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.

• Imtiaz Ali vs State2017 PHC 932 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-13Read full judgment →
• Imran vs State2017 PHC 1106 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-09Read full judgment →
• Imran Qadri vs The StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 561 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-24
  narcoticscharasconscious possessionpresumption of guiltsampling procedurechemical examiner reportquantum of sentencereduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Court, Nowshera, convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine, after 10.800 Kgs of charas contained in secret cavities of a vehicle driven by him was recovered.

  The core legal questions before the High Court were whether the prosecution established conscious possession and a prima facie case to shift the burden of proof to the accused under Section 29 of the Act, and how the quantum of sentence should be computed when representative samples are not properly drawn separately from multiple packets.

  The High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence. Following binding precedents, the Court held that where multiple packets are recovered but samples are not taken separately from each packet, only the proportional weight represented by the validly tested sample can be used for sentencing. The average weight per packet was calculated at 1,200 grams, warranting a reduced sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment instead of life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply before the prosecution establishes initial physical recovery?
  • How is the chargeable weight of contraband calculated for sentencing when separate samples are not taken from each individual packet recovered?
  • Can a sentence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be reduced if only a portion of the total recovered quantity is legally proved through chemical analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Orakzai vs Sami Ul Haq2017 YLR 416 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-08Read full judgment →
• Imran Khan vs State2017 PHC 1001 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-25Read full judgment →
• Imran Dilawar vs State2017 PHC 988 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-18Read full judgment →
• Imran Amjad Khan vs Islamic Investment Bank Limited (Iibl), cantonment2017 PHC 1177 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-03Read full judgment →
• Inamullah vs The State and another2017 PHC 1316 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-15Read full judgment →
• Inamullah vs State one another2017 PHC 571 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-24Read full judgment →
• Ihsanul Haq vs The State through Additional Advocate-General and 32017 P Cr. L J 1348 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-24
  Superdariquashment petitioninterim custodycriminal breach of trustcase propertyownership dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This quashment petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the concurrent orders of the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, which granted the 'Superdari' (custody) of a disputed vehicle to the respondent. The core legal question was whether the lower courts were justified in awarding interim custody of the vehicle to one party based on contested documentary evidence while criminal proceedings were pending. The High Court observed that both parties claimed ownership through conflicting documents, such as agreements and receipts, making it impossible to determine the rightful owner at the pre-trial stage. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders to ensure a fair trial and prevent prejudice to either party. The key principle laid down is that where ownership of case property is highly disputed and supported by conflicting documentary evidence, it is inappropriate to grant interim custody (Superdari) to either party; instead, the property should be secured in the custody of the trial court until the final determination of the criminal case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant interim custody (Superdari) of a vehicle when ownership is disputed based on conflicting documentary evidence?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to maintain the status quo of case property pending the conclusion of a trial when ownership claims are contested?
  • Does a High Court have the authority under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to set aside orders granting Superdari to prevent prejudice in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs State2017 PHC 617 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-12Read full judgment →
• Hussain Shah vs The State and another2017 MLD 973 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-04
  criminal appealmurder convictioneyewitness reliabilityreasonable doubtcapital punishmentabscondencecorroborative evidenceSection 512 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court against the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, armed with a 7.62 bore rifle, shot the deceased while the complainant's other son, an alleged eyewitness, was present. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the evidentiary challenges regarding the eyewitness testimony and the complainant's statement. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. It found the eyewitness testimony unreliable due to contradictions regarding the time of occurrence and the implausibility of the witness escaping unharmed during indiscriminate firing. Furthermore, the complainant's statement, recorded under Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was deemed insufficient for a capital conviction without strong, independent corroboration, as it was not subjected to cross-examination. The Court emphasized that any reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must result in acquittal, and that abscondence alone cannot sustain a conviction when ocular evidence is disbelieved.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained solely on a statement recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without independent corroboration?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused person provide sufficient grounds for conviction if the primary ocular evidence is disbelieved?
  • Is the absence of injury on an alleged eyewitness during an incident of indiscriminate firing a valid ground to doubt their presence at the crime scene?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a site plan in a criminal trial when it contradicts the testimony of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Hemayatullah Mayar District Nazim, Mardan and another vs Chief2017 YLR 1182 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-24
  Local Government Commissionsuspension of Nazimcolourable exercise of powerconstitutional petitionstatutory interpretationbudget approvalprocedural ultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges a notification issued by the Local Government Commission suspending the District Nazim and Naib Nazim of Mardan for allegedly failing to pass the annual budget by a simple majority. The core legal questions concern whether the suspension was issued by a competent authority, whether the statutory conditions for suspension under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013 were met, and whether the Commission was properly constituted. The Court held that the impugned notification was illegal and without lawful authority. It found that the Local Government Commission was not properly constituted as required by law, failed to adhere to mandatory procedures for suspension, and lacked the power to issue the suspension order itself, as it could only recommend such action to the Chief Minister. Furthermore, the notification failed to provide the requisite reasons for suspension mandated by the statute. The Court affirmed the principle that when a statute prescribes a specific procedure for an act, it must be followed strictly, and any deviation constitutes a colourable exercise of power.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Local Government Commission unilaterally suspend a Nazim or Naib Nazim without recommending the action to the Chief Minister?
  • Is a suspension order valid if it fails to state the reasons required by the governing statute?
  • Does the misjoinder of the Chief Minister in a constitutional petition defeat the entire petition if other proper respondents are included?
  • Can a Local Government Commission exercise its powers if it has not been properly constituted according to the statutory requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Headmaster GHS Reshun vs Akbaruddin2017 PHC 956 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-03Read full judgment →
• Hassan Shah vs The State2017 PHC 631 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
• Haseeb Ahmad vs Mst: Wajiha Wakeel2017 PHC 768 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-03Read full judgment →
• Hasanaat Gul and 8 others vs Chief Minister Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PLJ Peshawar 221 · Peshawar High Court
  de novo inquirymisconductgovernment servantswrit jurisdictionservice lawefficiency and disciplineprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order for a de novo inquiry against government servants following an initial inquiry report that had already found the petitioners guilty of certain charges and recommended penalties. The core legal questions were whether a de novo inquiry is permissible under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 2011, when charges have been proven, and whether a writ petition is maintainable against such an interlocutory order. The Peshawar High Court held that a de novo inquiry under Rule 14(6) is only authorized when charges are not proven or the initial inquiry was procedurally flawed. Since the initial inquiry found the petitioners guilty, the competent authority was required to proceed under Rule 14(4). Furthermore, the authority failed to record mandatory reasons in writing for the de novo inquiry, violating both the Rules and Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court affirmed that the petition was maintainable as the order was interlocutory and not appealable before the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the de novo inquiry was declared illegal and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority order a de novo inquiry under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 2011, when the initial inquiry has already found the charges proved?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order for a de novo inquiry in service matters?
  • Does the failure to record reasons in writing for a de novo inquiry render the order illegal under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Is an order for a de novo inquiry considered a final order appealable before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Haroon Rashid vs The State2017 PHC 1067 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
• Haroon Khan and another vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 438 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-02
  post-arrest bailnarcotics traffickingfurther inquiryconscious knowledgerecovery from vehicleControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners, Haroon Khan and Muhammad Saeed, who were charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession and trafficking of 8400 grams of charas recovered from a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the recovery of narcotics from the vehicle they occupied. The Court held that the driver, Haroon Khan, exercised control over the vehicle and thus reasonable grounds existed to believe he committed the offence, bringing his case within the restrictive limbs of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, leading to the dismissal of his bail plea. Conversely, regarding the co-accused, Muhammad Saeed, who was a passenger, the Court held that his conscious knowledge of the concealed narcotics remained a matter for the trial court to determine after evidence, thereby establishing a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to Muhammad Saeed while dismissing the application of the driver.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle justify the denial of bail to the driver of said vehicle?
  • Is a passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics entitled to bail when their conscious knowledge of the contraband is not immediately apparent?
  • When does a case for 'further inquiry' arise in the context of bail applications for narcotics offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Haq Dad vs The Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise Appellate2017 PTD 488 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Rab Nawaz vs Chief Executive (PESCO) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 7 others2017 YLR 839 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Nek Amal vs Dr. Suhail Baluch and others2017 MLD 711 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-03-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Mir Ilyas and others vs Haji Gul Badshah and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 286 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Lal Muhammad vs State through Advocate General of KPK and 52017 PLJ Peshawar 8 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Faqir Khan vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1017 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-04
  post-arrest bailemigration fraudfurther inquirypreliminary inquirydelay in FIRalternative punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Haji Faqir Khan, who was charged under sections 18(b) and 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly extorting money under the false promise of employment abroad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and the nature of the alleged offence. The Court observed that the prosecution's case relied on an agreement deed involving a witness whose statement had not been recorded, and there was ambiguity regarding whether the complainant was cheated or traveled abroad voluntarily. Furthermore, the Court noted that the accused was not directly named in the FIR and was charged only after a significant delay of two and a half years. Holding that the offences carried alternative punishments of fine and that refusing bail would effectively amount to punishment without trial, the Court granted the bail petition. The key principle established is that where the prosecution's case requires further inquiry and the potential punishment includes a fine, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the offence charged carries an alternative punishment of a fine?
  • Does a significant delay in charging an accused in the FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Should bail be granted when the prosecution's evidence regarding the alleged extortion remains uncorroborated by witness statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Bakhtiar and 11 others vs Syed Munawar Shah Bacha2017 YLR 388 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Bahadar Hilal vs Managing Director, F.D.C. Offices Hayatabad, Peshawar and 9 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 257 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Amir Rahman and others vs Government QF Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 YLR 564, PLJ 2D17 Peshawar 90 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Amir Rahman and 3 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 YLR 564 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-07Read full judgment →
• Haider Zaman vs The State etc2017 PHC 870 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
• Haider Ali vs The State & another2017 PHC 911 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Ilyas and 6 others vs Government of Khyber2017 PLJ Peshawar 73 · Peshawar High Court
  terms and conditions of serviceconstitutional barArticle 212Service Tribunalministerial staffpolice departmentspecial allowanceemolumentsservice structurewrit petition maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil servants serving in the ministerial wing of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Department filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking directions for the grant of various allowances (including special/secretariat allowances, risk allowance, and fixed daily allowance) at par with uniformed police personnel and secretariat staff, as well as the formulation of a proper service structure for promotions and time-scale up-gradation. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether claims for allowances, pay, and service structures constitute 'terms and conditions of service', thereby barring the High Court's jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court held that under Section 2(e) and Section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act 1973, 'pay' encompasses emoluments and allowances. Consequently, claims relating to pay and service structure fall squarely within terms and conditions of service, over which the Service Tribunal exercises exclusive jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act 1974. The constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution applies fully, even where violations of fundamental rights or discrimination under Article 25 are alleged. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Do claims for allowances and emoluments fall within the definition of pay and thereby constitute terms and conditions of service under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 in matters relating to the pay, allowances, and service structure of civil servants?
  • Can a civil servant bypass the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by asserting a violation of fundamental rights or discrimination under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Khan and another vs Mst. Bibi Amina and 2 others2017 CLC 458 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-18Read full judgment →
• Habib ullah vs Sakhawat Shah and others2017 PHC 1184 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-14Read full judgment →
• Habib Khan vs Sajid Mehmood and another2017 YLR 69 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-30
  murdercriminal appealacquittal of co-accusedindivisible evidenceindependent corroborationbenefit of doubtimproving testimonyappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question was whether a conviction can be sustained on the same set of indivisible evidence that led to the acquittal of co-accused persons, in the absence of independent corroboration. The Peshawar High Court held that where the role of the appellant is indistinguishable from that of acquitted co-accused and the testimony of the sole eye-witness is indivisible and tainted with dishonest improvements, conviction cannot be maintained. The Court laid down the principle that the same set of evidence disbelieved against acquitted co-accused cannot form the basis of a capital conviction against a co-accused without strong, independent corroboration from an unimpeachable source. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained on the same set of evidence that was disbelieved regarding acquitted co-accused whose acquittals have attained finality?
  • Whether the testimony of a solitary eye-witness whose role is identical to acquitted co-accused is divisible without strong independent corroboration?
  • Does a material improvement in the testimony of an eye-witness create serious doubt regarding his presence at the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Akbar vs Pir Azam Syed2017 YLR 26 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-31Read full judgment →
• Gulfaraz Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2017 PLD Peshawar 23 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-10Read full judgment →
• Gul Wali---Petitioner vs Umar and another---Respondents2017 P Cr. L J 1709 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-25
  post-arrest bailnocturnal incidentfurther inquiryabscondencemurderFIR
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Gul Wali, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the murder of Muhammad Wali. The incident occurred at night, and the initial FIR was registered against unknown persons. The complainant subsequently implicated the petitioner and a co-accused in a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 over a month later, without disclosing the source of his information. The Court observed that there was no ocular account of the incident, no judicial confession, and no incriminating recovery from the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner's participation in the offence required further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court ruled that mere abscondence does not preclude the grant of bail when the case otherwise merits it on the basis of available material. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere abscondence of an accused preclude the grant of bail when the case otherwise merits it?
  • Can bail be granted when the initial FIR is against unknown persons and the subsequent implication lacks a disclosed source of information?
  • Does the absence of incriminating recovery and judicial confession entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Rehman vs Khadim Hussain and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 152 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-16Read full judgment →
• Gul Faraz vs Muhammad Faraz and 2 others2017 YLR 2074 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-30Read full judgment →
• Govt. of KPK through Secretary Communication & Works Department, Peshawar and others vs Haji Safirullah and others2017 PHC 674 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-13Read full judgment →
• Govt vs Nizam Gul2017 PHC 881 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-05Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Senior Member Board of Revenue and 3 others vs Nawabzada Muhammad Shahabuddin through legal Heirs and others2017 YLR 1887 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-17Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others vs Muhammad Inam2017 YLR 174 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-17Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ullah vs State2017 PHC 981 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sher and 6 others vs Mst. Bibi Shan and 21 others2017 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State2017 PHC 692 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs The State and another.2017 PHC 613 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-31Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Khan, etc. vs Aziz-Ur-Rehman2017 PLJ Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Khan vs Director General Agricultural Research Peshawar etc.2017 PHC 822 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-13Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Khan and others vs Aziz-Ur-Rehman2017 PLJ Peshawar 71, 2017 CLC 366 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ghani Khan vs Inamullah & others2017 PHC 689 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-06Read full judgment →
• Ghafoor Khan vs Secretary to Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Education Department Peshawar and 4 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 32 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-11Read full judgment →
• Ghaffar Ali vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-17
  murderattempted murderbenefit of doubtinjured witnessabscondencemedical evidence contradictioncriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants under sections 302, 324, and 337-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a double-offence FIR involving murder and injury. The core legal questions involve the reliability of ocular testimony, the corroboration of an injured witness, the significance of missing crime empties and blood recovery, and the medical consistency of multiple accused firing at victims. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, lack of independent corroboration, absence of blood recovery where the injured witness allegedly fell, and medical evidence indicating a single assailant rather than two. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and laid down the principle that abscondence cannot substitute for concrete and reliable prosecution evidence, and that even a slight doubt in the prosecution case warrants the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured witness can be relied upon without independent corroboration when the medical and physical evidence contradicts his presence at the spot?
  • Can mere abscondence of an accused serve as a substitute for concrete and reliable prosecution evidence to prove guilt?
  • Does the absence of crime empties and blood recovery from the scene of the crime cast serious doubt on the prosecution's ocular account?
  • Whether similar dimensions of firearm entry wounds on the bodies of the victims can indicate the involvement of a single assailant rather than multiple accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Frontier Mine Owners Association vs Govt. of KPK2017 PHC 747 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-17Read full judgment →
• Firdos Aziz vs Asif Aziz etc2017 PHC 1102 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-21Read full judgment →
• Fida Muhammad & others vs Govt. of KPK through Chief Secretary & others2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-12
  civil servantsresidential accommodationrules of businessmandatory consultationlegitimate expectancywrit jurisdictionstatutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, government employees, challenged the validity of the Residential Accommodation at Peshawar (Procedure for Allotment Rules, 2015), which were promulgated by the Provincial Government under Section 26 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether these rules were validly enacted, specifically regarding the mandatory requirement of consultation with the Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights Department as prescribed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Rules of Business, 1985. The Court held that the rules were unconstitutional and illegal because the mandatory procedure for consultation under Rule 12(5) of the Rules of Business, 1985, was bypassed. The Court emphasized that the Law Department's consultation is a mandatory prerequisite for issuing statutory rules to ensure legal structure and compliance. Furthermore, the Court found that the abrupt withdrawal of long-standing allotment facilities for the families of civil servants violated the principle of legitimate expectancy and was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Consequently, the 2015 Rules were struck down for failing to adhere to established procedural and constitutional mandates.

  Questions settled

  • Is consultation with the Law Department mandatory before the promulgation of statutory rules under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Rules of Business, 1985?
  • Can the provincial government unilaterally withdraw long-standing allotment facilities for civil servants without adhering to procedural requirements?
  • Does the failure to consult the Law Department render statutory rules promulgated by the provincial government illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hijrat vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 155 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-03
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsheroin recoveryprohibitory clausequantum of sentencepre-trial conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail petition filed by the accused-petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a narcotics case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the recovery of 1200 grams of heroin. The petitioner contended false implication, lack of independent witnesses, and the absence of an FSL report, arguing that the quantity recovered did not warrant the maximum sentence. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's direct connection to the offence and the application of the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while the accused was directly charged, the critical consideration for bail is the likelihood of the sentence at the conclusion of the trial rather than the maximum statutory penalty. Emphasizing that the quantum of sentence must be proportionate to the recovered contraband, the Court determined that denying bail would amount to pre-trial conviction. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that bail should be granted when the likely sentence is not the maximum statutory penalty and there is no prior criminal record.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of 1200 grams of heroin automatically disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Should the court consider the maximum statutory sentence or the likely sentence when deciding a bail petition?
  • Is the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics recovery case a ground for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Subhan And Another vs Chamnay and Another2017 MLD 2079 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-25Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rahim vs Akbar Ayub, etc2017 PHC 712 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-07Read full judgment →
• Fazal Majeed vs Muhammad Amar and another2017 P Cr. L J 71 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-15
  murderdeath sentenceocular testimonyblood feudfirearms expert reportprompt FIRrelated witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected murder reference for confirmation. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot and killed the deceased due to a previous blood feud. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony from related and interested witnesses, the corroborative value of prompt FIR lodging, medical evidence, and forensic matching of crime empties with the weapon recovered upon the appellant's prompt arrest. The Peshawar High Court held that the eyewitness accounts were natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, and that mere relationship does not discredit otherwise truthful witnesses. The court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, establishing that prompt reporting, corroborated ocular testimony, and positive firearms expert reports sufficiently prove a murder charge beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and interested eyewitnesses can be relied upon for conviction in a murder case without independent corroboration?
  • Does a prompt lodging of the FIR eliminate the possibility of deliberation and false implication of an accused?
  • Whether a positive FSL report matching crime empties with the weapon recovered from the accused serves as strong corroborative evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses during cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Muhammad and Others vs Kifayatullah and Another2017 NLR Civil 83 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-18Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Ali vs .Dr. Ahmad Khan Hoti and others2017 CLD 1158 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-14
  auction bidexecution petitiondecretal amountconfirmation of auctionbanking courtvested rightsatisfaction of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, challenges a Banking Court's order that consigned an execution petition to the record room after the judgment debtors satisfied the decretal amount. The core legal question was whether an auction purchaser, having submitted the highest bid, acquired a vested right to have the auction confirmed despite the judgment debtors subsequently paying the entire decretal amount before the court formally confirmed the sale. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the auction proceedings were never finalized or confirmed. Because the judgment debtors paid the full decretal amount with the court's permission, the decree was satisfied, and the execution petition was correctly consigned to the record room. The judgment affirms the established legal principle that an auction bid constitutes merely an offer and does not create any vested right in the property for the bidder until the court formally confirms the auction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a highest bid in an auction create a vested right in the property before the court confirms the auction?
  • Can an execution petition be consigned to the record room if the judgment debtor pays the entire decretal amount before the auction is confirmed?
  • Is a bid in an auction considered a final sale or merely an offer prior to judicial confirmation?
  Read full judgment →
• Fawad vs The State & another2017 PHC 915 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
• Farid Ullah vs The State throughAdvocate General and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 277, 2017 MLD 117 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-04Read full judgment →
• Farid Ullah vs State through Advocate General and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 277 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-04
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfresh ground for bailsecond bail applicationco-accusedmaintainability of bail petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 387 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 25 of the Telegraph Act 1885, and Section 7-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The petitioner's previous bail application had been dismissed, but he filed a subsequent petition based on the 'rule of consistency' following the Supreme Court's grant of bail to a co-accused. The core legal question was whether a second bail application is maintainable when based on a ground, such as the release of a co-accused, that was unavailable during the initial dismissal. The Court held that a subsequent bail application is maintainable if it presents a fresh ground not available at the time of the earlier dismissal. Finding that the petitioner's role was comparable to that of the co-accused who had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail. The judgment affirms that the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused is released on bail, provided the petitioner's circumstances are sufficiently similar.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second bail application maintainable if it is based on a ground that was not available at the time of the dismissal of the first bail application?
  • Does the release of a co-accused on bail by the Supreme Court constitute a valid fresh ground for a petitioner to file a subsequent bail application?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when the role of the petitioner is at par with a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Khan vs The State2017 MLD 35 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-16Read full judgment →
• Faisal Qazafi vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman and 4 other2017 PLJ Peshawar 351 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Faisal Khan and 3 others vs The State and another2017 PHC 263, 2017 MLD 1220 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-24Read full judgment →
• Faisal Khan and 3 others vs The State & Amanullah Khan.2017 PHC 263 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-24Read full judgment →
• Faheem Ullah vs The State2017 PHC 730 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-09Read full judgment →
• Eid Badshah vs State2017 PHC 592 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-31Read full judgment →
• Dubai Islamic Bank through Recovery Officer vs The State and another2017 CLD 417 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
• Dubai Islamic Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. through Recovery Officer vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 538 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dubai Islamic Bank (Pvt) Ltd through Recovery Officer vs The State and another2017 MLD 500 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shama Hidayat vs Chairmain PSC2017 PHC 301 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-05Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mukhtiar Ali Shah vs Ahmad Shah2017 YLR 2247 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-01
  defamationfreedom of presspublic servantcriminal revisioncomplaint dismissaljournalistic privilegeArticle 19
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a defamation complaint filed by a medical doctor against a local journalist under Sections 500 and 501 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner alleged that a news report regarding irregularities at a public hospital defamed him. The core legal question was whether the journalist’s report on a government-led inspection of a public facility constituted actionable defamation. The Peshawar High Court upheld the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the journalist merely reported factual events concerning a public raid. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, as a public servant, is subject to public scrutiny, and the second exception to Section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 protects good-faith opinions regarding the conduct of public servants. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that freedom of the press, guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, protects such reporting. Consequently, the Court ruled that no prima facie case of defamation existed, as the essential element of mens rea was absent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complaint be dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a preliminary inquiry?
  • Does the reporting of a public inspection of a government hospital by a journalist constitute defamation under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Are public servants exempt from public criticism regarding their official conduct under the second exception to Section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the freedom of the press under Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 protect the reporting of factual events involving public institutions?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mehfooz Hussain, Asstt. Professor Ophthalmology, Peshawar vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary to Govt. Health Department, Peshawar & 5 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 320 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Khushnood Ali Baz vs Govt of KPK etc2017 PHC 295 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ikramullah Khan vs Khyber Pakhtunkahwa, Agricultural2017 PLC (C.S.) 615 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-04
  service matterassociate professor appointmentqualification equivalenceteaching experienceselection boardconstitutional jurisdictionbias of selection board member
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the recommendation and selection process for the post of Associate Professor (BPS-20) in Weed Science at the Agricultural University, Peshawar. The core legal questions involved whether candidates holding Ph.D. degrees titled in 'Agricultural Science' with specialization and thesis in 'Weed Science' met the advertisement criteria, how teaching experience should be calculated, and whether the inclusion of a purportedly biased departmental chairman vitiated the Selection Board's proceedings. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that agricultural science acts as an overarching umbrella discipline and the specific thesis and coursework in Weed Science satisfied the qualification requirement. The court further held that experience is the actual acquisition of knowledge through practical involvement rather than strictly salaried regular service, and that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to substitute the subjective assessment of expert selection bodies or entertain vague allegations of bias against a statutory member of a multi-member board. The key principle laid down is that High Courts under constitutional jurisdiction will not act as appellate bodies over the subjective evaluations and professional determinations of expert selection boards of statutory institutions unless clear mala fides or statutory violations are established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Ph.D. degree titled in Agricultural Science with a specialized thesis in Weed Science fulfills the qualification requirement for a post requiring a Ph.D. in Weed Science?
  • How should teaching experience be reckoned for academic appointments, and does it strictly require service on a regular paid basis?
  • Can the decision of a Selection Board be challenged and set aside under constitutional jurisdiction on the mere allegation of bias against a single statutory member?
  • To what extent can a High Court substitute its own opinion for that of a statutory selection body in matters of academic appointments and evaluations?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farhat Naz vs Chairman Selection/Promotion Board, Ayub Teaching2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farhat Naz vs Chairman Selection/Promotion Board, Ayub2017 MLD 1842 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-13
  constitutional petitionservice matterselection boardmerit listpostgraduate experiencesenior registrar appointmentallocation of marks
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Peshawar High Court resolves two consolidated constitutional petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, assailing the selection and appointment of the private respondent as Senior Registrar Medicine (BPS-18) at Ayub Teaching Hospital, Abbottabad. The core legal question concerned the validity of the allocation and adjustment of marks by the Selection Board regarding postgraduate experience and Registrar service, which altered the initial merit list prepared by the scrutiny committee. The Court held that the award of experience marks to the respondent in a subspecialty and during a period of extraordinary leave was unjustified under the relevant rules, and that the petitioner could not be arbitrarily deprived of her experience marks as Junior Registrar due to a subsequent unilateral cancellation of her appointment order by the institution. Consequently, the Court resolved the issue of mark allocation in accordance with the remand directions of the Supreme Court and referred the matter back to the competent selecting authority for fresh selection in light of its findings. The key principle laid down is that an employee cannot be penalized for administrative defaults of an institution, and experience gained during official leave on full pay cannot be excluded for merit evaluation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can be penalized or deprived of experience credit for a defect or default on the part of the appointing institution in issuing an appointment order?
  • Can experience gained in a separate subspecialty or during a period of extraordinary leave without pay be counted towards postgraduate experience for appointment as Senior Registrar Medicine?
  • Whether the period of earned leave and maternity leave granted on full average pay can be excluded from a candidate's calculation of professional experience?
  • Does the High Court possess the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to review and resolve disputes concerning the allocation of marks by a selection committee in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Attaur Rehman vs The State & another.2017 PHC 908 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Anwar Zada vs The State and 2 others2017 P Cr. L J 1510 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-02
  post-arrest bailchild abuseprohibitory limbnon-compoundable offencecompromisemoral turpitudeheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail petition filed by Dr. Anwar Zada seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 620 dated 10.9.2016 under sections 377 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 53 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the heinous nature of the allegations involving the sexual abuse of an 11-year-old child and the existence of a purported compromise between the parties. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is heinous, relates to moral turpitude, and is non-compoundable, rendering a private compromise ineffective for granting bail. The key principle laid down is that in heinous, non-compoundable offenses involving child abuse, a compromise between the parties does not warrant the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged with child sexual abuse under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Child Protection and Welfare Act, 2010 is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Can a compromise between the parties serve as a ground for granting bail in a non-compoundable and heinous offense?
  • Does a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provide sufficient tentative connection of the accused to the crime for refusing bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Akbar Shah, Consultant & Incharge Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health and 3 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 329 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad & 1 another vs Fazal Sultan2017 CLD 1602, 2017 PHC 585 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
• Dost Ahmad and another vs Fazal Subhan and 2 others2017 CLD 1602 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
• District Nazim, Torghar and another vs Government of Khyber2017 CLC 784 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-13Read full judgment →
• Dilbar vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 844 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-01
  concurrent sentencesconsecutive sentencesjail petitionquantum of sentencecriminal procedureinterpretation of statutesbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a jail criminal miscellaneous petition filed by a convict, Dilbar, seeking clarification or direction regarding whether his sentences in two separate criminal cases ought to run concurrently or consecutively, given that the previous appellate judgments were silent on the matter. The core legal question involves the interpretation and application of sections 35 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused is convicted in multiple distinct trials. The Peshawar High Court held that where judgments are silent on whether sentences in separate trials should run concurrently or consecutively, the provisions of section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply, empowering the court to exercise its discretion in favour of liberty. The Court ruled that the sentences awarded in the two separate cases shall run concurrently, emphasizing the principle that penal provisions should be interpreted to protect personal liberty where the statute permits judicial discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sentences awarded in separate trials should run concurrently or consecutively when the appellate judgment is silent?
  • Does section 35 or section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when a convict is sentenced in two different cases arising from separate FIRs and trials?
  • Can the High Court order sentences from distinct trials to run concurrently in the interest of liberty?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan through L.Rs, and others vs Mir Qadam Jan and others2017 YLR 1211 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-18Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan (deceased) through Legal Heirs and others vs Mir Qadam2017 YLR 1211, 2017 PLJ Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-18Read full judgment →
• Deputy Land Commissioner KPK, Peshawar & two others vs Chairman2017 PHC 716 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-07Read full judgment →
• Daulat Khan vs State2017 PHC 973 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-13Read full judgment →
• Daud vs Maroof2017 YLR 1071 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-05Read full judgment →
• DarulQaza]Turab Khan vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government and 9 others2017 MLD 957 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-14Read full judgment →
• Daggar Bunir & others vs Sher Afzal Khan2017 PHC 808 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-10Read full judgment →
• Dar-ul-Qaza] Muhammad Wali Shah and another vs State and another2017 P Cr. L J 779 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-04
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencesite planforensic analysismurderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for murder and causing hurt following a dispute over water. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged discrepancies in the ocular evidence, medical reports, and investigative procedures. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with significant doubts, including unexplained improvements in the site plan, contradictions between the ocular account and the medical report regarding the cause of death, and the failure to send the alleged weapon of offence for forensic analysis. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt. It establishes that even a single reasonable doubt arising from the evidence, such as deliberate improvements by witnesses or inconsistencies in the medical findings, necessitates the acquittal of the accused, as the benefit of such doubt must be extended to them as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deliberate improvement in a site plan by the investigating officer undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a discretionary concession or a right of the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence fails to conclusively establish the cause of death and contradicts the ocular account?
  • Does the failure to send the weapon of offence for forensic analysis create a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue (Rto), Peshawar vs Zubair Ahmad2017 PTD 450 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-08Read full judgment →
• Hikmat Shah vs The State etc2017 PHC 1109 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-16Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs vs Lucky Cement Ltd. through Chief Executive2017 PTD 1272 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →