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.
- Abdul Hakeem Hashmi vs Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through its2019 PHC 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns twelve service appeals filed by judicial officers challenging their removal from service for corruption and unbecoming conduct under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011. The core legal questions were whether the High Court’s Administration Committee was the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and whether the dispensation of a regular inquiry was legally permissible. The Tribunal held that the Administration Committee constitutes the competent authority for judicial officers. Regarding the procedure, the Tribunal ruled that holding a regular inquiry is not a universal requirement and depends on the facts of each case. Where allegations of persistent corruption are supported by adverse Annual Confidential Reports, inspection reports, and intelligence agency findings, the shorter procedure of a show-cause notice is valid. The Tribunal emphasized that judicial officers must maintain unimpeachable integrity, a standard higher than that of ordinary civil servants. While upholding the findings of misconduct, the Tribunal, applying the principle of parity with similar past cases, modified the penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement.
Questions settled- Is a regular inquiry mandatory in all disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Can the Administration Committee of the High Court act as the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers?
- Does the persistent reputation of being corrupt constitute sufficient grounds for disciplinary action against a judicial officer?
- Can the penalty of removal from service be modified to compulsory retirement based on the principle of parity?
- Abdul Ghani vs Jamail-U-Rehman2019 [M] C.L.R. 1353, 2019 YLR 408 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
- Abdar son of Shah Sultan vs The State and one other2019 PHC 294 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-15Read full judgment →
- Abbottabad and 4 others vs Banaras Khan and 10 others2019 CLC 955 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-24Read full judgment →
- (Messrs) Gas Masters CNG Station vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PCTLR 573 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-22Read full judgment →
- Ziaullah Afridi vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary and 4 others2018 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-03Read full judgment →
- Zeest Shah vs Gomal Medical College, D.I.Khan & 4 others2019 YLR 174, 2018 PHC 1504 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
- Zarshad and one other vs Mst. Bibi Sultana and 40 others2018 PHC 1685 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-09Read full judgment →
- Zareen Muhammad and another vs Muhammad Shoaib and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 71, 2018 PHC 1722 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-24Read full judgment →
- Zar Nasib Khan and another vs The State through Advocate-General and another2018 YLR 443 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-12Read full judgment →
- Zaiwar Khan vs State2018 YLR 2025, 2018 PHC 1402 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
- Zaiwar Khan vs Sahib Zada and another2018 YLR 2025 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent accused by the trial court in a murder case registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around the competency of the District Public Prosecutor under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2005 to apply for the discharge of an accused charged with an offense punishable with death or life imprisonment, and the conflict between provincial and federal statutes regarding the powers of an Investigating Officer versus a Public Prosecutor. The Peshawar High Court held that the District Public Prosecutor has no statutory backing or authority under the 2005 Act to apply for the discharge of an accused in a murder case, and that the exclusive prerogative to seek discharge or submit a final report vests in the Investigating Officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which prevails as a federal statute. The court laid down the principle that the opinion of a Public Prosecutor regarding the guilt or discharge of an accused in major offenses lacks legal sanctity, and bail orders based on unauthorized prosecutor applications are illegal and liable to be set aside.
Questions settled- Can a District Public Prosecutor apply for the discharge of an accused charged with an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2005?
- Does the District Public Prosecutor possess the legal authority to direct the Investigating Officer regarding the placement of an accused's name in columns of the challan?
- Whose exclusive prerogative is it under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to ask for the discharge of an accused or cancellation of a case?
- Which statute prevails in the event of an inconsistency between the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and a provincial prosecution service act?
- Zain Khan vs Adnan and 2 others2018 MLD 1969 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-20Read full judgment →
- Zahir Rehman vs Saeed Ali Raza Shah and another2018 YLR 1900 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions for murder and attempted murder arising from a cross-version incident at a tobacco barn. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence and whether the appellant acted in self-defence. The Peshawar High Court found the prosecution's ocular evidence unreliable, noting that the eye-witnesses claimed to be in close proximity to the firing yet remained unhurt, which contradicted the site plan. Consequently, the court discarded this testimony. Regarding the cross-case, the court observed that the appellant sustained serious firearm injuries, indicating a sudden fight where both parties suppressed facts. The court held that the appellant acted in the exercise of his right of private defence. It established the principle that the right of private defence need not be weighed in golden scales and may be considered by the court even if not explicitly pleaded by the accused, provided the surrounding circumstances warrant it. Accordingly, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants.
Questions settled- Can a court consider the plea of private defence if the accused did not explicitly raise it during trial?
- Does the right of private defence require the accused to prove their actions were measured in golden scales?
- Should ocular testimony be discarded when the site plan indicates the witnesses were in close proximity to the firing but remained unhurt?
- Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt even in cross-version criminal cases?
- Zahid Saeed and 9 others vs Director General Technical Education2018 PLC (C.S.) 387 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by ten Junior Lecturers of the Government College of Technology, Timergara Dir Lower, seeking to declare the NWFP Regularization of Service Act, 2009 violative of Article 26(1) and void under Article 8(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and challenging the rejection of their regularization applications. The petitioners, appointed on contract/fixed pay from the student fund during academic sessions, sought regular status akin to other government servants. The respondents contested the petition, stating the petitioners were paid from the student fund rather than the government budget, making regularization rules inapplicable. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners were hired purely on contract from the student fund due to teacher shortages in 2013 and 2014, and the relevant regularization acts did not apply to them given their dates of appointment and funding source. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether contract employees paid from student funds are entitled to regularization under the NWFP Regularization of Service Act, 2009?
- Does section 3 of the NWFP Regularization of Service Act, 2009 violate Article 26(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can employees engaged on fixed pay for academic sessions out of student funds claim the status of regular government servants?
- Zahid Ali vs The State2018 YLR 212 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-28Read full judgment →
- Zaheer Ahmed vs The State and another2018 YLR 982 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-10Read full judgment →
- Yasir vs The State and another2018 YLR 379 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application concerns an accused charged with murder who sought release on medical grounds due to chronic schizoaffective disorder. The core legal question was whether an accused, found by a medical board to be of unsound mind and incapable of making a defense, should be denied bail and subjected to indefinite detention. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court erred in refusing bail. The Court ruled that under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an accused found incapable of defense due to mental illness should be released on sufficient security, provided arrangements are made for their care and the safety of others. The Court emphasized that denying such relief violates the fundamental rights to life and liberty guaranteed by Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It affirmed that the administration of justice must remain firm, ensuring that legal protections are not bypassed by external pressures, and that the accused's indefinite detention without trial is contrary to the universal principles of justice.
Questions settled- Can an accused person suffering from a chronic mental illness, who is incapable of making a defense, be released on bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the denial of bail to an accused who is medically unfit to stand trial violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- What is the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for an accused found to be of unsound mind during trial proceedings?
- Is a trial court justified in keeping an accused in indefinite detention when they are incapable of making a defense due to mental illness?
- Yaseen Ali vs The State through Junaid Khan S.H.O2018 MLD 1740 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-18Read full judgment →
- Yaqoob vs Political Agent Khyber Agency Peshawar Cantt. and 62018 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
- Yahya Jan and others vs Muhammad Younas and others2018 PHC 1470 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
- Yahya Jan and 3 others vs Muhammad Younas and 3 others2018 PHC 1470, 2018 CLC 1479 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
- Wisal vs The State and another2018 MLD 1108 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-02Read full judgment →
- William Masih and another vs Bacha Khan University Charsadda2018 PLJ Peshawar 11 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioners' services as regular sweepers by the respondent university, which was effected without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The core legal question was whether the summary termination of service, despite allegations of habitual absenteeism, violated the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the termination order was illegal and unsustainable because the petitioners were condemned unheard. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that the principle of audi alteram partem is an inalienable component of natural justice that must be read into all statutory and administrative proceedings, regardless of whether the governing statute explicitly mandates it. Consequently, the Court set aside the termination, ordering the reinstatement of the petitioners. However, acknowledging the petitioners' habitual absenteeism, the Court imposed a penalty of fifty percent of their back wages, directing the employer to follow proper legal procedures if future disciplinary action becomes necessary. This judgment reinforces the mandatory requirement of due process in service matters, emphasizing that administrative actions must adhere to fundamental fairness.
Questions settled- Does the failure to provide a show-cause notice or personal hearing vitiate an order of termination from service?
- Is the principle of audi alteram partem applicable to service matters even if the governing statute is silent on the requirement of a hearing?
- Can an employer terminate an employee for habitual absenteeism without following formal disciplinary proceedings?
- Wazir Ahmad Khan and other vs Reayat Khan Khattak and others2019 PLC (C.S) 901, 2019 PLD Peshawar 135, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 147, 2018 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns several consolidated Regular First Appeals arising from a suit for damages for defamation filed by a civil servant against the appellants. The core legal question was whether a government servant is required to obtain prior government sanction before instituting a civil suit for damages to vindicate their public acts or character. The trial court had originally decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. Upon review, the High Court held that the suit was not maintainable. The Court determined that under Rule 31 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1987, a government servant is strictly prohibited from seeking recourse to any court for the vindication of their public acts or character without obtaining prior sanction from the government. Because the respondent failed to obtain such permission, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment and dismissed the suit. The judgment establishes the principle that the requirement for prior government sanction is mandatory for civil servants seeking judicial vindication of their public conduct, ensuring the maintenance of service discipline.
Questions settled- Can a government servant file a defamation suit regarding their public acts without prior government sanction?
- Does the requirement for prior government sanction for legal recourse apply to civil servants under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1987?
- Is a suit for damages for defamation filed by a government servant maintainable if initiated without departmental permission?
- Waseem Gul and another vs Shahid Jameel and another2019 [M] C.L.R. 1370, 2019 YLR 644, 2018 PHC 1632 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-16Read full judgment →
- Waris Khan vs Khasadar alias Tor Khan and another2018 PHC 1497 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-05Read full judgment →
- Waqas Aslam Awan vs The State etc2018 PHC 1855 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-14Read full judgment →
- Wali Muhammad Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and 5 others2018 CLC 134 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Member of the Provincial Assembly, challenged the approval of specific developmental schemes in his constituency, alleging they bypassed the District Development Advisory Committee (DDAC) established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Establishment of District Development Advisory Committee Act, 1989. The core legal questions concerned whether the DDAC's recommendation is a mandatory prerequisite for developmental projects and whether the Provincial Government's executive authority under the Constitution is subservient to the DDAC. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the DDAC's role is merely recommendatory and directory, not mandatory. The Provincial Government retains constitutional executive authority to initiate development projects, which are subject to approval by the Provincial Assembly. The judgment affirmed that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013 and the Act of 1989 must be harmoniously construed with the Constitution. It established that developmental projects approved by the Provincial Assembly are generally non-justiciable, and that the petitioner was estopped by conduct from challenging schemes after having sought similar non-procedural approvals for his own projects.
Questions settled- Is the recommendation of the District Development Advisory Committee mandatory for the approval of developmental schemes under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Establishment of District Development Advisory Committee Act, 1989?
- Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013 override the executive authority of the Provincial Government to initiate developmental projects?
- Can a member of the Provincial Assembly challenge the legality of developmental schemes after having previously sought similar approvals for their own projects?
- Are developmental projects included in the Annual Development Programme and approved by the Provincial Assembly justiciable in a court of law?
- University of Swat through Registrar vs Director Anti-Corruption, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 4 others2018 PLD Peshawar 101 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-23Read full judgment →
- Umar Zeb vs The State and another2018 MLD 1319 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-09Read full judgment →
- Umar Khan vs Nazir Khan2018 PHC 1849, 2019 CLC 935 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-10Read full judgment →
- Umar Farooq and others vs Hamid Ali and others2018 CLC 254 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts decreeing a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs regarding the legacy of late Mir Aslam Khan. The core legal question concerned whether the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, and the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, apply retrospectively to govern inheritance previously attested under Customary Law in 1924, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Peshawar High Court held that the 1935 and 1962 Acts have retrospective effect, entitling female legal heirs to their Shari shares notwithstanding prior contrary entries under Customary Law, and that limitation does not run against co-sharers in matters of inheritance. The court established that succession of a deceased Muslim must be determined according to Islamic Law regardless of the date of death, and that wrong revenue entries do not acquire legitimacy with the efflux of time.
Questions settled- Whether the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Muslim Personal Law (shariat) Application Act, 1935 and Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, have retrospective effect on successions previously governed by Customary Law?
- Does limitation run against a co-sharer in matters of inheritance and succession?
- Can wrong entries in the revenue record be legitimized with the efflux of time?
- Tariq vs The State and another2018 YLR 578 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
- Tariq Shah vs Provincial Police Officer Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2018 P Cr. L J 947 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated writ petitions were filed by various citizens challenging their inclusion in the Fourth Schedule list under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, by the provincial government, which effectively branded them as terrorists associated with banned organizations. The petitioners, asserting their innocence and citing their social standing and past contributions, sought the removal of their names from the list. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction or require the petitioners to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the governing legislation. The Court held that the petitioners must first exhaust the alternative remedy prescribed under Section 11-EE(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Consequently, the Court directed the Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department to decide all pending appeals within thirty days. Furthermore, the Court established that for petitioners who had not yet filed an appeal, their current writ petitions would be treated as formal appeals for the purpose of the statutory remedy, ensuring compliance with the procedural requirements of the Act.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against inclusion in the Fourth Schedule list without the petitioner exhausting the statutory appeal process?
- Can a writ petition be treated as a statutory appeal under Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, if no formal appeal was previously filed?
- What is the time limit for the provincial government to decide an appeal filed under Section 11-EE(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Tariq Mehmood and another vs The State2018 YLR 1668 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-13Read full judgment →
- Tajbar Khan vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 1096 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition seeks the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 2 by the Sessions Judge in a murder case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following a prolonged period of absconsion spanning nearly four decades. The core legal question revolves around whether long-standing absconsion alone warrants the refusal or cancellation of bail when the accused otherwise makes out a case for further inquiry on merits. The Peshawar High Court held that mere absconsion is a corroborative piece of evidence and does not stand as a bar to the grant of bail if the accused is entitled to it on merits, particularly where the case involves delayed reporting, lack of medical examination, and single-shell recovery against multiple assailants. The court established the principle that grounds for bail cancellation differ from those for its initial grant, and an order granting bail will rarely be interfered with unless it is palpably illegal, arbitrary, or perverse.
Questions settled- Does long-standing absconsion alone warrant the refusal or cancellation of post-arrest bail when a case of further inquiry is made out on merits?
- Are the grounds for the cancellation of bail different from the grounds for its initial grant?
- Can an order granting post-arrest bail be interfered with in the absence of any illegality, perversity, or arbitrariness?
- Tajbar Khan vs The State & 1 another2018 PCRLJ 1096, 2018 PHC 1567 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Court of Sessions Judge/Zila Qazi. The core legal question was whether the respondent's long-standing absconsion, spanning nearly four decades, necessitated the cancellation of bail despite the case otherwise qualifying for further inquiry. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower court's decision to grant bail. The court found that the case against the accused was one of further inquiry, noting the lack of eyewitnesses, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the absence of a medical examination of the deceased. The court affirmed the principle that absconsion is merely a corroborative piece of evidence and does not, in isolation, justify the refusal or cancellation of bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to the concession on merits. Furthermore, the court emphasized that bail cancellation requires demonstrating that the initial order was palpably illegal, arbitrary, or perverse, which was not established in this instance.
Questions settled- Does long-standing absconsion of an accused, by itself, constitute sufficient grounds for the cancellation of bail?
- Is bail to be granted as a matter of right when a case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
- What is the legal threshold for interfering with an order granting bail by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Tahirullah vs Muhammad Rafiullah & another2018 PLJ Peshawar 159, 2018 PHC 1529 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
- Tahir Khan and two others vs The State etc2018 PHC 1746, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 146, 2019 YLR 545, 2018 PHC 1820 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
- Tahir Khan & another vs The State2019 MLD 361, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 302, 2018 PHC 1724 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-08Read full judgment →
- Tahir Javed vs The State through A.G. KPK Peshawar and others2018 PLD Peshawar 162 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-03Read full judgment →
- Syed Sardar Ali vs Said Ali and 14 others2018 YLR 779 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge-V, Nowshera, whereby an appeal against the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree was accepted upon payment of costs. The core legal question was whether the application to set aside the ex parte decree was barred by time, given that the defendants had initially appeared and filed a written statement before absenting themselves, and whether the limitation period was governed by Article 164 or the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act. The Peshawar High Court held that since the defendants had already appeared in response to summons and filed a written statement, their case fell under the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act, providing a three-year limitation period rather than thirty days, rendering the application filed within time. The key principle laid down is that where defendants enter appearance and later absent themselves, an application to set aside an ex parte decree is governed by the three-year limitation period of Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, and courts should favor adjudication of disputes on merits rather than technicalities.
Questions settled- What is the applicable limitation period for filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree when the defendants had initially appeared and filed a written statement before absenting themselves?
- Does an application for setting aside an ex parte decree fall under Article 164 or the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act when the defendant was not unserved?
- Should procedural technicalities override the determination of civil disputes on merits?
- Syed Nauman Bacha and another vs Muhammad Qasim Bacha and another2018 PHC 1383, 2018 P Cr. L J 974 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition seeks post-arrest bail on statutory grounds for juvenile petitioners charged under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR registered in District Mardan. The core legal question is whether the applicable statutory delay period for granting bail to a juvenile under section 10(7) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 is six months—because section 12 prohibits awarding the death penalty to juveniles—or one year as prescribed for offences punishable with death. The Peshawar High Court held that notwithstanding the bar on executing a death sentence against juveniles, if the offence charged is punishable with death, the relevant statutory period for bail remains one year under section 10(7)(a) of the Ordinance rather than six months. The court laid down the principle that the statutory period for bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 is determined by the punishment prescribed for the charged offence in the penal statute, not by the modified sentencing restrictions applicable to juveniles. Finding that the trial had been unduly delayed due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses and exceeded the one-year statutory period, the court admitted the petitioners to bail.
Questions settled- Whether the statutory period for bail of a juvenile charged with an offence punishable with death is one year or six months when section 12 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance bars the death penalty for juveniles?
- Does the statutory period for bail under section 10(7) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 depend on the sentence prohibited for juveniles or the punishment prescribed for the charged offence?
- Are juveniles entitled to post-arrest bail on statutory grounds when the trial is delayed due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses?
- Syed Ijaz Shah vs Khalid Aziz2019 MLD 122, 2018 PHC 1625 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-12Read full judgment →
- Syed Bareek Jan and 6 others vs Saeed Jan and others2018 CLC 475 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
- Tariq Zaman vs Muhammad Shafi Khan and 2 others2018 MLD 854 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Karak, whereby the appellant Tariq Zaman was convicted under Section 302(b) and Section 324 PPC, receiving a death sentence and imprisonment along with a murder reference for confirmation. The prosecution case involved an FIR alleging that the appellant and co-accused participated in a scuffle and subsequent indiscriminate firing resulting in the death of the deceased. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular testimony, the identification of the accused during night-time firing, and the evidentiary value of the appellant's abscondence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the complainant, the specific role of the appellant who was described as empty-handed in the FIR, and the identity of the assailant given the darkness and general allegations. The court established that abscondence is merely corroborative and cannot sustain a conviction when primary ocular evidence is untrustworthy, and that any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can an accused's conviction for murder be sustained solely on abscondence when the primary ocular testimony is found unreliable?
- Whether the benefit of reasonable doubt should be extended to an accused when the FIR and eyewitness accounts fail to attribute specific firearms or fatal roles during an incident of simultaneous firing at night?
- Does the abscondence of an accused cure the inherent defects and infirmities present in the prosecution's ocular account?
- Sultanat Khan vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 1563 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Sultanat Khan, for the murder of his daughter-in-law and attempted murder of his son, arising from a property dispute. The trial court had convicted the appellant under sections 302(b), 324, and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who sustained injuries in the same occurrence, was entitled to the benefit of the right of private defence, despite not explicitly pleading it, and whether the conviction under section 302(b) was appropriate given the circumstances. The Court held that while the appellant did not formally plead self-defence, the evidence of his own injuries and the suppression of facts by the complainant party indicated he acted in self-defence but exceeded its limits. Consequently, the Court converted the conviction from section 302(b) to 302(c), reducing the sentence to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that courts may infer a right of private defence from the material on record even if not specifically pleaded by the accused, provided the circumstances justify such an inference.
Questions settled- Can an accused be granted the benefit of the right of private defence if the plea was not specifically raised during the trial?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused by the prosecution entitle the accused to a reduction in sentence?
- Under what circumstances can a conviction for qatl-i-amd be converted from section 302(b) to section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Subedar Major Maqbool Ali Khan and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Safron Civil Secretariat Islamabad and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 15 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- State vs Islam Jan2018 PHC 1650 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-23Read full judgment →
- State vs Aqeel Khan etc2018 PHC 1380 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-16Read full judgment →
- State through Prosecutor General Accountability, National AccountabilityPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 680 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Gulham Hussain and another2018 YLR 1223 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by the State against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kohat, which acquitted two respondents of murder charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, pursuant to an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion to acquit the accused at an intermediate stage of the trial due to a lack of incriminating evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the acquittal was justified. The Court observed that the prosecution case relied solely on rumors and suspicion, with no eye-witnesses or incriminating recoveries. Furthermore, the complainant explicitly exonerated the respondents during trial testimony. The Court affirmed that Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers a court to acquit an accused at any stage if there is no probability of conviction, and that recording the entire evidence is not a mandatory prerequisite for such an order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.
Questions settled- Is the recording of the entire prosecution evidence a mandatory condition precedent for a court to exercise its power of acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a trial court acquit an accused at any stage of the proceedings if it determines there is no probability of conviction?
- Does the mere naming of an accused in a supplementary statement based on suspicion, without corroborating ocular or circumstantial evidence, constitute sufficient grounds for conviction?
- State through Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Mst. Irum and another2018 MLD 1731 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-22Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate General, KPK, Peshawar vs Nazim Ali2018 YLR 1471 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-30Read full judgment →
- Siraj-ud-Din vs The State & 1 another2018 MLD 1917, 2018 PHC 1515 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
- Siraj Ud Din vs State through Additional Advocate-General and another2018 MLD 1917 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
- Sikander Sher vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited through Branch Manager2018 CLD 550 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-07Read full judgment →
- Shuja and another vs Mst. Aqila Bibi and 2 others2018 PLJ Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-30Read full judgment →
- Shoaib vs The State2018 PHC 1370 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-28Read full judgment →
- Sherin Zada vs Bakht Biland and 3 others2018 PHC 1329, 2018 MLD 1537 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges an acquittal order passed by a Judicial Magistrate regarding a private complaint filed for offences under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a Judicial Magistrate could take cognizance of such offences when the alleged forgery involved a document submitted in proceedings before the Member, Board of Revenue, without a formal complaint from that forum. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board of Revenue acts as a court, and under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a court cannot take cognizance of offences involving documents produced in judicial proceedings unless a complaint is made by the court concerned. The court affirmed that ancillary offences cannot be used to circumvent mandatory procedural requirements. Consequently, the trial court correctly acquitted the respondents under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it lacked the competence to proceed without the requisite complaint from the Board of Revenue.
Questions settled- Does the Board of Revenue constitute a 'Court' for the purposes of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a Judicial Magistrate take cognizance of offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a complaint from the court where the forged document was produced?
- Does the inclusion of ancillary offences in a complaint allow a complainant to bypass the procedural requirements of Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Sherin Zada vs Bakht Biland & others2018 PHC 1329 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-25Read full judgment →
- Sher Zada vs Dsitrict Collector etc2018 PHC 1355 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-17Read full judgment →
- Sher Rehman vs Mst. Kharo and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 84, 2018 MLD 476 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-17Read full judgment →
- Sher Rehman vs Mst. Kharo & others2018 PLJ Peshawar 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-17Read full judgment →
- Sher Jan vs Mehrab Khan/State2019 MLD 50, 2018 PHC 1718 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-04Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali vs The State through Advocate General, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa2018 YLR 1836 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence of Qatl-i-amd. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given substantial discrepancies in the evidence. The High Court found that the post-mortem examination occurred prior to the lodging of the FIR, casting doubt on the FIR's authenticity. Furthermore, the court identified fatal improvements in witness testimonies regarding the direction of the gunshot, which contradicted the site plan and the FIR. The court also noted that the alleged eyewitnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful, and the motive, though alleged, remained unproven. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, and the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. The conviction and sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence was answered in the negative, establishing the principle that material contradictions and improvements in prosecution evidence necessitate acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the conduct of a post-mortem examination prior to the registration of the FIR render the prosecution case doubtful?
- Can a conviction be sustained when there are material improvements in witness testimony that contradict the initial FIR and site plan?
- Is the testimony of a witness recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible if the witness was not subjected to cross-examination?
- Does the failure to prove an alleged motive entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt in a murder case?
- Sher Alam and other vs Govt and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 12, 2018 PHC 1675 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioners, who were initially appointed as contract-based teachers in Communal Schools within the then Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The core legal question was whether the petitioners, having served for over a decade with unblemished records, were entitled to reinstatement following the deletion of a condition in a departmental letter that had previously justified the termination of under-qualified or ineligible teachers. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to relief, noting that a departmental directive had explicitly ordered the reinstatement of such teachers after deleting the restrictive clause regarding their eligibility. The Court emphasized that the petitioners had served for approximately 15 years and that their continued employment was supported by previous judicial precedents involving similarly situated employees within the same project. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, declaring the impugned termination letter to be without lawful authority and jurisdiction, thereby effectively reinstating the petitioners to their respective posts.
Questions settled- Whether a departmental directive ordering the reinstatement of contract employees overrides previous termination orders based on eligibility criteria?
- Does a long-term service record of over a decade in a project-based appointment create a legitimate expectation for continued employment?
- Can the High Court interfere with administrative termination orders under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 when departmental policy has been inconsistently applied?
- Sher Afzal Khan vs Govt: of KPK & others2019 PLC (C.S) 1065, 2018 PHC 1858 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a retired Chowkidar seeking payment of pensionary benefits. The petitioner, appointed in 1995 and retired in 2016, challenged the respondents' refusal to grant full pensionary benefits for his entire length of service. The core legal question was whether the period of service rendered by an employee on a fixed pay or contract basis, prior to regularization, should be counted towards the total length of service for calculating pensionary benefits. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that when a contract employee is absorbed into regular employment without a break in service, the entire period of service, including the initial contract or temporary phase, must be computed for pension purposes. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to pay all pensionary benefits by counting the petitioner's service from his initial appointment date in 1995. The Court affirmed that the right to pension is a vested right and a legitimate expectation that cannot be arbitrarily abridged.
Questions settled- Should the period of service on a fixed pay or contract basis be counted towards the total length of service for pensionary benefits upon regularization?
- Does a retired civil servant have a vested right to receive pensionary benefits for their entire length of service?
- Can the period of service rendered as a daily wager or contract employee be excluded when computing pensionary benefits after regularization?
- Sher Afzal and others vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 153 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by two accused individuals, Sher Afzal and Munawar, charged under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the alleged murder of the complainant's father. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail despite being directly charged in the FIR and having a history of unexplained abscondance. The Peshawar High Court held that the accused were entitled to bail, determining that their case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court reasoned that the complainant was not an eye-witness, the FIR was delayed by twenty-five hours, no incriminating evidence was recovered, the site plan did not support the prosecution, and the postmortem was not conducted. The key principle laid down is that mere abscondance is not sufficient to deny bail when the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the lack of direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the crime, otherwise establish a case for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused.
Questions settled- Is unexplained abscondance alone sufficient to deny bail to an accused person?
- Does the absence of a postmortem report and incriminating recovery constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted where the complainant is not an eye-witness and the FIR is based on hearsay information?
- Shehriyar vs Zair Ullah and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 312 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for murder and attempted murder under Sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the significant inconsistencies in the evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that the alleged eye-witnesses were likely not present at the scene, as they were not identified in the inquest or postmortem reports, nor did they show signs of blood-staining. Furthermore, the medical evidence regarding the nature of the wounds contradicted the ballistic report, suggesting the use of multiple weapons rather than the single rifle recovered. The court also noted that the complainant’s report was preceded by an unauthorized preliminary police inquiry. Emphasizing that abscondence is merely corroborative and not substantive evidence, and noting the failure to put incriminating motive evidence to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Can abscondence of an accused serve as substantive evidence to sustain a conviction?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to put incriminating evidence regarding motive to the accused during a Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 examination weaken the case?
- Is a conviction sustainable when there are material contradictions between medical evidence regarding wound patterns and ballistic reports?
- Does the failure to cite eye-witnesses in the inquest or postmortem reports create doubt regarding their presence at the scene of the crime?
- Shazia vs The State2018 P Cr. L 1990 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition filed by the petitioner Shazia seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 2400 grams of Charas. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail considering the statutory period of incarceration, the non-commencement of her trial, and her no longer being required for investigation, notwithstanding the prohibitory clause attached to the offence. The Peshawar High Court held that since the petitioner has been in jail since 30.01.2018 and there is no prospect of the commencement of her trial in the near future, while she is no more required for investigation purposes, she is entitled to be released on bail. The court laid down the principle that protracted incarceration without the prospect of an early conclusion or commencement of trial serves as a valid ground for granting bail, even in cases falling within the prohibitory clause of offences involving narcotics.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial has not commenced despite protracted incarceration?
- Does the recovery of 2400 grams of Charas strictly bar the grant of bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in circumstances of delayed trial?
- Can bail be granted when the accused is no longer required for further investigation or interrogation?
- Shaukat vs Jamshed and another2018 YLR 1442 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for the murder of the deceased and attempted murder of the complainant and another witness. The prosecution alleged the appellant and three co-accused, who had previously been acquitted, opened fire on the complainant party. The trial court relied on eyewitness testimony, the appellant's abscondence, and forensic evidence linking a recovered weapon to a crime empty. Upon review, the High Court found the eyewitnesses unreliable due to material contradictions, an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the implausibility of their presence at the scene. The court noted that the same evidence had already been rejected in the trial of the co-accused, who were acquitted. Emphasizing that abscondence alone cannot sustain a conviction when other evidence is insufficient, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the murder reference was answered in the negative, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of abscondence when other prosecution evidence is insufficient?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence necessitate the acquittal of the remaining accused?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the eyewitness testimony is marred by material contradictions and unexplained delays?
- Shan vs The State2018 MLD 702 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
- Shan Mohammad vs The State2018 MLD 826 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Khan vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter involves a criminal bail petition filed by the accused Shahzad Khan seeking release on post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of his trial in a case registered under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether an accused charged with an offense punishable with death becomes entitled to bail as a matter of statutory right under the third proviso of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the trial is not concluded within two years and the delay is not attributable to the accused. The Peshawar High Court held that since the petitioner had been detained for over two years without the conclusion of the trial and the delay was not occasioned by his acts or omissions, he had earned the statutory right to bail. The court laid down the principle that the statutory right to bail based on prolonged detention under section 497(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be defeated by objections relating to the gravity of the offense, previous abscondence, or hyper-technical grounds, provided the accused does not fall within the statutory exceptions.
Questions settled- Does an accused detained for an offense punishable with death for a continuous period exceeding two years without the conclusion of trial become entitled to bail under section 497(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether previous abscondence disentitles an accused from claiming post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in the trial?
- Can the gravity of the offense override the statutory right to bail accrued due to prolonged detention under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shahid Amir alias Noor Kamal vs The State and another2018 YLR 1850 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
- Shah Zeb vs Fakhr-E-Alam and another2018 YLR 1101 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
- Shah Saud vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission2019 PLC (C.S) 808, 2018 PHC 1386 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses four connected writ petitions concerning recruitment to the posts of Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrate (BPS-18) advertised by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission. The core legal questions involved whether candidates were entitled to multiple relaxations in the upper age limit and whether the mandatory two years of practice at the bar could be relaxed. The court held that while candidates cannot avail multiple relaxations under Rule 2(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Relaxation of Upper Age Limit Rules, 2008, the 'exclusion' of two years of practice at the bar under Rule 2(2) operates distinctly from 'relaxation' and must be granted independently. However, the court also held that in the absence of any enabling provision, the mandatory two years of practice at the bar cannot be relaxed. Consequently, the petitions seeking age adjustments through exclusion were allowed, while the petition seeking relaxation of bar experience was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a candidate for the post of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate can claim both relaxation in upper age limit and exclusion of bar practice under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Relaxation of Upper Age Limit Rules, 2008?
- Does the word 'excluded' under Rule 2(2) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Relaxation of Upper Age Limit Rules, 2008 carry a different connotation than 'relaxation'?
- Is a candidate entitled to relaxation in the mandatory two years of practice at the bar in the absence of any enabling provision in law or rules?
- Shah Room vs Mst. Nehar Begum and another2018 YLR 2103 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
- Shafqatullah Khan vs Muhammad Anwar2018 CLC 1941, 2018 CLD 870 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-14Read full judgment →
- Shafi Ullah vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLC (C.S) 1143, 2018 PHC 1844 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed by Shafi Ullah seeking review of an earlier order dismissing his constitutional petition. The core legal question is whether a petitioner can urge a new ground regarding appointment under a disabled persons quota in review proceedings when such a ground was neither raised during the initial hearing nor pleaded in the prayer clause of the original writ petition. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the review petition in limine, holding that a party is precluded from raising a fresh contention in review that was not argued at the time of hearing the main petition, and that the assertion did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of new and important evidence. The key principle laid down is that grounds not raised during the hearing of the main petition cannot be agitated in review proceedings, and review jurisdiction cannot be invoked without showing an error apparent on the face of the record or newly discovered facts.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner raise a new ground in review proceedings that was not argued at the time of hearing the original petition?
- What are the sine qua non grounds for exercising review jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does failure to plead a specific ground in the prayer clause preclude a party from urging it in review?
- Shabbir Hussain Gigyani Advocate Member Peshawar High Court Bar2019 PLD Peshawar 13, 2019 PLJ Peshwar 58, 2018 PHC 1742 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-04Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain and another vs The State and 2 others2018 MLD 173 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-17Read full judgment →
- Seyar Zeb vs The State and others2018 PCRLJ 1207, 2018 PHC 1321 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the registration of FIRs under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition Interest on Private Loans Act 2016. The petitioners contended that the Station House Officers lacked the authority to register these FIRs independently, arguing that Section 6 of the Act of 2016 mandates a specific procedure involving the Justice of Peace. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the police retain the authority to register FIRs for offences under the Act. The Court reasoned that Section 9 of the Act of 2016 explicitly classifies these offences as cognizable, thereby empowering the police to register cases and make arrests without warrants under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court clarified that Section 6 provides an additional, not exclusive, remedy for aggrieved persons to approach the Justice of Peace. Furthermore, the Court ruled that factual allegations regarding innocence and false implication are not suitable for determination in constitutional writ jurisdiction, particularly when the petitioners have alternate, efficacious remedies available under Sections 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does Section 6 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition Interest on Private Loans Act 2016 bar the police from registering an FIR without an order from a Justice of Peace?
- Are offences under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition Interest on Private Loans Act 2016 cognizable?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained to challenge an FIR when the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Seerdad and another vs The State and another2018 YLR 419 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-17Read full judgment →
- Sarzamin Khan and 4 others vs Wali Muhammad2018 PLJ Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
- Sarzamin Khan & others vs Dilawar Khan & others2018 PHC 1412 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-02Read full judgment →
- Sarzamin and 4 others vs Wali Muhammad2018 PLJ Peshawar 71, 2018 YLR 1428 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
- Sarfaraz Khan vs Ilyas Masjid etc2018 PHC 1861 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-21Read full judgment →
- Sareer Ahmad and others vs The Secretary, Govt. of KPK Health2019 PLC (C.S.) 170, 2018 PHC 1728 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court challenging the appointment of candidates to newly created posts (BPS-3 to BPS-7) at Mian Rashid Hussain Shaheed Memorial Hospital Pabbi, District Nowshera, alleging political interference, nepotism, and non-compliance with prescribed recruitment rules. The core legal question was whether appointments made without public advertisement or proper requisition through the District Employment Exchange, and allegedly at the instance of political entities, violated the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989. The Court held that appointments made without advertising vacant posts or following the mandatory statutory mechanism of the Departmental Selection Committee through the District Employment Exchange constitute nepotism and favouritism. The Court set aside all the impugned appointments, declared the posts vacant for re-initiation of the selection process in the prescribed manner, and referred the matter to the National Accountability Bureau for investigation. The key principle laid down is that public appointments in basic pay scales 3 to 5 must strictly adhere to the statutory rules requiring either advertisement in leading newspapers or transparent requisition through the District Employment Exchange based on candidates' seniority of registration.
Questions settled- Whether initial appointments to posts in basic pay scales 3 to 5 can be made without public advertisement or proper requisition through the District Employment Exchange?
- Does the failure to advertise vacant government posts and directly selecting candidates based on private applications violate the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989?
- Can appointments made through nepotism and political interference be set aside by the High Court under writ jurisdiction?
- Sardar vs The State and another2018 MLD 973 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Hangu, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, considering his old age, infirmity, exaggerated role attribution, and lack of corroborative physical evidence such as weapon recoveries or unhindered visibility from the complainant's vantage point. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the prosecution must prove its case through reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence, and that an exaggerated charge meant to rope in family members due to their relation, combined with physical improbabilities such as the septuagenarian appellant fleeing into the mountains, creates reasonable doubt warranting acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution can secure a conviction without proving its case through reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence?
- Does the advanced age and infirmity of an accused render police allegations of fleeing the crime scene unbelievable?
- Whether an exaggerated charge aimed at roping in family members warrants setting aside a conviction?
- Can a conviction be sustained when physical hindrances make it impossible for an eyewitness to observe the accused at the crime scene?
- Sardar Sher Bahadur and 5 others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Islamabad and another2018 CLC 1202 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-06Read full judgment →
- Sardar Hussain and others vs Zafar Hussain2018 CLC 1354 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-29Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ali vs Hameedullah & 2 othrs and The State2019 P Cr. L J 186, 2018 PHC 1677 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was preferred by the complainant against the judgment of the Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondents committed the murder of the complainant's father by firearm shots following a motive related to a dispute over womenfolk. The core legal questions involved the credibility of a sole eyewitness who was closely related to the deceased, the evidentiary value of corroborative evidence including medical and recovery evidence, and the grounds for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, improvements in the ocular account, unnatural conduct of the sole eyewitness, absence of crime empties, and inconsistencies with medical evidence. The court laid down the principle that in appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is doubled, and appellate courts will not interfere unless the trial court's judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a gross misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a sole eyewitness who is a close relative of the deceased can be relied upon without independent corroboration when it suffers from material contradictions and unnatural conduct?
- Does the absence of crime empties from the spot of a firearm incident cast serious doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
- What are the strict legal parameters and conditions under which an appellate court may interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
- Can medical evidence contradicting the time of occurrence as stated in the First Information Report weaken the prosecution's case?
- Sangeen Khan and another vs The State and another2018 YLR 1867 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
- Sandbar and 2 others vs The State and others2018 PHC 1597, 2018 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected revision petition challenge the convictions and sentences of the appellants recorded by the trial court under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question centered on whether the trial court erred in failing to conduct side-by-side trials of two counter-cases arising from the same incident involving the same parties, date, and place. The Peshawar High Court held that when two criminal cases relate to opposing versions of the same incident, they constitute cross-cases and must be tried side-by-side by the same court to determine the aggressor and avoid conflicting judgments. The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision after concluding the trial in the cross-case. The key principle laid down is that counter-cases arising from the same transaction must be tried simultaneously to ensure a fair determination of liability.
Questions settled- Whether two criminal cases arising from the same incident with conflicting versions must be tried side-by-side as cross-cases?
- Does a slight variation in the time of occurrence prevent two FIRs relating to the same date, place, and parties from being treated as cross-cases?
- What is the proper procedure for a trial court when dealing with a case and counter-case arising out of the same transaction?
- Sana Noor vs Govt of KPK2019 MLD 853, 2018 PHC 1852 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-04Read full judgment →
- Samiullah and 7 others vs Mistri Umara Khan2018 CLC 1731 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-19Read full judgment →
- Samiullah & others vs Mistri Umara Khan2018 CLC 1731, 2018 PHC 1368 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-19Read full judgment →