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.

• Mumtaz Mohammad and others vs Khurshid through LRs and others2017 PHC 348 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Mohammad and others vs Khurshid through L.Rs, and others2017 MLD 1767 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Shah vs Pir Afzal Shah2017 PHC 606 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Mukhteyar Alam vs The State through Additional Advocate-General and 4 others2017 P Cr. L J 684 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-14
  quashment petitionimmovable property disputejurisdiction of Executive Magistratecivil suit pendingpossession disputecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a revisional order of the Sessions Judge whereby a complaint under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed before an Executive Magistrate was dismissed. The core legal question was whether proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. can be initiated or sustained before an Executive Magistrate regarding immovable property when a civil suit concerning the same property is already pending adjudication before a competent Civil Court. The Peshawar High Court held that the ultimate arbitrator to determine ownership and right of possession over immovable property is the Civil Court, and criminal proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. are subordinate to civil litigation. The Court ruled that when a civil suit is already sub judice, an Executive Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to interfere with possession or pass orders under Section 145, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the quashment petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be initiated when a civil suit regarding the same immovable property is already sub judice before a competent Civil Court?
  • Does an Executive Magistrate have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of a matter pertaining to immovable property that is already the subject of a pending civil dispute?
  • Are the powers of a criminal court in proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subordinate to the powers and orders of a civil court dealing with the same property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtasir and 5 others---Appellants vs The State and another---2017 P Cr. L J 1607 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-28
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtinterested witnessesocular testimonymedical evidenceFIR delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions of the appellants for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged contradictions in evidence and the status of the witnesses. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, as the ocular testimony was inconsistent with medical evidence and the site plan. The court emphasized that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay, and the witnesses, being closely related to the deceased, were interested witnesses whose testimony required independent corroboration, which was lacking. Furthermore, the court noted that the medical evidence contradicted the complainant's account of his own injuries. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, holding that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right. The court affirmed that the heinousness of an offense cannot substitute for reliable, unimpeachable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence on the reliability of prosecution witnesses?
  • Is the heinousness of an offense a valid substitute for reliable evidence when determining the guilt of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtasir and 5 others vs The State & Bin Yamin2017 P Cr. L J 1607, 2017 PHC 288 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-28
  murdercapital punishmentbenefit of doubtinterested witnessdelayed FIRmedical evidence contradictioncriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kohistan, convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions involved the credibility of delayed and interested eyewitness testimony, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the standard of proof required in capital cases. The Peshawar High Court held that an FIR lodged with an unexplained inordinate delay, coupled with material contradictions with medical evidence, exaggerated number of assailants, and lack of independent corroboration, creates serious doubts regarding the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the connected appeal against acquittal and revision for enhancement of sentence. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and capital convictions cannot be sustained solely on uncorroborated, interested testimony that conflicts with medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses whose statements contradict medical evidence?
  • Whether exaggeration of the number of assailants in a criminal charge warrants the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a motive when the primary ocular testimony is found to be untrustworthy and lacking independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhsin Islam & salih Islam vs the State & others2017 PHC 567 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair & others vs The Govt: of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2017 PHC 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis Thaheem, J vs Habibullah Khan and others2017 CLC 1331 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas & others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2017 PHC 1200 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-22
  regularization of contract employeesWorker Welfare Boardstatutory ruleslocus poenitentiaeright to educationcaretaker government mandateconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated writ petition and connected matters before the Peshawar High Court arose from the grievances of teaching and non-teaching contract employees of the Worker Welfare Board, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, seeking regularization of their services, release of withheld salaries, and consideration for promotion. The core legal questions involved whether the Worker Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997 are statutory in nature, whether contract employees appointed against sanctioned posts after due process can be kept on a contractual basis indefinitely or arbitrarily terminated, and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae and good governance prevents authorities from unsettling past appointments due to administrative changes or departmental irregularities. The Peshawar High Court, following the remand from the Supreme Court of Pakistan and relying on established precedents, held that the Rules of 1997 are statutory, that employees cannot be penalized for departmental irregularities, and that long-serving contract employees fulfilling eligibility criteria have a right to regularization. The court laid down the principle that the government is an entity in perpetuity, and administrative shifts or caretaker setups cannot arbitrarily terminate or deny regularization to eligible employees who have served for years.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Worker Welfare Fund (Employees Service) Rules, 1997 have statutory force governing the terms and conditions of employees of the Provincial Worker Welfare Board?
  • Can the competent authority invoke the principle of locus poenitentiae to undo or terminate initial contract appointments after a long lapse of time due to alleged procedural irregularities committed by the department itself?
  • Whether long-serving contract employees appointed against sanctioned posts and fulfilling the prescribed eligibility criteria are entitled to regularization in service?
  • Does a caretaker government have the mandate to take policy decisions or terminate employees having far-reaching effects beyond running the day-to-day administration of the State?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasir Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 269 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem etc vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau, (NAB) Islamabad etc2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem and 4 others vs Chairman National2017 YLR 1528 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wali Shah and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 399 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-04
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceocular accountimprovements in evidencecause of deathacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 316, 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the death of the deceased and injuries to the complainant following a dispute over a water turn. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony, contradictions between medical and ocular evidence regarding the cause of death, and the failure of the prosecution to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to fatal improvements in the site plan by the investigating officer, discrepancies in the medical report regarding the uncertain cause of death, non-recovery of blood-stained earth, and lack of forensic analysis of the alleged weapon of offence. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that a single reasonable doubt arising from the prosecution's evidence, which impeaches the credibility of witnesses or creates uncertainty as to the cause of death, entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material improvements made by prosecution witnesses in their statements and site plans destroy the credibility of ocular testimony?
  • Does an uncertain medical opinion regarding the exact cause of death entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Whether a single reasonable doubt pricking the judicial mind is sufficient for the acquittal of an accused in a criminal case?
  • Does the failure to send the alleged weapon of offence and forensic samples for chemical analysis create a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uzair vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PHC 1265 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib vs Zamin Khan and 4 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 215, 2017 YLR 916 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs State2017 PHC 811 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Hassan Wattoo vs Chairman National Accountability2017 PHC 867 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed & others vs Haider Ali & others2017 PHC 1190 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs Sardar Ali and 3 others2017 MLD 1272 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs Sardar Ali & 03 others2017 MLD 1272, 2017 PHC 438 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs Mst. Rubina Kanwal, etc2017 PHC 1291 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs State through Additional Advocate-General and another2017 P Cr. L J 582 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-28
  conviction in absentiaSection 512 CrPCfair triallife imprisonmentremand for retrialabsconding accusedpreservation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a trial court judgment that convicted the appellant in absentia for murder and sentenced him to imprisonment for life till death. The core legal question was whether Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers a court to convict and sentence an absconding accused, and whether the sentence of 'life imprisonment till death' is legally permissible under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Peshawar High Court held that Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is strictly a mechanism for preserving prosecution evidence in the event of an accused's absconsion; it confers no jurisdiction to convict or sentence an accused in absentia. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, life imprisonment is equivalent to twenty-five years, not imprisonment until death. The Court emphasized that convicting an accused without a trial, charge, or opportunity to cross-examine witnesses violates the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by Articles 9, 10, and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the case remanded for retrial.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 authorize a trial court to convict and sentence an accused in absentia?
  • Is the sentence of 'imprisonment for life till death' legally valid under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the conviction of an accused without a formal charge or opportunity to cross-examine witnesses violate the constitutional right to a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasool vs Malik Nadir Khan and 8 others2017 YLR 1841 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid And 6 others vs Akhter Ali Khan And 15 others2017 MLD 2030 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid and 6 others vs Akhtar Ali Khan and others2017 MLD 2030, 2017 PLJ Peshawar 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and others vs Nasrullah and others2017 YLR 16 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Noman vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 335 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-15
  narcoticscharas recoverycriminal appealpolice witnessesdirectory provisionsentence reductionFSL report
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Muhammad Noman, challenged his conviction and sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, recorded by the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, through a judgment dated 27.02.2016, whereby he was sentenced to twelve years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the competence of the police officers to investigate and register the case, the absence of private independent witnesses to the recovery, and the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of five kilograms of charas garda. The Peshawar High Court held that the provisions regarding investigation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act are directory rather than mandatory, and any procedural irregularity is curable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, official police witnesses are competent witnesses unless personal enmity or ill will is proven. The court upheld the conviction based on positive forensic science laboratory reports and consistent witness testimonies, but reduced the sentence from twelve years to six years' rigorous imprisonment due to the appellant's young age, extending the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions regarding investigation under section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are mandatory or directory?
  • Are police officials competent witnesses in narcotics recovery cases in the absence of private independent witnesses?
  • Does a procedural irregularity in the investigation of a narcotics case vitiate the trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can the young age of an offender serve as a ground for reduction of sentence in a narcotics conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State etc2017 PHC 1268 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Ramzan2017 MLD 854 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed Akhtar and Others vs Inspector General of Prisons2017 PHC 1260 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs Muhammad Nawaz2017 PHC 952 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasim vs Kashif Nasim2017 PHC 1217 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem Khan vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 407 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-14
  post-arrest bailmurderrule of consistencyprohibitory limbfacilitationcross-version
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-A (ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of the rule of consistency with co-accused who had already been granted bail, and the existence of a cross-version. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner had been assigned a specific role of catching hold of the deceased, thereby facilitating the fatal blow, and thus could not claim parity with co-accused granted bail. The court ruled that the offence was heinous, fell within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and prima facie linked the petitioner to the crime. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, establishing that active facilitation in a heinous crime disentitles an accused to bail under the rule of consistency.

  Questions settled

  • Does catching hold of the deceased constitute active facilitation that disentitles an accused to bail?
  • Is the rule of consistency applicable when the role assigned to the petitioner differs from that of co-accused granted bail?
  • Does the existence of a cross-version automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail in a heinous crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naheem and others vs The Collector and others2017 CLC 937 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State and Another2017 MLD 2044, 2017 PHC 740 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzamil Khan vs Govt of KPK etc2017 PHC 901 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs The State2017 PLD Peshawar 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-08-21
  post-arrest bailelectronic crimeslegal ethicssuccessive bail applicationsprofessional conduct of advocatesprima facie caseadministration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was accused of creating and operating a fake Facebook profile to upload the complainant's personal pictures without consent. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the material evidence and the procedural impropriety of filing multiple simultaneous bail applications. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the evidence, including IP address tracking and the recovery of electronic devices, established a prima facie case connecting the accused to the heinous offense. The court strongly condemned the practice of filing successive or simultaneous bail applications on the same grounds, noting that such conduct undermines the administration of justice and risks conflicting judicial orders. It reiterated that advocates, as officers of the court, have a professional duty to uphold legal ethics and comply with Supreme Court directives regarding bail procedures. The judgment affirmed that such procedural misconduct is not conducive to the petitioner's case and emphasized the binding nature of established judicial precedents on bail applications.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of multiple simultaneous bail applications on the same grounds constitute a valid ground for dismissal?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when prima facie evidence, including electronic data and IP tracking, connects them to the offense?
  • What is the professional responsibility of an advocate regarding the filing of successive bail applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs Muhammad Shah Nawaz and 2 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 283 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The State and another2017 YLR 2367 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kashif Jamil vs Govt2017 PHC 818 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Karim vs Ghulam Rasool2017 PHC 699 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Karim vs Abdul Sattar and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-02
  dying declarationidentification in the darkbenefit of the doubtmurderreversal of convictionappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder based on a dying declaration. The core legal question was whether a dying declaration made by the deceased victim during dark night hours, without any disclosed source of light or corroborating identification, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that although the deceased was conscious and capable of talking, the identification of the assailant from a distance of 15 paces in the dead of night without any source of light was highly doubtful, and the trial court erred in relying solely on the dying declaration without close scrutiny of the identification aspect. The court established that a dying declaration, while enjoying sanctity, must pass strict tests of reliability regarding the maker's opportunity and capacity to identify the assailant, and in the absence of unimpeachable identification evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration alone is sufficient for conviction when the identification of the accused during dark night hours is doubtful?
  • What are the main tests for determining the genuineness and reliability of a dying declaration?
  • Does the absence of a source of light at the crime scene render the identification of the assailant impossible during night hours?
  • When should the benefit of the doubt be extended to an accused person in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamran vs Director of Fisheries, Directorate of Fisheries2017 PLJ Peshawar 15 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs State etc2017 PHC 1097 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jalal-ud-Din vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2017 PHC 1282 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr, Pet and another vs District Education Officer (Male)2017 PLJ Peshawar 361 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr, ASI and 138 others vs Government of Khyber2017 PLC (C.S.) 1128 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-24
  writ jurisdictiondepartmental promotionvoid orderpolice policy boardlocus poenitentiaeservice tribunalcivil servantconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the cancellation of promotion orders for 139 Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Department. The petitioners, having been duly promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee, saw their promotions rescinded following directions from the "Police Policy Board." The core legal question was whether this Board possessed the statutory authority to cancel valid departmental promotions and whether the writ petition was maintainable given the existence of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the Police Policy Board is not a legally constituted entity with authority over departmental promotions; thus, its directions and the subsequent cancellation orders were void ab initio. The Court affirmed that when an impugned order is a nullity issued by an incompetent authority, the High Court may exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, bypassing the requirement to exhaust departmental remedies. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of locus poenitentiae, ruling that once a valid promotion order is acted upon and creates vested rights, it cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn. The petition was allowed, restoring the petitioners' promotions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Police Policy Board possess the legal authority to cancel promotion orders issued by a Departmental Promotion Committee?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order passed by an authority that lacks legal jurisdiction, despite the existence of a Service Tribunal?
  • Can an authority withdraw a promotion order after it has been acted upon and created vested rights for the employee?
  • Does the failure to exhaust departmental remedies bar a constitutional petition when the impugned order is void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr Khan and Muhammad Javed Khan vs Chairman2017 PLD Peshawar 169, 2017 PHC 516 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-13
  freezing of bank accountsdelegation of powersNational Accountability Bureauaccountability courtcorruption and corrupt practicesstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Accountability Court, Peshawar, which confirmed the freezing of the appellants' bank accounts by the Director General of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The appellants contended that the Director General lacked the authority to freeze property, arguing that such power is vested solely in the Chairman NAB, and that the Accountability Court erred in confirming the order in the absence of a pending formal reference against them. The core legal question was whether the Director General NAB could exercise the power to freeze property under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and whether the Accountability Court could confirm such an order without a pending reference. The Court held that the Chairman NAB possesses the authority to delegate powers to officers under Section 34-A of the Ordinance, which was validly exercised via a Statutory Regulatory Order. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the requirement for a reference to be sent to the Accountability Court applies to the confirmation of the freezing order, not as a prerequisite for the initial freezing action. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau delegate the power to freeze property to an officer of the Bureau?
  • Is the pendency of a formal reference before an Accountability Court a condition precedent for the initial freezing of property under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does an order freezing property by the Chairman NAB require confirmation by an Accountability Court to remain in force beyond fifteen days?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr Khan and another vs Chairman, National2017 PLD Peshawar 169 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-13
  freezing of bank accountsdelegation of powersNational Accountability OrdinanceAccountability Courtreference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 challenges an order of the Accountability Court confirming the freezing of the appellants' bank accounts by the Director General of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The core legal questions involved whether the Director General of NAB was legally competent to freeze property under section 12 read with section 34-A of the Ordinance, and whether the pendency of a formal reference before the Accountability Court is a mandatory prerequisite for confirming a freezing order. The Peshawar High Court held that the Chairman NAB is empowered to delegate powers, including the power to freeze property, to an officer of the NAB under section 34-A through an SRO, and that the Accountability Court is competent to confirm a freezing order within fifteen days without a formal reference having been sent yet. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the legality of the freezing and confirmation orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chairman NAB delegate the power to freeze property to the Director General of NAB?
  • Is the pendency of a reference before the Accountability Court a sine qua non for the confirmation of a freezing order passed by the Chairman NAB or his delegate?
  • What is the maximum duration a freezing order by the Chairman NAB remains in force before confirmation by the Accountability Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr etc vs DEO (M) etc2017 PLJ Peshawar 361, 2017 PHC 757 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan vs D.P.O. etc.2017 PHC 898 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs SHO, PS Lund Khwar and others2017 PHC 1160 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Nabi Ahmad and 7 others2017 YLR 2019 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Mst. Nazia Iqbal etc2017 PHC 1215 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal & two others vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Peshawar & three others2017 PHC 723 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inam and 9 others vs Deputy Commissioner/District2017 MLD 78 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Muhammad Waseem and 3 others2017 YLR 1448 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Muhammad Waseem & others2017 PHC 114 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idress vs The State2017 PHC 1207 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs Hafiz Muhammad Yaqoob and 2 others2017 CLC 923 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hamad Ahmad vs Muhammad Younas Utman Khel2017 PHC 1240 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayaz vs The State2017 PLD Peshawar 74 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-20
  narcotics smugglingrecovery of heroinnon-production of case propertydestruction of case propertybenefit of doubtcriminal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged recovery of a large quantity of heroin from an oil tanker. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution's failure to produce the case property during trial, relying instead on inadmissible photocopies of destruction certificates without prior notice to the accused, creates fatal doubts in the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that the withholding of the best evidence—the physical case property—and the unauthorized, unilateral destruction of narcotics without notice to the accused or the trial court vitiates the trial and creates a strong reasonable doubt regarding the recovery. Consequently, the court established the principle that case property in capital cases must be produced during trial, and any destruction of narcotics prior to trial requires prior notice to the accused in accordance with principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to produce the recovered case property during trial is fatal to the case against the accused?
  • Can case property be legally destroyed while the trial is pending without issuing notice to the accused and the trial court?
  • Does the reliance on photocopies of destruction certificates instead of producing original evidence or examining the concerned magistrate render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Whether the withholding of best evidence by the prosecution warrants drawing an adverse inference under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayaz vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 443 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fareed vs Muhammad Amir and another2017 MLD 1388 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-12
  criminal revisionrecall of witnesscross-examinationright of defencemedical evidencejust decision of the caseSection 540 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the trial court dismissing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought to recall a medical officer (PW.11) for further cross-examination. The petitioner, an accused in a murder case, argued that his counsel was unable to cross-examine the witness on the specific issue of an axe blow attributed to a co-accused due to conflicting professional engagements. The trial court had denied the request, citing that the witness had already been cross-examined. The High Court held that the power under Section 540, Cr.P.C. is discretionary but becomes mandatory when the evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. Given the critical nature of the medical evidence regarding the specific weapon used, the Court determined that denying the opportunity for cross-examination on this material point would prejudice the accused's right of defence. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to recall the medical officer for limited cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Is the power of the court to recall a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory when the evidence is essential for the just decision of the case?
  • Can an accused be denied the right to recall a prosecution witness for cross-examination on a material point solely because the witness was previously examined?
  • Does the stage of the trial (e.g., before or after Section 342 CrPC statement) affect the court's discretion to recall a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal Anwar Shakir vs The State2017 MLD 1957 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aziz Ullah vs Vice Chancellor, Islamia College, University, Peshawar through Registrar, Islamia College, University, Peshawar and 2 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem Khan Afridi, vs The Registrar of the Peshawar High2018 PLC (C.S.) 1248, 2017 PHC 733 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-12
  repatriationdeputationtenure postingjudicial officerservice tribunaladministrative controlex-cadre post
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a District and Sessions Judge serving as Chairman of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, challenged his repatriation order to the Peshawar High Court, arguing that his appointment was a tenure posting for three years under Section 3-B of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal Act, 1974, which could not be curtailed. The core legal question was whether a judicial officer appointed to an ex-cadre post on deputation possesses a vested right to complete the full tenure, or if the High Court retains the authority to repatriate such an officer at its discretion. The Court held that the petition was without merit, ruling that appointments to ex-cadre posts are essentially deputations. The Court affirmed that a deputationist has no vested right to remain on a post for a stipulated period and that the lending department (the High Court) may recall its officer at any time. The key principle laid down is that the power to appoint includes the power to remove or repatriate, and the administrative control of the High Court over its judicial officers remains paramount, rendering tenure provisions subject to the exigencies of service.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judicial officer appointed to an ex-cadre post on deputation have a vested right to complete the full tenure?
  • Can the High Court repatriate a judicial officer serving on deputation before the completion of their specified tenure?
  • Does the power to appoint an individual to a post inherently include the power to remove or repatriate them?
  • Is the repatriation of a judicial officer from an ex-cadre post subject to judicial review if the officer claims a violation of tenure?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz vs The Superintendent District Jail, Timergara etc2017 PHC 287 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Awais & 2 others vs The State etc.2017 PHC 895 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Mehmood vs Directorate of Health KPK through Director General Health Department and 4 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 860 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-06
  public employmentsale of public officeconstitutional petitionland donationpublic policycontractual illegalityappointment criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of a third party to the post of Chowkidar, with the petitioner claiming entitlement to the position based on his father's donation of six kanals of land to the Health Department for the construction of a Basic Health Unit. The petitioner argued that an agreement existed at the time of the land transfer guaranteeing his employment. The core legal question was whether an agreement to provide employment in consideration for the donation of land to a public department is legally enforceable. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that such agreements are void as they amount to the sale of public office, which is against public policy. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that public employment cannot be bartered for property. The judgment establishes the principle that any agreement conditioning public employment upon the donation of land is illegal under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, and that such arrangements violate the principles of merit-based recruitment and equal opportunity for all citizens.

  Questions settled

  • Is an agreement to provide public employment in exchange for the donation of land legally enforceable?
  • Does an agreement to trade public office for property violate the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can a court enforce an appointment to a government post based on a private agreement made at the time of land donation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Khan vs Mst.Kulsoom Riaz & others2017 PHC 1040 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aqil vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Text Book Board through Secretary and another2017 PLJ Peshawar 203 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Shan Akhtar alias Ali vs The State etc2017 PHC 857 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Saifullah etc.2017 PLJ Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Saifullah and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 6, 2017 YLR 981 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mst.Tahira Bibi, etc vs Mst.Pakmin Taj, etc.2017 PHC 131 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mst.Samina etc vs Abdur Rehman etc2018 CLC 1029, 2017 PHC 1134 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeenat Bibi vs Fazal Haq2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeenat Bibi vs Fazal Haq and another2017 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1241 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-18
  fornicationcognizanceprivate complaintillegal trialnon-cognizable offencequashment of conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing fornication. The prosecution's case originated from an FIR registered under Sections 496-A and 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on allegations by the appellant's husband that she became pregnant through illicit relations during her stay with her parents. The High Court observed that the ingredients of Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were entirely absent, and the section was inserted by the police solely to bypass the non-cognizable nature of Section 496-B. The Court held that under Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, no court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 except upon a formal complaint lodged in a court of competent jurisdiction, accompanied by the mandatory examination of the complainant and at least two eyewitnesses on oath. Since this procedure was completely bypassed, the trial was coram non judice. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 directly through an FIR without a formal complaint under Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the insertion of a cognizable offence like Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 validate the registration of an FIR for a non-cognizable offence under Section 496-B when the ingredients of the former are entirely missing?
  • What is the legal effect of a trial conducted under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where the mandatory procedure of examining the complainant and eyewitnesses on oath under Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was not followed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Bibi and 17 others vs Mst. Pakmin Taj and 7 others2017 PHC 131, 2017 MLD 1283 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shah Sanam alias Shema vs The State2017 PLD Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-13
  post-arrest bailnarcotic smugglingcharas recoveryprohibitory clausewomanhood as bail groundControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner, a female widow, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after 4090 grams of charas were allegedly recovered from her personal possession during a police check. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of her womanhood and widowhood despite the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause. The Peshawar High Court held that mere womanhood or widowhood is no good ground to enlarge an accused on bail when a huge quantity of contraband is recovered from direct personal possession and the offense falls within the restrictive limb of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that the lenient consideration often accorded to female offenders does not apply when dealing with large-scale narcotic smuggling offenses falling under the prohibitory clauses of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere womanhood and widowhood is a sufficient ground to grant post-arrest bail in cases involving huge quantities of narcotics?
  • Does the recovery of 4090 grams of charas from the direct personal possession of an accused bring the case within the restrictive limb of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardara vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Branch Karak through Manager2017 CLD 184 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saira Khan vs State2017 PHC 984 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nosheen Bibi vs Ziaullah and 2 others2017 YLR 1514 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehreen vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PHC 1263 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Madina vs DIG Police Mardan (Reagan) and 4 others2017 P Cr. L J 617 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-08
  registration of FIRsecond FIRcognizable offenceJustice of Peacewrit petitionself-defencecriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by the Justice of Peace, Mardan, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the registration of a criminal case against the respondent. The petitioner alleged that her husband was murdered by the respondent, despite the respondent's claim of self-defense in an existing FIR regarding a dacoity incident. The core legal question was whether a second FIR could be registered when the petitioner's version of events directly contradicted the initial FIR, particularly where the initial version appeared potentially concocted or collusive. The Court held that the Justice of Peace erred in dismissing the application. It set aside the impugned order and directed the registration of the second FIR based on the petitioner's version. The Court laid down the principle that under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, police are legally obligated to record information regarding cognizable offenses. Where a subsequent version of an incident is not merely an amplification but fundamentally contradicts the initial FIR, a second FIR must be registered to ensure a fair investigation and unearth the truth.

  Questions settled

  • Is the registration of a second FIR permissible when the version provided contradicts the initial FIR?
  • Does the police officer have a legal obligation under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register a second FIR if the initial FIR is suspected to be concocted or collusive?
  • Can a Justice of Peace dismiss an application for the registration of an FIR when the petitioner's version of a cognizable offence differs significantly from the existing police record?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Madina vs D.I.G. Police Mardan (Reagon) and others2017 P Cr. L J 617, 2017 PLJ Peshawar 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-08
  registration of FIRsecond FIRcognizable offencewrit jurisdictionmala fide FIRcriminal investigationJustice of Peace
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by the Justice of Peace, Mardan, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the registration of a criminal case against the respondent for the murder of her husband. The respondent had previously registered an FIR claiming self-defense after the deceased allegedly entered his house. The core legal question was whether a second FIR could be registered when the initial FIR is alleged to be collusive or concocted, and whether the police are legally obligated to record a counter-version. The Court held that the police are under a legal obligation to register a second FIR if the subsequent information provides a version that is not a mere amplification but runs contrary to the earlier one, particularly when the first FIR is alleged to be mala fide. The Court established the principle that to ensure a fair investigation and unearth the truth, the police must register a second FIR where the initial version is disputed or distorted, thereby allowing the actual facts to surface.

  Questions settled

  • Is the police officer in charge of a police station legally obligated to register a second FIR if the new information provides a version contrary to the first?
  • Can a court direct the registration of a second FIR when the initial FIR is alleged to be collusive or concocted?
  • Does the registration of an initial FIR regarding an incident bar the registration of a subsequent FIR containing a different version of the same event?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Javeria vs The State2017 MLD 1367 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janat Bibi, through L.Rs, vs Aslam Khan and 13 others2017 CLC 436 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-20
  inheritanceMuslim Personal Lawco-sharerlimitationmutationcustomrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the judgment and decree of the District Judge whereby the plaintiffs' suit regarding inheritance was dismissed, reversing the trial court's decision in their favour. The core legal questions involved whether female heirs could be deprived of their shari shares based on a custom prevailing prior to the promulgation of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Peshawar High Court held that the 1935 Act has retrospective effect, requiring succession disputes of Muslims to be resolved under Muslim Personal Law regardless of the date of death, and that possession of one co-sharer is deemed possession for all, meaning limitation does not run against co-sharers from the date of death or mutation alone. The court laid down the principles that inheritance opens automatically upon death vesting property in heirs without need for revenue interventions, mutations do not confer title, and time does not extinguish inheritance rights of co-sharers until actual denial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935 have retrospective effect for determining succession where the death occurred prior to its enactment?
  • Does limitation run against a co-sharer from the date of the predecessor's death or the attestation of an inheritance mutation?
  • What is the legal effect of an evasive denial of pleadings in a written statement under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Does an inheritance mutation confer any independent title or right in property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hilal Murad vs Haji Amir Zaman and 8 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 179 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hijab Fatima Tariq and 2 others vs Kohat Cement Co. Ltd. & others2017 PLJ Peshawar 146 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Roza vs The State and 2 others2017 P Cr. L J 1071 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-11
  quashment of ordersattachment of propertyabsconderproclaimed personjudicial inquiryunregistered tamleeq deedrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed seeking the quashment of orders passed by the lower courts whereby the petitioner's application for the redemption of a house attached pursuant to section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as property of an absconding accused was dismissed. The core legal question was whether a claimant asserting an interest in attached property is entitled to a formal inquiry and an opportunity to lead evidence under section 88(6-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before their objection is adjudicated. The Peshawar High Court held that the lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioner's objection based solely on revenue records without conducting a mandatory judicial inquiry. The ratio decidendi is that where a claim or objection is preferred against the attachment of property under section 88, the court is bound to conduct an inquiry and afford the parties an opportunity to present evidence and rebuttal in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court is mandated to conduct a judicial inquiry when a claim or objection is preferred against the attachment of property under section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an objection to the attachment of property be dismissed solely on the basis of revenue records without affording the claimant an opportunity to lead evidence?
  • What is the scope and significance of subsection (6-A) of section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding third-party claims to attached property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst Tahira vs Muhammad Irfan2017 PHC 750 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
• Mst Rehanan & Dawood vs State & another2017 PHC 589 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
• Ms. Raheesa Zeb vs Khyber Girls Medical College through Principal/Dean2017 MLD 294 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-06Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Hijab Fatima Tariq and 2 others vs Kohat Cement Co. Ltd. and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 146, 2017 CLD 436 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mr. Shakeel Ahmad & others vs Govt of KPK2017 PHC 242 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mr. Muhammad Azim Khan Afridi vs The President of Pakistan through the Principal Secretary President House, Islamabad & others2017 PHC 1095 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-05Read full judgment →