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.

• Said Jabbar vs Habib-Ur-Rehman & others2017 PLJ Peshawar 338 · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Said Jabar---Petitioner vs Habib-Ur-Rehman and others---Respondents2017 MLD 1608 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-20Read full judgment →
• Said Badshah vs Shabana Begum and another2017 NLR Revenue 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-18Read full judgment →
• Said Afzal vs The State2017 PHC 1026 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-17
  foreign exchange regulationunauthorized dealingpossession of foreign currencycriminal appealconfiscation of currencyterritorial jurisdictionForeigners Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged convictions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and the Foreigners Act, 1946, following the recovery of foreign currency from the appellants. The core legal question was whether mere possession of foreign currency constitutes an offence under Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and whether the Act applies to foreigners. The Court held that Section 4 requires proof of unauthorized buying, borrowing, selling, lending, or exchanging; mere possession, absent such evidence, does not constitute an offence. Consequently, the convictions were set aside as the prosecution failed to establish these statutory ingredients. Regarding the Foreigners Act, the conviction was set aside due to the appellant's subsequent visa validation. However, the Court upheld the confiscation of the currency, as the appellants failed to provide a lawful justification for its possession. The judgment establishes that while the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 applies to all persons within Pakistan's territorial limits, mere possession of foreign currency is insufficient for conviction under Section 4 without proof of prohibited transaction activities.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere possession of foreign currency constitute an offence under Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947?
  • Does the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 apply to foreign nationals within the territorial limits of Pakistan?
  • Is the confiscation of foreign currency permissible even if the conviction for unauthorized dealing is set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Sanaullah, Member Provincial Assembly vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwan, through Chief Minister & others2017 PLD Peshawar 186, 2017 PHC 653 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-13Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Alanigir vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 304 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sahibzada Alamgir vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman and 2 others2017 MLD 1451 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-30Read full judgment →
• Sahib Shah vs Member Board of Revenue etc2017 PHC 1280 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-14Read full judgment →
• Safdar Shah and others vs Merboobur Rehman2017 PLD Peshawar 14 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-03Read full judgment →
• Saeed Muhammad Zai vs The Secretary, Government of Khyber2017 PLC (C.S.) 738 · Peshawar High Court
  service lawpromotionseniority-cum-fitnesssupersessionlegitimate expectancyadverse remarksdepartmental selection boardspeaking order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the promotion of a junior officer (Respondent No. 5) to the post of Deputy Director (Administration) over the petitioner, who was senior and eligible. The core legal question was whether the Departmental Selection Board (DSB) acted lawfully in superseding the senior petitioner based on 'average' performance grading, despite the absence of adverse remarks. The Peshawar High Court held that the impugned promotion order was arbitrary and lacked sound reasoning. The Court emphasized that seniority is of paramount importance and creates a legitimate expectancy for promotion. It clarified that 'average' grading does not constitute an adverse report unless specifically conveyed as such. Furthermore, the Court held that while fitness is a criterion, it cannot be determined through subjective mathematical formulae or arbitrary discretion. The competent authority must provide detailed, speaking reasons when superseding a senior officer, as such action acts as a penalty. Consequently, the Court struck down the promotion order and remitted the matter to the DSB for fresh consideration, mandating a reasoned decision within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Does an 'average' performance grading in an Annual Confidential Report constitute an adverse report for the purpose of promotion?
  • Is the competent authority required to provide speaking reasons when superseding a senior officer for promotion?
  • Can fitness for promotion be determined solely through subjective mathematical formulae?
  • Does seniority create a legitimate expectancy for promotion in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs Amjad Ali and another2017 YLR 335 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-23Read full judgment →
• Saddique Zaman vs The State and others2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-19Read full judgment →
• Saddique Zaman vs Amir Mohammad Khan and 2 others2017 MLD 1128 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-19Read full judgment →
• Saddar Khan etc vs The State2017 PHC 1057 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-06Read full judgment →
• Sabir Shah---Appellant vs The State and another---Respondents2017 P Cr. L J 1646 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-23
  attempted murdersole testimonyinjured witnessidentification of accusedappreciation of evidencecriminal appealQatl-i-amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded by the Sessions Judge/Zila Qazi Malakand at Batkhela for attempted murder and causing hurt. The core legal question was whether the appellant could be convicted based on the sole testimony of the injured complainant, particularly when the defense challenged the identification of the assailant due to low visibility at the time of the occurrence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentences. The court held that the complainant’s testimony was confidence-inspiring and corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of a torch used by the complainant. The court affirmed that in criminal cases, conviction can rest on the sole testimony of an injured witness if the evidence is of high quality. Furthermore, it established that identification is not rendered doubtful by low light if the parties are known, the distance is short, and a light source like a torch is available. The abandonment of other witnesses does not negate the credibility of a truthful injured witness.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the sole testimony of an injured witness in a criminal case?
  • Does the abandonment of other eyewitnesses invalidate the testimony of an injured complainant?
  • Is identification of an accused considered reliable when the occurrence takes place in low light conditions?
  • Does the availability of a torch at the scene of the crime satisfy the requirements for positive identification of an assailant?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz-ur-Rehman vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1661, 2017 PHC 280 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-12
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsspeedy trialprolonged incarcerationtrial court delaybail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Riaz-ur-Rehman, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possession of five kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the trial court's failure to conclude the trial within the timeframes previously mandated by the High Court. The High Court observed that despite multiple specific directions to the trial court to conclude the proceedings within stipulated periods, the trial court had failed to make meaningful progress, having examined only one witness after more than a year of incarceration. Relying on the principle that a speedy trial is an inalienable right and that prolonged incarceration without trial progress constitutes a hardship, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The judgment reaffirms that when trial courts fail to comply with mandatory timelines for concluding trials, the appellate court may exercise its discretion to grant bail to prevent the accused from suffering indefinite incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to conclude a trial within the time limits set by the High Court entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the right to a speedy trial a valid ground for granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences?
  • Can a High Court grant bail to an accused if the trial court has failed to comply with repeated directions to expedite the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The State etc2017 PHC 1120 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-17Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ur Rehman---Petitioner vs The State---Respondent2017 P Cr. L J 1661 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-12
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsright to speedy trialtrial delayjudicial directionshardship bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, charged with the possession of five kilograms of charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, sought post-arrest bail after the trial court failed to conclude proceedings within the timeframe previously mandated by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the inordinate delay in the trial and the trial court's failure to comply with repeated judicial directives to expedite proceedings. The High Court observed that despite explicit orders to conclude the trial within forty-five working days, the trial court had failed to make meaningful progress, examining only one witness over a significant period. Relying on the principle that a speedy trial is an inalienable right and that prolonged incarceration without trial constitutes a hardship, the Court held that the petitioner could not be kept in custody indefinitely due to the prosecution's and the trial court's failure to adhere to timelines. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial necessitates relief when judicial directions for expeditious disposal are ignored.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to comply with a High Court's directive to conclude a trial within a specified period entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the right to a speedy trial considered an inalienable right justifying the grant of bail in cases of prolonged incarceration?
  • Can bail be granted when the trial court fails to proceed with a case despite multiple judicial orders to expedite the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad Khan vs District Land Acquisition Collector, Mardan etc2017 PHC 970 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
• Resident of Raghan & others vs Resident of Reshun Goal Paeen & others2017 PHC 678 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-10Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah Alias Rematoli vs Govt. of K.P.K through Secretary Home2017 PHC 918 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
• Rehmat alias Kaku vs Irshad Khan2017 PHC 498, 2017 PHC 340 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-11
  Qatl-e-Amdcapital punishmenteyewitness testimonyrelated witnessdefective investigationtransposed evidencecriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased and attempting at the life of the complainant under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in death sentences and imprisonment. The core legal question centered on whether the ocular testimony of related eyewitnesses, coupled with minor investigative discrepancies and a delayed formal police report, was sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal and answered the murder reference in the affirmative, holding that minor omissions or negligence by investigating officers do not vitiate credible eyewitness accounts. The court laid down the principle that the testimony of a single or related eyewitness, if trustworthy and inspiring confidence, is sufficient to maintain a conviction, and that police lapses or discrepancies in recording the time of an FIR cannot form the sole basis for acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a related eyewitness can be relied upon for recording a capital conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a minor discrepancy or delay in recording the First Information Report vitiate an otherwise reliable prosecution case?
  • Can the statement of a deceased witness recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be legally transposed and used as substantive evidence in a subsequent trial?
  • Does negligence or omission on the part of an investigating officer provide a sufficient ground for the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman Ullah vs The State and another2017 YLR 2458 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-12Read full judgment →
• Raza Quli Khan and others vs Mahmud Jan and others2017 YLR 199 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-02Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs Razeem etc2017 PHC 1092 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-02Read full judgment →
• Raz Muhammad vs Chief Secretary Government of Khyber2017 YLR 229 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-16Read full judgment →
• Rajab Ali vs National Accountability Bureau etc2017 PHC 474 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-11
  disproportionate assetscorruption and corrupt practicespublic servantburden of proofhandwriting expertacquittalNational Accountability Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of criminal appeals filed by Rajab Ali and Latif Hussain against their conviction and sentences under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, arising from an Accountability Reference relating to the accumulation of assets disproportionate to known sources of income and abetment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved that the public servant appellant accumulated illegal assets and whether the co-appellant abetted him through a fabricated property transaction. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, as the ancestral property, joint family income, and legitimate agricultural yields of the appellant and his brothers accounted for the acquisition of assets, and the disputed land sale transaction was substantiated by evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted both appellants, laying down the principle that the prosecution must independently prove all essential ingredients of corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, before any statutory presumption of guilt can be invoked against an accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution bears the primary burden to prove the essential ingredients of asset accumulation before invoking statutory presumptions under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can the opinion of a handwriting expert alone form a safe and sufficient basis for a criminal conviction regarding a forged document?
  • Does the joint family income and ancestral property of a public servant constitute a known lawful source of income to justify acquired assets?
  • Whether an investigative officer is duty-bound to collect and record evidence favouring both the prosecution and the defence during an inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Raidullah Khan vs Government of KPK, etc.2017 YLR 1687, 2017 PHC 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-16Read full judgment →
• Raid Ullah Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2017 YLR 1687 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-16Read full judgment →
• Rahmatullah vs The State2017 PHC 1179 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-10Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Razaq vs The State2017 YLR 2354 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-19Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Bar Khan vs Daulat Khan etc2017 PHC 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-10Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Bar Khan vs Daulat Khan and 4 others2017 PHC 126, 2017 YLR 1461 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-10Read full judgment →
• Rahim Shah vs The State & one another2017 PHC 743 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-15Read full judgment →
• Raheem Shah vs Momin Khan & another2017 PHC 1277 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
• Raheel vs The State2017 PLJ Peshawar 334, 2017 MLD 1548 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-20Read full judgment →
• Raheel vs State2017 PLJ Peshawar 334 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-20Read full judgment →
• Rahat Ali vs The State etc2017 PHC 277 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Rafiq-ur-Rehman vs The State2017 MLD 1791, 2017 PHC 522 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-30Read full judgment →
• Rafiq-Ur-Rahman vs The State and another2017 MLD 1791 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-30Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Hussain vs The State2017 YLR 1742 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-29Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Hussain vs State2017 PHC 175 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-09Read full judgment →
• Raees Khan vs State2017 PHC 1087 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-07Read full judgment →
• Qutab-ud-din vs Mutabar Khan2017 PHC 1270 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-13Read full judgment →
• Qudratullah vs The State and another2017 PLD Peshawar 5 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-14
  murdercommon intentionvicarious liabilitycriminal appealacquittalenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, alongside a criminal revision for the enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question revolves around whether vicarious liability through common intention can be sustained in the absence of an overt act or active participation in the crime, where the appellant was merely alleged to have driven the principal offender to the scene. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant, while dismissing the revision as infructuous. The court laid down the principle that mere presence at the spot does not ipso facto make a person vicariously liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and that sharing a common intention requires direct proof of prior concert or circumstances necessarily leading to that inference, being incompatible with the accused's innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere presence at the scene of a crime establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • What evidentiary standard is required to prove joint liability and prior concert in a criminal case?
  • Can a conviction based on vicarious liability be sustained when no overt act is attributed to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Salah Ud Din through LRs, and others vs Roman and 4 others2017 YLR 1160 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-10Read full judgment →
• Qasim Mahmood vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 463 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-21
  criminal breach of trustenhancement of sentenceconsolidated judgmentrevisional powershostile witnessmisappropriation of public propertyprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an appellate order which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a conviction under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and allowed the State's revision to enhance the sentence from two to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether an appeal against conviction and a revision for sentence enhancement arising from the same judgment can be decided through a consolidated judgment, and whether the prosecution successfully established the criminal breach of trust regarding misappropriated police ammunition. The Peshawar High Court held that a court of session exercising revisional powers under section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can jointly decide an appeal and a revision through a common judgment, as procedural laws are meant to advance justice and no explicit bar prohibits consolidated disposal. Furthermore, the Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, but reinstated the trial court's original sentence of two years after considering mitigating circumstances including the deposit of the weapon's price and termination from service.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal against conviction and a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence be decided through a common or consolidated judgment?
  • Whether the non-production of a daily diary during trial vitiates the conviction when its contents are incorporated in the FIR?
  • Does a convict have the right to challenge their conviction in sentence enhancement proceedings without filing a separate appeal?
  • What is the effect of a witness resiling during cross-examination after supporting the prosecution in an earlier statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Provincial Government through Chief Secretary N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 52017 PLJ Peshawar 341 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Provincial Government of N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and 5 others2017 CLC 908 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-09Read full judgment →
• Provincial Assembly vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Minister and others2017 PLD Peshawar 186 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-13Read full judgment →
• Professor (R) Dr. Nasibdar Muhammad vs Government of Khyber2017 PLJ Peshawar 232 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pir Ishaq Ahmad vs Deputy Commissioner Land Acquisition2018 CLC 449, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 208, 2017 PHC 1163 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-30Read full judgment →
• Pir Badshah and another vs Adnan and another2017 P Cr. L J 1531 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-08
  Qatl-i-amdattempted murderocular accountmedical evidence contradictionprevious enmityappreciation of evidenceacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petitions arise out of a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Kohat, convicting the appellants under sections 302/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of one person and causing firearm injuries to another, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony in the background of previous enmity, the medical evidence contradicting the ocular account regarding the trajectory of firearm injuries, and the improbability of the occurrence taking place on the day of the funeral of the accused persons' mother. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting material contradictions between the medical and ocular evidence and the false implication due to prior enmity. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellants of all charges, and dismissed the revision petitions seeking enhancement of the sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured eye-witness requires corroboration when the witness is closely related to the deceased and an admitted history of enmity exists between the parties?
  • Does a contradiction between the medical evidence regarding the trajectory of firearm injuries and the ocular account warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Whether an accused can be convicted for murder on the same day as their mother's funeral when previous enmity suggests a strong possibility of false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• PESCO through Chief Executive and others vs Rabnawaz2017 PLJ Peshawar 172, 2017 MLD 757 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-01Read full judgment →
• PESCO through Chief Executive & others vs Rab Nawaz2017 PLJ Peshawar 172 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-01Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Khan vs The State2017 PHC 557 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-11Read full judgment →
• Panin Muhammad & others vs Mst.Safia Bibi2017 PHC 943 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-28Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. through Authorized Attorney2017 PTD 1359 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-07
  fiscal statuteprovincial autonomysales taxconstitutional validitypresumption of constitutionalitytelecommunication serviceslegislative competencefundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), challenged the imposition of a 19.5% sales tax on internet, email, and data services under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act, 2013, contending the levy was discriminatory, irrational, and violative of fundamental rights. The core legal question concerned the provincial legislature's competence to impose such a tax and whether the specific rate was unconstitutional due to alleged unreasonableness. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the provincial legislature possessed the constitutional mandate to levy the tax under the post-Eighteenth Amendment framework. The court ruled the tax was intra vires and not discriminatory. The judgment affirmed that fiscal statutes enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality and cannot be struck down merely for being harsh, unreasonable, or causing hardship, unless they are confiscatory. Furthermore, the court emphasized that it should not interfere with legislative policy or wisdom regarding tax rates, and that provincial autonomy permits federating units to make distinct economic decisions, negating claims of discrimination based on inter-provincial variations.

  Questions settled

  • Does a provincial legislature have the constitutional competence to levy sales tax on internet and data services?
  • Can a fiscal statute be declared unconstitutional solely on the grounds of being unreasonable, harsh, or causing hardship to the taxpayer?
  • Is a tax rate discriminatory merely because it varies between different provinces?
  • What is the standard of judicial review for the constitutionality of a fiscal enactment?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. (PTCL) through President2017 MLD 773 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-29Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd vs Government of KPK through Secretary Law etc2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-07Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Match Industries, Pvt Ltd, Risalpur, Nowshera vs Collector of Sales2017 PHC 1170 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-06Read full judgment →
• Pakhwal CNG and others vs Government and others2017 YLR 1085 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-02Read full judgment →
• Noorullah and another vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 291 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-20Read full judgment →
• Noorshad vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad and others2017 PHC 357 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-29Read full judgment →
• Noorshad vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau and 5 others2017 PHC 357, 2017 P Cr. L J 1258 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-29
  double jeopardyaccountability referenceembezzlementjoinder of chargessame transactionacquittalconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Pension Payment Clerk, challenged the dismissal of his application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking acquittal in a third accountability reference (Reference No. 01/2015) filed against him. Having been previously convicted in two separate references for embezzlement during 2003 and 2004, the petitioner argued that the third reference, covering a subsequent six-month period, constituted the same transaction and modus operandi, thus violating the principle against double jeopardy. The core legal question was whether the National Accountability Bureau could file separate references for offences of the same nature committed during a continuous course of conduct. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to justify the bifurcation of the period, noting that the offences were part of the same transaction. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and acquitted the petitioner. The judgment establishes that multiple references cannot be filed for offences of the same kind committed in a continuous series of acts, as this would violate the principle of nemo debet bis vexari and constitute an abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Can the National Accountability Bureau file separate references for offences of the same nature committed during a continuous course of conduct?
  • Does the filing of multiple references for the same transaction violate the principle of nemo debet bis vexari?
  • Is a trial court empowered to acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution fails to justify separate references for the same course of conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Nooral Khan vs Govt of KPK etc2017 PHC 1158 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-29Read full judgment →
• Noor-ul-Basar vs Sher Ali Shah2017 PHC 1013 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Ullah and another vs The State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 291, 2017 YLR 744 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-20Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Gul Muhammad2017 PHC 977 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-16Read full judgment →
• Noor Hussain Shah vs Mst. Asma Bibi2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-20Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed and 2 others vs The State and another2017 YLR 515 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-03
  confessional statementillegal police custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionprocedural irregularitySection 164 CrPCappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions for kidnapping and murder, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Peshawar High Court examined the evidence, which relied heavily on alleged confessional statements and pointation of the crime scene. The Court found that the appellants had been held in illegal police custody prior to the recording of their confessions, casting significant doubt on their voluntariness. Furthermore, the Court observed that the procedural mandates of Sections 164 and 364, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, were violated, as the confessions were recorded in a mechanical manner without ensuring the accused understood the proceedings or were free from coercion. The Court held that a confession, to be the basis of conviction, must be voluntary, true, and corroborated by independent evidence, which was absent here. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, leading to their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on a confession recorded while the accused was in illegal police custody?
  • What are the consequences of a Magistrate failing to strictly follow the procedural requirements of Section 164 and Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a confession admissible if it is not corroborated by independent evidence in a case where the prosecution's story is otherwise doubtful?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 153 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-29
  Control of Narcotic Substances Actchars pukhtarepresentative sampleamalgamationrecovery memobenefit of doubtmaterial contradictionsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeal under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Act. The appellant was convicted for possession of 3,220 grams of chars pukhta recovered from a shopping bag. The Peshawar High Court evaluated the prosecution evidence and identified material contradictions between the seizing officer and the recovery witness regarding the mode and manner of the appellant's apprehension. Crucially, the court observed that the recovered contraband consisted of several pieces or slabs of chars pukhta, yet the seizing officer failed to count them, record their number, or demonstrate how the pukhta pieces were amalgamated before drawing a single five-gram representative sample for chemical examination. Consequently, the sampling procedure was held to be deficient and unreliable. Extending the benefit of doubt arising from these material discrepancies, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether drawing a single sample without establishing proper amalgamation of multiple pieces of recovered contraband invalidates the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the failure of the seizing officer to count or record the number of recovered pieces of narcotics creates reasonable doubt in a trial under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Whether material contradictions between the seizing officer and marginal witnesses regarding the apprehension of the accused entitle him to acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Nihar Alam vs The State etc2017 PHC 939 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-18
  honor killingprompt FIRcommutation of death sentenceqatl-i-amdasqat-i-janincircumstantial evidenceconfessional FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, who lodged a prompt FIR confessing to the double murder of his wife and her paramour upon finding them in a compromising position in his residential room, along with charges relating to a foetus and an unlicensed weapon. The core legal question concerns whether a promptly lodged FIR by the accused himself, corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction despite the accused's later denial. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through the prompt self-lodged FIR, matching medical evidence, site recovery, and un-rebutted testimonies, maintaining the conviction under sections for murder, causing miscarriage, and arms possession. However, considering mitigating circumstances—specifically that the minor sons lost their mother and would lose their father—the court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life on two counts, while upholding the remaining sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a promptly lodged FIR by the accused admitting the crime can form the basis of a conviction when supported by corroborative medical and circumstantial evidence?
  • Can minor children losing both parents serve as a mitigating circumstance to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life in a murder case?
  • Does the subsequent denial of an accused without explanation for incriminating evidence at the scene absolve him of the murder charge?
  • Whether minor inconsistencies in police testimonies regarding the custody of the accused during spot inspection are sufficient to dislodge overwhelming circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Khan vs of Muhammad Afzal2017 PHC 26 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-08Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali vs The State and others2017 PHC 754 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-20Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed Khan vs The State2017 PHC 26, 2017 MLD 1013 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-08Read full judgment →
• Niamat Khan vs Qudrat Shah and another2017 MLD 883 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-04
  murder trialtrial in absentiastatement under section 512 Cr.P.C.ocular testimonyimprovements in evidenceabscondencedouble presumption of innocencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-X, Peshawar, acquitting the respondent of a murder charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, dating back to an occurrence on 08.08.1999. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value and treatment of a statement recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in absentia, the impact of material discrepancies and improvements in ocular testimony, the legal effect of abandoning a crucial eyewitness, and the evidentiary weight of abscondence. The Peshawar High Court held that statements recorded under Section 512, Cr.P.C. require great caution and independent, high-stratum corroborative evidence since they are untested by cross-examination, that material improvements and deliberate discrepancies render a witness unreliable, and that abscondence is the weakest form of corroboration which cannot sustain a conviction when primary ocular evidence is disbelieved. Emphasizing the double presumption of innocence following an acquittal, the Court dismissed the appeal in limine, finding no misreading or misappreciation of evidence by the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused is subsequently arrested and tried?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of abscondence when the ocular testimony has been disbelieved?
  • What is the legal effect of material improvements and discrepancies in the testimony of a prosecution witness?
  • Does the abandonment of a material eyewitness by the prosecution create an adverse presumption against its case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nek Muhammad vs Allah Dewaya and others2017 MLD 191 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-15Read full judgment →
• Nazakat vs Deputy Commissioner2017 P Cr. L J 709 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-29
  preventive detentionMaintenance of Public Ordertimber smugglingwrit jurisdictionillegal detentionabuse of power
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a detention order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Mansehra, under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, which had resulted in the petitioner's detention for thirty days on allegations of timber smuggling. The core legal question was whether the preventive detention of an individual for alleged criminal activities, specifically timber smuggling, is legally sustainable when specific penal laws exist to address such offenses. The Peshawar High Court held that the detention order was illegal and without jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the administration had resorted to a 'quick fix' arrangement by invoking the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, in a mechanical manner, despite the availability of specific forest laws to prosecute the petitioner. The Court emphasized that preventive detention powers under the Ordinance are not intended to be used as a substitute for regular criminal prosecution for specific offenses. Consequently, the impugned detention order was set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith, provided he was not required in any other case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 be invoked to detain a person for criminal activities for which specific penal laws already exist?
  • Does the mechanical invocation of preventive detention powers without proper justification render a detention order illegal?
  • Is a detention order issued under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, sustainable when the underlying conduct is a specific offense under forest laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawas Khan vs The State2017 PHC 284 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-15Read full judgment →
• Nasir Khan vs Qasim Khan and another2017 P Cr. L J 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-04
  post-arrest bailabscondenceacquittal of co-accusedattempt to murderprohibitory clausetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a bail application filed by petitioner Nasir Khan, who was implicated in FIR No. 453 dated 19.08.2011 under sections 324/34 of Police Station Saddar Bannu, and subsequently refused bail by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bannu. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory further inquiry and the acquittal of a co-accused, despite having absconded for a prolonged period. The Peshawar High Court held that an accused who deliberately absconds for a noticeable period is not invariably entitled to bail merely because a co-accused has been acquitted, and that evidence recorded in the absence of the absconding accused cannot be utilized at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that long-term abscondence disentitles an accused from claiming the benefit of a co-accused's acquittal, and that a tentative assessment showing direct involvement in an offense falling within the prohibitory clause warrants the dismissal of a bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused who absconded for a prolonged period invariably entitled to bail merely because his co-accused has been acquitted?
  • Can evidence recorded during a trial in the absence of an absconding accused be taken into consideration at the bail stage?
  • Does direct charge in the FIR coupled with corroborative medical and ocular evidence disentitle an accused to bail under the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Khan vs Hamid Ullah Jan and others2017 YLR 810, 2017 PLJ Peshawar 96 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-21Read full judgment →
• Nasir Khan vs Hameed Ullah Jan and 14 others2017 YLR 810 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-21Read full judgment →
• Nasir alias Imran Nasir vs The State and another2017 MLD 464 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-21Read full judgment →
• Nasir alias Imran Nasir vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 775 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-21Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed alias Nazir Ahmed vs State2017 PHC 839 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-06
  criminal appealmurder trialpolice encounterbenefit of doubtanti-terrorismrevaluation of evidencesole eyewitnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Peshawar, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 353/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, along with Section 15 of the Arms Ordinance 1965, and sentenced to death and imprisonment. The core legal question involved the appreciation of sole-eyewitness police testimony, uncorroborated by independent sources, and the reliability of circumstantial and medical evidence in a police encounter case. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions between the FIR and ocular testimony, unexplained delays in forensic dispatch, lack of independent corroboration, and discrepancies in the medical evidence. The court laid down the principle that conviction, especially carrying the death penalty based primarily on police testimony, requires strict scrutiny, robust corroboration, and complete consistency between the police report, site plan, and medical evidence, failing which the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder resting solely on uncorroborated police testimony can be sustained when material contradictions exist between the FIR, the site plan, and medical evidence?
  • Does an unexplained delay of several days in sending recovered weapons and empty shells to the forensic science laboratory damage the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 when the foundational assertions regarding the accused being proclaimed offenders are belied by the record?
  • Whether the absence of charring or tattooing marks on the deceased and the injured accused at close range creates a dent in the prosecution's narrative of a close-quarter shootout?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseem Akhtar vs Naveedullah2017 CLC 269 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-22Read full judgment →
• Naseeb Gul and 2 others vs Hayat Mir and 8 others2017 YLR 2379 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-05Read full judgment →
• Naseeb Gul & 02 others vs Hayat Mir & 08 others2017 PHC 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-05Read full judgment →
• Najib-Ur-Rehman vs Qazi Laiq2017 YLR 1437 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-18Read full judgment →
• Naimatullah vs Chairman Worker Welfare Board and others2017 PHC 1167 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-04
  service terminationWorkers Welfare Boardnatural justiceaudi alteram partemprobationerregularizationlocus poenitentiaeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated batch of constitutional petitions arises from the termination of services of various teaching and non-teaching staff members by the Workers Welfare Board, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The petitioners, initially appointed on contract or regular basis after fulfilling codal formalities, challenged their termination orders issued without show cause notices, inquiries, or valid reasons, and in some cases accompanied by demotions or withholding of salaries. The core legal questions pertained to the legality of terminating probationary, contract, or regularized employees without procedural safeguards, and whether departmental irregularities in initial appointments could be used to penalize employees. The Peshawar High Court held that the termination orders were illegal, void, and without lawful authority, establishing that employees cannot be removed without observing natural justice, conducting an inquiry, and issuing a show cause notice, and that authorities cannot penalize employees for their own administrative lapses in initial hiring after long service. The court set aside the termination orders, directing reinstatement without back benefits for the intervening non-working period.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the services of an employee during the probation period can be terminated without assigning valid reasons and without holding an inquiry?
  • Can an employee be penalized for procedural irregularities committed by the competent appointing authority during initial recruitment after rendering long service?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent authorities from reversing the regularization of employees once granted?
  • Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked against the service termination of autonomous statutory body employees governed by departmental service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 452 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-06
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryprohibitory limbtentative assessmentself-inflicted injury
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Naeem, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1253 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act and Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after being apprehended with 2700 grams of Charas Gardah and 300 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics and his conduct of inflicting self-injuries upon police approach. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was prima facie connected with the commission of an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and was therefore disentitled to bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the court observing that self-inflicted injuries staged to arouse sympathy or evade arrest do not negate prima facie involvement in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who inflicts self-injuries upon police approach is entitled to post-arrest bail for narcotics possession?
  • Does the recovery of large quantities of contraband falling within the prohibitory limb bar the grant of bail?
  • Are observations made during a bail hearing tentative in nature and without prejudice to the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan and 5 others vs Muqadar Khan and 13 others2017 CLC 277 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. Abasyn University through Vice-Chancellor vs Federation of2017 PLC 34, 2017 PLJ Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-30
  statutory bodyEmployees Old Age Benefit Actcorporate veilconstitutional jurisdictionalternative remedyexemptioncontribution
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged demand notices issued by the Employees Old Age Benefit Institution (EOAB) requiring Abasyn University to pay contributions under the Employees Old Age Benefit Act, 1976. The core legal question was whether the University, established under the Abasyn University Act, 2009, qualifies as a "statutory body" under Section 47(f) of the EOAB Act, thereby exempting it from such contributions. The Court held that the University, having been created by a specific legislative enactment, constitutes a statutory body and is thus exempt from the EOAB Act's purview. Consequently, the impugned demand notices were declared illegal and without lawful authority. Regarding the petitioner's request for a refund of previously paid amounts, the Court declined to grant relief, noting that such claims involve disputed facts requiring evidence, for which the petitioner must pursue the alternative remedy provided under the EOAB Act. The judgment affirms that a "statutory body" is an entity whose existence is directly caused by a special statute, and courts should generally respect the separate legal personality of corporate entities absent evidence of a sham or facade.

  Questions settled

  • Does a university established by a specific provincial enactment qualify as a 'statutory body' under Section 47(f) of the Employees Old Age Benefit Act, 1976?
  • Can a constitutional court pierce the corporate veil of an entity to determine its liability under the Employees Old Age Benefit Act, 1976, where the entity's structure is sanctioned by legislation?
  • Is a dispute regarding the refund of contributions paid to the Employees Old Age Benefit Institution a matter that requires factual determination by the Institution rather than a constitutional court?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Vincraft (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federal Board of Revenue and others2017 PTD 2114, 2017 PHC 706 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-01Read full judgment →
• M/s Habib Hotel and Restaurant and others vs Abdur Rashid and others2017 PHC 1112 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-04
  industrial relationstermination of servicebona fide closurereinstatementlabour courtcompensationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions filed by an employer challenging the Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision to reinstate employees following the closure of a hotel. The core legal question was whether employees can be reinstated in an establishment that has ceased operations and whether compensation is a more appropriate remedy in such circumstances. The Court held that reinstatement is not a viable or reasonable remedy when an establishment has been closed bona fide, as there are no posts available. Consequently, the Court set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order for reinstatement and restored the Labour Court's original judgment, which had awarded compensation. The Court established the principle that while the closure of an establishment must be bona fide, once proven, the impossibility of reinstatement necessitates the substitution of reinstatement with monetary compensation. Given the significant delay in the proceedings, the Court modified the compensation award to reflect current minimum wage standards for a period of fifteen months, thereby balancing the rights of the employees with the practical realities of the closed business.

  Questions settled

  • Can employees be ordered to be reinstated in an establishment that has been closed down?
  • Is compensation an appropriate remedy when reinstatement is impossible due to the closure of an establishment?
  • Does the bona fide closure of an establishment preclude the reinstatement of terminated employees?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Dewan Salman Fiber vs Govt. etc2018 PLC 107, 2019 PLJ Peshawar 24, 2017 PHC 1255 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-07
  ex-parte ordernatural justicequasi-judicial authorityservice of noticespeaking orderpayment of wageswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged ex-parte orders passed by an Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, against a company regarding unpaid employee salaries. The petitioner contended that it was not properly served at its registered office and that the proceedings, which relied on the statement of a detained employee, were conducted in haste without providing a fair opportunity for defense. The High Court observed that the Authority failed to ensure proper service and that the proceedings were conducted in a slipshod manner, thereby eroding the principles of natural justice. The Court held that quasi-judicial authorities must provide a meaningful, purposeful, and effective hearing and must assign reasons for their decisions, as mandated by Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Emphasizing that justice must be seen to be done, the Court set aside the impugned ex-parte orders, noting that the Authority had jurisdiction under Rule 8 of the Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937, to set aside the ex-parte order, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does an authority performing quasi-judicial functions have a mandatory duty to provide a meaningful and effective hearing to the parties?
  • Is an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority without assigning reasons sustainable under the law?
  • Can an ex-parte order be set aside if the party was not properly served at its registered office?
  • Does the failure to provide a fair opportunity of defense violate the principles of natural justice in quasi-judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Ashraf Flour and General Mills vs Federation of Pakistan etc2017 PHC 1285 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-07Read full judgment →
• Mursaleen s/o Kamal ud Din, r/o Pirsadi Takht Bhai District Mardan. vs The2017 PHC 860 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-28Read full judgment →
• Munsif Ali vs State2017 PHC 922 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →