Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Mosam Khan vs The State2017 PHC 620 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mosam Khan vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission2017 PHC 509 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-13Read full judgment →
- Mohsin Ihsan vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 397 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Mohsin Ihsan, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 136 registered under sections 409, 419, 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, section 30 of the NADRA Ordinance, and section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, concerning allegations of illegally processing Computerized National Identity Cards for non-nationals. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the investigation was incomplete, and the petitioner's criminal culpability required further inquiry at trial. Consequently, the court accepted the bail application and granted post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is charged with offences not falling within the prohibitory clause and investigation is ongoing, tentative assessment of the material warrants the concession of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and investigation is incomplete?
- Do observations made by the High Court in bail disposition orders influence the trial court during the appraisal of evidence?
- Can bail granted by the High Court be recalled if the petitioner delays the investigation or departmental inquiry?
- Mohammad Raziq vs Mst. Farhana Bibi2017 PHC 685 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zainab vs State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1241, PLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 27 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the offence of fornication. The core legal question was whether a trial court could legally take cognizance of an offence under Section 496-B, PPC, based on a police report (FIR) rather than a formal complaint, given the specific procedural requirements of Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the police acted with mala fide intent by artificially inserting Section 496-A, PPC, into the FIR to bypass the non-cognizable nature of the offence of fornication and avoid the mandatory complaint procedure. The Court ruled that the trial court erred by proceeding with the trial despite the absence of a formal complaint and the failure to follow the mandatory examination procedures prescribed by Section 203-C, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment establishes that strict compliance with the complaint mechanism under Section 203-C, Cr.P.C. is a jurisdictional prerequisite for prosecuting the offence of fornication under Section 496-B, PPC.
Questions settled- Can a trial court take cognizance of an offence under Section 496-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on a police report rather than a formal complaint?
- Does the insertion of a cognizable offence in an FIR to bypass the procedural requirements for a non-cognizable offence constitute a valid legal basis for trial?
- Is strict compliance with the complaint mechanism under Section 203-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, mandatory for the prosecution of fornication?
- Mirza Fazal Ghani vs Bahadar Khan and 2 others2017 YLR 1312 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-27Read full judgment →
- Mir Jawaz Khan etc vs Gulbat Khan etc2017 PHC 1151 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-14Read full judgment →
- Mir Dil Khan vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1180 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s long, unexplained abscondence of eleven years automatically disentitled him to the concession of bail. The Court held that while abscondence is a relevant factor, it is not an absolute bar to bail. Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the petitioner was attributed a general role of 'Lalkara' without specific injury attribution, and the evidentiary requirements regarding the fatal shots necessitated further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the petitioner’s advanced age and the nature of the allegations warranted this relief. The key principle laid down is that where a case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the right to bail cannot be denied solely on the ground of abscondence, as bail in such instances is a statutory right rather than a concession.
Questions settled- Does long, unexplained abscondence of an accused automatically disentitle them to post-arrest bail?
- Is bail a matter of right or grace when a case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be granted bail if the role attributed to them is limited to 'Lalkara' without specific injury attribution?
- Mir Dil Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 271 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, aged about 74 years, charged alongside co-accused under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, in a 2005 case registered at Police Station Doaba, District Hangu. The core legal questions involved the effect of a long unexplained abscondence of eleven years on the right to post-arrest bail and whether the generalized role of 'Lalkara' and indiscriminate firing without specific attribution of fatal injury warrants further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that mere abscondence of an accused person, even for a prolonged period, is not sufficient in itself to refuse bail if the case otherwise calls for further inquiry into the accused's guilt on merits. The court laid down the principle that in cases where further inquiry is warranted, bail is a matter of right and an accused cannot be denied this concession solely due to being a fugitive from law, aligning with recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Questions settled- Does the long unexplained abscondence of an accused automatically disentitle him to the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Whether attribution of a general role of 'Lalkara' and firing without a specific fatal injury makes a case one of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground of being a proclaimed offender when the merits of the case otherwise warrant further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
- Mingora Bench/DarulQaza, Swat] Shaukat Ali vs Chairman Khyber2017 PLJ Peshawar 134 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mingora Bench (DarulQaza) Swat]Miangul Aurangzeb and 8 otherss vs Mst. Bakht Zeba and 9 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian Sibghatullah vs Registrar Peshawar High Court2017 PHC 1074 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-02Read full judgment →
- Mian Said Wahid and another vs Nazir Mian and others2017 PHC 141 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
- Mian Said Hakim and 4 others vs Abdar Khan and 4 others2017 YLR 107 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mian Gul Rahim vs State through Additional Advocate-General and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 44 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Vincraft (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorised Representative vs Federal2017 PHC 706, 2017 PTD 2114 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs Telephone Industries of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (Tip) Haripur2017 PLC 55 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two writ petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of contempt proceedings pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners, Telephone Industries of Pakistan (TIP), challenged the contempt proceedings initiated by respondents who had sought regularization of their employment. The core legal question was whether contempt proceedings could be maintained against an establishment based on an interim order issued by a Labour Appellate Tribunal that lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court held that because the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the establishment—which had attained trans-provincial status—the interim directions issued by the Tribunal were without lawful authority and had become redundant. Consequently, the Court ruled that disobedience of an order passed by a forum lacking jurisdiction does not constitute contempt. The Court concluded that continuing such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and accordingly quashed the contempt proceedings, while granting the respondents liberty to pursue their claims before the appropriate forum.
Questions settled- Does the disobedience of an interim order passed by a tribunal lacking jurisdiction constitute contempt of court?
- Can contempt proceedings be maintained when the underlying order is found to be per incuriam and without jurisdiction?
- Does an establishment with trans-provincial status fall outside the jurisdiction of provincial labour courts?
- Messrs Nib Bank Limited through Authorized Officer_General Attorney vs Mian Wisal Bacha and 2 others2017 P Cr. L J 316 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition, filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged an order regarding the custody of a vehicle seized by police following a default in a lease agreement between a financial institution and a customer. The core legal question was whether police possess the authority to seize property under Sections 523 and 550, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to resolve civil disputes arising from financial lease defaults. The Court held that the police acted illegally and without jurisdiction by seizing the vehicle, as these provisions are strictly limited to property suspected to be stolen or involved in the commission of an offence, not for enforcing civil contracts or recovering finance facilities. The Court emphasized that financial institutions must pursue recovery through the specialized Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, rather than misusing criminal machinery to pressure debtors. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court's order, declared the police seizure unlawful, and directed the return of the vehicle to the respondent, while affirming the petitioner's right to pursue appropriate legal remedies in a competent forum.
Questions settled- Can the police seize a vehicle under Sections 523 and 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to resolve a civil dispute regarding a lease default?
- Is a financial institution entitled to use criminal proceedings to recover a leased vehicle from a defaulting customer?
- Does the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 provide the exclusive forum for financial institutions to recover finance facilities?
- Messrs Green Group of Hotels through Attorney vs Municipal2017 MLD 257 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mehwish Khan vs Khyber Medical University etc2017 PHC 1287 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-14Read full judgment →
- Mehraz Khan vs The State etc2017 PHC 1118 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-16Read full judgment →
- Mehmood Zaman vs The State Etc2017 PHC 1099 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mehboobullah vs The State2017 PHC 1051 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-29Read full judgment →
- Mehboob Ali alias Maqbali and another vs Arbab Athar Khan and 32017 CLC 874 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-19Read full judgment →
- Mazhar vs The State2017 PHC 1247 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
- Maulana Aman Ullah Haqani and another vs Government of Khyber2017 PHC 1144 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-07Read full judgment →
- Matiullah vs Mst. Saddiqa2017 PLJ Peshawar 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-16Read full judgment →
- Mati-Ur-Rehman vs Muhammad Haroon2017 MLD 27 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-04Read full judgment →
- Masood ur Rehman vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.2017 PHC 374 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-04Read full judgment →
- Masood Anwar vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1466 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of an FIR registered against him under sections 419 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the grounds that he was already facing prosecution for a reference before an Accountability Court regarding the same matter. The core legal question was whether simultaneous prosecution of an accused in an Accountability Court based on a NAB reference and under an FIR for cheating and impersonation violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner could not invoke the protection against double jeopardy or autrefois acquit / autrefois convict as there was no prior conviction or acquittal, and the offences and complainants were distinct. The court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that the constitutional guarantee under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply only where an accused has already undergone a final adjudication resulting in conviction or acquittal for the same offence, and do not bar separate prosecutions for distinct and independent offences.
Questions settled- Does prosecution under a NAB reference bar the registration of an FIR for separate offences of cheating and impersonation?
- When does the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 become applicable?
- Does Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibit a second trial where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal resulting from a final adjudication?
- Can a criminal petition for quashment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be maintained without establishing an abuse of the process of the court?
- Mashooq Ali vs Shah Zaman, etc.2017 PLJ Peshawar 290 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-29Read full judgment →
- Mashooq Ali vs Shah Zaman and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 290, 2017 YLR 957 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for declaration regarding the invalidity of certain gift mutations executed in 1972 and 1981. The core legal questions concerned whether the gift mutations were fraudulent, whether the donor was of unsound mind, and whether the suit was time-barred. The Peshawar High Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the alleged fraud or the donor's mental incapacity. The court emphasized that mere oral assertions without medical evidence are insufficient to establish unsoundness of mind. Furthermore, the court affirmed that under Islamic law, a Muslim donor may gift property in preference to legal heirs. Finally, the court held that the suit was barred by limitation, as the challenge was brought decades after the mutations were entered, exceeding the six-year period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1908. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit, as no misreading or non-reading of evidence was established.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof lie on the party alleging fraud in a gift mutation?
- Is a Muslim donor prohibited from gifting immovable property in preference to legal heirs?
- What is the limitation period for challenging a mutation in the revenue record?
- Is oral testimony sufficient to prove the unsoundness of mind of a donor without supporting medical evidence?
- Malik Riaz Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Public Health and 14 others2017 YLR 962 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-13Read full judgment →
- Malik Bilal Ahmad Khan vs Chairman, Gandhara University, Danish2017 PLJ Peshawar 253 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Malak Naz vs Board of Governors through Secretary and 4 others2017 CLC 256 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of the Principal of Edwardes College, Peshawar, seeking a writ of quo-warranto on the grounds of procedural irregularity and political maneuvering. The core legal question was whether Edwardes College constitutes a "person" performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province, thereby subjecting its appointments to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, as Edwardes College is a private educational institution, neither created by statute nor under the administrative or financial control of the government. Consequently, the Principal does not hold a "public office," rendering the writ of quo-warranto inapplicable. The Court affirmed the principle that for an organization to be considered a "person" under Article 199, it must perform functions involving sovereign or public power, be substantially controlled by the government, and receive the bulk of its funding from the State. Absent these criteria, the institution remains outside the scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is a private educational institution that receives no government funding considered a "person" performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the Principal of a private college, not established by statute or government control, hold a "public office" subject to a writ of quo-warranto?
- What are the primary tests for determining whether an organization performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province for the purpose of constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Malak Abdullah Khan vs Muhammad Rasool Khan2017 PHC 1037 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
- Mahboob Ali alias Maqbali and another vs Arbab Athar Khan and 32017 CLC 874, 2017 PLJ Peshawar 240 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-19Read full judgment →
- Lutfullah and another vs Shahid Inayat2017 YLR 1622 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-23Read full judgment →
- Luqman Ali vs The State and 2 othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 177, 2017 CLD 745 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-07Read full judgment →
- Luqman Ali vs State and 2 othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 177 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed under Section 561-A read with Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging orders of the Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, which had dismissed the petitioner's application for the return of a motorcar (superdari) involved in a case under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who held a decree from a Banking Court declaring him entitled to the vehicle upon payment of dues, was entitled to interim custody (superdari) over a rival claimant who lacked comparable judicial documentation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the vehicle's custody, emphasizing that judicial proceedings and documents produced therein carry a strong presumption of correctness under Article 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s documentary evidence, supported by a Banking Court decree and a bank-issued clearance certificate, outweighed the rival claimant's undocumented assertion of ownership. Consequently, the Court granted the petition, directing the release of the vehicle on superdari subject to security bonds and specific undertakings.
Questions settled- Does a judicial decree from a Banking Court regarding the ownership of a vehicle create a strong presumption of title for the purpose of superdari?
- Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant superdari when lower courts have declined to determine title?
- Is a document produced in previous judicial proceedings entitled to a presumption of genuineness under Article 91 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Lubna Hameed and others vs Controller of Examinations, Khyber2017 MLD 102 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-09Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Zaman Khan and others vs Mst. Tazeem Akhtar and others2017 YLR 150 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular appeal challenged the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Haripur, which granted a succession certificate to the respondent, Mst. Tazeem Akhtar, despite the pendency of a civil suit regarding her marital status. The appellants, claiming the respondent was divorced, argued that the certificate could not be issued without resolving this dispute. The core legal question was whether a succession certificate could be granted in summary proceedings when the applicant's status is contested by an intricate question of fact. The Peshawar High Court upheld the impugned order, ruling that under Section 373(3) of the Succession Act, 1925, a judge may grant a certificate to the person appearing to have prima facie the best title, notwithstanding complex disputes. The Court emphasized that summary proceedings are not meant to resolve intricate title issues, which remain the domain of a regular civil suit. The holding established that a succession certificate is provisional and subject to revocation under Section 383 of the Succession Act, 1925, if a competent court later determines the marital status differently, provided adequate safeguards like surety bonds are in place.
Questions settled- Can a succession certificate be granted in summary proceedings when there is a dispute regarding the marital status of the applicant?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit for declaration bar the issuance of a succession certificate under the Succession Act, 1925?
- What is the scope of a judge's power under Section 373(3) of the Succession Act, 1925, when faced with intricate questions of fact?
- Can a succession certificate be revoked if a competent court subsequently determines the rights of the parties differently?
- Liaqat Khan vs Mst Bakhat Bibi and Others2017 PHC 1250 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
- Latif Ullah and others vs Mst. Sakeena and others2017 PHC 1156 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-17Read full judgment →
- Lateef Anwar vs Khalid Mahmood Khattak2017 PHC 772 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-18Read full judgment →
- Land Acquisition Collector, M-1 Bara Banda, Noshehra etc vs Khana Gul2017 PHC 864 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-28Read full judgment →
- Lalzada vs The State and another2017 YLR 898 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-10Read full judgment →
- Kiran Ayub Tanoli, Advocate vs Registrar Peshawar High Court2017 PLC (C.S.) 1283 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the eligibility criteria for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, specifically the requirement of submitting five Wakalatnamas per year for the last five years, as advertised by the Peshawar High Court. The petitioner contended that this condition was ultra vires to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (NWFP) Judicial Service Rules, 2001, and violated her fundamental rights, despite her standing as a practicing advocate. The core legal question was whether the High Court could impose such specific criteria to define a practicing advocate for judicial recruitment. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court possesses the authority to enhance recruitment standards to ensure the selection of competent judges. It observed that the condition was a consensus-based measure supported by the Bar to weed out non-practicing lawyers and improve judicial performance. The Court established that the term practicing advocate necessitates active, habitual engagement in legal practice, and that administrative bodies may prescribe reasonable qualifications to maintain efficiency in service, provided they do not contravene statutory law.
Questions settled- Can the High Court impose additional eligibility criteria for judicial appointments beyond those specified in the service rules?
- Does the requirement of submitting Wakalatnamas to prove legal practice violate the fundamental rights of a candidate?
- What constitutes a practicing advocate for the purpose of appointment as an Additional District and Sessions Judge?
- Does the High Court have the authority to enhance recruitment standards to maintain efficiency in judicial service?
- Kifayat Ullah vs Ibrahim, etc.2017 PHC 829 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-18Read full judgment →
- Kifayat Ullah vs Gul alias Gulli, etc2017 PHC 832 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-18Read full judgment →
- Kifayat and others vs Sami Ullah and another2017 PHC 779 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 439 read with Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging the trial court's dismissal of their application under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. for acquittal in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. A genuine compromise had been executed at the bail stage where legal heirs of the deceased waived their rights of Qisas and Diyat, resulting in the grant of bail to the petitioners and acquittal of co-accused brothers. However, the trial court refused to acquit the petitioners under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. due to the legal heirs subsequently resiling from the compromise. The High Court accepted the petition and quashed the proceedings, holding that where a genuine compromise in compoundable offences has been acted upon and validly established on record, the complainant party cannot be permitted to resile from it, and such compromise ensures to the benefit of the accused for full acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a complainant party or legal heirs of a deceased resile from a compromise in a criminal case after it has already been acted upon?
- Does a compromise regarding compoundable offences effected and verified at the bail stage entitle the accused to subsequent acquittal at the trial stage under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the basis of an established compromise that the complainant party later attempts to abandon?
- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Saqlain and 2 othersPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 411, 2017 P Cr. L J 724 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The State preferred an appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a case relating to sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was perverse or suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference by the appellate court. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting missing corroborative evidence such as empties, blood, and bullet marks, alongside a prior pending criminal complaint between the parties indicating a possible false implication. The Court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and that an appellate court will not interfere with a finding of acquittal unless the conclusion reached by the trial court is arbitrary, artificial, or shocking. Consequently, the appeal against acquittal was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- When will an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
- Does a single reasonable doubt entitle an accused to an acquittal?
- What are the limitations on the power of an appellate court to convert an acquittal into a conviction?
- Khyal Mir vs The State2017 PHC 1115 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
- Khushdil vs The State2017 YLR 835 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court versus the Federal Shariat Court in criminal cases where the initial charge was framed under Hudood laws, but the conviction was ultimately recorded under the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellants were initially charged under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, but were subsequently convicted and sentenced by the trial court under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court possessed the jurisdiction to hear the appeal given that the conviction was under Tazir (Pakistan Penal Code) rather than the Hudood Ordinance. The Peshawar High Court held that the determining factor for the forum of appeal is the nature of the charge framed, not the section under which the sentence is eventually passed. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court ruled that since the appellants were charged under Hudood laws, the appeal lies exclusively with the Federal Shariat Court. Consequently, the Court declared the appeals incompetent and ordered their transfer to the Federal Shariat Court.
Questions settled- Does the forum of appeal depend on the section under which the conviction is recorded or the section under which the charge was originally framed?
- Where does the appellate jurisdiction lie when an accused is charged under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 but convicted under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an appeal filed before the High Court competent when the accused was originally charged under Hudood laws?
- Khushdil vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 323 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two jail criminal appeals filed against a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda, which convicted the appellants under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Although the appellants were ultimately sentenced under the Pakistan Penal Code, they had been originally charged under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court possessed the appellate jurisdiction in a case where the charge was under Hudood laws but the conviction was under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Peshawar High Court held that the appeals were not competent before it and ordered their transfer to the Federal Shariat Court. The court established the principle that the forum of appeal is determined by the nature of the charge framed against the accused, rather than the specific provision under which the sentence is ultimately passed. Consequently, if an accused is charged under Hudood laws, the appellate jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Federal Shariat Court, regardless of whether the conviction is based on Tazir.
Questions settled- Does the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court have jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the accused was charged under Hudood laws but convicted under the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Is the forum of appeal determined by the charge framed against the accused or by the provision under which the sentence is passed?
- Does a conviction under Tazir override the requirement to appeal to the Federal Shariat Court when the initial charge was under Hudood laws?
- Khurshid Khan vs Mst. Asia & others2017 PHC 1237 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-08Read full judgment →
- Khawas Khan vs The State and others2017 MLD 739 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-01Read full judgment →
- Khan Wazir vs The StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 332 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Khan Wazir, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 3.6 kilograms of charas pukhta from a vehicle driven by him. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The Peshawar High Court held that the fourteen-day delay in transmitting the samples to the FSL raised a question to be determined at trial after recording evidence, and noted that the petitioner was not a previous convict or a hardened criminal. Consequently, the court allowed the bail petition, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing reliable sureties. The key principle laid down is that unexplained or notable delays in sending narcotics samples to the FSL, coupled with the absence of previous convictions, can constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, making the accused eligible for bail.
Questions settled- Does a delay in sending recovered narcotics samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory provide sufficient grounds for grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether an accused found in possession of contraband can be admitted to bail when he has no previous criminal record?
- Can further inquiry into the circumstances of sample transmission bring a case within the scope of prohibitory clause of bail?
- Khan Munir vs The State2017 PHC 1122 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
- Khan Javed Khan vs The State and 5 others2017 YLR 461 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-20Read full judgment →
- Khan Gul vs Govt of KPK2017 PLJ Peshawar 358, 2017 PHC 635 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-21Read full judgment →
- Khan Gul vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Secretary Local2017 PLJ Peshawar 358 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khan Asghar and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary,Defence, Islamabad and 8 otherss2017 PLJ Peshawar 65, P LD 2017 Peshawar 31 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khan Asghar and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2017 PLJ Peshawar 65 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khan Alam vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 281 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 3 kilograms of charas from a vehicle driven by him. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considering the medico-legal report showing injuries, the absence of the Forensic Science Laboratory report, and the failure of the prosecution to record the statement of the vital witness on whose identification the contraband was allegedly recovered. The Peshawar High Court accepted the bail petition and held that these factors created a serious dent in the prosecution story, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that unexplained injuries on the accused coupled with procedural lapses in the prosecution case, such as missing forensic reports and unrecorded witness statements on recovery points, constitute grounds for grant of post-arrest bail in narcotics cases.
Questions settled- Whether unexplained injuries on the person of an accused at the time of arrest constitute grounds for post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory report at the bail stage make out a case for further inquiry?
- Whether failure to record the statement of a material witness on whose identification contraband is recovered creates a dent in the prosecution case?
- Khaliq Dad and another vs The State and another2017 YLR 1756 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-19Read full judgment →
- Khalil Khan vs The State and another2017 YLR 2472 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-01Read full judgment →
- Khalid vs The State etc.2017 PHC 702 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-11Read full judgment →
- Khalid vs Mst. Akbar Jan and another2017 MLD 599 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-01Read full judgment →
- Khalid Khan vs Fazal Riaz2017 PHC 1148 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
- Khalid Aziz vs PTV2017 PLD Peshawar 115, 2017 PHC 547 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
- Khalid Aziz vs Pakistan Television through Managing Director and 52017 PLD Peshawar 115 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
- Khalid & another vs The StatePHC 2017 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused petitioners, Khalid and Zeeshan, in a case registered under Sections 324, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners along with co-accused unlawfully entered a residence and fired indiscriminately, injuring the female complainant, allegedly due to a blood feud. The primary legal issue before the Peshawar High Court was whether the accused petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail based on a tentative assessment of the material on record. The court observed that despite five accused being charged with indiscriminate firing, only four empties from a single 30-bore weapon were recovered, the complainant received a single non-fatal injury, and her husband standing nearby remained unhurt despite being the natural target in a blood feud. The court held that the possibility of an exaggerated charge could not be ruled out. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, granting the petitioners bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the physical evidence contradicts the allegation of indiscriminate firing by multiple accused?
- Does the uninjured presence of a male target during an alleged attack motivated by a blood feud justify granting bail on the ground of an exaggerated charge?
- Can bail be allowed based on a tentative assessment when only a single firearm injury is sustained despite charges against five accused?
- Khaista Gul vs state2017 PHC 638 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
- Kausar Shabir vs S.H.O chamkani etc2017 PHC 1090 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-30Read full judgment →
- Karim Khan vs The State and 2 others2017 MLD 1326 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bannu, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death. The core legal question was whether a trial court's judgment that fails to formulate points for determination, evaluate material evidence such as a transposed statement of a deceased eye-witness under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and assign reasons in accordance with Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is sustainable. The Peshawar High Court held that the provisions of Section 367 are mandatory, and non-compliance constitutes an incurable illegality rather than a mere irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that a judgment lacking proper evaluation of evidence and points for determination is defective and voidable, setting aside the conviction and remanding the case back to the trial court for a fresh decision after proper re-examination of the accused.
Questions settled- Whether compliance with the provisions of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the contents of a judgment is mandatory?
- Does the failure of a trial court to formulate points for determination and evaluate material evidence amount to an incurable illegality under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a judgment that completely overlooks the statement of a sole eye-witness be sustained in appeal?
- What is the legal effect of failing to put a transposed statement recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Kamran Mukhtyar Qureshi vs The State and another2017 PHC 610 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
- Kalsoom Aftab vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education Department and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 310 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Kaleemullah vs The State etc2017 PHC 726 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
- Jehangir vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 32 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a narcotics case involving the recovery of 10 kilograms of Charas from a vehicle occupied by a co-accused. The petitioner was not named in the initial FIR but was subsequently implicated solely based on the statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be denied bail based on the statement of a co-accused and his alleged abscondence, despite the lack of direct recovery or evidence linking him to the contraband. The Court held that the petitioner's case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that a statement made by a co-accused before the police is insufficient evidence to deny bail. Furthermore, it held that mere abscondence does not preclude the grant of bail if the case otherwise merits it on the basis of further inquiry, and bail should not be withheld as a punitive measure.
Questions settled- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of a co-accused's statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the mere fact of abscondence automatically disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Is a statement made by an accused before the police admissible as evidence against a co-accused under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Jehangir Khan vs Muhammad Asif Awan and others2017 PLD Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order by the Election Tribunal which dismissed an election petition due to technical defects in the verification of annexures, citing non-compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Representation of the People Act 1976. The core legal question was whether the Election Tribunal was mandatorily required to dismiss the petition for such technical deficiencies under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Councils (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013. The Court held that unlike the Representation of the People Act 1976, which mandates dismissal for non-compliance, Section 51 of the Election Rules, 2013 grants the Tribunal discretion regarding dismissal. The Court ruled that the Tribunal should exercise this discretion to advance justice by deciding cases on merits or allowing amendments under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rather than resorting to summary dismissal on technical grounds. The principle laid down is that where a statute confers discretionary power on a tribunal to dismiss a petition for procedural non-compliance, that discretion must be exercised to facilitate a decision on the merits rather than defeating the cause through technicalities.
Questions settled- Does the Election Tribunal have mandatory power to dismiss an election petition for defective verification under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Councils (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013?
- Is the dismissal of an election petition for procedural non-compliance mandatory or discretionary under Section 51 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Councils (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2013?
- Can an Election Tribunal allow an amendment to an election petition regarding the verification of documents under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Jehan Sharif vs The State2017 PHC 1153 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a bail petition filed by the accused Jehan Sharif seeking post-arrest release in case FIR No. 60 dated 2.8.2017 registered under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station RD ANF, Peshawar, following the alleged recovery of 930 grams of heroin concealed in his belly. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of bail for an offense involving the trafficking of a substantial quantity of narcotics abroad, notwithstanding that the offense may not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the accused was prima facie connected with the commission of the offense, particularly given the nature of international narcotics trafficking bringing disrepute to the country and a positive FSL report, and consequently dismissed the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is prima facie connected with heinous drug trafficking offenses carrying stringent penalties, bail may be denied even if the specific statutory punishment does not strictly fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when charged under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for smuggling heroin in his belly?
- Can bail be denied in narcotics cases even if the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the legal effect of a positive FSL report and prima facie connection on a bail petition involving international drug trafficking?
- Jawad-ul-Haq vs The State2017 PHC 1137 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-07Read full judgment →
- Jawad Ali and others vs Superintendent Jail and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 587 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Peshawar High Court disposes of three writ petitions filed by Jawad Ali and others challenging an order dated 16.2.2015, through which their appointments as Jail Warders (BPS-5) were cancelled on the mere desire of a so-called competent authority after they had already assumed office and performed duties for nearly twenty days. The core legal questions revolved around whether the government could rescind appointment orders that had already taken legal effect, creating vested rights, and whether the High Court's jurisdiction was barred under Article 212 or Article 199(3) of the Constitution. The Court held that once an appointment order has been acted upon and legal rights have accrued, the principle of locus poenitentiae prevents the government from arbitrarily withdrawing or rescinding it, especially when no illegality in the selection process is established. Furthermore, the bar under Article 199(3) does not oust the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction where an administrative action is coram non judice, without jurisdiction, or mala fide. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed and the cancellation order was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether the government can rescind or withdraw an appointment order after it has taken legal effect and created vested rights in favor of an individual?
- Does the bar contained in Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 preclude the High Court from exercising judicial review over an appointment cancellation order that is mala fide or without jurisdiction?
- Can a civil servant's appointment be lawfully cancelled without issuing a show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing after they have assumed charge of their duties?
- Are appointees to a public post to be penalized for administrative irregularities or policy shifts committed by the department itself during the recruitment process?
- Javed Khan vs Pakistan through Secty. Interior2017 PLJ Peshawar 317, 2017 YLR 2109, 2017 PHC 553 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-25Read full judgment →
- Javed Khan vs Pakistan through Secretary Interior and 6 others2017 YLR 2109 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-25Read full judgment →
- Javed Khan vs Pakistan through Secretary Interior & 6 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 317 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-25Read full judgment →
- Jansher and another vs M.t. Zarmina and 11 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 157 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-13Read full judgment →
- Jan Noor vs Hidayat shah2017 PHC 642 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
- Jan Baz & 10 others vs Shah Nawaz & 02 others2017 PHC 398 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-05Read full judgment →
- Jadoon Khan vs Abdul Karam and 3 others2017 YLR 1031 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-14Read full judgment →
- Izzat Khan vs The StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 739 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing them to life imprisonment for the alleged recovery of 800 kilograms of charas from a truck. The core legal question concerns the legal effect of drawing a single consolidated sample instead of separate representative samples from each packet or container of the recovered narcotics, in light of binding precedents. The Peshawar High Court held that where separate samples are not drawn from each individual packet or container, only the quantity actually tested in the laboratory can safely be considered against the accused for the purpose of conviction and sentence. Consequently, the court converted the conviction from Section 9(c) to Section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine. The key principle laid down is that failure by the seizing and investigating agencies to follow established sampling protocols limits criminal liability to the precise quantity of the narcotic substance actually subjected to chemical analysis.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary value of a single consolidated sample taken from a bulk narcotic recovery consisting of multiple packets or containers?
- Can an accused cleaner of a vehicle be convicted of possessing concealed narcotics without establishing conscious knowledge?
- How is the quantum of punishment determined when investigating officers fail to follow mandatory sampling procedures for recovered narcotics?
- Whether the conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be reduced to a lesser section when only a single sample is legally proved.
- Izat Shah vs Intizar Gul2017 MLD 227 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-21Read full judgment →
- Irfan Younas vs Akhtar Ali etc2017 PHC 9 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-27Read full judgment →
- Irfan Aman Yousafzai and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary stablishment Division and 3 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 905 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, civil servants belonging to the Secretariat Group and Office Management Group, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging notifications SROs 88 and 89 altering promotion quotas and affecting their career prospects, alleging the same were unconstitutional, illegal, and mala fide. The core legal question was whether a High Court can entertain a constitutional petition by civil servants challenging the vires of service rules or notifications affecting their promotion prospects and terms and conditions under the guise of violation of fundamental rights and executive mala fide, in view of the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that the High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain such petitions, as matters concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants, including challenges to the vires of rules or notifications affecting promotion eligibility and prospects, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The key principle laid down is that civil servants cannot bypass the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by framing service disputes as violations of fundamental rights or executive mala fide.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a constitutional petition by a civil servant challenging the vires of service rules or notifications that affect their promotion prospects?
- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court when a service rule or notification is challenged on the ground of violating fundamental rights or being tainted with mala fide?
- Can a civil servant challenge the vires of service rules or notifications before the Federal Service Tribunal treating them as final departmental orders?
- What matters concerning promotion are expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the Services Tribunal leaving the jurisdiction of the High Court intact?
- Iqbal Hussain and others vs P.D.K.P. Sadp and others2017 YLR 611 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-24Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Hussain & four others vs Member Board of Revenue, etc2017 PHC 1289 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-19Read full judgment →
- Inamullah vs Government of KPK through Chief Secretary and 3 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 926 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by the petitioner challenging the refusal of the respondent authorities to appoint him as a constable despite his successful qualification in the recruitment process. The core legal question was whether a minor criminal conviction for a non-moral turpitude offense, specifically possessing ten .12 bore live cartridges, constitutes a valid legal ground to permanently debar a candidate from government service. The Court held that the refusal of appointment was unjustified and harsh, noting that the conviction did not involve moral turpitude, scandalizing the judiciary, or undermining state security. The Court emphasized that a lifelong ban on government employment for a minor offense involving a nominal fine constitutes an infringement of the fundamental right to life. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that minor criminal convictions not involving moral turpitude should not act as an absolute, permanent bar to public employment, as such exclusion must be proportionate to the offense.
Questions settled- Does a minor criminal conviction for a non-moral turpitude offense constitute a valid ground to permanently debar a candidate from government service?
- Can the refusal of public employment based on a minor criminal conviction be considered an infringement of the fundamental right to life?
- Is a conviction for possession of ammunition equivalent to an offense involving moral turpitude for the purposes of government employment eligibility?
- In Charge Sui Gas vs Messrs Swabi CNG Filling Station2017 MLD 1070 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-10Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz vs The State2017 YLR 971 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-01Read full judgment →