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.

• Tehsil Municipal Officer Gagra vs Syed Salar Jehan and 3 others2017 YLR 290 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-29Read full judgment →
• Tasir Ullah vs State2017 PHC 998 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-24Read full judgment →
• Tariq vs State & 1 another2017 PHC 582 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood etc vs State2017 PHC 846 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-13Read full judgment →
• Tajammul Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2017 PLC (C.S.) 246 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-10
  writ petitionservice tribunaldepartmental appealcompulsory retirementpolice misconductefficiency and discipline rulesmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving as Deputy Superintendents of Police, were compulsorily retired from service after being proceeded against for misconduct under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 2011, in connection with an abduction case. Aggrieved by the penalty, they filed departmental appeals to the Chief Secretary and simultaneously approached the Peshawar High Court through writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, arguing that the Service Tribunal was non-functional. The core legal question was whether writ petitions against departmental penalty orders are maintainable when departmental appeals are still pending and before the expiry of the statutory period provided under the rules, despite the temporary non-functionality of the Service Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the petitions in limine as premature and non-maintainable, holding that statutory timelines for exhausting departmental remedies and approaching the Service Tribunal cannot be bypassed through writ jurisdiction in the absence of extraordinary urgency, and that pending departmental appeals must first reach their statutory conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable against an order of compulsory retirement when departmental appeals are still pending before the competent authority?
  • Does the non-functional status of a Service Tribunal automatically grant an aggrieved civil servant the right to bypass statutory departmental remedies and approach the High Court immediately?
  • Whether the time provided under a special statute for the disposal of departmental appeals can be curtailed through the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Munir Khan etc2017 PHC 1275 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-14Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Mubashir Ahmed2017 YLR 95 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-25Read full judgment →
• Tahir vs Late Jehangir Khan through his LRs2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
• Tahir Azam vs The State2017 YLR 2484 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahir Shah and another vs Syed Muhammad Ali Shah Bacha and others2017 YLR 630 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahir Hussain and Wajahat Ali vs State2017 PHC 991 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Yasir Shah, etc vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 397 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-21
  post-arrest bailmurdercircumstantial evidenceunwitnessed occurrencecriminal liabilityprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by three accused persons, Syed Yasir Shah, Syed Bilal Shah, and Syed Shamshad Shah, in connection with an FIR registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Sofia Gillani. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstantial evidence presented. The Court observed that the prosecution's case relied on a chain of events, noting that the accused had taken the deceased from her parents' house on the date of the alleged murder. Furthermore, the Court highlighted a significant contradiction in the prosecution's narrative: the accused allegedly returned to the complainant's house two days after the murder, claiming the deceased missed her child, despite the fact that she was already deceased. The Court held that these circumstances, despite the occurrence being unwitnessed, sufficiently linked the accused to the crime. Consequently, the Court denied the bail petition, ruling that the accused were prima facie involved in the brutal offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to deny bail in an unwitnessed murder case?
  • Does the presence of a contradictory narrative in an FIR affect the grant of bail?
  • Are accused persons entitled to bail when prima facie evidence links them to the commission of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Yasir Shah and others vs The State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 397, 2017 MLD 825 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Sardar Ali vs Said Ali2017 PHC 959 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Naimat Shah and others vs Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli2017 MLD 1707 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Nadir Ali Shah vs Mohtamim/Raees Ul Madrassa, Madrassa Arabia2017 PLD Peshawar 133 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-14
  quo warrantoeducational qualificationfake degreesadiq and ameenarticle 62(1)(f)election tribunalpublic officelocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Peshawar High Court disposes of writ petitions in the nature of quo warranto filed by registered voters challenging the holding of public office by a Member of the Provincial Assembly (PK-54 Mansehra-II), on the ground that he made false declarations regarding his educational qualifications in nomination papers for the 2008 and 2013 general elections, thereby violating Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a quo warranto petition by voters who were not contesting candidates, the applicability of the bar under Article 225 of the Constitution concerning election petitions, and whether the respondent suffered from a continuing disqualification regarding honesty and righteousness. The Court held that a writ of quo warranto can be maintained by any interested person such as a voter, and Article 225 does not bar challenging the usurpation or continuous holding of a public office by a disqualified person. The Court laid down that submitting conflicting or fabricated educational credentials in nomination papers constitutes a concealment of facts and a false declaration, rendering the incumbent dishonest, unrighteous, and untrustworthy under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution, warranting de-notification from public office.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ of quo warranto be maintained by a registered voter who was not a contesting candidate in the election?
  • Does Article 225 of the Constitution bar the High Court from entertaining a writ of quo warranto challenging the continued holding of a public office by a disqualified person?
  • Does the submission of conflicting educational qualifications in successive nomination papers amount to a false declaration under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution?
  • Whether the principle of res judicata applies when earlier proceedings were dismissed solely on technical grounds regarding election petition verification without addressing the merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Nadir Ali Shah vs (1) Mohtamim/Raees-ul-Madrassa Madrassa2017 PHC 63 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Kamal Shah vs The State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 675, 2017 YLR 694 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-02
  pre-arrest baildishonest dishonouring of chequefinancial crimeprohibitory clausediscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two bail before arrest applications filed by the petitioner, Syed Kamal Shah, seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 149 and FIR No. 686, both registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Mansehra. The core legal question concerns whether pre-arrest bail should be granted for an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the direct nomination of the accused and the financial nature of the crime. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions and recalled the interim pre-arrest bail, holding that financial crimes rampant in society warrant stricter treatment and that the discretionary concession of bail is not warranted where circumstances show the gravity of the matter and its detrimental impact on the economic and social life of society. The key principle laid down is that while offenses outside the prohibitory clause generally favor bail, courts may refuse discretionary pre-arrest relief in rampant financial crimes involving exceptional circumstances and gravity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be refused for an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 despite not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a financial crime involving rampant issuance of bad cheques justify withholding the discretionary concession of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether direct nomination of the accused in an FIR for a financial crime disentitles him to lenient treatment in bail matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Kamal Shah vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 675 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-02
  pre-arrest bailfinancial crimedishonest issuance of chequeprohibitory clausediscretionary reliefbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in connection with FIRs registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail despite the offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the bail petitions, recalling the ad-interim bail previously granted. The Court held that while bail is generally the rule and rejection the exception for offences outside the prohibitory clause, this is a discretionary concession that is not warranted when the accused is directly nominated in cases involving financial crimes that negatively impact public trust and economic stability. The Court emphasized that bail should be refused where there is a likelihood of absconsion, tampering with evidence, or repetition of the offence. The principle laid down is that the absence of a statutory prohibition against bail does not grant an automatic right to relief, especially when the gravity of the offence and societal impact necessitate a stricter judicial approach.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitle an accused to an automatic grant of bail?
  • Can bail be refused in cases involving financial crimes even if the offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
  • What are the exceptional circumstances that justify the refusal of bail for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ijaz Hussain Shah vs National Accountability Bureau through Director General (DG) and 2 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 326, 2017 YLR 2344 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Ijaz Hussain Shah vs Chairman NAB through D.G. & others2017 PLJ Peshawar 326 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghazanfar Kazmi vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Tribal and Home Affairs Department and others2017 PHC 53, 2017 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-22
  Fourth ScheduleAnti-Terrorism Actproscribed personillegal harassmentfreedom of movementconstitutional petitionpreventive detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by an advocate seeking to remove his name from a list of suspicious persons and to restrain the respondents from alleged harassment, intimidation, and illegal detention. The core legal question was whether the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Fourth Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the consequent restrictions and harassment were carried out in accordance with mandatory legal requirements. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondents failed to substantiate the allegations with proof, failed to communicate the grounds of proscription within the mandatory three-day period, and relied on a notification that had become inoperative after three years. The court ruled that placing and keeping a person's name on the Fourth Schedule without fulfilling statutory prerequisites and evidence is illegal and unconstitutional. The key principle laid down is that state authorities must strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards and evidentiary standards prescribed under Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, failing which any consequential restrictions or harassment of a citizen are unlawful.

  Questions settled

  • What are the mandatory legal requirements for placing a person's name on the Fourth Schedule under Section 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does an order listing a person as a proscribed person in the Fourth Schedule expire after a specific period under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a citizen be harassed or subjected to coercive measures based on an unverified and stale special branch report without statutory compliance?
  • Whether failure to communicate grounds of proscription within the statutory timeframe invalidates the proscription under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghazanfar Kazami vs Government of KPK & others2017 PHC 53 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Bareek Jan & others vs Saeed Jan & others2017 PHC 1174 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Agha Hussain Shah and others vs Mst. Deena Bibi and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-23Read full judgment →
• Sultanat Khan vs State and complainant2017 PHC 1191 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-28
  criminal appealmurder convictionsentence reductionconcurrent sentencesqatl-i-amdsentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge/Zilla Qazi, Shangla, in a case involving murder and attempted murder. The appellant was originally convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, among other charges, and sentenced to death. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the conviction under Section 302(b) was sustainable given the evidence or if the circumstances warranted a modification of the conviction and sentence. Upon review, the Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby reducing the sentence from death to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment. The Court maintained the convictions and sentences under Sections 324 and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 (implied by 13 A.O). The Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and extended the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellant, emphasizing the discretionary power of the Court in sentencing matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court convert a conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the court have the discretion to order sentences for separate offences to run concurrently under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a convict entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the modification of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Jamil vs Rahman Ghani2017 PHC 564 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-25Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs State and on other2017 PHC 1227 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-10
  juvenile justicedetermination of agefair trialright to legal representationcapital punishmentremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Swat at Kabal, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to death and rigorous imprisonment respectively, alongside a Murder Reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal questions involved the determination of the appellant's age under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 and whether the appellant was afforded a fair trial with competent legal representation. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial Court failed to conduct a proper inquiry for determining age in accordance with Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 and the principles established by the apex Court, and that the appellant was deprived of effective legal representation and a fair trial. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, answered the murder reference in the negative, and remanded the case back to the Sessions Judge for a fresh inquiry regarding age and appropriate proceedings. The key principle laid down is that the trial Court is under a strict statutory and constitutional obligation to hold a proper inquiry into the age of an accused when the plea of juvenility is raised, and to ensure competent legal aid and a fair trial regardless of the heinousness of the offense.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial Court is bound to hold a formal inquiry for the determination of an accused's age under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 when the question of juvenility arises?
  • Does a medical board's age assessment report alone constitute conclusive proof of age without examining the medical experts in Court?
  • Whether an accused facing capital punishment has an inalienable constitutional right to a fair trial and competent legal representation?
  • What procedure must a trial Court follow when an accused is unrepresented or defended by counsel lacking expertise in criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Sarfaraz Khan2017 PHC 925 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-11Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Saqlain and 2 othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 411 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Siraj vs State, etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 266 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-20Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Sher vs ZTBL & another2017 PHC 1202 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-07Read full judgment →
• Sifat Ullah vs the State2017 PHC 294 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-03Read full judgment →
• Shoaib-Ur-Rehman and 2 others vs Abdul Hadi and 13 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 38 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-04Read full judgment →
• Sherin vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 334 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-18
  post-arrest bailineffective firingcommon objectfurther inquiryabscondencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Sherin, who was charged under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The petitioner sought bail after his initial application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was attributed an ineffective role of firing at the complainant, was entitled to bail despite allegations of common intention and a history of abscondence. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the determination of his specific role and common intention required the recording of evidence. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that abscondence does not operate as a bar to the grant of bail when the case otherwise falls within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail application, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allegation of ineffective firing in furtherance of a common object warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused person who has absconded if the case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry?
  • Is the attribution of an ineffective role of firing sufficient to deny bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Shah vs Alam Sher2017 CLC 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sher Rehman vs State2017 PHC 936 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
• Sher Rehman vs Mst.Kharo & others2017 PHC 1030 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-17Read full judgment →
• Sher Badshah etc. vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary States2017 PLJ Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sher Ali vs State2017 PHC 850 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-20
  Qatl-i-amdbenefit of doubtchance witnesspost-mortem reportcapital punishmentcriminal appealFIR delaywitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the Qatl-i-amd of the deceased. The core legal questions concern the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the impact of significant discrepancies between the FIR and medical evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a capital conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with fatal flaws, including the post-mortem examination occurring prior to the registration of the FIR, which undermined the foundation of the case. Furthermore, the court noted that the eyewitnesses were chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful, and that material improvements were made in their statements to align with medical findings regarding the entry wound. The court emphasized that when an alleged motive remains unproven, the prosecution must suffer the consequences. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that discrepancies, contradictions, and improvements in prosecution evidence, coupled with an unproven motive, entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt, regardless of prior abscondence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a post-mortem examination conducted prior to the registration of an FIR invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when material improvements are made to witness statements to align with medical evidence?
  • Is the abscondence of an accused sufficient grounds for conviction in the absence of reliable evidence?
  • What is the legal consequence when a motive is alleged in an FIR but remains unproven at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Afzal etc vs The State2017 PHC 599 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Arifur Rehman and another vs The SHO P.S. Khuram and another2017 PHC 783 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-24Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Arif Ur Rehman And Another vs Station House Officer, Police2017 PHC 783, 2017 MLD 2064 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-24Read full judgment →
• Shehzada Amanerome and others vs The Federation of Pakistan and others2017 YLR 481 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-07Read full judgment →
• Shehriyar vs (1) Zahirullah (2) State2017 PHC 884 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-26
  murder appealbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceabscondenceeyewitness reliabilitycriminal procedureacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellant for the murder of Inamullah and ineffective firing at the complainant and eyewitnesses. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction, the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the impact of procedural irregularities during the investigation. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted significant discrepancies, including the absence of bloodstains on the clothes of the alleged eyewitnesses, the failure to produce independent witnesses who identified the body, and the lack of evidence establishing the presence of the complainant and eyewitnesses at the scene. Furthermore, the court observed that the medical evidence regarding entry and exit wounds suggested the use of multiple weapons, contradicting the forensic report attributing the crime to a single rifle. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that abscondence alone cannot substitute for substantive evidence and that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution's case is riddled with significant contradictions.

  Questions settled

  • Can abscondence of an accused serve as a substitute for substantive evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence, such as motive, to an accused during a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries contradicts the forensic evidence regarding the weapon used?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheema Akhtar vs Govt. of KPK2017 PHC 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-08Read full judgment →
• Sharifan Bibi through her mother Khurshid Bibi vs Govemment of Khyber2017 PHC 1083 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-22Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Khan vs The State2017 YLR 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-10Read full judgment →
• Shan vs State2017 PHC 891 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
• Shan Muhammad vs State2017 PHC 853 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Khan and 30 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PLJ Peshawar 139 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-25Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs Administration Department through Secretary and 32017 PLC (C.S.) 560 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-07
  government accommodationallotment rulesmarried daughterdependent statusout-of-turn allotmentcivil servant retirementpossession of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to hand over vacant possession of a government quarter that had been allotted to him. The core legal question was whether the married daughter of a retired government servant is entitled to the out-of-turn allotment of her father's residential accommodation under the Residential Accommodation (Procedure for Allotment) Rules, 1980. The Court held that the petition should be allowed, directing the respondents to vacate the quarter and hand over possession to the petitioner. The ratio of the decision is that while a daughter has inheritance rights under Sharia, the rules for residential accommodation are beneficial and remedial in nature, distinct from inheritance law. The Court established the principle that upon marriage, a daughter ceases to be a dependent of her father and becomes dependent on her husband, thereby rendering her ineligible for the out-of-turn allotment of residential accommodation previously held by her father, regardless of whether she resides with him or not.

  Questions settled

  • Is a married daughter entitled to the out-of-turn allotment of residential accommodation previously held by her retired or deceased father?
  • Does the status of a daughter as a dependent change upon her marriage for the purpose of government accommodation allotment?
  • Are rules governing the allotment of residential accommodation to be interpreted as laws of inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzeb vs The State2017 PHC 1070 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Khan vs The State2017 PHC 804 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-30Read full judgment →
• Shahnaz vs State2017 PHC 560 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-02Read full judgment →
• Shahid Khan and others vs The State and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 354, 2017 YLR 2419, 2017 PHC 645 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-21Read full judgment →
• Shahid Khan and 3 others vs The State through Station House Officer2017 YLR 2419 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-21Read full judgment →
• Shahid Khan and 3 others vs State through Station House Officer and 22017 PLJ Peshawar 354 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahab Ali vs The State through Additional Advocate Genera, Peshawar2017 YLR 1014 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-17Read full judgment →
• Shah Zameen vs Govt.2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-24
  writ petitiontermination of serviceregularizationprinciples of natural justiceaudi alteram partemlocus poenitentiaeback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed as Class-IV employees (BPS-1 and BPS-4) by the competent authority and later regularized under a provincial government policy, had their services terminated via an impugned order following the refusal of ex-post facto ban relaxation and an anonymous resolution by the Tehsil Council. The core legal question was whether low-paid employees could have their appointment and regularization orders cancelled without a show-cause notice or personal hearing due to departmental irregularities regarding a ban on appointments. The Peshawar High Court held that mere departmental irregularities cannot be used to penalize low-paid employees, especially when terminated without observing the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. The Court established that an authority cannot punish employees for its own administrative lapses, and such termination orders violate the principles of natural justice, locus poenitentiae, and estoppel. The writ petition was allowed, reinstating the petitioners with all back benefits and wages.

  Questions settled

  • Whether low-paid employees can be penalized and terminated for administrative irregularities committed by the department during their appointment?
  • Can an appointment and regularization order be cancelled without issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity of personal hearing?
  • Does a department have the right to take advantage of its own lapses regarding a ban on appointments to terminate employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Sim Khan vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 505 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-13
  anti-terrorism actillegal arms and ammunitionsmugglingjurisdictionnexus with terrorismconviction set asidecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Peshawar, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 15 and 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, and section 7(2)(i) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for smuggling a huge quantity of arms and ammunition and sentenced to various terms of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the mere recovery and transportation of illegal arms and ammunition, without proof of their use for terrorist activities or nexus with banned outfits, attracts the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Peshawar High Court held that the mere recovery of illegal arms and ammunition on the basis of police assumption and without cogent evidence showing connectivity to terrorism does not constitute an act of terrorism under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The court laid down the principle that striking terror or creating fear in the public is a sine qua non for invoking the Anti-Terrorism Act, and mere ipse dixit of the police without concrete evidence of a terrorist nexus is insufficient to attract anti-terrorism provisions. Consequently, the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act was set aside and the case was remitted for trial before the proper forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere recovery and transportation of a huge quantity of arms and ammunition without proof of use for terrorist activities attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is the police's ipse dixit regarding the intended use of smuggled weapons sufficient to establish an offence under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What are the essential ingredients for the determination of an offence of terrorism under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Room vs Mst Nehar Begum etc2017 PHC 995 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
• Shah Karim Bakht and another vs Mst. Jehan Zeba and 4 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-18Read full judgment →
• Shah Izzat alias Shahzad vs Adnan, Constable No. 5355 and another2017 P Cr. L J 25 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-29
  criminal appealanti-terrorismbenefit of the doubtidentification paradecontradictory statementocular testimonyacquittalforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, the Arms Ordinance, and the Anti-Terrorism Act. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of a delayed and flawed identification parade, the reliability of weapon recoveries and forensic evidence, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with material contradictions, improvements, unexplained delays in conducting the identification parade while the appellant was hospitalized, and missing links in forensic and recovery evidence. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that multiple material contradictions in ocular accounts, delayed identification parades without proper safeguards, and compromised chain of custody for forensic evidence create fatal doubts in the prosecution case, entitling the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained and prolonged delay in conducting an identification parade after the arrest of an accused renders the identification process legally worthless?
  • Does a failure to maintain a proper chain of custody for crime empties and weapon recoveries destroy their corroborative value?
  • Whether material contradictions between the initial police report, statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., and depositions at trial are sufficient to discard eyewitness testimony?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of weaknesses or failures in the defense's plea?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah---Petitioner vs Saifullah Khan and 7 others---Respondents2017 PLD Peshawar 203 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-08Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah vs Saifullah Khan & others2017 PLD Peshawar 203, 2017 PHC 719 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-08Read full judgment →
• Shafiq vs The State and another2017 MLD 586 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-27Read full judgment →
• Sarzaminand others vs Wali Muhammad2017 PHC 1033 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Sarhad Development Authority Employees Federation and 31 others vs Government and others2017 PLD Peshawar 163 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-10Read full judgment →
• sardar vs State etc2017 PHC 1127 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-25Read full judgment →
• Sardar Sher Bahadur & others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Islamabad and Govt of KPK, through Secretary to Govt of KP, Law & Parliamentary Affairs Department2017 PHC 333, 2017 PHC 431 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar Sher Bahadur & others by Barrister Babar Sattar vs Government_27fd43c62017 PHC 333 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar Hussain & others vs Zafar Hussain2017 PHC 949 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-29Read full judgment →
• Sar Zamin and others vs Hassan Sher and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 276 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-20Read full judgment →
• (1) Sangeen Khan (2) Ilyas vs (1) The State (2) Amjad Ali2017 PHC 1187 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
• Samina Bukhari vs Muhammad Javed Abbasi and others2017 P Cr. L J 96 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-11
  Justice of the Peaceregistration of FIRpolice discretionillegal confinementcustodial tortureconstitutional jurisdictionarrest without warrantCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order by the Justice of the Peace directing the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner, a police officer, based on allegations of illegal confinement and torture. The core legal question concerned whether the registration of an FIR necessitates the immediate arrest of the accused and the scope of police discretion in such matters. The Peshawar High Court upheld the impugned order, finding no legal infirmity in the direction to register the case. The Court held that the registration of an FIR does not mandate the immediate arrest of the accused, as arrest is not a prerequisite for conducting a fair investigation. The Court clarified that under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically sections 54, 154, 155, 156, and 157, police officers possess the discretion to investigate without resorting to immediate arrest. The judgment emphasizes that law enforcement must act reasonably, avoiding harassment, and that the power to curtail liberty must be exercised in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of an FIR against an accused person mandate their immediate arrest by the police?
  • Is the arrest of an accused person a prerequisite for the police to conduct an investigation into a cognizable offence?
  • What is the scope of the discretion vested in a police officer under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the arrest of an accused?
  • Can a Justice of the Peace issue directions to police authorities regarding the registration of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Samin Ullah vs KPK, Public Service Commission2017 PHC 1080 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-25Read full judgment →
• Saleemullah vs Asmatullah and another2017 PHC 1182 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-10Read full judgment →
• Saleem vs Intizar Hussain alias Shahzad and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 123 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-17Read full judgment →
• Saleem Dad vs Collector Acquisition, NHA, Peshawar and others2017 PHC 1197 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-22Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin and 10 others vs Govt. of KPK etc2017 PHC 904 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Khan vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 261 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-22
  narcotics traffickingcriminal appealbenefit of doubtrecovery proceedingsprosecution evidenceFSL delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the trafficking of three kilograms of heroin under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the evidence presented. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed due to material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the preparation of the recovery memo and the murasila. Specifically, the court noted that the complainant’s account of the proceedings was contradicted by the Moharrir, and the prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in transmitting the contraband samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the burden lies squarely on the prosecution to prove its case beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, and any significant failure or contradiction in the evidence necessitates the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the preparation of recovery documents create reasonable doubt?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending contraband samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Khan vs Momana Urooj2017 PHC 1253 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad and 8 others vs Muhammad Khalid Khan and others2017 MLD 656 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-07-22Read full judgment →
• Sajid Khan Jadoon vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ehtesab Commission2017 PLJ Peshawar 111, 2017 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-03Read full judgment →
• Sajid Khan Jadoon vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ehtesab Commission2017 PLJ Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-03Read full judgment →
• Sajahid Gul vs The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau NAB2017 PLJ Peshawar 249, 2017 MLD 353 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-13Read full judgment →
• Sajahid Gul vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad2017 PLJ Peshawar 249 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajad vs Asghar Khan and another2017 MLD 139 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-25Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs The State2017 PHC 696 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-03Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Muhib Kaka Khel vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PHC 1230 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Khan Bangash vs Jaseem Khan and 6 others2017 CLC 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-14Read full judgment →
• Saif Ur Rehman vs The State and another2017 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-26
  Foreigners Actplea of guilttrial de novomandatory procedureCode of Criminal Procedurespecial lawremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgments of the lower courts convicting and sentencing the petitioner under section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The core legal question addressed is whether the Foreigners Act, 1946 provides for appeal or revision and whether the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to proceedings under the said Act. The Peshawar High Court held that although the Foreigners Act, 1946 does not expressly provide procedural mechanisms, section 14-A and section 16, when read with section 5(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, make the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applicable to proceedings under the Act where the special law is silent. The court further held that the trial court committed a material illegality by failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 241-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding the seven-day gap before framing a charge upon a plea of guilt. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgments of the courts below, converted the appeal into a revision petition, and remanded the case for a trial de novo.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Foreigners Act, 1946 provides the remedy of appeal or revision to an aggrieved party?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applicable to proceedings and trials under the Foreigners Act, 1946?
  • Is a trial court competent to frame a charge against an accused without providing a gap of seven days after the supply of documents under section 241-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Saidan Shah vs PTCL through Chairman and 4 others2017 PLC 162 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-19
  regularization of servicedaily wagespermanent workmanstanding orders ordinancediscriminationconstitutional petitionsback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a writ petition and connected petitions filed by daily-wage employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) seeking regularization of their services and back benefits after their colleagues were regularized under a policy while they were omitted. The core legal questions involve whether daily-wage workers performing duties of a permanent nature for extended periods attain the status of permanent workmen under labor laws, and whether their exclusion from regularization constitutes unlawful discrimination and exploitation in violation of constitutional principles. The Peshawar High Court held that employees rendering continuous service for years against posts of a permanent nature acquire the status of permanent workmen under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and cannot be subjected to discriminatory treatment. The court laid down the principle that the nature of work rather than the nomenclature of daily-wages determines an employee's status, and workers continuously employed for long periods are entitled to regularization and consequential benefits at par with regular employees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether daily wage employees rendering continuous service for a long period against a permanent nature post attain the status of permanent workmen under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the denial of regularization to long-serving daily-wage employees while regularizing others in similar positions violate the fundamental rights to equality and against discrimination under the Constitution?
  • Are commercial and industrial establishments bound to treat daily wage workers at par with regular employees regarding service benefits when the nature of work is permanent?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Zamin & others vs State2017 PHC 1232 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
• Said Umar vs The state2017 PHC 33 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-16
  qatl-e-amdcapital chargeocular accountbenefit of the doubtbelated statementconflicting recoverycorroborative evidencemurder reference
  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 committing qatl-e-amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside a connected murder reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular accounts by related and belated witnesses, the credibility of conflicting versions regarding the arrest and recovery of the crime weapon, and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence in the absence of trustworthy direct evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to major contradictions, dishonest improvements, and irreconcilable versions of the arrest and weapon recovery, leading to the rejection of the ocular testimony. The court established that once the direct ocular account is disbelieved, circumstantial and corroborative evidence such as weapon recoveries and medical reports cannot sustain a capital conviction, and extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, setting aside the conviction, acquitting the accused, and answering the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on circumstantial and corroborative evidence when the ocular account has been disbelieved?
  • Does a belated statement of an eyewitness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. without a plausible explanation create a fatal dent in the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of conflicting police versions regarding the time and manner of the arrest of an accused and the recovery of the alleged crime weapon?
  • Does an improvement made by a complainant in his court statement compared to his initial FIR amount to a dishonest improvement sufficient to discredit his testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Umar vs Mr. Sana Ullah and the State2017 PHC 33, 2017 PHC 253 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-16
  Qatl-e-Amdcapital chargeocular accountbelated statementdoubtful recoverybenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder reference
  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 the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside a connected murder reference. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the ocular account, the credibility of belatedly introduced eyewitnesses, and the conflicting versions of the appellant's arrest and weapon recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting significant contradictions, dishonest improvements in the testimonies of the complainant and purported eyewitnesses, and irreconcilable discrepancies regarding the arrest and recovery. The court established that once an ocular account is disbelieved, corroborative evidence such as weapon recoveries cannot sustain a capital conviction, and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellant and the rejection of the murder reference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for Qatl-e-Amd can be sustained when the ocular account is found to be unreliable and fraught with dishonest improvements?
  • Does the recovery of a crime weapon and positive FSL report suffice to secure a conviction on a capital charge when the direct evidence has been disbelieved?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a witness's statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a prolonged and unexplained delay?
  • How does a contradiction between the complainant's version of arrest and the police officer's account impact the prosecution's case regarding weapon recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Umar vs Abdul Ghaffar and another2017 YLR 1641 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-16
  capital chargeocular accountbenefit of doubtmurder referenceappellate jurisdictioncontradictory evidencecorroborative evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected murder reference. The core legal question revolves around whether the ocular account, supported by circumstantial evidence and weapon recovery, sufficiently establishes the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a murder trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case due to contradictory testimonies of eye-witnesses, unexplained delays in recording statements, glaring discrepancies regarding the arrest and weapon recovery, and unnatural conduct of the witnesses. The court laid down the principle that once an ocular account is disbelieved and found untrustworthy, other corroborative evidence such as recoveries and medical reports lose their evidentiary value for sustaining a capital conviction, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, who is entitled to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unreliability of the ocular account preclude a conviction on a capital charge even when supported by corroborative and circumstantial evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a delayed statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a plausible explanation?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on a singular eyewitness account that is fraught with dishonest improvements and unnatural conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Mashal vs Shan Muhammad2017 YLR 1053 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-22Read full judgment →
• Said Kamal vs The State and another2017 YLR 733 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-25Read full judgment →