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.

• Ghulam Nabi vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 268 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-01
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlheroin recoveryfurther inquirydoubtful recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court through a bail petition filed by Ghulam Nabi seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 561 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question revolves around whether the alleged recovery of 1100 grams of heroin, when considering potential discrepancies regarding weighing with or without the plastic bag and the unusual manner of concealment, constitutes a case of further inquiry under criminal procedure. The Court held that doubts surrounding the actual weight of the narcotic substance and the feasibility of carrying the contraband as alleged bring the case within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was allowed, granting the petitioner post-arrest bail subject to surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that material ambiguities regarding the weight of recovered narcotics and improbable recovery circumstances create sufficient doubt to warrant bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Does ambiguity regarding whether recovered narcotics were weighed with or without their container constitute a case for further inquiry?
  • Whether the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics in an improbable manner creates sufficient doubt to justify granting bail?
  • Can a petitioner be admitted to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the exact weight of the contraband falls into a grey area between statutory penal clauses?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawad Khan vs The State and another2018 YLR 400 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs The State and another2018 YLR 1042 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-31Read full judgment →
• Ghani-ur-Rehman vs Khshhal Khan Khattak University, Karak, through its2019 PLC (C.S) 842, 2018 PHC 1851 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-11
  regularization of servicewrit petitioncontract employeefixed pay appointmentuniversity statutesconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking regularization of the petitioner's services as a Lecturer in Computer Science at Khushhal Khan Khattak University from the date of his initial appointment in 2013, along with back benefits. The core legal question involves whether an employee appointed on a fixed-pay or contract basis and serving continuously for several years is entitled to regularization of service, particularly when subsequent university statutes lack retrospective effect. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner, having served continuously and without interruption for several years under the rules applicable at the time of appointment, is entitled to regularization of his services, as the subsequent 2016 statutes of the university do not apply retrospectively to negate his continuous service. The key principle laid down is that long-term continuous service of an employee creates a legitimate expectation and entitlement for regularization, and subsequent statutory changes without retrospective effect cannot be used to defeat such rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee appointed on a fixed-pay or contract basis is entitled to regularization of service after serving continuously for a long period?
  • Do university statutes framed subsequent to an initial appointment have retrospective effect to govern past appointments without explicit provision?
  • Can past continuous service of an employee be dispensed with solely on the ground of failing a subsequent test?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghani Khan vs versus Inamullah Khan and others2018 MLD 306 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-06Read full judgment →
• General Manager SNGPL vs Safeer Ullah Khan and others2018 YLR 1721 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-31
  gas theftGas Utility Courtspecial lawdirect complaintcognizance of offenceCode of Criminal Procedurejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 13 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 challenged an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Gas Utility Court, Peshawar, which had disposed of a gas theft complaint filed by the appellant company by holding that the company should have instead approached the local police to register an FIR and submit a challan through a Magistrate. The core legal question was whether a Gas Utility Court can directly take cognizance of an offence upon a direct complaint under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, or whether such complaints must be routed through the police and a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that as a special law, the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 prevails over general law, and the Gas Utility Court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to entertain complaints directly without requiring police investigation or routing through a Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Gas Utility Court take direct cognizance of an offence under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 upon a direct complaint?
  • Must a complaint filed under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 be routed through the local police and an Illaqa Magistrate?
  • Does special law prevail over general law in matters of procedure regarding Gas Utility Courts?
  • Is a Gas Utility Court required to comply with Section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when entertaining a complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Fiza Naz vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2018 PHC 1635 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-21Read full judgment →
• Firdous Aziz vs Asif Aziz and 3 others2018 P Cr. L J 392 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21
  quashment of FIRdishonoured chequecognizable offenceJustice of Peacecivil and criminal proceedingsinvestigation powersconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order passed by the Ex Officio Justice of Peace directing the registration of an FIR under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding a dishonoured cheque. The petitioner sought the quashment of the FIR, arguing that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, evidenced by a pending civil suit, and lacked the requisite mens rea for criminal liability. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that the Justice of Peace acted within their legal authority under Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not interfere with the police's statutory duty to investigate cognizable offences or assume the role of an investigator. It established that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not preclude criminal proceedings if the facts also disclose a criminal act. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that FIRs should not be quashed at the initial stage unless exceptional circumstances exist where no cognizable offence is disclosed on the face of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit between parties bar the registration of a criminal case regarding the same transaction?
  • Can the High Court quash an FIR while exercising constitutional jurisdiction if the allegations require the recording of evidence to determine criminal liability?
  • Is the High Court permitted to assume the role of an investigating agency by interfering with the police's duty to investigate a cognizable offence?
  • Under what exceptional circumstances may a High Court quash an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain and 3 others vs Mst. Bakhat Jamala and others2018 PHC 1610, 2018 MLD 1491 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-14Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain & others vs Mst. Bakht Jamala & others2018 PHC 1610 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-14Read full judgment →
• Jawad-Ul-Haq vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 766 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-07
  criminal appealdouble murderbenefit of doubtunproved motivesolitary witnesscorroborative evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for double murder and under section 15 of the Arms Act. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through the ocular account, medical evidence, and alleged motive. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case as the complainant admitted during cross-examination that he was not an eye-witness, the motive remained unproved, and corroborative recoveries alone were insufficient to sustain a capital conviction in the absence of direct evidence. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt entitles him to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for a capital charge can be sustained solely on the basis of corroborative recoveries in the absence of direct evidence?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when the alleged motive remains unproved?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rabi vs Akhter Nawab2018 PHC 1562 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rabi vs Akhtar Nawab and 6 others2018 MLD 2089 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-18Read full judgment →
• Fazal Malik through LRs & others vs Arsala Khan & others2019 MLD 262, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 109, 2018 PHC 1759 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-24Read full judgment →
• Fazal Jameel vs The State2018 PHC 1405 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Ali vs Dr. Ahmad Khan Hoti & others2018 PLJ Peshawar 142 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-14Read full judgment →
• Fawad Khan vs Jamshed Khan and another2018 P Cr. L J 498 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-25
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offenderheinous offenceprohibitory clauseattempted murderage determination
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail petition filed by an accused charged under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, claiming juvenile status, was entitled to the concession of bail despite being charged with a heinous offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, finding that the accused was over fifteen years of age and that his involvement in a heinous crime, supported by prima facie evidence of effective firing, outweighed his claim of minority. The Court established that the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 does not grant an automatic license for bail to juveniles in cases involving serious or heinous offences, particularly when the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Mere minority is not a sufficient ground for bail when the accused is charged with a brutal or sensational crime, as the interest of society in curbing rampant juvenile criminality takes precedence at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is a juvenile accused entitled to bail as a matter of right in a case falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 provide an absolute concession of bail to a juvenile accused of a heinous offence?
  • Can the plea of minority be used as a ground for bail when the accused is charged with a serious or heinous offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Fawad Ishaq and others vs Mst. Mahreen Mansoor2019 YLR 605, 2018 PHC 1839 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-17Read full judgment →
• Farid Khan vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-11
  concurrent sentencesconsecutive sentencescriminal appealsentencing discretionlimitation periodCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two criminal appeals filed by the appellant, Farid Khan, challenging his convictions and sentences in two separate cases (FIR No. 164 and FIR No. 165). At the outset, the appellant's counsel conceded that the appeals were time-barred and did not press the challenges on merits, focusing instead on a request for the sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The core legal question was whether the court could exercise its discretion to order concurrent sentences for separate convictions under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court, citing judicial precedents, held that while the appeals on merits were dismissed, it possessed the discretion under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct that sentences of imprisonment awarded at different trials run concurrently to mitigate hardship. Consequently, the court upheld the convictions but ordered that all sentences awarded to the appellant in both cases run concurrently, emphasizing the beneficial nature of the statutory provision in the interest of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order sentences awarded in separate trials to run concurrently?
  • Does Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant the court discretion to order concurrent sentences for separate trials?
  • Is a court required to consider the hardship of an accused when deciding whether to order concurrent or consecutive sentences?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhat Shaheen vs Govt. of K.P.K Public Service Commission and others2018 PHC 1415 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-13Read full judgment →
• Farhana Sadiq vs Director Comsats Institute of Information2018 MLD 789 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-17Read full judgment →
• Faraz Ahmad vs Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, and 2 others2018 CLC 1157 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-09Read full judgment →
• Faisal Qazafi vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman and 4 others2018 MLD 386 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-13Read full judgment →
• Faisal Qazafi vs Chairman, NAB etc2018 PHC 1615 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-10Read full judgment →
• Faheemullah vs The State2018 MLD 273 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-09
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeSection 489-F PPCfinancial fraudhabitual offenderprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Faheem Ullah, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonour of a cheque issued to the complainant for Rs. 10,000,000 due to insufficient funds. The petitioner had previously been denied bail by the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court observed that the dishonoured cheque prima facie established a lack of intention to pay, amounting to financial harm. Furthermore, the court noted the petitioner's involvement in another similar case involving a dishonoured cheque, suggesting a pattern of habitual offending. The court held that while the offence was outside the prohibitory clause, this did not automatically entitle the petitioner to bail, as each case must be decided on its own merits. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, finding sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner to the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Is a history of similar offences involving dishonoured cheques a relevant factor in determining whether to grant bail?
  • Does the dishonour of a cheque due to insufficient funds constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail in a case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem Khan vs The State2018 MLD 1654, 2018 PHC 1527 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-29Read full judgment →
• Exn PESCO, Sub-Division-II and another vs Sher Afzal Khan2018 PLD Peshawar 26 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-10
  consumer protectionelectricity billingjurisdiction of consumer courtelectric inspectorexcessive billingspeaking orderpublic functionaries
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged an order passed by the Consumer Court, which accepted a consumer's complaint against excessive electricity billing and arbitrary meter replacement by Peshawar Electricity Supply Company (PESCO). The core legal question concerned whether the Consumer Court had jurisdiction to entertain disputes regarding electricity billing or if such matters fell exclusively under the Electricity Act, 1910 before an Electric Inspector. The Peshawar High Court held that PESCO constitutes a service provider under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997, and disputes regarding incorrect readings and billing—absent allegations of theft or dishonest abstraction of energy—fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court. The court affirmed that public functionaries must act reasonably and provide speaking orders pursuant to the General Clauses Act, 1897. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Consumer Court have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against a power distribution company regarding incorrect electricity billing and meter replacement?
  • When does the jurisdiction of an Electric Inspector apply under the Electricity Act, 1910 in matters of electricity meter disputes?
  • Are public functionaries bound to provide detailed reasons and speaking orders while deciding matters under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Engineer Kamran Wahab& others vs Govt of KPK and others2018 CLD 1409, 2018 PHC 1705 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-29Read full judgment →
• Engineer Kamran Wahab and others vs Government of Khyber2018 CLD 1409 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-29Read full judgment →
• Eid Badshah vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-31
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabsconsionfirearms expert reportattempted murdercorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Eid Badshah, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 270 dated 14.4.2016 registered under sections 324 and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Karak, District Karak, after his bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Karak. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry to justify the grant of post-arrest bail given discrepancies in the forensic and medical evidence and the nature of the recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the FSL report indicating empties were fired from different weapons raised a further probe as to whether the act was committed by one person or more, and the medical report did not fully support the prosecution version, while absconsion alone could not substitute for substantive proof. The court laid down the principle that mere absconsion is a suspicious circumstance that cannot take the place of proof and serves only as corroborative evidence, and where the case falls under further inquiry and no weapon or confession is recovered, the accused is entitled to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether discrepancies between the FSL report and the prosecution version regarding recovered empties make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can mere absconsion of an accused person take the place of substantive proof of guilt?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no weapon of offence is recovered and no confession is made during police custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr.Khurshid Ali vs Ihsan Ali2018 PLJ Peshawar 181, 2018 PHC 1300 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Wisal Mehmood and others vs Government of Pakistan through Additional Chief Secretary FATA and others2018 PHC 1667 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-27
  constitutional petitionproject employeesregularization of servicedevelopment projectfixed pay packagecivil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two connected constitutional petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by doctors and surgeons serving as project employees under the 'Mobile Hospital Programme FATA'. The petitioners sought regularization of their services as regular civil servants from their initial induction, along with back benefits and other reliefs, challenging certain office orders. The core legal question involved was whether project employees appointed on a fixed pay package under a development project could be regularized in service. The Peshawar High Court, examining the nature of the project appointments, the relevant development project policy framed under Section 25 of the NWFP Civil Servant Act, 1973, and precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning project employees, held that the petitioners are to continue holding their posts till the life of the project as per the conditions laid down in the project policy. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed in these terms, establishing that project employees are bound by the tenure and terms of their respective development projects.

  Questions settled

  • Whether project employees appointed under a development project are entitled to regularization of their services as regular civil servants?
  • Can the services of doctors inducted into a fixed-pay development project be regularized contrary to the terms of the project policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shamim S. Majid vs Military Estate Officer, Peshawar Cantt. and 52018 PLD Peshawar 165 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Khushnood Ali Baz and 111 others vs Government of Khyber2018 YLR 512 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farhat Naz vs Chairman Selection/Promotion Board Ayub2018 PLC (C.S.) 342 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-24
  review petitionappointmentselection committeeallocation of markssenior registrar
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a review petition filed by the petitioner seeking review of the High Court's judgment dated 13.12.2016, which had resolved the issue of allocation of marks by the Selection Committee regarding the appointment of Senior Registrar (Medicine) and remanded the matter to the selecting authority in light of directions from the Supreme Court. The core question before the court was whether any ground was made out to review the earlier judgment and interfere with the continued appointment of respondent No. 6, given the departmental authority's subsequent steps to convene a meeting of the Selection Committee. The court held that since the Selection Committee's meeting had been convened to select candidates afresh, affording an opportunity to the petitioner and other aspirants, the petitioner was left with no further grievance. The review petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a review petition does not lie when the grievance prompting it has been substantially redressed through the scheduling of the selection process in compliance with the court's earlier judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a review petition is maintainable when the grievance regarding the delay in convening a selection committee meeting has been redressed?
  • Can the High Court remand a matter for final selection to the selecting authority after resolving the issue of allocation of marks?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Arshad Rashid vs Chief Information Commissioner, Right to Information Commission (Tric) KPK, Peshawar and 5 others2018 CLC 1234 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-11Read full judgment →
• Dr Shamim S. Majid vs Military Estate Officer etc2018 PLD Peshawar 165, 2018 PHC 1592 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-24Read full judgment →
• Dost Ahmad and another vs Fazal Subhan and 2 others2018 CLC 82 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
• Dolat Khan vs Mst. Bakht Nisa and others2018 YLR 436 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-26Read full judgment →
• District Food Controller & others vs Shakindlah Khan & others2018 PLJ Peshawar 177, 2018 PHC 1575 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-05Read full judgment →
• Deputy Land Commissioner KPK, Peshawar and 2 others vs Chairman2018 PLJ Peshawar 123, 2018 CLC 166 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-07Read full judgment →
• Daulat Khan vs The State2018 YLR 1528 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-13
  narcotics controlcriminal appealpolice witnessescontradictions in evidenceacquittalrecovery of chars
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Peshawar, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the uncorroborated testimony of police officials and recovery of narcotics. The Peshawar High Court held that material contradictions between the testimony of the complainant and the marginal witness, the lack of independent public witnesses despite a populated recovery site, and inconsistencies regarding the recovery of currency notes rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of the charges. The key principle laid down is that when prosecution evidence consists exclusively of police officials who are subordinates to the complainant and suffers from material contradictions, their testimony must be scrutinized with extreme care and caution, and cannot safely form the basis of a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials can form the sole basis for a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does a contradiction between police witnesses regarding material aspects of a recovery vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to associate independent witnesses from the general public when a recovery is made from a populated area?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Legal vs M/s chashma Sugar Mills D.I.Khan2019 PCRLJ 533, 2018 PTD 2154, 2018 PHC 1697 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-12
  Income TaxDeemed IncomeUndistributed ReservesRetrospective TaxationTax ReferenceExcise Duty ExpenseIncome Tax Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax reference application filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 sought the advisory opinion of the Peshawar High Court on three questions relating to the interpretation of "reserves" and the applicability of Section 12(9A) of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance 1979 to a public limited company. The respondent company had claimed an amount earmarked for excise duty as an admissible expense for the tax year ending September 30, 1998, which the tax authorities later attempted to treat as undistributed reserves subject to deemed taxation. The court held that rules framed under a statute cannot enlarge the scope of the parent statute to tax revenue rather than profits, that liabilities legally payable such as excise duty are admissible expenses, and that a deeming provision creating a new tax liability cannot be applied retrospectively to a prior income year. Consequently, the tax reference was dismissed and the questions were answered in the negative, upholding the Appellate Tribunal's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in interpreting the term reserves independently when defined under the explanation to Section 12(9A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Whether rules framed under a statute can enlarge the scope of the parent statute regarding the definition of reserves and revenue?
  • Whether Section 12(9A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 creating a fictional income liability can be given retrospective effect to prior income years?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax (Legal), Regional Tax Office, Peshawar2018 PTD 2154 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue-Rto vs Dr. Ghulam Rasool2018 PTD 612 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar vs Messrs Sheraz Arena Deans Trade Center, Peshawar and another2018 PTD 2212 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-12Read full judgment →
• Commession Inland Revenue, Regional tax office peshawar vs M/s Sheraz2019 PCRLJ 552, 2018 PTD 2212, 2018 PHC 1692 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-12
  sales taxcatererwedding halltaxable activitysupply of goodsdoctrine of severabilityFBR circularultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This Sales Tax Reference filed under section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 challenges the order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which had set aside sales tax assessments levied on a wedding hall operating as a caterer. The core legal question was whether a business providing food services and catering within a wedding hall is liable to pay sales tax on the supply of goods under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, notwithstanding provincial exemption of marriage hall services or contrary administrative circulars. The Peshawar High Court held that the supply of food and goods in a mixed transaction is subject to the doctrine of severability, making the supply of food items taxable under section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, regardless of the service component being a provincial subject or contrary FBR circulars. The court laid down the principle that subordinate legislation, administrative instructions, or FBR circulars cannot override the charging provisions of a parent statute, and instructions issued by the board are ultra vires if they contravene statutory taxability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the preparation and supply of food by a wedding hall or caterer constitutes a taxable supply of goods under Section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Does the doctrine of severability apply to mixed contracts involving the provision of both services and goods in a single transaction?
  • Can administrative circulars or instructions issued by the Federal Board of Revenue override the express charging provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Whether FBR circulars are binding on quasi-judicial forums and statutory authorities adjudicating tax disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Land Commissioner, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 2 others vs Chairman Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and 101 others2018 CLC 166 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-07Read full judgment →
• Chief Engineer vs M/s Zaradad2018 PHC 1630 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office vs Messrs2018 PTD 1617 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-30Read full judgment →
• Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue vs M/s Cherat Cement Company Ltd2018 PHC 1294 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-30Read full judgment →
• Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue Regional Tax Office vs M/s. Cherat2018 PHC 1294, PTCL 2018 CL. 325 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-30Read full judgment →
• Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board, Lahore and another vs Mst.2018 PLJ Peshawar 129 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Buzarg Khan vs Mst. Jabin and 3 others2018 CLC 1519 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-30Read full judgment →
• Biradar Khan vs The State through SHO and 2 others2018 PHC 1467, 2018 P Cr. L J 1310 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-30
  superdaricustody of vehiclebona fide purchaserdisputed ownershipcriminal procedureinterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the return of a vehicle on superdari, challenging orders from the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan, which had previously declined his request. The petitioner claimed to be a bona fide purchaser from respondent No. 2, asserting that the vehicle was not stolen and that he was the last possessor. Conversely, the respondents argued that the ownership of the vehicle remained in dispute. Upon review, the Court observed that the vehicle's registration history indicated multiple transfers, and conflicting documentation was presented by the parties, including a T.O. Form and a registration book suggesting ownership by a third party, Khan-ur-Rehman. Furthermore, an FIR had been lodged by Khan-ur-Rehman against the respondents for fraud regarding the same vehicle. The Court held that these conflicting claims and the existence of an FIR created significant confusion regarding the true ownership and last possession of the vehicle. Consequently, the Court determined that the matter of ownership could only be resolved by a competent court after recording evidence, and thus dismissed the petition for superdari.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vehicle can be released on superdari when the ownership is in dispute and subject to conflicting claims?
  • Is the court required to record evidence to determine the rightful owner of a vehicle before granting superdari in cases of disputed title?
  • Does the existence of an FIR regarding the fraudulent transfer of a vehicle preclude its release on superdari to a claimant?
  Read full judgment →
• Biradar Khan vs The State & another2018 PHC 1467 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
• Bhutto Khan and 4 others vs Inspector-General of Police Khyber2018 PTD 1716 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-27Read full judgment →
• Bhutto Khan and 4 others vs Inspector General of Police K.P.K. and 4 others2018 PHC 1417, 2018 PTD 1716, 2018 P.C.T.L.R. 380 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-27Read full judgment →
• Bhutto Khan and 04 others vs Inspector General of Police K.P.K and 042018 PHC 1417 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-27Read full judgment →
• Bhai Jan vs The State etc2018 PHC 1397, 2018 YLR 2000 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-06Read full judgment →
• Bhai Jan vs Asfandiyar and another2018 YLR 2000 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-06Read full judgment →
• Behram Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice2018 PLC (C.S.) 394 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-18
  Constitutional jurisdictioncivil servanttransfer orderservice tribunalArticle 212terms and conditions of servicemaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an order transferring him from the post of Reader to a Drug Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the transfer of a civil servant, considering the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court examined the jurisdictional limits regarding service matters and concluded that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on the principles established by the Supreme Court in Ali Azhar Khan Baloch's case, the Court held that the terms and conditions of service for civil servants, including transfers, fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court’s jurisdiction is ousted by the constitutional command of Article 212. The Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner must seek his remedy before the appropriate forum provided by law, as the High Court cannot entertain such service-related grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition challenging the transfer of a civil servant?
  • Does the term 'terms and conditions of service' for civil servants include matters of transfer and posting?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court ousted by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in matters relating to the service of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Khan vs The State through Prosecutor-General, National2018 P Cr. L J 1409 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-06
  National Accountability Ordinancecorruption and corrupt practicescarriage contractormisappropriation of wheatdefective chargedelegation of powersremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court-III, Peshawar, whereby the appellant, a carriage contractor for the Food Department, was convicted under section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 and sentenced under section 10 for corruption and corrupt practices relating to the alleged misappropriation of government wheat during transit. The core legal questions involve whether the Director General NAB possessed the delegated authority to file the reference against a businessman of the appellant's scale, and whether the failure to specify the exact clause of section 9 in the charge vitiated the trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to ambiguities in the charge and the failure of the trial court and prosecution to specify the exact statutory clause of section 9, as well as unresolved questions regarding the Director General's delegated powers. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter back to the trial court to first determine the competence of the reference and, if found competent, to reframe a clear and distinct charge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 can be sustained when neither the reference nor the charge specifies the exact clause of section 9 under which the accused is tried?
  • Did the Director General NAB possess the requisite delegated authority under section 34-A of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 to file a reference against a businessman employing more workers than permitted by the delegation order?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial court under the Code of Criminal Procedure and accountability laws to frame distinct and specific heads of charge detailing the exact statutory violations alleged against an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Baseer Ullah vs Anmwar Ali Shah2019 P Cr. L J 361, 2018 PHC 1814 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-02
  criminal appealillegal dispossessionSection 342 Cr.P.C.fair trialaudi alteram partemincurable illegalityremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge-II, Bannu, which convicted the appellant under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the failure of the trial court to record the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the conviction. The High Court held that the omission to examine the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitutes an incurable illegality, as it violates the mandatory requirement of the law and the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the case to the trial court with directions to record the accused's statement, allow the parties to lead further evidence if desired, and deliver a fresh judgment. The key principle established is that the examination of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a mandatory procedural safeguard essential to a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to record an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute an incurable illegality?
  • Is the examination of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a mandatory requirement for a valid conviction?
  • What is the legal consequence of a trial court's failure to provide an accused the opportunity to explain incriminating evidence under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Baldive Kumar vs Asad Qaiser, Speaker Provincial Assembly Khyber2018 PLD Peshawar 113 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-17Read full judgment →
• Baldive Kumar vs Asad Qaiser Speaker Provincial Assembly2018 PLD Peshawar 113, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 200, 2018 PHC 1602 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-17Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar son of Said Akbar, r/o Pakha Ghulam, Peshawar vs The State etc2018 PHC 1748 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar Khan vs The State and another2018 MLD 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-15
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauserule of consistencyabscondencesine die adjournmentmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Bakhtiar Khan, seeking bail in case FIR No. 337 registered under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station MRS, Kohat. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner has made out a case for post-arrest bail given the direct charge, prompt FIR, corroborative medical and forensic evidence, and noticeable abscondence, and whether the rule of consistency applies based on the co-accused's release on bail due to the complainant's non-appearance and sine die adjournment of the trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner is directly charged with specific roles, the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the rule of consistency is inapplicable since the co-accused was not granted bail on merits. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, and the trial court's direction for sine die adjournment was quashed as contrary to section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principles laid down include that bail is rightly refused where prima facie evidence and abscondence connect the accused to a capital crime falling within the prohibitory clause, and that a sine die adjournment of a criminal trial is legally impermissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when directly charged with a capital crime supported by prompt FIR, medical evidence, and abscondence?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused merely because a co-accused with a similar role was released on bail when the co-accused was not granted bail on merits?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit a trial court to adjourn criminal proceedings sine die due to the non-appearance of a complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Muhammad and 4 others vs Secretary Water and Power2018 CLC 1120 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-22Read full judgment →
• Badshah Jamil vs The State and another2018 YLR 148 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-14Read full judgment →
• Bacha Khan vs State through A.A.-G. Peshawar High Court Bench Mingora, Swat and another2018 P Cr. L J 467 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-12
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryborderline casefurther inquiryICE and Charas
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail petition filed by the accused Bacha Khan, who was arrested following the recovery of 10 grams of ICE and 2000 grams of Charas from his possession, registered under sections 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act and 15 of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the quantity of Charas placed the case as a borderline one between sub-clauses (b) and (c) of section 9, making the applicability of the prohibitory clause a matter of further inquiry. The Peshawar High Court held that since the quantum of punishment varies with the circumstances and the quantity recovered, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court laid down the principle that where the recovered quantity makes the offense a borderline case regarding the quantum of punishment, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the recovered quantity of narcotics constitutes a borderline case between different sub-clauses of section 9?
  • Does the recovery of 10 grams of ICE and 2000 grams of Charas fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the quantum of punishment varying with the circumstances makes a narcotics case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Gul vs The Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence, Islamabad & others2018 PHC 1437 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-08Read full judgment →
• Azad Khan vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 879 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-11
  quashment of orderimposition of costscriminal revisionHigh Court Rules and Ordersinterpretation of statutestrial conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, D.I. Khan. The petitioner challenged an order that imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 upon him while accepting his criminal revision petition against the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The core legal question was whether the lower court had the legal authority to impose costs under Section 344-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Chapter I.D Para-15 of the High Court Rules and Orders in the circumstances of the case. The High Court held that the lower court misinterpreted the law. It clarified that Section 344-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pertains to the disposal timelines for specific offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while Chapter I.D Para-15 of the High Court Rules and Orders relates strictly to costs arising from adjournments. Since the cost was imposed due to the petitioner's conduct rather than an adjournment, the imposition was legally unsustainable. The court set aside the impugned order to the extent of the cost.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 344-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 authorize a court to impose costs for a party's conduct during a trial?
  • Under what circumstances does Chapter I.D Para-15 of the High Court Rules and Orders permit the imposition of costs?
  • Can a court impose costs on a party in a criminal revision petition based on their conduct before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Khan Khattak vs Muhammad Faisal Khan2018 MLD 1993, 2018 PHC 1660 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-11
  rejection of plaintdefamation suitlimitation of actionscivil revisionfrivolous litigationmandatory noticeservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the rejection of a plaint in a defamation suit. The core legal questions involve whether a defamation suit instituted after the six-month limitation period prescribed by Section 12 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 and without fulfilling statutory notice requirements is maintainable, and whether the plaint discloses a valid cause of action under Section 3 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002. The Peshawar High Court held that the suit was barred by limitation, lacked the necessary elements of defamation, and failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirement, thereby rendering the plaint liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The key principles laid down are that frivolous litigation must be curbed at the initial stage by rejecting plaints barred by law, that the limitation period for defamation actions is strictly six months under Section 12 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002, and that mandatory notice preconditions must be strictly fulfilled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for defamation filed after the expiration of the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 12 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 is barred by law?
  • Is a pre-suit written notice a mandatory prerequisite for maintaining an action under the Defamation Ordinance 2002?
  • Can a civil court reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC when the suit is barred by the provisions of the Defamation Ordinance 2002?
  • Whether verbal brawls and administrative disputes between university officers and subordinates constitute actionable defamation without proof of intent to lower estimation or cause ridicule?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Khan Khattak and 5 others vs Muhammad Faisal Khan Durrani2018 MLD 1993 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-11
  civil revisionrejection of plaintdefamation suitlimitation of actionsservice lawfrivolous litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving as senior officers in the Kohat University of Science and Technology (KUST), filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the dismissal of their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondent, an office assistant at KUST, had instituted a defamation suit against the petitioners under Section 3 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 following a verbal altercation. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent's suit was barred by limitation under Section 12 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 and whether it failed to disclose a cause of action or lacked mandatory pre-suil notice. The Peshawar High Court accepted the revision petition, holding that the suit was barred by limitation and defective due to a lack of notice and actionable defamatory material. The court laid down the principle that courts must scrupulously apply Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to curtail frivolous and time-barred litigation at the initial stage, particularly where statutory preconditions of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 are unfulfilled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for defamation filed beyond the period of six months prescribed under section 12 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 is barred by limitation?
  • Is it incumbent upon the trial court to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 at the initial stage if the suit is barred by any law?
  • Does failure to issue the mandatory fourteen days notice in writing prior to filing an action bar a suit under the Defamation Ordinance 2002?
  • Can a subordinate employee bypass departmental efficiency and disciplinary proceedings to initiate a defamation suit against senior university officers regarding official conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Awais Ali vs The StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 68, 2018 YLR 1775, 2018 PHC 1475 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-09Read full judgment →
• Awais Ali vs The State through S.H.O., P.S. City Kohat2018 YLR 1775 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-09
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoverydestruction of case propertyevidentiary gapspre-trial destructionarguable case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 9600 grams of charas from the petitioner. The core legal questions concern whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case, and whether a Judicial Magistrate is competent to order the destruction of seized narcotics prior to trial. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the failure to seize the vehicle, identify the driver, or cite passengers as witnesses renders the prosecution's case arguable. Furthermore, the Court held that under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, read with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court is empowered to order the destruction of seized narcotics at any stage, including before trial, provided the established sampling mechanism is followed. The key principle laid down is that while bail is a discretionary relief, the absence of crucial corroborative evidence makes a case arguable, and statutory provisions for the destruction of narcotics are not time-bound and may be exercised pre-trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Judicial Magistrate competent to order the destruction of seized narcotics before the commencement of the trial?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses or the failure to seize the vehicle used in the alleged trafficking constitute grounds for an arguable case for bail?
  • Do the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding the destruction of narcotics impose a specific time limit for such destruction?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs The State2018 PCRLJ 1125, 2018 PHC 1395 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-05
  post-arrest bailControl of Narcotic Substances ActEcstasy tabletstentative assessmentFSL reportprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition involves applications for post-arrest bail filed by petitioners Aurangzeb and Malook in case FIR No. 95 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that huge quantities of Ecstasy tablets containing controlled substances were recovered from a vehicle driven by Malook and subsequently from the house of Aurangzeb upon Malook's pointation. The core legal question revolved around whether the competency of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and the absence of specific percentage breakdowns of tablet ingredients in the FSL report warranted the grant of bail. The Peshawar High Court held that delving into the competency of the FSL and the authenticity of its report at the bail stage would constitute a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible. On tentative assessment, the petitioners were prima facie connected to an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of the statute. Consequently, the High Court dismissed both bail petitions, laying down that objections regarding FSL reports and ingredient percentages cannot be resolved during tentative assessment at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the competency of the Forensic Science Laboratory and the authenticity of its report regarding narcotic substances can be evaluated at the bail stage?
  • Does the recovery of huge quantities of controlled substances falling within the prohibitory clause disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether arguments concerning the percentage of active ingredients in recovered tablets require deeper appreciation falling within the domain of the trial Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaulah Jan vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ehtesab Commission through Director General and 4 others2018 MLD 1905 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-08Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Deshani vs District Police Officer, Haripur and 02 others2018 PHC 1670 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-22Read full judgment →
• Astaghfirullah vs Secretary Irrigation, Peshawar and others2018 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-13Read full judgment →
• Assistant Manager, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Haji2018 PHC 1457 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-27Read full judgment →
• Aslam Khan Marwar vs Mst. Atia Gul and 2 others2018 YLR 1231 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited vs Panther CNG Station Ring Road through Managing Partner and another2018 CLD 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-12Read full judgment →
• Askar Abbasi vs The State2018 YLR 1879 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Asim Khan vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 331 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-20
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharas gardachemical examiner reportfurther probedelay in sending samplesdiscrepancy in descriptionownership of vehicle
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose out of a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner before the Peshawar High Court, following dismissal of his earlier bail application by the court below. The case stemmed from FIR No. 589 dated 22.09.2017 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, at Police Station Phando, Peshawar, alleging the recovery of six kilograms of charas garda from a shopping bag hanging on the safeguard of a motorcycle driven by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had made out a case for grant of post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry. The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court laid down that an unexplained seven-day delay in dispatching samples to the chemical examiner, coupled with a material discrepancy regarding the physical description of the narcotic substance between the FIR and the laboratory report, and the absence of documentary proof connecting the accused to the vehicle, creates reasonable doubt warranting further probe at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of seven days in transmitting narcotic samples to the laboratory casts sufficient doubt on the prosecution case to warrant bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Does a material contradiction between the physical description of contraband in the FIR and the chemical examiner's report entitle an accused to the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the lack of documentary evidence establishing the accused's connection with the vehicle from which narcotics were allegedly recovered makes out a case for further inquiry under bail jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 225 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-07
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlcharas recoveryfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Ashiq Ali sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.10 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to the alleged recovery of four kilograms of charas concealed inside a gas heater in a passenger vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's nexus with the recovered narcotics was established sufficiently to deny bail, given that the recovery was from a gas heater rather than his direct personal possession and key corroborative evidence was lacking at the pre-trial stage. The Peshawar High Court held that in the absence of a travelling ticket, supporting statements from the vehicle's crew or passengers, and definitive proof of ownership of the heater, the petitioner's connection to the contraband required further probe. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing suitable bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where recovery is effected from a shared or neutral object rather than direct personal possession and essential corroborative links are missing, the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when narcotics are recovered from a shared or neutral object rather than direct personal possession?
  • Whether the absence of a travelling ticket and corroborative statements from transport crew creates a case for further probe under criminal law?
  • Can bail be granted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act when the nexus between the accused and the recovered contraband is yet to be determined at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Khan vs The State2018 PHC 1432 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-04Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain & Abid Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 PHC 1853 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-12Read full judgment →
• Arbab Tehsinullah vs Riaz and others2018 P Cr. L J 790 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-28
  criminal revisiondisposal of case propertysuperdarireturn of case propertydelayed applicationacquittalcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under section 439 read with section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Peshawar, which allowed an application filed by respondents under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the return of household articles or their market value. The core legal question concerned whether household items seized by the police during the investigation of a murder case—which were neither produced or exhibited in court during trial, nor had any connection to the commission of the offence—could be ordered to be returned under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after an inordinate delay of twelve years following the respondents' acquittal. The Peshawar High Court held that the articles did not satisfy the essential conditions of section 517, as they were not produced before the court, were not in its custody, and had no nexus with the crime, and further noted the unexplained twelve-year delay in filing the application. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were granted liberty to approach a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential conditions for the application of section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the disposal of property?
  • Can property that was never produced or exhibited during the trial be ordered to be returned under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is there a statutory period of limitation for filing an application under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the return of case property?
  • What is the remedy available to a party when an application for the return of case property under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is declined due to lack of nexus with the criminal proceedings and unexplained delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbab Muhammad Usman Khan, President Peshawar High Court Bar2018 PHC 1392, 2018 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
• Arbab Muhammad Usman Khan vs Govt2018 PHC 1392 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
• Arab Shah vs The State and another2018 MLD 1065 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-11
  murder trialbenefit of doubtcriminal appealdeath sentence confirmationsole eye-witnessmedical and ocular contradictionabscondencereversal of conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant, Arab Shah, by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his son, alongside a conviction under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an attempt on the life of the complainant. A murder reference was also forwarded for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the complainant was the sole witness, material contradictions existed between medical and ocular evidence regarding the positioning of the deceased and the number of weapons used, and the FIR timing conflicted with the medical examination. The Court held that the prosecution case was replete with serious doubts, discrepancies, and improbabilities, and that absconding alone cannot sustain a conviction without corroborating evidence. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing the principle that benefit of doubt must be extended to an accused where foundational aspects of the prosecution case remain unproven.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a sole eye-witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for capital punishment when material contradictions exist?
  • Can abscondence alone form the basis of a criminal conviction in the absence of solid incriminating evidence?
  • Does a glaring discrepancy between the time of recording an FIR and the medical examination create a fatal flaw in the prosecution case?
  • Whether inconsistencies between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the nature and direction of firearm injuries warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan and another vs The State2018 YLR 172 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-13Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2018 PLC (C.S.) 381 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26
  deceased employees quotacivil servantsconstitutional petitionbeneficial legislationretrospective effectappointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner seeking appointment to a Class-IV post under the deceased government servants children quota pursuant to the relevant departmental rules, after his father passed away while in service in 1985. The core legal question revolves around whether the welfare policy for appointing children of deceased civil servants applies retrospectively to employees who died prior to the cut-off date of January 1, 1988, prescribed in departmental instructions. The Peshawar High Court held that beneficial policies meant for the families of deceased employees who died during service should be interpreted to have retrospective effect, condemning rigid cut-off dates that deprive deserving dependents. The court ultimately disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner against an available post in accordance with the deceased employees' children quota. The key principle laid down is that beneficial welfare policies for government servants' children must be construed liberally and retrospectively to fulfill their intended humanitarian purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a beneficial policy for the appointment of children of deceased government servants applies to employees who died before the cut-off date specified in the policy?
  • Can the government deny appointment under the deceased employees' quota on the ground that the employee died prior to January 1, 1988?
  • Do beneficial policies for government servants' children possess retrospective effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Andaz Khan vs The State2018 PHC 1733, 2019 MLD 7, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 304 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-12Read full judgment →
• Amjad Pervez vs KPK Ehtisab2018 PHC 1345 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-06Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali Arbab vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2019 PLC (C.S) 1129, 2018 PHC 1829 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-20
  writ petitionselection committeeappointment processjudicial reviewmala fideservice matterfit and proper test
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the selection process for the position of Managing Director of the Bank of Khyber, alleging mala fide, discrimination, and procedural irregularities. The petitioner, an applicant for the post, contended that his candidature was improperly dropped due to biased information presented by the Selection Committee Chairman and that the recruitment lacked a structured mechanism. The core legal questions concerned whether the recruitment process was authorized by the competent authority, whether a structured mechanism existed, the effect of a committee member's dissent, and whether the process was vitiated by mala fide. The Court held that the selection process was conducted transparently, based on approved criteria, and that the petitioner's lower merit position, rather than bias, resulted in his non-selection. The Court affirmed that it cannot sit as an appellate authority over a selection committee's expert assessment. The principle laid down is that courts will not interfere with administrative selection processes absent clear proof of illegality or mala fide, and that a committee's unanimous decision, approved by the competent authority, remains valid despite a member's withdrawn dissent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court sit as an appellate authority to review the merits of a selection committee's assessment?
  • Does the non-participation of a single member in a multi-member selection committee vitiate the entire recruitment process?
  • Is a selection process rendered invalid if one committee member initially raises allegations of bias but subsequently withdraws them and agrees with the committee's unanimous decision?
  • Does the executive authority of a province, exercised under Article 129 of the Constitution, extend to the approval of recruitment processes for statutory bodies?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad Shah Khan & another vs Haji Abdur Remo & others2018 PLJ Peshawar 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-10Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad Shah Khan & another vs Haji Abdur Rehman & others2018 PHC 1297 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-10Read full judgment →