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.
- Sami Ullah vs The State etc2018 PHC 1856 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-14Read full judgment →
- Sami Ullah Khan vs WAPDA through its Chairman and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the appellate court's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal against the return of his plaint. The petitioner, an employee of TESCO, sought to challenge his service termination. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the service dispute of a TESCO employee who is neither a civil servant nor a workman, despite the petitioner's previous withdrawal of the suit based on erroneous legal advice. The Court held that the Civil Court possesses plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as TESCO lacks statutory service rules and the petitioner does not fall under the definition of a workman. The Court set aside the impugned orders, ruling that the petitioner should not be prejudiced by his counsel's misconception of law or the trial court's failure to exercise its duty. The key principle established is the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy), confirming that Civil Courts are the courts of ultimate jurisdiction for enforcing civil rights when no specific statutory forum exists.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a service dispute for an employee of a company that lacks statutory service rules?
- Can a litigant be denied access to justice due to the erroneous legal advice of their counsel regarding the jurisdiction of the court?
- Is a TESCO employee who is not a workman entitled to seek redress in a Civil Court for wrongful termination?
- Does the principle of 'ubi jus ibi remedium' empower a Civil Court to assume jurisdiction when no other specific forum is available?
- Salman Ghazanfar vs The State2018 MLD 1446 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-12Read full judgment →
- Salim Khan and Azam Khan vs State2018 MLD 1585, 2018 PHC 1522 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-13Read full judgment →
- Saleemullah vs Asmatullah and another2018 MLD 528 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-10Read full judgment →
- Saleemullah Khan vs Jehanzeb Khan and 01 other2018 PHC 1485 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-08Read full judgment →
- Salamat Ullah vs The State etc2019 PCRLJ 1119, 2018 PHC 1860 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a life-convict for narcotics offences, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking two reliefs: the extension of various remissions in his sentence and his release on parole under the Good Conduct Prisoners' Probational Release Act, 1926. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner was entitled to further remissions and whether the Court could direct his release on parole. Regarding remissions, the Court found that the respondents had already granted substantial remissions, which the petitioner failed to rebut. Regarding parole, the Court held that the power to grant conditional release is vested exclusively in the Provincial Government under the Act of 1926 and the Good Conduct Prisoner's Probational Release Rules, 1927. Furthermore, the petitioner had not served the requisite ten years of substantive imprisonment required for eligibility under the Rules. The Court affirmed the principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an alternative, efficacious remedy exists, and dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner to approach the appropriate executive forum.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to grant parole to a prisoner under the Good Conduct Prisoners' Probational Release Act, 1926?
- Can a writ petition be maintained when the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available under the law?
- Is a prisoner eligible for release on parole under the Good Conduct Prisoner's Probational Release Rules, 1927, before serving ten years of their substantive sentence?
- Salahuddin and 10 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc2018 PLJ Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
- Sajjad vs The State and other2019 PCRLJ 1205, 2018 PHC 1845 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of FIR No. 951 dated 24.11.2018, registered under sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City, Mansehra. The petitioner alleged that the FIR was registered with mala fide intent to counter a previously registered case against the complainant party. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, should interfere with an ongoing police investigation to quash an FIR based on factual disputes. The Court held that it possesses limited jurisdiction in such matters and must refrain from interfering with police investigations. It emphasized that criminal cases are decided based on evidence collected during investigation and appraised by the trial court. The Court established the principle that factual controversies cannot be resolved through constitutional jurisdiction, especially when alternative legal remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are available. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine as the petitioner failed to exhaust available legal remedies.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR while a police investigation is ongoing?
- Is the High Court the appropriate forum to resolve factual controversies in a criminal case during the investigation stage?
- Does the availability of alternative remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction for the quashment of an FIR?
- Sajjad Khan vs Momana Urooj2018 CLC 1052 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Ahmad vs The State2018 YLR 1370 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-09Read full judgment →
- Saifullah Muhib Kakakhel vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2018 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
- Saif Ur Rahman vs The State through Additional Advocate-General and another2018 P Cr. L J 306 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a criminal miscellaneous bail application and cross-petitions for bail cancellation arising from a murder case where an advocate was killed by unknown assailants. The core legal questions involved whether the post-arrest bail of an accused implicated through a belated statement should be granted, and whether the bail granted to a co-accused should be cancelled. The Peshawar High Court held that since neither petitioner was named in the First Information Report, and statements implicating them were recorded more than a year later, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail. Furthermore, the court held that bail once granted cannot be recalled unless the order is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or in utter disregard of the evidence. The key principle laid down is that belated ocular or circumstantial substitution without initial naming in the FIR, coupled with the absence of specific overt acts involving firearms, makes a strong ground for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence, and distinct, stricter criteria apply to the cancellation of bail already granted.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when not named in the First Information Report and implicated through statements recorded after a considerable delay?
- What are the distinct legal principles governing the cancellation of bail compared to the grant of bail?
- Whether bail granted by a competent court can be recalled in the absence of perversity or disregard of evidence in the bail-granting order?
- Said Rehman vs Govt of KPK etc2018 PHC 1340 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-22Read full judgment →
- Said Akbar and another vs The State2018 YLR 486 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-20Read full judgment →
- Said Afzal vs The State & others2018 PHC 1517 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
- Said Afzal and another vs The State and another2018 YLR 1256 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 4 and 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, following the recovery of foreign currency from their vehicle. The core legal question was whether the mere physical possession of foreign currency without proof of unauthorized buying, borrowing, selling, lending, or exchanging constitutes an offense under Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and whether the Act applies to foreigners within Pakistan's territory. The Peshawar High Court held that mere possession of foreign currency, absent specific evidence of prohibited commercial transactions with unauthorized persons, does not attract penal liability under Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, though the Act applies territorially to foreigners within Pakistan. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants of the charges, but maintained the confiscation of the foreign currency under Section 23 of the Act.
Questions settled- Does mere possession of foreign currency constitute an offense under Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 without proof of buying, selling, or exchanging with an unauthorized person?
- Does the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 apply to foreign nationals present within the territorial limits of Pakistan?
- Can foreign currency be confiscated under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 when the claimant fails to provide a justifiable explanation for possessing it?
- Whether the provisions of Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 are attracted where the prosecution fails to establish prohibited commercial transactions?
- Sahibzada Sanaullah, Member Provincial Assembly vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Minister, Peshawar and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 4 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sahib Shah vs Member Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others2018 YLR 856 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-14Read full judgment →
- Saeedullah Khan vs The StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. 638, 2018 PHC 1442 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-21Read full judgment →
- Saeedullah Khan vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Mardan &2019 PLC (C.S.) 255, 2018 PHC 1439 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Constable in the Special Police Force, challenged his dismissal from service following his implication in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can be summarily dismissed from service solely due to the registration of a criminal case and subsequent arrest, without a formal inquiry or conviction. The Court held that the dismissal order was unlawful, as the mere registration of a criminal case does not establish guilt or justify immediate termination. Relying on Article 194 of the Civil Service Regulations, the Court held that a civil servant charged with a criminal offence should be placed under suspension from the date of arrest rather than dismissed. The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence applies until a competent court convicts the individual. Consequently, the dismissal order was set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with all back benefits, affirming that disciplinary action requires adherence to due process, including the issuance of a show-cause notice and the conduct of a formal inquiry.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant be dismissed from service solely on the basis of the registration of a criminal case?
- Is a government servant charged with a criminal offence and arrested subject to automatic dismissal or suspension?
- Does the registration of a criminal case against a civil servant dispense with the requirement of a show-cause notice and formal inquiry before dismissal?
- Saeedullah Khan vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. 638 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, handed down by the trial court following the alleged recovery of opium and heroin from a bag found near him in a passenger vehicle. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of evidentiary gaps, including the failure to produce the case property in court, contradictions regarding the date of recovery and the separation of samples, and whether such lapses vitiate a narcotics conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that the non-production of the case property during trial, coupled with material contradictions in witness testimonies and a failure to establish the safe custody and proper separation of chemical samples, destroyed the foundation of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the immediate acquittal of the appellant.
Questions settled- Is the non-production of case property during a narcotics trial fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Does a failure by recovery witnesses to depose about the separation of chemical samples render the chemical examiner report doubtful?
- Whether material contradictions regarding the date of recovery and the manner of search are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
- Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act be sustained when the chain of custody and sample separation are not proved?
- Saeed alias Saido and 6 others vs Abdullah2018 PLJ Peshawar 219 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
- Saddar Khan and another vs Jan Said and another2018 P Cr. L J 757 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a criminal appeal filed by appellants Saddar Khan and Nasveel Khan against their conviction under sections 302(b) and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a criminal revision petition by complainant Jan Said seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a solitary and related eyewitness testimony, corroboration by circumstantial evidence, and the benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the testimony of the solitary eyewitness lacked corroboration, his presence at the crime scene was doubtful due to natural conduct and physical circumstances, the alleged motive was unproved, and the weapon recovery was tainted. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the criminal revision as infructuous. The key principle laid down is that a conviction based on a solitary eyewitness must be sufficiently corroborated by reliable circumstantial evidence, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be recorded on the testimony of a solitary and related eyewitness without corroboration?
- Does the non-establishment of an alleged motive in the FIR become fatal to the prosecution case?
- Is the identification of an accused person from a distance of 73 paces at dusk in January considered reliable?
- What is the legal effect of keeping recovered weapons unsealed until examination on the following day?
- Sadaqatullah vs Federation of Pakistan2019 PLC (C.S.) 695, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 216, 2018 PHC 1731 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Administrative Assistant in the Pakistan Air Force, challenged his conviction and dismissal from service by a District Court Martial. Following his acquittal in a criminal case under the Pakistan Penal Code, the petitioner was charged and convicted by a military court under the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, for desertion and acts prejudicial to good order and discipline. The petitioner argued that his military trial constituted double jeopardy under the Constitution, and sought reinstatement based on a 1992 circular regarding personnel involved in criminal cases. The Court held that the military trial was for the distinct offence of desertion, not the criminal charges for which he was previously acquitted, thereby rejecting the double jeopardy claim. Furthermore, the Court determined that the 1992 circular was inapplicable to military disciplinary proceedings. Crucially, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as the petitioner was a member of the Armed Forces and the matter concerned his terms and conditions of service. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a trial by a District Court Martial for desertion constitute double jeopardy when the accused has previously been acquitted of criminal charges by a civil court?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199(3) of the Constitution to entertain a petition filed by a member of the Armed Forces regarding their terms and conditions of service?
- Is a circular governing personnel involved in criminal cases tried by civil courts applicable to disciplinary proceedings conducted by a military court?
- Sadaqat Ali and another vs Director General FIA, Peshawar and others2018 CLD 835 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-07Read full judgment →
- Sabir Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2018 CLC 519 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
- Rustam Khan vs The State and others2018 PLD Peshawar 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-06Read full judgment →
- Rustam Khan and another vs Tehsil Council Balakot through Presiding2018 PLD Peshawar 179 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-31Read full judgment →
- Rooh Niaz vs The State etc2018 PHC 1658 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-07Read full judgment →
- Roidad Khan vs Zigrawar alias Aigre & others2018 PHC 1605 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, wherein the appellant challenged the trial court's acquittal of the respondents regarding allegations of forcible dispossession from his land. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint despite evidence indicating the appellant's legal title and the respondents' lack of a valid claim to possession, following their prior unsuccessful attempts to challenge their own lawful ejectment from the property. The High Court held that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, as the respondents had been previously ejected through due process and failed to substantiate their possession. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal to the extent of the possession issue, ruling that the appellant was entitled to restoration of the property. The key principle laid down is that under Section 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, once a court finds that an owner or occupier was illegally dispossessed, it is under a legal obligation to direct the restoration of possession, utilizing police assistance if necessary to overcome resistance.
Questions settled- Does a trial court have the authority to order the restoration of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 if it finds the complainant was illegally dispossessed?
- Can a court direct the officer-in-charge of a police station to assist in the restoration of property under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
- Is a respondent who has been previously ejected from property through due process of law entitled to retain possession against the rightful owner under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
- Riaz Muhammad Khan Swati vs The State and 5 others2018 YLR 1687 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-24Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad Khan vs District Land Acquisition Collector, Mardan and 5 others2018 MLD 331 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
- Resident of Raghain and Residents of Reshan Gol Bala through their2018 YLR 298 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-10Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah alias Rematoli vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2018 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves nine consolidated writ petitions challenging detention orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal questions were whether the detention orders were issued mechanically based solely on police recommendations without independent application of mind, whether the failure to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenus rendered the orders illegal, and whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 3(6) of the Ordinance. The Court held that the detention orders were illegal and without lawful authority because the detaining authority acted mechanically on police reports without objective satisfaction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the failure to serve grounds of detention violates the legal obligations imposed by the Ordinance. Regarding maintainability, the Court held that constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked directly when an order is challenged as being without jurisdiction or mala fide, rendering the alternative statutory remedy a futile exercise. The Court consequently quashed the impugned detention orders.
Questions settled- Can a detention order be sustained if the detaining authority acts mechanically on police recommendations without independent application of mind?
- Does the failure to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu render the detention order illegal?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against a detention order when the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of representation under Section 3(6) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960?
- Is the satisfaction of the Government for preventive detention subjective or objective in nature?
- Rehmatullah alias Rematoli vs Government Oe Khyber Pakhtukhwa2018 PLJ Peshawar 57, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Rehman Shah vs The State & 1 another2018 PHC 1429 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-04Read full judgment →
- Rawail vs The State etc2018 PHC 1857 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-14Read full judgment →
- Rasool Khan vs Khyber Medical University and 5 others2018 MLD 1227 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
- Rasool Khan vs Khyber Medical University & 5 others2018 MLD 1227, 2018 PHC 1502 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
- Rashid Khan vs State2019 MLD 675, 2018 PHC 1818 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-08Read full judgment →
- Rashid etc vs Mr. Wilayat Khan, Aag, assisted2019 P Cr. L J 438, 2018 PHC 1737 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the trial court, which refused to include in the judicial record a statement of the complainant recorded in the absence of the presiding officer. The petitioners, accused in a case under Sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, argued that the statement, recorded in the presence of the public prosecutor and the complainant's counsel, should be treated as valid evidence. The core legal question was whether a witness statement recorded in the absence of the presiding judge constitutes a valid judicial record. The Peshawar High Court held that a statement recorded without the presiding officer present is legally void and cannot be considered part of the judicial record, regardless of the presence of counsel. The Court emphasized that the presiding officer's presence is a fundamental requirement for the recording of evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the trial court's decision to discard the statement, noting that the defence assumed the risk of proceeding in the absence of the judge and cannot now seek to validate an irregular procedure.
Questions settled- Can a witness statement recorded in the absence of the presiding officer be admitted as part of the judicial record?
- Is a statement valid if recorded in the presence of counsel but without the judge presiding?
- Does the absence of the presiding officer during the recording of evidence invalidate the proceedings?
- Rashid Ali Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another2018 PLD Peshawar 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-04Read full judgment →
- Rajab Ali vs The State and others2018 YLR 809 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellants, Rajab Ali and Latif Hussain, under sections 9(a)(v), 9(a)(xii), and 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for accumulating assets disproportionate to known sources of income and for fabricating a sale deed. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established that the assets were acquired through illegal means and whether the disputed sale transaction of ancestral land was forged. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the evidence demonstrated that the appellants and their brothers constituted a joint family owning substantial ancestral agricultural property with significant lawful income sufficient to cover the acquired assets and construction costs, and the expert handwriting opinion regarding the sale deed was outweighed by ocular and corroborative defense testimony. The court laid down the principle that the presumption under section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove the essential ingredients of the offense of corruption and corrupt practices before any onus shifts to the accused.
Questions settled- Does section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 shift the burden of proof to the accused before the prosecution proves the essential ingredients of corruption?
- Can an expert's opinion on handwriting outweigh trustworthy ocular and corroborative testimony regarding a disputed document?
- Whether income from joint ancestral property and remittances of family members can be considered as known legal sources of income to justify acquired assets?
- Rahmatullah vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 413 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from criminal miscellaneous bail applications filed by the petitioners, Rahmatullah and Rafiullah, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 324, 353, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and section 15 of the Arms Act. The core legal question was whether sufficient incriminating material existed prima facie to connect the petitioners to the alleged terrorist attack and whether their case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to point out any solid incriminating evidence, relying merely on a vague supplementary statement and unverified friendships, while mobile data and records failed to establish complicity. The court decided that the case fell squarely within the scope of further inquiry. The key legal principle laid down is that the presumption of innocence remains paramount regardless of the heinousness of the charged offense, and where prima facie incriminating evidence is lacking and the prosecution's case is vague, bail must be granted under the purview of further inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when prima facie incriminating material is lacking?
- Does the heinousness of an offense alone override the presumption of innocence at the bail stage?
- Can a supplementary statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 serve as sufficient grounds to deny bail without corroborative evidence?
- How are the bail considerations under section 21-D(4) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 applied when evidence connecting the accused to the crime is absent?
- Rahmatullah Khan etc vs Abu Khan etc2019 MLD 648, 2018 PHC 1816 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-07Read full judgment →
- Raheem Shah vs Momin Khan and another2018 CLC 816 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
- Raheel Ahmad vs Govt. of K.P.K and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 171, 2018 PHC 1643 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the appointment of a respondent to the post of Laboratory Assistant (BPS-6) on political grounds and without meeting merit, despite the petitioner securing the highest marks in the written test. The core legal question concerned the transparency, fairness, and legality of public appointments made in violation of established recruitment rules, zonal quotas, and merit. The Peshawar High Court held that the selection process was vitiated by nepotism, political interference, and non-transparent re-arrangement of interviews after initially declaring no suitable candidates were available. The Court laid down the principle that once a selection committee concludes no suitable candidates are available, the posts must be re-advertised rather than filled through arbitrary appointments of favored individuals. Furthermore, public appointments must strictly adhere to merit, transparency, and codal formalities, and any appointments made in violation thereof through political dictation or favoritism are liable to be struck down to uphold the rule of law.
Questions settled- What is the proper course of action for a department when a selection committee concludes that none of the candidates called for interview are suitable for appointment?
- Does the appointment of candidates who failed to appear in the written test or meet zonal quotas violate the principle of transparency in public employment?
- Can public appointments made through political dictation and in departure from recruitment rules be sustained by the courts?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against non-transparent selection processes and discriminatory appointments to public posts?
- Rahat Ali vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a young widow returning from her intermediate examination. The primary legal questions concerned the evidentiary value and admissibility of an eyewitness not named in the First Information Report (FIR), the reliance on an alleged interested witness, the effect of minor investigative omissions, and the appropriate quantum of sentence. The Peshawar High Court held that the exclusion of an eyewitness's name from the FIR is a rule of prudence rather than a rigid rule of law; where the testimony of such a witness is natural, confident, and corroborated, it can be safely relied upon. The Court found the eyewitness reliable and the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, noting non-fatal inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and following established mitigating sentencing principles, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of an eyewitness whose name does not appear in the First Information Report be relied upon to sustain a conviction?
- Whether the testimony of an alleged interested witness can be accepted if it rings true and is corroborated?
- Does long-standing unexplained absconsion serve as a corroborative piece of evidence in a criminal trial?
- Under what circumstances can a death penalty for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be commuted to life imprisonment due to non-fatal inconsistencies in the prosecution case?
- Raees Khan vs The State2018 MLD 835 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-07Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz vs Muhammad Afzal and others2018 PHC 1847 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-06Read full judgment →
- Quarban Ali Khan, Member Provincial Assembly (Mpa), PK-16, Nowshera vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2018 PLD Peshawar 192, 2018 PHC 1617 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-17Read full judgment →
- Quarban Ali Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others2018 PLD Peshawar 192 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-17Read full judgment →
- Quami Islamia Public School and College vs Board of Intermediate2018 YLR 457 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-25Read full judgment →
- Qazi Badr-ul-Wahab and others vs Land Acquisition Collector, Provincial2018 PHC 1831 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-05Read full judgment →
- Qayum Nawaz and others vs District Police Officer, D.I.Khan and others2018 PCRLJ 1345, 2018 PHC 1477 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of FIR No. 204, registered under Sections 496-A and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Yarik, D.I. Khan. The petitioners contended that the alleged abductee had married the accused of her own free will, as evidenced by her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the FIR was lodged with malafide intent. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR when the allegations involve a cognizable offence and the defense relies on a statement that has not yet been subjected to cross-examination. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence requiring investigation and trial. It established the principle that constitutional jurisdiction for quashment is not appropriate where the defense's case relies on evidence, such as a Section 164 statement, that has not yet been tested through cross-examination in a competent court.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash an FIR under its constitutional jurisdiction when the allegations constitute a cognizable offence?
- Is a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, sufficient grounds to quash an FIR before it has been subjected to cross-examination?
- Should a constitutional petition be entertained for the quashment of an FIR when the matter requires the recording of pro and contra evidence at trial?
- Qayum Nawaz and others vs District Police Officer, D.I. Khan and others2018 P Cr. L J 1345 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of FIR No. 204, registered under Sections 496-A and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Yarik, D.I. Khan. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR when the petitioners allege that the alleged abductee had entered into a marriage of her own free will, as evidenced by her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the FIR disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, which necessitates a proper investigation and the recording of evidence. The Court emphasized that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, taken in the absence of the complainant, cannot be treated as conclusive proof at the pre-trial stage, as it has not yet been subjected to cross-examination. Consequently, the Court ruled that the matter must be adjudicated through a full trial rather than through a summary quashment proceeding.
Questions settled- Can an FIR be quashed under Article 199 of the Constitution when it discloses a cognizable offence?
- Is a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient grounds to quash an FIR without trial?
- Should the High Court interfere in criminal investigations where the determination of facts requires cross-examination of witnesses?
- Qayum Khan vs District Coordinator Officer (D.C.O.), Kohat and 212018 YLR 1945, 2018 PHC 1582 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-13Read full judgment →
- Qayum Khan vs DCO Kohat etc2018 PHC 1582 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-13Read full judgment →
- Qalandri Bibi vs Mst. Irum Bibi& others2019 YLR 86, 2018 PHC 1690 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-13Read full judgment →
- Qalandar Ali Khan and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ vs Azam Khan and another2018 MLD 1585 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a dying declaration recorded without a medical certificate confirming the deceased's fitness, and whether evidence from a separate cross-case could be considered without being formally introduced. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that a dying declaration is unreliable when the medical report lacks an endorsement regarding the declarant's consciousness, and oral testimony at trial cannot rectify this documentary omission. Furthermore, the court emphasized that evidence from a cross-case cannot be read into the current proceedings unless formally brought on record. Finding the dying declaration suffered from inherent infirmities and the prosecution case lacked corroborative evidence, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Is a dying declaration admissible if the medical report fails to certify the declarant's consciousness at the time of recording?
- Can oral testimony given at trial rectify the absence of a medical certificate regarding a declarant's fitness in a dying declaration?
- Can evidence from a cross-case be considered in a criminal trial if it was not formally brought on the record of the current case?
- Qaiser vs The State etc2018 PHC 1455, 2018 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
- Qaiser vs The State and another2018 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought to challenge an order of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Mardan, which declined to direct that the petitioner's sentences in two separate narcotics cases run concurrently. The core legal question was whether the court should exercise its discretion under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order concurrent sentences for a convict already undergoing imprisonment. The Court held that while Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 establishes consecutive sentences as the general rule, concurrent sentences are an exception to be exercised based on judicial discretion. This discretion depends on factors such as the conduct of the convict, the heinousness of the crime, and the injury caused to the individual and society. Finding that the petitioner had committed similar offences at different times, demonstrating a lack of reform, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner failed to justify a departure from the general rule of consecutive sentencing.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order concurrent sentences?
- Is the default rule under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for sentences to run consecutively or concurrently?
- What factors should a court consider when exercising its discretion to order concurrent sentences under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Public at large through Molvi Muhibullah and others vs Govt. of Khyber2019 YLR 586, 2018 PHC 1810 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-30Read full judgment →
- Provincial Housing Authority vs Wazir Khan2019 PLJ Peshwar 45, 2019 YLR 369, 2018 PHC 1808 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-30Read full judgment →
- Prosecutor General Accountability, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad vs Naseem ur Rehman, Ex-Mna & two others2018 PHC 1612 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-09Read full judgment →
- Pir Munawar Shah vs Habib-Ur-Rehman and 4 others2018 CLC 1901 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition is directed against the appellate court judgment that set aside the trial court decree in favor of the petitioner in a suit for specific performance of a contract. The core legal questions involved the proof of the contract to sell, the admissibility of documents, and the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance. The Peshawar High Court held that the plaintiff must prove his case on the strength of his own evidence, that secondary evidence without the original is inadmissible, and that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as it was brought more than three years after the cancellation of the mutation. The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the appellate court's findings.
Questions settled- When does the period of limitation begin to run for a suit for specific performance of a contract where no specific date is fixed for performance?
- Can a plaintiff succeed in a suit for specific performance on the basis of weaknesses in the defendant's case?
- Is a photocopy of a document admissible in evidence if exhibited without objection?
- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent or appellate findings of fact under revisional jurisdiction without a jurisdictional defect?
- Pir Ishfaq Ahmed vs Deputy Commissioner/Land Acquisition Collector,2018 CLC 449 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-30Read full judgment →
- Panin Muhammad and others vs Mst. Safia Bibi and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 76, 2018 MLD 1128 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-28Read full judgment →
- Panin Muhammad & others vs Mst. Safia Bibi and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-28Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Tobacco Board vs Shah Hussain and others2018 PHC 1640, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a labour revision petition filed by the Pakistan Tobacco Board (PTB) against the dismissal of its applications for the return of complaints filed by its former contractual employees. The respondents had previously secured reinstatement orders from the Labour Court, and subsequently filed implementation complaints under section 37(6) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Labour Court retained jurisdiction to execute judgments or entertain complaints concerning a trans-provincial establishment after the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Peshawar High Court held that since the PTB is a trans-provincial establishment operating across multiple provinces, the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) possesses exclusive jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which overrides provincial labour legislation in such matters. The court established the principle that jurisdiction over trans-provincial establishments and their related enforcement or contempt proceedings vests exclusively in the NIRC, rendering provincial labour courts incompetent to proceed with complaints concerning employers with operations in more than one province.
Questions settled- Whether the Provincial Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain implementation complaints regarding a trans-provincial establishment under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have exclusive jurisdiction over employers or establishments having branches in more than one province?
- Can the National Industrial Relations Commission withdraw proceedings or applications relating to unfair labour practices from a provincial Labour Court?
- What is the effect of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, on the powers of provincial labour courts regarding trans-provincial entities?
- Pakistan Match Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collector of Sales Tax and Federal Excise, Peshawar2018 PTD 441 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-06Read full judgment →
- Nooral Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2018 CLC 990 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-29Read full judgment →
- Noor-Ul-Basar vs Sher Ali2018 CLC 323 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-30Read full judgment →
- Noor Zaman vs the State2018 PHC 1360 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-25Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Gul Muhammad and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 308 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kohat, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his brother and sentencing him to imprisonment for life along with compensation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a retracted judicial confession, the evidentiary value of doubtful weapon recovery, and the impact of key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the widow of the deceased, turning hostile or exonerating the accused during the trial. The Peshawar High Court held that a retracted confession loses its corroborative and evidentiary value in the absence of independent, reliable ocular or circumstantial evidence, and that contradictory recoveries of weapons cannot sustain a conviction when material witnesses recant their police statements. The court laid down the principle that when close family members as key prosecution witnesses retract their allegations, admit to police pressure, and exonerate the accused, and corroborative evidence is shattered, the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a retracted judicial confession sustain a conviction without strong and independent corroborative evidence?
- What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when police officials and marginal witnesses contradict each other regarding the presence of private witnesses?
- Whether the testimony of material prosecution witnesses exonerating the accused can be the basis for setting aside a conviction?
- Does the failure of chemical examiners to confirm blood grouping render the recovery of an alleged weapon of offence doubtful?
- Noor Muhammad Advocate through Special Attorney vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government Election and Rural Development Department, Civil Secretarial Peshawar and 12 others2018 CLC 1257 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-25Read full judgment →
- Noor Alain Khan vs Abdul Wahab etc.2018 PHC 1305 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Karak, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for murder, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved the credibility of a solitary, interested eyewitness, the evidentiary value of an FIR lodged after preliminary police investigation, the nexus between the recovered weapon and the crime, and the standard of proof required for a capital conviction based on circumstantial and medical contradictions. The Peshawar High Court held that when an FIR is recorded after a preliminary inquiry it loses its sanctity, that the uncorroborated testimony of a solitary interested witness cannot sustain a capital sentence, and that medical evidence contradicting the site plan coupled with missing crime empties creates insurmountable doubts in the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that a single reasonable doubt arising from contradictions and lack of corroboration entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, thereby accepting the appeal, setting aside the conviction, and answering the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a solitary interested witness can be made the sole basis for a conviction on a capital charge?
- Does an FIR recorded after conducting a preliminary police inquiry lose its evidentiary sanctity and probative worth?
- Can a confession made before a police officer regarding the use of a specific weapon be admitted into evidence under the law?
- Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right when material contradictions exist between ocular evidence and medical reports?
- Noor Ahmad vs Azad Khan2019 CLC 486, 2018 PHC 1752 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-25Read full judgment →
- Nisabullah alias Gulap vs Awal Haq Khan and 4 others2018 PHC 1400, 2018 MLD 1571 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-13Read full judgment →
- Nisab Ullah alias Gulap vs The State etc2018 PHC 1400 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-13Read full judgment →
- Niaz Wali vs The State2018 PHC 1450, 2018 YLR 1803 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of four kilograms of charas, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The petitioner argued that he was not in possession of the contraband, that his presence at the scene was doubtful, that the vehicle details were missing from the FIR, and that there were discrepancies between the FIR description of the substance as 'charas garda' and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report identifying it as 'brown solid'. The court examined whether these contentions warranted the concession of bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner's prima facie linkage to the offence, supported by prior information and recovery from his possession, brought the case within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding the discrepancy, the court clarified that 'charas garda' refers to raw charas, which naturally appears as brown solid, consistent with the FSL report. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, establishing that minor descriptive variations in narcotics reports do not necessarily constitute grounds for bail when prima facie evidence exists.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between the description of narcotics in an FIR and an FSL report automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics from the possession of an accused fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the term 'charas garda' inconsistent with the description of 'brown solid' in a forensic report?
- Niaz Been etc vs The State2018 PHC 1595 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-03Read full judgment →
- Niaz Been and others vs The State2018 PHC 1595, 2018 PLD Peshawar 131 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous application under subsection 2-B of Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking suspension of their sentences and grant of bail during the pendency of their appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, following the grant of leave to appeal. They had been convicted by an Anti-Terrorism Court under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, Anti-Terrorism Act, Explosive Substances Act, and Arms Ordinance, and their appeal had previously been dismissed by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court can suspend a sentence and grant bail under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court, notwithstanding the barring clause in Section 25(8) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Peshawar High Court held that while the barring clause in Section 25(8) restricts bail during the pendency of an appeal in the High Court, the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 allows relief in exceptional circumstances such as coram non judice, short sentences with little likelihood of early hearing, or severe untreatable illness. However, exercising discretion under Section 426(2-B), the court dismissed the application as the petitioners failed to establish good grounds and had not been on bail during their previous appeal.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail and suspend a sentence under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court despite the bar contained in Section 25(8) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Does the statutory bar against releasing a convict on bail under Section 25(8) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 override the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- What conditions must a convicted person satisfy to successfully invoke Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence after the grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court?
- Can merits or reappraisal of evidence be considered while dealing with an application under Section 426(2-B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Nawas Khan vs The State and another2018 MLD 125 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Nawas Khan, facing charges under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite his status as an absconder, given that his co-accused, who faced identical allegations, had already been acquitted. The Court held that the petitioner's case was indistinguishable from that of the acquitted co-accused, as no specific role of firing was attributed to him. The Court emphasized that abscondence, by itself, does not constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail if the case is otherwise meritorious. The key principle laid down is that where an accused's case is identical to that of an acquitted co-accused, the benefit of that acquittal should be extended to the petitioner, and abscondence alone cannot serve as a bar to the grant of bail if the case is otherwise fit for such relief.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused in an identical case entitle the remaining accused to bail?
- Can bail be denied solely on the ground of the accused's abscondence?
- Is abscondence by itself a sufficient indicator of an accused's guilt for the purpose of refusing bail?
- Nasir Ali Shah vs Kabir Hussain Shah2018 YLR 475 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
- Naseeb Ullah Khan vs Government of KPK & others2018 PHC 1846 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-06Read full judgment →
- Nakaf alias Naqab Khan vs The State and another2018 YLR 1765 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This post-arrest bail petition arose from an FIR registered under Sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(vi), 337-E, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner was accused of firing a pistol at the complainant, causing a knee injury. The petitioner contended that the co-accused had already been granted bail and that the injuries sustained fell under non-prohibitory categories. The High Court examined the medical report, which classified the injuries as ghayr-jaifah munaqqilah and Shajjah-i-khafifah, carrying punishments of Daman and imprisonment terms that do not fall within the restrictive clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the court noted that the question of whether the petitioner had the requisite intention to kill and why he was singled out for effective firing required further inquiry at trial. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail, holding that where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., the concession of bail is generally allowed.
Questions settled- Whether injuries classified as ghayr-jaifah munaqqilah and Shajjah-i-khafifah fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted where the intention to kill remains to be established at trial and the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail?
- Is an accused entitled to the concession of bail when the maximum statutory punishment for the alleged hurt does not attract the restrictive clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Naeem Khan vs The State etc2018 PHC 1848 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
- Nadeem Ilyas vs Country Director etc2018 PHC 1373 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-16Read full judgment →
- M/s. Majid Book Depot (Publishers and Book Sellers) through2018 PLJ Peshawar 99 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Majid Book Depot (Publishers & Book Sellers) through Proprietor vs2018 PLJ Peshawar 99, 2018 CLC 1394 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
- M/s Wahid Builders & others vs Government of KPK etc2018 PHC 1710 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-08-28Read full judgment →
- M/s Spinzer Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd and another vs Govt of KPK through Chief2018 PTD 2121, 2018 PHC 1700 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-05Read full judgment →
- M/s Sohail Vegetable Ghee Mills vs The Additional Commissioner Inland2018 PHC 1695 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-12Read full judgment →
- M/s Shamsi Builders Ltd vs The Galiyat Development Authority, through2018 CLC 1497 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-11Read full judgment →
- M/s Gokul.S.Arora, Proprietor G.N Textile Pvt Ltd vs Government of Pakistan2018 PHC 1638, 2018 PTD 1856, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 211 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-09Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Shehzad Arif and 2 others2018 CLD 1374 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-22Read full judgment →
- Musa Khan vs Ahmad Jan and another2018 PHC 1308 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-18Read full judgment →
- Murad Saeed vs University of Peshawar through Vice Chancellor, University Campus, Peshawar and 3 others2018 MLD 1425 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three consolidated writ petitions arising from alleged malpractices in a university makeup examination and a subsequent quo warranto challenge against an elected parliamentarian. The core legal questions concern the validity of university inquiry proceedings conducted without affording the affected parties an opportunity of being heard, and the maintainability of a quo warranto petition challenging election results outside the designated election tribunal. The Court held that the university's inquiry proceedings, which resulted in the cancellation of the student's examination and disciplinary action against staff, violated the principles of natural justice, specifically the maxim audi alteram partem, as the affected parties were not heard. Consequently, the Court set aside the proceedings and remanded the cases to the Vice-Chancellor for a fresh, fair determination. Regarding the election challenge, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that election disputes must be adjudicated by the Election Tribunal under Article 225 of the Constitution, and that factual controversies regarding educational qualifications and dues are not suitable for resolution in writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does an inquiry committee violate the principles of natural justice if it penalizes a student without affording them an opportunity of being heard?
- Is a quo warranto petition maintainable to challenge an election result after the statutory period for approaching the Election Tribunal has expired?
- Can factual controversies regarding educational qualifications and financial dues be resolved within the scope of writ jurisdiction?
- Are disciplinary proceedings against university employees valid if initiated without the approval of the Syndicate as required by the Efficiency and Discipline Statutes?