Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• M/s MCB Bank Limited vs Mr. Shehzad Arif2018 CLD 1374, 2018 PHC 1703 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhsin Islam and another vs The State and 2 others2018 MLD 428 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammadullah & another vs The State & another2018 PHC 1410 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman and others vs Dost Muhammad and others2018 MLD 1242, 2018 PHC 1460 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman and 9 others vs Dost Muhammad and 7 others2018 MLD 1242 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar Ali and 10 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment, Islamabad and 6 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 116 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-20
  Police Service of PakistanAll-Pakistan Serviceconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalpromotionsencadrementharmonious interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Deputy Superintendents of Police in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, sought constitutional directions to ensure their promotions from BPS-18 to BPS-21 under provincial service laws, to declare the application of the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) Rules to them unconstitutional, and to mandate a 30% direct induction quota for DSPs. The core legal questions addressed whether Provincial Police Officers (PPOs) upon reaching BPS-18 fall under the All-Pakistan Service governed by federal legislation or provincial service laws, and whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain such service matters under Article 199 in light of Article 212. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Police Service of Pakistan is an All-Pakistan Service under Article 240(a) of the Constitution, meaning PPOs entering BPS-18 are governed by the Civil Servants Act 1973 and the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules 1985. The court also held that challenges to the vires of service rules are barred by Article 212. The key principles laid down include that Constitutional provisions like Articles 142 and 240 must be interpreted harmoniously, and that All-Pakistan Services fall within the exclusive legislative and regulatory domain of Parliament.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Provincial Police Officers upon promotion to BPS-18 and above become part of an All-Pakistan Service governed by federal law under Article 240(a) of the Constitution?
  • Does a High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain petitions challenging the vires of service rules relating to terms and conditions of service in view of the bar contained in Article 212?
  • Are the legislative provisions of Article 142(c) regarding provincial matters in conflict with the Parliament's power to legislate for All-Pakistan Services under Article 240(a) of the Constitution?
  • Whether the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules 1985 are ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs Sheikh Taj Muhammad and others2018 YLR 1543 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uzair vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary, Department of Health, Peshawar and 3 others2018 MLD 1010 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tamaz Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Director General and 8 others2018 YLR 2601 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib vs The State & 1 another2018 PHC 1507 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique and 12 others vs The State and 3 others2018 P Cr. L J 352 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-05
  quashment of FIRconstitutional petitioninherent jurisdictioninvestigation stagealternative remedydischarge of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners approached the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of an FIR registered against them under sections 498-B, 342, 365, 506, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an FIR can be quashed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. or constitutional jurisdiction while the investigation is still in progress. The Court held that at the investigation stage, provisions of section 561-A do not stand attracted, and the judiciary should not prematurely interfere with police investigation. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, establishing the principle that petitioners must raise their legal and factual grievances before the investigating officer or seek discharge before the trial court upon submission of the challan.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while the criminal case is still at the investigation stage?
  • Whether the High Court should interfere in criminal proceedings under constitutional jurisdiction when an investigation is ongoing?
  • Does the trial court possess the power to discharge petitioners before the framing of a charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan through LRs & others vs Ghazi Ahmad and others2018 MLD 1339, 2018 PHC 1572 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan through L.Rs, and others vs Ghazi Ahmad and 202018 MLD 1339 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary Election Commission of Pakistan and 2 others2018 CLC 1693 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Hassan Wattoo, DG Pda, Pda Complex Phase-v, Hayatabad, Pashawar vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Islamabad and 5 others2018 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and 3 others vs Managing Director, SNGPL and 62018 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and others vs Haider Ali and others2018 YLR 2271 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs Mst. Rubina Kanwal and others2018 MLD 734 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Sharif vs Hussain Gul2018 MLD 1860, 2018 PHC 1465 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs Muhammad Nawaz2018 CLC 408 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasim vs Kashif Nasim and another2018 CLD 419 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzammil Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2018 PLJ Peshawar 63 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs Mst. Muhammad Shah Nawaz and 2 others2018 PLJ Peshawar 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtiar vs Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Land Revenue Civil Secretariat Peshawar and 5 others2018 MLD 1801 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtiar vs Govt of KPK & others2018 MLD 1801, 2018 PHC 1687 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khurshid Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2018 PHC 1388 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kalim Khan vs SMBR, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 09 others2020 PLC (C. S. ) 844, 2018 PHC 1841 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-03
  constitutional petitionlachesdelayservice matterappointmentsenioritywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking appointment as a Patwari (BPS-5), claiming seniority over respondents who were appointed despite being lower on the merit list. The petitioner alleged that his name was improperly removed from the list of qualified candidates due to being overage without prior notice. The official respondents raised the objection of laches, noting that the petitioner's name was removed in 2009 and the appointments of the private respondents occurred in 2014, yet the petition was filed only in 2013, with no challenge raised against the removal or the appointments in the interim. The Court held that the petitioner failed to provide any plausible explanation for the significant delay in approaching the Court. Emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction requires vigilance, the Court ruled that the petitioner was guilty of contumacious lethargy and inaction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on the grounds of laches, as the petitioner failed to seek relief within a reasonable time, thereby disentitling himself to the exercise of the Court's extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches if the petitioner fails to provide a plausible explanation for the delay?
  • Does the failure to challenge an administrative order of removal from a candidate list for an extended period constitute contumacious lethargy?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to relief under Article 199 of the Constitution if they have been negligent in the prosecution of their cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jan and another vs Mst. Bacha Begum alias Begum Shahzad2018 PLD Peshawar 173 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Zahidullah alias Zohaib and 2 others2018 MLD 768 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jalal-Ud-Din vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2018 YLR 2196 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr vs Govt. of KPK through Secretary Elementary &2019 PLC (C.S.) 1191, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-14
  Drawing Master certificateequivalency of certificatesconstitutional petitionequal protection of lawdiscriminatory treatmentpublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a constitutional petition filed by Muhammad Israr seeking appointment as a Drawing Master (DM) after being denied the post despite ranking high on the merit list, solely because his Inter Grade Drawing Examination (IDE) Certificate was issued by the Sindh Directorate of Schools Education, Hyderabad, rather than the Registrar Departmental Examination (RDE), Peshawar. The core legal question addressed by the larger bench is whether the IDE Certificate from Sindh is equivalent to the one-year DM Certificate of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Peshawar High Court held that certificates issued by recognized institutions in Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa hold the same status, and discriminating against candidates possessing qualifications from other provinces violates the principle of equal protection of law. The court ruled that lacking any statutory rule declaring the certificates unequal, the petitioner could not be denied appointment, thereby reaffirming settled precedent and allowing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Inter Grade Drawing Examination Certificate issued by the Sindh Directorate of Schools Education is equivalent to the one-year Drawing Master Certificate of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?
  • Does treating educational certificates from recognized institutions of different provinces disparately violate the right to equal protection of law under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a candidate be denied public employment on the sole ground that their professional certificate was obtained from a recognized institution in another province in the absence of prohibitory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam vs The State and other2018 MLD 90 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan vs D.P.O. etc2018 PLJ Peshawar 52 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan vs D.P.O. and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 52, 2018 P Cr. L J 826 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-03
  quashment of FIRgambling offencespecial law versus general lawsearch and seizurejurisdiction of SHOconstitutional petitionKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Prevention of Gambling Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under sections 5 and 6 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978. The core legal question was whether a Station House Officer (SHO) is competent to conduct a raid and search a premises for gambling offences under Section 8 of the Ordinance without the supervision of a Magistrate of the First Class. The Court held that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978 is a special law that overrides the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that Section 8 specifically empowers only specified magistrates (currently Magistrates of the First Class, given the absence of District and Sub-Divisional Magistrates) to conduct searches and raids, rendering a search conducted solely by an SHO illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court established the principle that when the law requires an action to be taken in a particular manner, it must be done in that exact manner, and consequently accepted the petition and quashed the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an SHO is competent to conduct a search and raid under Section 8 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978 without the presence or supervision of a Magistrate of the First Class?
  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prevention of Gambling Ordinance, 1978 override the general provisions of search under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of conducting a search in violation of the specific procedural manner prescribed by a special statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Mst. Nazia Iqbal and 4 others2018 CLC 875 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 4 others vs Election Commission of Pakistan2018 PLD Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2018 PLJ Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Idress vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 420 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-18
  statutory baildelay in conclusion of trialspeedy trialnarcotics recoverypost-arrest bailControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a bail application filed by Muhammad Idress, who was implicated in case FIR No. 1461 dated 17.10.2015 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Hayatabad, Peshawar, following the alleged recovery of 15 kilograms of charas from his vehicle. The petitioner sought post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in the conclusion of his trial, the trial court having previously refused him relief. The Peshawar High Court examined the record and noted that despite the submission of the challan in April 2016 and the framing of the charge in May 2016, only four prosecution witnesses had been examined over a period exceeding one and a half years, with no significant delay attributable to the accused. Relying on binding precedents from the Supreme Court regarding the fundamental right to a speedy trial and statutory delay, the Court held that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial warrants the grant of bail. Consequently, the bail petition was accepted and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing suitable sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in the conclusion of a trial before a Special Court constitutes a statutory ground for the grant of bail?
  • Does the right to a speedy trial under the law amount to a fundamental right of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial has been excessively delayed without fault on the part of the defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 1490 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-24
  illegal dispossessionnon-prosecutiondischarge of accusedframing of chargecriminal complaintremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with Sections 561-A and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged the orders of the trial court dismissing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 for non-prosecution and discharging the accused after the charge had already been framed. The core legal question was whether a trial court can dismiss a complaint for non-prosecution and discharge an accused after a formal charge has been framed. The Peshawar High Court held that once a charge is framed in a complaint case, the trial court has no power to discharge the accused; the court must either acquit or convict the accused under Section 265-H of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court declared the trial court's orders illegal, set them aside, and remanded the case back for a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can dismiss a criminal complaint for non-prosecution and discharge the accused after a formal charge has been framed?
  • What is the legal effect of a dismissal for non-prosecution in a complaint case after the framing of a charge?
  • Can an accused be discharged under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 once a trial has progressed past the framing of a charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Sultan and others vs Pir Sultan Noor Ahmad2019 MLD 384, 2018 PHC 1756 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faisal Shah vs State & Another2018 PCRLJ 1322, 2018 PHC 1335 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-31
  post-arrest baildeposit of arshdiyatpre-trial convictioncash deposit instead of suretyinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi, Dir Upper, whereby the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but was additionally ordered to deposit an amount of Arsh equal to 5% of Diyat in advance. The core legal question was whether a court, at the bail stage, can simultaneously impose a condition requiring the accused to deposit Arsh or Diyat in advance alongside furnishing bail bonds. The Peshawar High Court held that a court lacks the jurisdiction to impose a pre-trial condition for the deposit of Arsh as a prerequisite for bail, noting that Arsh constitutes a substantive punishment under Section 53 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and ordering its advance payment amounts to an unjustified pre-trial conviction. The Court clarified that cash deposits are only permissible under Section 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in lieu of surety bonds upon the accused's request. The petition was allowed and the impugned condition was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court at the bail stage can lawfully direct an accused to deposit the amount of Arsh or Diyat in advance as a condition for release?
  • Does Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower a court to demand a cash or security deposit for granting bail?
  • What is the legal scope and application of Section 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding cash deposits in lieu of surety bonds?
  • Does ordering the advance deposit of Arsh prior to the conclusion of the trial amount to a pre-trial conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faisal Shah vs Khaliq-Ur-Rehman and another2018 P Cr. L J 1322 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-31
  post-arrest bailcondition of bailpayment of arshpre-trial convictiondeposit instead of recognizancehurt case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi, Dir Upper, whereby the petitioner was granted bail in a case under section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but was simultaneously directed to deposit an amount of Arsh in advance. The core legal question was whether a court at the bail stage can lawfully impose a condition requiring an accused to deposit Arsh or Diyat in advance as a prerequisite for release. The Peshawar High Court held that imposing such a condition at the bail stage is unjustified and amounts to a pre-trial conviction, as Arsh is a substantive punishment to be awarded only upon proof of guilt after trial. The Court further held that provisions regarding cash deposits apply as an alternative lieu for surety bonds upon request, rather than as an arbitrary precondition. The petition was consequently allowed, modifying the impugned order to strike down the condition and permitting the petitioner to withdraw the deposited amount.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court granting post-arrest bail can lawfully impose a condition requiring the accused to deposit the amount of Arsh or Diyat in advance?
  • Does section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower a court to demand cash or security deposits as a condition for bail?
  • Is the direction to deposit compensation or Arsh prior to the conclusion of trial considered a pre-trial conviction?
  • What is the true scope and application of section 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding cash deposits in lieu of surety bonds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim Khan Afridi vs President of Pakistan through Principal2018 PLD Peshawar 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs Mst. Nasreen Bibi and others2018 YLR 761 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem Khan Afridi, Chairman, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Service Tribunal vs Registrar of the Peshawar High Court and 4 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 1248 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-12
  repatriationtenure postingdeputationservice tribunaladministrative controljudicial officerconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a District and Sessions Judge serving as Chairman of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, challenged his repatriation order issued by the provincial government prior to the completion of his three-year tenure. The core legal question was whether a judicial officer appointed to a tenure post on deputation can claim a vested right to complete their tenure or if their services can be repatriated prematurely by the competent authority. The Peshawar High Court held that appointments to such ex-cadre posts are in the nature of deputation, and a deputationist has no vested right to claim completion of a stipulated tenure. The Court ruled that the power to appoint includes the power to repatriate or recall the officer to their parent department, and such repatriation falls within the administrative prerogative of the Chief Justice. Consequently, the constitutional petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an officer appointed on deputation to an ex-cadre post has a vested right to complete their stipulated tenure?
  • Can the competent authority repatriate a judicial officer serving on deputation before the expiry of their tenure?
  • Does the repatriation of a judicial officer serving as Chairman of a Service Tribunal fall within the administrative prerogative of the Chief Justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz vs The State and another2018 MLD 1170 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz vs Superintendent District Jail, Timergara, District2018 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State through Advocate General, Peshawar and another2018 YLR 1658 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 PTD 806 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-20
  Special Judicial AllowanceIncome Tax Ordinance 2001taxable salaryconstitutional jurisdictionrecurring cause of actionstatutory interpretationjudicial emoluments
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the deduction of income tax from the 'Special Judicial Allowance' paid to judicial officers and staff of the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question was whether this allowance constitutes 'salary' under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and is therefore subject to income tax. The Court held that the allowance is not 'salary' because it was granted in recognition of the petitioners' performance of duties, thereby falling outside the scope of the definition of 'salary' provided in Section 12(2)(c) of the Ordinance. The Court reasoned that the allowance is not an emolument intended to be taxed as salary but rather a compensatory measure for judicial performance. Consequently, the Court declared that the Special Judicial Allowance is not liable to income tax deduction at source. Additionally, the Court established that recurring monthly tax deductions constitute a recurring cause of action, rendering the petition maintainable. The judgment clarifies that allowances granted for the performance of duties are distinct from taxable salary under the statutory framework.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Special Judicial Allowance granted to judicial officers constitute 'salary' under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Are recurring monthly tax deductions considered a recurring cause of action for the purpose of maintaining a constitutional petition?
  • Does the definition of 'salary' under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, exclude allowances expended in the performance of employment duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashar Malik and another vs Sana Ashar2018 MLD 2001, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 166, 2018 PHC 1645 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 1513 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-13
  abatement of appealdeath of appellantsentence of finechild sexual abusemedical evidencecriminal appealKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010, which included ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200,000. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died, raising the preliminary question of whether the appeal abated entirely under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that while an appeal against a sentence of imprisonment abates upon the death of the appellant, that portion of the appeal relating to a sentence of fine does not abate and remains maintainable, as fines affect the deceased's estate rather than the person, allowing the court to examine the case on merits regarding the fine. On the merits, the court found the testimony of the minor victim and her mother, corroborated by medical and serological evidence, to be consistent and unshattered, thereby establishing the charge of child sexual abuse. The court concluded that the appeal to the extent of the sentence of imprisonment stood abated, while the conviction and sentence of fine were maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal appeal abate entirely upon the death of the appellant when he was sentenced to both imprisonment and a fine?
  • Whether an appeal relating to a sentence of fine survives and can be heard on merits after the death of the appellant under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can the estate of a deceased appellant be held liable for the recovery of a fine imposed upon conviction?
  • Is the testimony of a minor victim of sexual abuse sufficient for conviction when corroborated by medical and serological evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Khan vs Mst. Kulsoom Riaz and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 87, 2018 PLD Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Khan vs Mst. Kulsoom Riaz & others2018 PLJ Peshawar 87 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State and another2018 PLD Peshawar 127 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-30
  criminal revisionexemption from personal appearancediscretionary powertrial in absence of accusedbail cancellationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Arif, invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Mansehra, which dismissed his application for exemption from personal appearance in a criminal case under sections 337-F(ii), 337-A(ii), and 336 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether an accused can be granted exemption from personal appearance during trial in his absence and without showing exceptional circumstances such as physical incapability. The court held that the grant of exemption under section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is discretionary and requires the physical presence of the accused before the court at the time of seeking exemption, which can only be dispensed with in extremely exceptional circumstances. The court laid down the principle that normally an accused must be physically present to claim exemption, and temporary exemption in the absence of the accused is restricted to exceptional situations like severe illness or unavoidable departure, dismissing the revision petition for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of exemption to an accused from personal appearance during trial discretionary in nature?
  • Can an accused seek exemption from personal appearance in his absence without being physically present before the court?
  • Under what circumstances can an accused be granted exemption from personal appearance under section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Ali2018 PHC 1311 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-24
  murdercapital punishmentrejection of evidencechance witnessmedical evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalabsconsion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased at a hospital casualty ward and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence regarding the presence of eyewitnesses, the credibility of chance witnesses, medical corroboration of the ocular account, and the safety of basing a capital conviction on inconsistent testimony where co-accused facing identical allegations have already been acquitted. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to major discrepancies concerning light sources, doubtful presence of eyewitnesses, medical evidence contradicting the manner of assault, and the withholding of independent best evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative, laying down that capital punishment cannot be sustained upon weak, contradictory, and uncorroborated evidence, particularly when core elements of the prosecution story remain shrouded in serious doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a chance witness can form the basis of a capital conviction?
  • Does a contradiction between medical evidence and the ocular account regarding the posture of the victim create a reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • Whether absconsion alone is sufficient to warrant a conviction when the substantive piece of evidence suffers from fatal infirmities?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when co-accused charged under identical circumstances on the same evidence have already been acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali alias Ali vs The State etcPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 63, 2018 PHC 1726 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Mst. Hassan Jan & another2018 PHC 1850 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhabat Khan etc vs The State etc2018 PHC 1812 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mufti Iftakhar-Ud-Din vs The State2018 YLR 1971 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakiya Bibi and another vs Murtaza Shah and two others2018 YLR 1501, 2018 PHC 1318 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakiya Bibi and another vs Murtaza Shah and 2 others2018 YLR 1501 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira and others vs Muhammad Irfan and another2018 PLJ Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira and 4 others vs Muhammad Irfan and another2018 PLJ Peshawar 1, 2018 MLD 407 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida vs Sardar Shah and 2 others2018 MLD 146 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-28
  dissolution of marriageKhulafamily court appealcompetency of appealconditional decreematrimonial litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a family suit for the dissolution of Nikah, recovery of maintenance, and dowry articles, which was initially decided by the Family Court. The resulting judgment and decree were challenged before the District Judge/Zila Qazi, who dismissed the appeal as incompetent, citing Section 14(2)(a) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which bars appeals against certain dissolution of marriage decrees. The core legal question was whether the appellate court correctly declined jurisdiction over the appeal. The High Court, relying on established precedents, held that the appeal was competent. It reasoned that where a dissolution of marriage is conditional—such as upon the payment of consideration for Khula—the decree is not absolute and does not fall under the bar of Section 14(2)(a). The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind restricting appeals in dissolution cases is to protect women from prolonged litigation, but this does not preclude appeals where the conditions of the decree itself are challenged. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate court's dismissal and remanded the matter for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decree for dissolution of marriage conditional upon the payment of consideration for Khula subject to the bar on appeals under Section 14(2)(a) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does the restriction on appeals in dissolution of marriage cases apply when a party challenges the specific conditions imposed by the Family Court decree?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal as incompetent solely on the basis that the decree involves the dissolution of marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina vs The State and another2018 YLR 2253 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Bibi and another vs Abdur Rahman and 25 others2018 CLC 1029 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saira Khan vs The StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 458, 2018 MLD 932 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-18
  narcoticsconfiscation of vehiclesuperdariControl of Narcotic Substances Actinnocent ownercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, which dismissed the appellant's application for the return of a vehicle seized during a narcotics case. The core legal question was whether the vehicle, owned by the appellant's late husband and used by a third party to transport narcotics, should be confiscated or returned to the legal owner. The Court found that the vehicle was owned by the appellant's late husband, who operated a rental car business, and that the accused had merely hired the vehicle. Crucially, the evidence established that the secret cavity used for smuggling was not specially fabricated for the purpose, and there were no rival claimants for the vehicle. The Court held that in the absence of evidence linking the owner to the criminal activity and given the proof of legitimate ownership, the confiscation was unjustified. The appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the return of the vehicle to the appellant was ordered, establishing that a vehicle used in a crime by a hirer should not be confiscated if the owner is innocent and the vehicle was not modified for smuggling.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle used for the transportation of narcotics be confiscated if the owner is not involved in the crime?
  • Does the hiring of a vehicle by an accused for criminal activity automatically justify the confiscation of the vehicle from its owner?
  • Is the absence of a rival claimant a relevant factor in deciding an application for the return of a seized vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saira Khan vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 458 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-18
  superdariconfiscation of vehiclenarcotics casereturn of vehicleownership proofControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by Mst. Saira Khan against an order of the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, which dismissed her application for the return of a vehicle (Honda Civic) seized in a narcotics case. The vehicle was confiscated after narcotics were recovered from a secret cavity within it, and the driver, Imran Dilawar, was convicted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The core legal question was whether the vehicle, owned by the appellant's late husband through his rental business, should be returned to the appellant given the absence of rival claimants and evidence that the vehicle was merely hired by the convict. The Court held that the vehicle should be returned to the appellant. It found that the evidence sufficiently established the appellant's late husband's ownership, that the vehicle was hired by the convict, and that the secret cavity was not specially created for smuggling. The principle laid down is that where a vehicle used in a narcotics offense is proven to be owned by a third party who was not complicit in the crime, and there are no rival claimants, the vehicle should be returned to its rightful owner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vehicle used in a narcotics offense can be returned to its owner if the owner was not involved in the crime?
  • Does the absence of rival claimants justify the return of a seized vehicle to the proven owner?
  • Is a vehicle subject to confiscation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act if it was hired by the offender from a third-party owner?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saira Bano vs Syed Saqi Hussain Shah and others2018 MLD 444 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Robina and others vs District Police Officer and others2018 YLR 665 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehana and another vs The State through Additional Advocate-2018 MLD 920 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-03
  post-arrest bailenticement of womanfree will marriagefurther inquiryNikah
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Mst. Rehana and Dawood, who were implicated in FIR No. 73 dated 03.03.2017 registered under sections 496-A and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Dargai, District Malakand. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the alleged enticement and subsequent marriage. The Peshawar High Court held that the contents of section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code were not attracted against the female petitioner, especially considering her statement that she contracted marriage of her own free will and had previously filed a complaint against her parents. The court decided that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, granting both petitioners post-arrest bail subject to surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an adult female voluntarily contracts marriage and denies abduction, charges under section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code require further inquiry, making the accused persons eligible for bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the offense under section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code is attracted when an adult female states she contracted marriage of her own free will?
  • Are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail when their case falls within the scope of further inquiry into their guilt?
  • Does a statement recorded under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by an alleged abductee carry weight in a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Begum and 3 others vs Habib Ur Rahman and 10 others2018 PLJ Peshawar 79, 2018 CLC 497 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasheeda Begum vs Habib-Ur-Rehman etc2018 PLJ Peshawar 79 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rahat Yasmeen vs Alam Khan and 2 others2018 PLJ Peshawar 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazima Bibi vs The State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 793, 2018 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-04
  post-arrest bailsuckling babywelfare of childmurderstep-mothercriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner, Mst. Nazima Bibi, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 248 dated 28.10.2017 registered under Sections 302 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Bagnotar, Abbottabad, for the alleged murder of her step-daughter by slitting her neck and strangulation. The core legal question was whether a female accused having a suckling baby in jail is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail on that ground alone in a heinous offence. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that the welfare of an innocent suckling child, who should not suffer the incompatible environment of a jail, constitutes a sufficient ground for granting bail to a female accused, without prejudice to the merits of the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female accused having a suckling baby in jail is entitled to post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Does jail life constitute an incompatible environment for the welfare of a suckling child warranting the grant of bail?
  • Does the grant of bail amount to the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehreen vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2018 MLD 671 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khalida Bibi & another vs Muhammad Naeem2018 PHC 1854 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haseena vs The State2019 MLD 176, 2018 PHC 1707 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-08-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gul Meena vs The State2018 MLD 1518 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-04
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlcharas recoverywelfare of minorprohibitory clausedelay in trialfemale accused
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Mst. Gul Meena, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 6600 grams of charas from her direct personal possession while traveling in a passenger van with her minor son. The core legal question was whether a female accused from whose possession a huge quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause was recovered is entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly considering the welfare of her minor child lodged with her in prison and the delay in submission of the challan. The Peshawar High Court granted bail to the petitioner, holding that while the recovery of a huge quantity and the question of guilt are matters for the trial court, the welfare of the minor child languishing in prison and the delay in trial proceedings warrant the concession of bail. The key principle laid down is that the welfare and liberty of a minor child residing in prison with an accused mother can constitute a compelling ground for granting post-arrest bail, even in cases involving large quantities of narcotics under the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the presence of a minor child in prison with a female accused constitutes a ground for post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause bar the grant of bail in all circumstances?
  • Whether delay in submission of challan entitles an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farhat Afza vs Government of Pakistan and others2018 P Cr. L J 370 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-22
  constitutional petitionforfeiture of propertydeath sentenceillegal orderrepealed statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to set aside an order dated 19.3.1952 passed by the Sessions Judge Derajat, D.I. Khan, regarding the forfeiture of the immovable property of a deceased convict, Fazal Rehman Khan, and to release the property in favour of the petitioner, who claimed it through a registered will executed by the convict's sole legal heir. The core legal question was whether the forfeiture of a convict's property in death cases was legally competent under the law prevailing in 1952. The Peshawar High Court held that section 62 of the Pakistan Penal Code, which previously permitted the forfeiture of property in death cases, was repealed in 1921 by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921. Consequently, the court ruled that the impugned forfeiture order passed in 1952 was entirely without jurisdiction, illegal, and not sustainable in law, thereby accepting the petition to the extent of declaring the forfeiture order void while leaving the petitioner to seek remedy for the release of the property from the proper forum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the forfeiture of immovable property of a convict in a death case was lawful in the year 1952?
  • Does section 62 of the Pakistan Penal Code authorize the forfeiture of property after its repeal by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921?
  • Is an order of forfeiture passed without statutory backing considered without jurisdiction and illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Halima vs The State through Additional Advocate General and 52018 MLD 1156 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Basmina vs Imran and others2018 MLD 870 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bano vs Mst. Robina and another2018 YLR 44 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bahre Falak vs Fazal Subhan and another2018 PLJ Peshawar 184, 2018 PHC 1326 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asmat Begum vs Muhammad Yousaf and 8 others2018 PLD Peshawar 38 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mst Gul Meena vs The State2018 MLD 1518, 2018 PHC 1427 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-04
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlfemale accusedwelfare of minorprohibitory clausedelay in challan
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a female accused, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 6600 grams of Chars from her personal possession. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted to a female accused carrying a minor child in prison despite the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause. The Peshawar High Court held that while the recovery was huge and the matter required trial, the welfare of the minor child confined with the mother in prison, coupled with delay in submission of the challan, entitled the petitioner to the concession of bail. The key principle laid down is that the welfare of a minor child residing with an incarcerated mother in prison is a significant humanitarian factor that can tilt the balance in favor of granting bail in appropriate circumstances, without treating the case on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to a female accused from whose direct possession a huge quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause was recovered?
  • Does the presence of a minor child in prison with an incarcerated mother constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
  • Whether delay in submission of the challan by the prosecution entitles the accused to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Kalsoom Begum and others vs The Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan2019 PLC (C.S) 828, 2019 PLJ Peshwar 51, 2018 PHC 1735 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-18
  regular appointmentssurplus appointmentsprobationary periodtermination of serviceuniversity statutesconstitutional jurisdictionillegal appointments
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter arises from 21 connected writ petitions filed before the Peshawar High Court challenging the termination of services of various university employees and non-appointment of certain petitioners at Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan (AWKUM). The core legal questions involve the legality of regular appointments made without sanctioned vacant posts, the validity of appointments made during a probationary period, and the extent of judicial review over university recruitment processes tainted by irregularities and surplus appointments. The Court held that appointments made against non-sanctioned and surplus posts, resulting from a colorful exercise of authority by the erstwhile university administration, are illegal, void, and create an extra burden on public financial resources. Furthermore, employees serving on probation can be terminated during the probationary period without a show-cause notice. The key principles laid down are that regular appointments made in the absence of sanctioned vacancies are unsustainable, and probationers have no vested right to challenge termination during probation when the foundational recruitment process is fundamentally tainted and illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether regular appointments made against non-sanctioned and surplus posts by a university administration are legally sustainable?
  • Can an employee appointed on probation be terminated during the probationary period without service of a show-cause notice?
  • Whether High Court can interfere in the termination of university employees whose initial recruitment process is found to be tainted with gross illegalities and irregularities?
  Read full judgment →
• Mr. Umar Akhtar vs Sher Said and others2018 YLR 2691, 2018 PHC 1662 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-08Read full judgment →
• Mozam Khan vs Sher Afsar2018 PHC 1375 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-16Read full judgment →
• Moulana Naeem Khan vs Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan and 10 others2018 CLC 1077 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mosam Khan vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 284 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-09
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyjurisdictionabduction and murderabscondenceblood feudcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, Mosam Khan, seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 06 registered under sections 302/364/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Mattani, Peshawar, relating to the abduction and murder of the complainant's father. The core legal question involved the jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court to entertain the bail petition given that the murder occurred in tribal territory, as well as the rule of consistency where co-accused had been acquitted or granted bail. The Peshawar High Court held that it possessed jurisdiction under Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, overruling the objection, and granted bail to the petitioner on the ground of consistency with co-accused who were previously granted bail or acquitted, noting that abscondence alone is insufficient to deny bail when the case is otherwise fit for relief. The court laid down the principle that the rule of consistency applies in bail matters where the petitioner's case is at par with co-accused who have received favorable treatment from competent courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Peshawar High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a bail petition where the offence was committed in tribal territory but connected to an FIR registered in a settled area?
  • Does mere abscondence of an accused disentitle him to post-arrest bail if his case is otherwise on a par with co-accused who have been granted bail or acquitted?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when determining bail for an accused whose co-accused have already been granted relief by competent courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Momin Shah vs The State2018 PHC 1420 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-02Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Raziq vs Mst. Farhana Bibi and 2 others2018 CLC 93 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-05Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Karim Durrani through Legal Heir vs Ghulam Rasool through L.Rs, and another2018 YLR 183 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-01Read full judgment →
• Mishqatullah vs The State and others2018 PHC 1653 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-25Read full judgment →
• Mir Jawaz Khan and 2 others vs Gul Bath Khan and 2 others2018 CLC 805 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mir Hakeem Khan and another vs Gulap Khan and two othersPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 797, 2018 YLR 2638, 2018 PHC 1441 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mir Afzal vs Muhammad Fareed and others2019 MLD 238, 2018 PHC 1712 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-08-09Read full judgment →
• Mir Afzal vs Mst. Naseem Bibi and another2018 YLR 1979 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad vs Mr. Abdul Sattar Khan, Advocate2019 CLC 160, 2018 PHC 1715 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-03Read full judgment →