the petitioner?
- Does the lack of previous convictions and completion of investigation warrant the grant of bail in narcotics cases where conscious knowledge is yet to be determined?
- Is further inquiry into the link between a passenger and the driver of a vehicle carrying contraband a ground for bail?
- Said Muhammad through Attorney vs Government of Khyber2019 YLR 2881 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-06-20Read full judgment →
- Said Karam alias Ajarr vs State and another2019 P Cr. L J 1710, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 781 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The prosecution's case primarily hinged on the dying declaration of the deceased complainant and the testimonies of two eye-witnesses. The core legal questions involved the veracity and corroboration of the dying declaration in the presence of severe injuries, and the reliability of interested and chance witnesses. The Peshawar High Court held that the dying declaration was shrouded in mystery and lacked confidence-inspiring corroborative ocular evidence, and the testimonies of the eye-witnesses suffered from material contradictions and unnatural conduct. The Court laid down that a dying declaration is a weaker type of evidence requiring reliable corroboration, and abscondence alone cannot cure fundamental defects in the prosecution case. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction without confidence-inspiring corroborative evidence?
- Can the testimony of chance and interested witnesses be relied upon without convincing explanations for their presence and absence of material improvements?
- Does the abscondence of an accused alone cure the defects and doubts in the prosecution's case?
- Whether medical evidence supporting a dying declaration is sufficient when the physical condition and orientation of the injured at the time of making the statement are doubtful?
- Saeed alias Saido and 6 others vs Abdullah2019 [M] C.L.R. 1381 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
- Saeed Akhtar Chughtai vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLC (C.S.) 1095, 2019 PHC 5 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the termination of the petitioner's service as Chief Financial Officer (CFO) illegal and to seek reinstatement, alongside a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent No.6 as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) PEDO. The core legal questions involved the legality of terminating a contract employee prior to the completion of the term and the validity of holding a public office via an additional charge under the PEDO Act. The Peshawar High Court held that a master is legally competent to terminate a contract employee in accordance with the stipulated terms and conditions of service, and contractual employees cannot seek reinstatement or regularisation through a constitutional petition in the absence of enabling law. Furthermore, the Court held that assigning an additional charge as a stop-gap arrangement by the competent authority for the smooth functioning of an institution is permissible when regular appointments are pending. The petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless.
Questions settled- Can a contractual employee seek reinstatement through a constitutional petition upon termination of service?
- Whether a master has the right to terminate the services of a contract employee in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment?
- Does the Chief Minister have the power to assign an additional charge of the office of Chief Executive Officer as a stop-gap arrangement under the PEDO Act?
- Saadullah vs State through Advocate General of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLJ Peshawar 176 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Rukhtaj son of Khan Dad, r/o Ghari Daulat Zai, District Mardan vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 696, 2019 PHC 382 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular account provided by the complainant and supporting recoveries. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, noting that the complainant, being a related and 'chance witness' who failed to provide a cogent explanation for his presence at the crime scene, was unreliable. Furthermore, the Court observed that the prosecution withheld the best available evidence by abandoning the injured witness, necessitating an adverse inference. The Court also found that the recovered weapon did not match the crime scene evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms that where the presence of an eyewitness is doubtful, their testimony must be discarded, and corroborative evidence cannot substitute for credible direct evidence when the primary ocular account is rejected.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of a related and chance witness be relied upon without independent corroboration?
- What is the legal consequence of the prosecution abandoning an injured eyewitness?
- Does the recovery of a weapon that does not match the crime scene evidence provide sufficient corroboration for a conviction?
- When can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for withholding evidence?
- Rooh-ul-Amin son of Muhammad Amin, r/o Nandrak (Jalaroona) AkoraPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1385, 2019 PHC 352 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the credibility of chance witnesses, the effect of unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the application of the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Peshawar High Court held that the eyewitnesses were unconvincing chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, that the First Information Report was a suspect document crafted after preliminary investigation and autopsy, and that the prosecution failed to establish the charge. The court laid down that unexplained delay in reporting a crime casts serious doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses, that chance witnesses must provide cogent explanations for their presence, and that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus forms an integral part of criminal jurisprudence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report render it a suspect document?
- Can the uncorroborated testimony of chance witnesses who fail to justify their presence at the crime scene form the basis of a murder conviction?
- Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the time of death undermine the prosecution's case?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the trial court disbelieves the prosecution evidence against a co-accused but relies upon the same tainted evidence to convict another?
- Roidar Khan vs National Bank of Pakistan Jadid Abadi Branch Bannu2019 CLD 693, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 134, 2019 PHC 19 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-23Read full judgment →
- Rizwan Ullah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1443 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmed vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant against his conviction for murder and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Mansehra. The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed his wife over suspicions of illicit relations and dumped her body in a well. The Peshawar High Court examined whether the circumstantial and medical evidence, recovery of the crime weapon, and testimony of identification were sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court observed major contradictions: the lady doctor testified that the recovered body was fully mutilated, decomposed, and unrecognizable, rendering the alleged visual identification by the uncle unreliable. No DNA test or anatomy expert evaluation was conducted. Additionally, an unexplained ten-day delay occurred in reporting the incident, the alleged informant was not examined, and photocopies of documents were wrongly relied upon without original proof. The Court held that suspicion cannot replace legal proof and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained on visual identification testimony when the medical evidence confirms the dead body was completely decomposed and unrecognizable?
- Whether photocopies of documents are admissible in evidence to establish a fact without the production of original documents or proof of secondary evidence grounds?
- Does an unexplained, prolonged delay in lodging an FIR create a reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal in a murder case?
- Rehmat Khan vs Muhammad Ramzan, etc2020 YLR 925, 2019 PHC 342 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad vs Mst: Khursheed Bibi etc2019 CLD 505, 2019 PHC 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-28Read full judgment →
- Raisham Khan and others vs Mir Azad Khan and others2019 YLR 2772, 2019 PHC 156 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
- Rahim Khan and another vs Gul Badshah and 5 others2020 [M] C L R 151, 2019 MLD 496 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-08Read full judgment →
- Rafia Bibi vs Director General (Health), KPK2021 PLC (C.S.) 57, 2020 PLJ Peshawar 64, 2019 PHC 386 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Lady Health Visitor (LHV) employed under an outsourced project (SRSP/PPHI) at a government-owned Basic Health Unit, sought regularization after the government assumed direct control of the facility. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization despite her outsourced status and whether the government could deny this based on a retrospective application of new qualification criteria (Matric with Science). The Court held that the petitioner was effectively an employee of the Health Department performing essential services, and that the government could not discriminate by regularizing similarly placed employees while excluding her. Furthermore, the Court ruled that new qualification rules could not retrospectively invalidate the petitioner's previously valid LHV certificate. The key principles established are that the government must act fairly and without discrimination in employment matters, and that project employees performing permanent, essential functions in government facilities are entitled to regularization when the government assumes administrative control, provided they held the requisite qualifications at the time of their initial appointment.
Questions settled- Can qualification criteria for a post be applied retrospectively to invalidate the existing valid certificates of employees?
- Does an employer-employee relationship exist between the government and staff hired through an outsourced agency to work in government-owned facilities?
- Is the government permitted to discriminate by regularizing some project employees while terminating others who are similarly placed?
- Qazi Aziz ur Rehman vs The State2019 PHC 42 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-07Read full judgment →
- Qazi Aziz ur Rehman vs State2019 PHC 11 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-07Read full judgment →
- Qamar Zaman vs Zia-ur-Rehman etc2019 PHC 222 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-11Read full judgment →
- Qaizar vs Tariq, etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 774, 2019 YLR 2115, 2019 PHC 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-26Read full judgment →
- Qaizar Khan vs The State & another2020 YLR 2242, 2019 PHC 274, PLJ 2020 Cr.C.(Peshawar)371 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-15Read full judgment →
- Professor Rehmatullah Khan, Resident of Irfan Flats, Opposite Haji Gul Plaza, Bypass road, Mardan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through its Chief Secretary and others2019 PHC 70, 2019 PLC (C.S) 1370, 2019 PHC 52 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the revised summary approved by the Chief Minister and the consequential notification recalling his appointment as Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Kohat, as illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal question revolved around whether the approval of the Chief Minister regarding an appointment can be reviewed or rescinded upon the recommendation of the Minister concerned, and whether such an appointment creates a vested right before being acted upon. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the competent authority is empowered to vary, rescind, or cancel an order before it has been acted upon. Furthermore, the Court established that internal departmental correspondence regarding deputation does not create a vested right, and once an appointment order is acted upon and the incumbent assumes charge, valuable rights accrue which are protected under the principle of locus poenitentiae.
Questions settled- Whether approval of the Chief Minister can be reviewed and rescinded upon the recommendation of the Minister-in-Charge before being acted upon?
- Does internal correspondence regarding an appointment on deputation create a vested right in favour of a recommendee?
- Can an appointment order that has already been acted upon and assumed by an incumbent be rescinded under the principle of locus poenitentiae?
- Professor Rehmatullah Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PHC 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-27Read full judgment →
- Pir Noroz Ali Shah vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 457 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the conviction of appellants by the Anti-Terrorism Court for kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the retracted confessions, the reliability of the identification parade, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of the abductee. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the mode and manner of the raid, noting the absence of crucial police daily diaries and independent witnesses. The Court further ruled that the confessions were involuntary, as the accused remained in prolonged police custody, and the Magistrate failed to provide sufficient time for reflection, violating established procedural safeguards. Additionally, the identification parade was found to be legally worthless due to significant delays and the exposure of the accused to the complainant while in custody. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, affirming that any doubt in the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce police daily diaries regarding the constitution and movement of a raiding party create fatal doubts in the prosecution's case?
- Is a confession recorded after prolonged police custody and without sufficient time for reflection considered voluntary and admissible?
- Does an identification parade conducted after significant delay, where the accused were exposed to the complainant, possess any evidentiary value?
- Is the failure to collect call data records fatal to a charge of kidnapping for ransom when the demand for ransom is a central allegation?
- Pir Jalal Rahman Shah vs Irfan Khan and others2019 CLC 1124, 2019 PHC 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-09Read full judgment →
- Pir Farman Ali Shah vs Yousaf Khan and others2020 KLR Criminal Cases 64, 2019 MLD 1622, 2019 PHC 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
- Pir Farman Ali Shah and 10 others vs Yousaf Khan and 4 others2019 MLD 1622 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bannu, dismissing a private complaint under sections 3, 7, and 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and acquitting the respondents. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of an appeal against acquittal under the Illegal Dispossession Act and the legality of the trial court's proceedings initiated on a vague police inquiry report without recording statements under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that an appeal against acquittal is maintainable under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 read with section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and that failure to record preliminary statements under section 200, Cr.P.C. along with a defective and perfunctory police inquiry renders the trial proceedings and acquittal order null and void. The court laid down the principle that a private complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards, including an in-depth police inquiry and recording of statements under section 200, Cr.P.C., failing which the matter warrants a remand for a de novo trial.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal against acquittal is maintainable under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- Is it mandatory to record the statement of a complainant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 upon receiving a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- What is the legal effect of a vague and perfunctory police inquiry report submitted pursuant to a private complaint?
- Pio Rehman vs Safeer Badshah etc2019 PHC 272, 2020 YLR 1827 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
- Pervez Ali vs Razia Begum2020 YLR 188, 2019 PHC 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-30Read full judgment →
- Pervez Ali vs Mst. Razia Begum and 2 others2019 PLJ Peshawar 182 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-08-30Read full judgment →
- Pak Mohammad vs Mst. Rozeena etc2019 PHC 406, 2020 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
- Noor Islam vs Ihsanullah etc2020 YLR 497, 2019 PHC 210 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-20Read full judgment →
- Qasim Iqbal vs The State etc2019 PHC 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-20Read full judgment →
- Noor Alam Khan and another vs Senior Member Board of Revenue, Khyber2020 CLC 1453, 2019 PHC 400 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
- Niazuddin vs The State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 790, 2019 YLR 2183, 2019 PHC 86 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-03-27Read full judgment →
- Niaz Wali alias Naz Ali vs Abizar and othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 545, 2019 PHC 372 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for murder, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, and abscondence, given material contradictions regarding the time of reporting, presence of witnesses, and crime scene details. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the alleged eye-witness was doubtful, the presence of the complainant at the scene was improbable, and the initial journey to the hospital was shrouded in mystery. The Court ruled that abscondence alone cannot substitute for direct, substantive evidence when the primary prosecution case is riddled with contradictions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the murder reference was answered in the negative, laying down the principle that absconsion is merely corroborative and cannot sustain a conviction when direct evidence fails.
Questions settled- Can abscondence alone form the basis of a conviction when the primary prosecution evidence is doubtful and riddled with contradictions?
- Does the testimony of a chance witness require strong independent corroboration to maintain a conviction on a capital charge?
- What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when the initial journey to the hospital and the lodging of the FIR are shrouded in mystery and contradictions?
- Whether material discrepancies regarding the crime scene and absence of supporting physical evidence vitiate the prosecution's case in a murder trial?
- Nayyar Abbas Jaffari vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Home and Tribal Affairs Department and 4 others2019 P Cr. L J 941 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment resolves eight writ petitions seeking the withdrawal and deletion of the petitioners' names from the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question concerned the legality of retaining the petitioners' names in the Fourth Schedule beyond the statutory maximum period of three years without fulfilling mandatory pre-requisites such as communicating grounds of proscription and establishing reasonable grounds of involvement in terrorism or sectarianism. The Peshawar High Court held that keeping individuals proscribed in the Fourth Schedule indefinitely or beyond the statutory three-year period—and relying on stale, unsubstantiated reports or uncommunicated, unpublished notifications—is illegal, unconstitutional, and violates Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Court laid down the principle that the Federal Government must strictly adhere to the mandatory pre-requisites under section 11EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and that a proscription order cannot remain operative for an indefinite period exceeding three years. Consequently, the petitions were accepted, and the respondents were directed to immediately delete the names of the petitioners from the Fourth Schedule and defreeze their bank accounts, salaries, and pensions.
Questions settled- Whether the inclusion of a person's name in the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 can remain operative beyond the statutory period of three years?
- Does the availability of an alternate remedy of review under section 11EE(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 bar the filing of a constitutional writ petition when authorities have already justified their stance in comments?
- Is it mandatory for the Federal Government to communicate the grounds of proscription to a person within three days of passing the order under section 11EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Can a name remain in the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in the absence of supporting evidence or fresh proof substantiating allegations of terrorism or sectarianism?
- Naveeda Naz etc vs Chairman KP Public Service Commission2019 PHC 15 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-24Read full judgment →
- Nasir Mahmood Khan, etc vs Jehangir, etc2019 PLJ Peshawar 153 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-06Read full judgment →
- Nasir khan vs Zamin Shah and others2019 CLC 741, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 126, 2019 PHC 3 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged an appellate order that dismissed the petitioner's appeal for failing to append a certified copy of the decree sheet to the memorandum of appeal. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and injunction, which the trial court rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an order rejecting a plaint is maintainable without the accompanying certified copy of the decree sheet. The Peshawar High Court held that the requirement under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to append a certified copy of the decree is mandatory. The Court clarified that, pursuant to Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the rejection of a plaint is statutorily defined as a decree. Consequently, the appellate court correctly dismissed the appeal as incompetent due to the absence of the mandatory decree sheet, noting that the petitioner failed to obtain or file it despite having ample opportunity.
Questions settled- Is the rejection of a plaint considered a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is it mandatory to append a certified copy of the decree sheet with a memorandum of appeal under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an appeal be dismissed as incompetent if the appellant fails to attach the certified copy of the decree sheet?
- Nasir Khan vs Director, Anti-Corruption Establisment KPK & others2020 PLD Peshawar 15, 2019 PHC 252 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two writ petitions challenging the authority of the Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE) to unilaterally drop criminal cases against public servants without judicial oversight. The core legal question is whether the Director of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, can drop a criminal case under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Anti-Corruption Rules, 1999, without adhering to the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, specifically regarding the submission of a final report to a competent court. The Court held that the Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961, and its rules are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the ordinary criminal law. Consequently, the Court ruled that the executive power to drop a case under the Rules cannot bypass the statutory requirement to submit a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to a Special Judge. The principle laid down is that the Anti-Corruption Establishment must submit its investigation results to the competent court, which retains the judicial authority to accept or reject the recommendation to drop a case.
Questions settled- Can the Anti-Corruption Establishment drop a criminal case without submitting a final report to a competent court under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Are the provisions of the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961, in derogation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Does the Anti-Corruption Establishment have the authority to unilaterally cancel an FIR without judicial intervention?
- Naseer vs The StatePLJ 2019 Cr.c. 1563, 2019 PHC 124 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter involves a bail petition filed by the accused Naseer seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the rule of consistency given that his co-accused, assigned an identical role of firing, had already been acquitted by the High Court, despite the petitioner having remained a proclaimed offender or absconder for over six years. The Peshawar High Court held that since the acquitted co-accused faced the same set of evidence and an identical role, his acquittal brings the petitioner's case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that abscondence alone cannot deny bail to an accused person if he is otherwise found entitled to the concession of bail on merits, such as through the rule of consistency arising from the acquittal of a co-accused.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused with an identical role entitle another accused to bail under the rule of consistency?
- Can mere abscondence of an accused for a long period disentitle him from bail if his case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry?
- Whether tentative assessment of evidence permits the grant of bail when the main co-accused has been acquitted on the same set of evidence?
- Naseer Muhammad son of Saqi Muhammad vs The State etc2019 PHC 266 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Naseer Muhammad, who was found guilty under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment on two counts for the murder of two deceased brothers, alongside a connected criminal revision seeking enhancement of sentence. The core legal questions involve the reliability of ocular testimony, the corroborative value of medical and circumstantial evidence, the effect of delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the application of the principle of benefit of doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant through cogent and confidence-inspiring evidence, noting material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and doubtful recoveries. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant of the charge, and dismissed the revision petition for enhancement. The key principle laid down is that where the ocular account is inconsistent and unreliable, and the prosecution case is fraught with reasonable doubts, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the ocular testimony is directly contradicted by the medical evidence?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report cast serious doubt on the presence of eyewitnesses?
- Is circumstantial evidence such as recoveries and abscondence sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of reliable direct evidence?
- When is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt in a criminal trial?
- Naseem Khan vs Sardar Sher Bahadur Khan2019 PLD Peshawar 141 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-29Read full judgment →
- Naseem Khan vs Banaras Khan Jadoon and 3 others2019 P Cr. L J 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of FIR registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the High Court can exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR at the initial stage where the allegations involve disputed questions of fact and alternative statutory remedies under the criminal procedure are available. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that investigation is the exclusive domain of the police and trial, and disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved through a constitutional petition for quashment of an FIR. The court laid down the principle that High Courts should exercise judicial restraint and avoid short-circuiting the statutory criminal process by quashing FIRs at the initial stage, as adequate remedies such as discharge, release, or acquittal are provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can quash an FIR under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan at the initial stage?
- Can disputed questions of fact regarding a financial transaction and a dishonoured cheque be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether the investigation process and functions of the investigating agency can be bypassed by filing a constitutional petition for the quashment of a criminal case?
- Do accused persons have alternative remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 instead of invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for quashment?
- Naseeb Zada vs The State and another2019 YLR 2157 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for abetting the murder of his wife, Mst. Salma Bibi, under section 302(b) read with section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the corpus delicti and whether the evidence, including an alleged extra-judicial confession, a recorded telephonic conversation, and a co-accused's confession, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the medical evidence regarding the time of death contradicted the prosecution's timeline, casting doubt on the identity of the recovered body. Furthermore, the Court found the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR unexplained, the co-accused's confession unreliable due to police custody, and the recorded telephonic conversation inadmissible without expert verification of the voice. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, and a co-accused's confession cannot serve as substantive evidence against another without strong independent corroboration. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the medical evidence regarding the time of death contradicts the prosecution's timeline?
- Does a confessional statement of a co-accused constitute substantive evidence against an accused person?
- Is a recorded telephonic conversation admissible as evidence without expert verification of the voice?
- What is the legal effect of an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR?
- Naseeb Zada vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 883 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for abetting the murder of his wife, Mst. Salma Bibi, under Section 302(b) and Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the identity of the deceased, the occurrence of the death, and the appellant's culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Specifically, the medical evidence regarding the time of death contradicted the prosecution's timeline by over a month, rendering the identity of the recovered body as the deceased impossible to establish. Furthermore, the Court found the delay in lodging the FIR unexplained, the confessional statement of the co-accused unreliable, and the recorded telephonic conversation inadmissible due to a lack of expert authentication. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the principle that the benefit of any doubt in the prosecution's case must accrue to the accused as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence regarding the time of death contradicts the prosecution's timeline?
- Is a confessional statement made by a co-accused sufficient to convict an accused without strong independent corroboration?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Can a recorded telephonic conversation be admitted as evidence without expert authentication of the voice?
- Naqibullah vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bannu, acquitting the respondent-accused of charges under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case arose from an incident of firing resulting in a murder and injuries. The core legal questions involved the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the evidentiary value of abscondence, and the assessment of contradictory ocular testimony. The Peshawar High Court held that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is extremely narrow, requiring proof of perversity, gross violation of law, or grave misreading of evidence, none of which were established. The Court found that co-accused on the same set of evidence had already been acquitted, the ocular testimony contained material contradictions and improvements, and abscondence alone does not constitute conclusive proof of guilt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Questions settled- What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal judgment?
- Does the abscondence of an accused person alone constitute conclusive proof of guilt?
- Can an accused person be convicted on the same set of evidence upon which co-accused have already been acquitted without a distinguishable role?
- What is the legal effect of material contradictions and improvements in the statements of eyewitnesses?
- Naik Muhammad vs The State2019 PHC 38 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
- Nafees Ullah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Director2019 PLC (C.S.) 1334 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, concerns the refusal of the respondent department to appoint the petitioner as a Junior Clerk (BPS-5). The petitioner, having secured the 6th position on the merit list, sought appointment after the candidate at the 5th position failed to join the service. The core legal question was whether the department is obligated to appoint the next candidate on the merit list or if the vacant post must be re-advertised. The Court held that the petitioner, having successfully qualified through the selection process, acquired a legitimate expectancy and a vested right to be appointed. The Court ruled that keeping the post vacant for re-advertisement, despite the availability of a qualified candidate on the merit list, violates principles of meritocracy, fairness, and reasonableness. Consequently, the Court declared the refusal to appoint the petitioner illegal and directed the respondent to appoint the petitioner to the vacant position, emphasizing that the state must ensure socio-economic justice and adhere to merit-based recruitment practices.
Questions settled- Is a candidate next in merit entitled to appointment when a higher-ranked candidate fails to join the service?
- Does a candidate who successfully passes a selection process and appears on a merit list acquire a vested right to be appointed?
- Can a government department refuse to appoint a qualified candidate from an existing merit list in favor of re-advertising the vacant post?
- M/s Abid Foundry vs Pakistan, through Federal Secretary, Finance and2019 PHC 136 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-04-03Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar Khan and another vs The State and another2019 YLR 1109 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals and a revision petition arising from a cross-case incident involving a double murder and injuries. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the presence of cross-versions and alleged discrepancies in ocular testimony. The court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant Muhammad Ashraf through consistent, natural, and unshaken ocular testimony of the complainant and eye-witnesses, whose presence at the scene was corroborated by the cross-case registered by the accused party. The medical evidence and recovery of incriminating articles further supported the conviction. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, maintaining the conviction and sentence while upholding the acquittal of other co-accused due to a lack of corroborative evidence. The key principle laid down is that minor, immaterial discrepancies in witness testimony do not undermine the credibility of eye-witnesses when their presence is established and their account is corroborated by independent evidence, such as medical reports and forensic recoveries.
Questions settled- Do minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses necessarily adversely affect the credibility of their testimony?
- Can the presence of eye-witnesses be established by their inclusion in a cross-case registered by the accused party?
- Is the conviction of an accused sustainable when ocular testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of incriminating articles?
- Murad & another vs Aga Khan Health Services Pakistan through Nadeem2019 PHC 200 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-02Read full judgment →
- Muqarab Khan Panni and 5 others vs Collector Land Acquisition (Dor), Haripur and 2 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1399 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →