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.
- Collector Customs vs Lucky Cement2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-18Read full judgment →
- Civil Aviation Authority vs Govt. of KPK and others2017 PHC 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-13Read full judgment →
- Civil Aviation Authority through Director General vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and 3 others2017 PHC 18, 2017 YLR 2490 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-13Read full judgment →
- Chan Zeb vs The State2017 PHC 603 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
- Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another vs General Manager and 3 others2017 PTD 1036 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-16Read full judgment →
- Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board and another vs Mst. Rubina2017 YLR 2125 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-16Read full judgment →
- Hikmatullah vs The State & another2017 PHC 1016 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-08-24Read full judgment →
- Capt: Zahur Ahmad Khan vs Govt. of Pakistan & others2017 PHC 1220 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a retired civil servant seeking pro forma promotion to Basic Pay Scale 22 (BPS-22) from the date his juniors were promoted. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was lawfully deferred for promotion multiple times by the High Powered Selection Board and whether a retired civil servant could be granted pro forma promotion. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner's deferment was arbitrary, unjustified, and based on reasons beyond his control, and that under Fundamental Rule 17, a civil servant wrongfully prevented from promotion can be granted pro forma promotion even after retirement. The court laid down the principle that while promotion is not an absolute right, a qualified civil servant has a right to have their case considered strictly in accordance with eligibility criteria and established promotion policies, and deferment cannot be used arbitrarily to bypass an eligible officer.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim pro forma promotion after reaching the age of superannuation if wrongfully prevented from promotion during service?
- Whether the deferment of a civil servant's promotion by the Selection Board can be made on grounds beyond the officer's control?
- Does a civil servant have an enforceable right to have their promotion case considered strictly in accordance with the prescribed eligibility criteria?
- What are the permissible grounds for deferring a civil servant's consideration for promotion under the applicable promotion policy guidelines?
- Burhanullah vs Govt.2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-24Read full judgment →
- Behramand and 7 others vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2017 PLJ Peshawar 364 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Behram Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice &2017 PHC 963 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant working as a Reader, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging his transfer order from the Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances) to the Drug Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court could entertain a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a civil servant, given the constitutional bar under Article 212 relating to terms and conditions of service. The Court held that transfer and posting fall strictly within the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, ruling that matters concerning terms and conditions of civil servants fall within the exclusive domain of the relevant Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a petition against the transfer of a civil servant?
- Does the expression 'Terms and Conditions' of a civil servant include transfer and posting?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of High Courts in respect of matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
- Behram Khan and 3 others vs District Officer Revenue and Estate_Collector District Nowshera and others2017 CLC 764 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-08Read full judgment →
- Bazar Gul vs Balqiyas Khan and others2017 PHC 888 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
- Basit vs The State etc2017 PHC 836 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for the murder of Zard Ali and the attempted murder of the complainant under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given the ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence presented. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution’s case was fundamentally flawed due to material contradictions regarding the time of occurrence, the motive, and the consistency of witness statements. Furthermore, the failure to conduct forensic analysis on recovered crime empties and the lack of blood-stained earth at the complainant's alleged location created significant doubt. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove its case to the hilt, and an accused's failure to substantiate a plea of alibi does not automatically validate the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative, establishing that contradictions and investigative lapses entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an accused to prove a plea of alibi relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when there are material contradictions in the ocular testimony regarding the time and circumstances of the occurrence?
- Does the absence of forensic analysis on recovered crime empties, where multiple accused are charged, create reasonable doubt regarding the involvement of specific individuals?
- Is the testimony of an injured witness sufficient for conviction if it is tainted by contradictions and improvements?
- Barkatullah vs The State and another2017 YLR 1296 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-23Read full judgment →
- Barkat Hayat vs State through Additional Advocate-General Peshawar2017 P Cr. L J 167 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging concurrent orders from lower courts that dismissed his application for the sine die adjournment of a criminal case. The criminal case, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involved a bounced cheque, while a parallel civil suit for specific performance of an agreement regarding the same transaction was pending. The core legal question was whether a criminal trial must be stayed pending the outcome of a related civil suit. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that there is no legal provision requiring the stay of criminal proceedings merely because a civil suit involving the same transaction is pending. The Court affirmed that criminal and civil proceedings are distinct entities that can proceed concurrently. The key principle laid down is that criminal cases must be allowed to proceed on their own merits, as criminal liability and civil liability are separate matters, and the pendency of civil proceedings does not constitute a legal bar to the maintainability of criminal proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a criminal trial be adjourned sine die solely because a civil suit involving the same transaction is pending?
- Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding a transaction constitute a legal bar to the maintainability of criminal proceedings arising from the same transaction?
- Are criminal and civil proceedings distinct entities that can proceed concurrently?
- Bakhtiar vs State and another2017 YLR 2526 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Lakki, District Lakki Marwat. The core legal question was whether a juvenile aged fourteen years is entitled to bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 regardless of the nature or gravity of the offence. The Peshawar High Court held that under Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, the statutory embargo on granting bail in heinous or serious offences applies specifically to a child of fifteen years of age or above, whereas a child below fifteen years is entitled to bail as a matter of right. The key principle laid down is that the exception restricting bail for juveniles involved in heinous offences does not apply to a child under the age of fifteen years.
Questions settled- Is a child below the age of fifteen years entitled to bail under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 regardless of the nature of the offence?
- Does the proviso to Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 restrict the grant of bail to juveniles aged fifteen years or above involved in heinous offences?
- Bakhtiar Khan vs The State2017 PHC 825 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-15Read full judgment →
- Bakht Zada vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arises from a bail application filed by the petitioner, Bakht Zada, seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 110 registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khaki, District Mansehra, after such relief was denied by the lower court. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of further inquiry, discrepancies in evidence, non-recovery of empties, and a plea of juvenility. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner is prima facie linked with the commission of a gruesome double murder, that the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account, and that the plea of juvenility does not outweigh the gravity and specific manner of the alleged offense, which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that heinous offenses executed in such a manner disentitle the accused to bail regardless of tentative pleas.
Questions settled- Does a plea of juvenility automatically entitle an accused charged with a capital offense to the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Whether non-recovery of an empty from the place of occurrence is sufficient to make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497, Cr.P.C.?
- Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail when the accused is prima facie connected to a gruesome crime?
- Bakht Muhammad Khan & others vs Secretary Water & power2017 PHC 1130 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-22Read full judgment →
- Bakht Afsar vs Raj Bahadar and 2 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 245 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-13Read full judgment →
- Bacha Khan vs State & anothers2017 PHC 575 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-12Read full judgment →
- Azmatullah etc vs State2017 PHC 1104 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-08Read full judgment →
- Azam Khan vs Pakistan Tobacco Board Govt. of Pakistan through Chairman and 3 others2017 PLJ Peshawar 165 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ayesha Bibi vs Talha Mehmood and another2017 P Cr. L J 1080 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent-accused in a case registered under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge was perverse, erroneous, or resulted in a miscarriage of justice, thereby warranting cancellation under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the bail order was not patently illegal or factually incorrect. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of over four years, and there was no medical or other evidence prima facie connecting the accused to the alleged offence. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the established principle that bail cancellation is not a punitive measure and should only be exercised when the granting order is perverse, or when the accused has misused the concession of bail by tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses. Finding no such grounds, the Court upheld the bail.
Questions settled- Is the cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a punitive measure?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court cancel bail already granted by a lower court?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
- Aurangzeb Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2017 PHC 761 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a civil servant challenging the repeated deferment of his promotion to BPS-21 by the Provincial Selection Board. The petitioner contended that the deferment, based on a pending criminal case and the non-availability of Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs), was illegal and malafide. The core legal question was whether the High Court could interfere with the deferment of promotion or if such matters fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the deferment of promotion is neither a punishment nor a final adverse order, but a temporary procedural measure that ceases upon the resolution of the underlying reasons. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable, as disputes regarding promotion deferment must be adjudicated by the Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, rather than through writ jurisdiction. The principle established is that deferment is distinct from supersession, and the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain challenges to such administrative deferments.
Questions settled- Is the deferment of a civil servant's promotion considered a final adverse order subject to judicial review by the High Court?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a challenge against the deferment of promotion of a civil servant?
- What is the legal distinction between the deferment of promotion and the supersession of a civil servant?
- Attaullah vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 767 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Peshawar, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 7-h of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant made threatening phone calls demanding extortion money while identifying himself as a representative of a proscribed organization. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, the legal effect of illegal police custody prior to formal arrest, the evidentiary value of a hostile complainant, and mandatory compliance with Police Rules regarding recoveries and sealing of incriminating items. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to broken links in the circumstantial evidence, illegal detention of the appellant prior to formal arrest, failure to establish ownership of the SIM cards, and non-compliance with mandatory Police Rules. The court laid down that illegal police custody vitiates all subsequent proceedings, that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, and that the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence without relying on presumptions.
Questions settled- Whether illegal custody of an accused person vitiates subsequent police proceedings including recoveries and confessional statements?
- What is the evidentiary value of a star witness who has been declared hostile by the prosecution?
- Does the failure to seal recovered incriminating articles on the spot in accordance with Police Rules render the recovery doubtful?
- Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of admissions made by his defense counsel during cross-examination?
- Attaullah Jan vs KP Ehtesab Commission and others2018 MLD 1905, 2017 PHC 1258 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-08Read full judgment →
- Atta Ullah vs The State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 767, 2017 P Cr. L J 992 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 7-H of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant made threatening phone calls demanding extortion money while claiming to represent a militant organization. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, the effect of illegal police custody prior to formal arrest and nomination, the reliability of unsealed recoveries, and the consequences of the star complainant witness turning hostile. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish an unbroken chain of conclusive circumstantial evidence, that the appellant was shown arrested after being kept in illegal police custody, and that vital links such as ownership of SIM cards and voice matching were missing. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, laying down that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, and that illegal police custody vitiates subsequent recoveries and proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution can secure a conviction based on circumstantial evidence without establishing an unbroken, conclusive chain linking the accused to the crime?
- What is the legal effect of illegal police custody of an accused prior to formal arrest on subsequent recoveries and judicial proceedings?
- Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of admissions made by defense counsel during cross-examination without an admission under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the evidentiary value of alleged incriminating recoveries that are not sealed on the spot in accordance with the Police Rules 1934?
- Atta Ullah and 12 others vs Chief Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2017 PLC (C.S.) 62 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns multiple writ petitions challenging the validity of the North West Frontier Province Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, which regularized ad hoc and contract employees in the Education Department. Petitioners, existing civil servants, contended that the Act was unconstitutional, blocked their promotion avenues, and bypassed established recruitment procedures. The core legal questions were whether the Act constituted valid beneficial legislation and whether the regularization process infringed upon the legitimate expectancy of existing employees to be considered for promotion. The Court held that the Act is a valid piece of beneficial and remedial legislation, intended to cure defects in previous recruitment practices, and thus upheld its constitutionality. However, recognizing that the en bloc regularization adversely affected the promotion prospects of in-service employees, the Court ruled that promotion quotas must be strictly implemented. It directed the authorities to calculate and fill the promotion backlog within thirty days, emphasizing that while promotion is not a vested right, the right to be considered for promotion in accordance with established rules is a protected interest.
Questions settled- Is the North West Frontier Province Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, a valid piece of beneficial and remedial legislation?
- Does the regularization of contract employees under the North West Frontier Province Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, violate the rights of existing civil servants to be considered for promotion?
- Can the High Court interfere with service matters under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Does an existing civil servant have a vested right to promotion?
- Ateeb Ali vs Im Sciences through its director etc2017 PHC 670 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-19Read full judgment →
- Askari Bank Limited vs Panther CNG Station and one other2017 PHC 1077 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-12Read full judgment →
- Askar Abbas vs State2017 PHC 1005 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
- Asim Raziq vs The State2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-03Read full judgment →
- Ashfaq Ahmad vs State2017 PHC 815 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-11Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali Khan and 4 others vs Janan and 15 others2017 YLR 301 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the Additional District Judge-I, Bannu, and the Civil Judge-XI, Bannu, which dismissed the petitioners' application to make an arbitration award a rule of the Court. The dispute concerned agricultural land and verkha jaat, resolved initially through an arbitration agreement. The core legal question was whether a party can unilaterally file an arbitration award in court to have it made a rule of the court, particularly when the award was acted upon prior to judicial authentication. The Court held that under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, it is the arbitrator's responsibility to file the award in court, not the parties. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that it cannot mechanically approve an award; it must determine the award's legality, maintainability, and executability. The Court affirmed that when the law prescribes a specific manner for an act to be performed, it must be followed strictly. Finding the concurrent findings of the lower courts convincing, the High Court dismissed the revision petition as meritless.
Questions settled- Is a party to an arbitration agreement authorized to file an award in court to make it a rule of the court?
- Does the court have a duty to mechanically approve an arbitration award presented to it?
- What is the correct procedure for filing an arbitration award in court under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Arshad Khan vs The Chairman National Accountability Bureau NAB2017 YLR 1111 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-14Read full judgment →
- Arshad Khan vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Deputy Prosecutor General NAB and 2 others2017 P Cr. L J 1276 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the bail application of an accused facing charges under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, who has been incarcerated since April 2015. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of "hardship" due to the prolonged delay in the conclusion of his trial, despite the non-applicability of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to cases under the Ordinance. The Court held that while Section 497 is not strictly applicable, the broader principle allows for bail in "hardship cases" characterized by a shockingly long delay in trial proceedings. The Court found that the prosecution's failure to conclude the trial after two years, compounded by the joinder of charges leading to a de novo trial with 99 witnesses, constituted an indefinite and excessive delay. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution exhibits lethargic conduct and the trial cannot be concluded within a reasonable timeframe, the continued detention of an accused becomes a hardship, justifying the grant of bail to uphold the right to a speedy trial.
Questions settled- Can an accused facing charges under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 be granted bail on the ground of delay in trial despite the non-applicability of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the exercise of a legal right to seek joinder of charges constitute a delay attributable to the accused for the purpose of denying bail?
- What constitutes a 'hardship case' justifying the grant of bail for an accused in a National Accountability Bureau reference?
- Arshad Khan vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) etc2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-15Read full judgment →
- Arsala Ki-Ian and anothers vs Muhammad Falak Sher etc.PLJ 2017 Cr.C. Peshawar 126 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners, Arsala Khan and Said Nabi, who were charged under Sections 365-B and 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Mathra, Peshawar. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the evidence available against each individual. The Court held that the case against Arsala Khan fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and since the evidence, including Call Detail Record (CDR) data, established a prima facie connection to the crime, his bail request was rejected. Conversely, the Court found that the case against Said Nabi, a juvenile, lacked sufficient evidence or CDR data linking him to the offence, rendering his guilt a matter of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to Said Nabi while refusing it to Arsala Khan, emphasizing the necessity of prima facie evidence for bail in non-bailable offences.
Questions settled- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the offence charged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and prima facie evidence connects them to the crime?
- Does the absence of specific evidence or CDR data linking a co-accused to the commission of a crime entitle them to bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted to a juvenile accused when there is no overt act attributed to them in the FIR?
- Arab Shah vs State2017 PHC 843 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed upon the appellant for the murder of his son and the attempted murder of another son. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the case relied on a sole eyewitness account and contained material evidentiary contradictions. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies, including discrepancies between the FIR registration time and the medical examination, contradictions between the site plan and the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries, and the failure to produce supporting ocular testimony. The court affirmed that a conviction cannot be sustained on weak evidence where the prosecution's narrative is inherently improbable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and death sentence, acquitting the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that abscondence alone is insufficient for conviction and that the burden of proof remains strictly on the prosecution to present a consistent and credible case, which was not achieved in this instance.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of a complainant when the prosecution's case contains material contradictions?
- Is the abscondence of an accused sufficient grounds for conviction in the absence of other incriminating evidence?
- Does a discrepancy between the time of the FIR and the medical examination of the victim undermine the prosecution's case?
- Aqeel Khan vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1432 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of proceedings pending before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013. The petitioner contended that he had already been tried and acquitted by a Sessions Judge in relation to the same FIR, and therefore, a subsequent prosecution for an offence under the Arms Act constituted double jeopardy. The Court examined whether the petitioner was being prosecuted for the same offence twice. The Court held that the petitioner had only been tried for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the previous trial, not for the offence under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013. Consequently, the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate were found to be legally permissible. The Court affirmed that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the statutory bar under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply only when an accused is prosecuted for the same offence, which was not the case here.
Questions settled- Does a previous acquittal for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bar a subsequent trial for an offence under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013 arising from the same FIR?
- Does the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply when the offences in the two trials are distinct and independent?
- Under what circumstances does Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibit a second trial for the same offence?
- Aqal Zameer vs Mohi-Ud-Din and another2017 PLD Peshawar 179 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), 324, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence and imprisonment terms. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular testimony, the effect of minor improvements and omissions in the First Information Report, the evidentiary value of recoveries, and the determination of the appropriate quantum of sentence where a post-mortem report is absent. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through a reliable injured eye-witness, medical evidence, and corroborative recoveries, including the weapon of offense. However, taking into consideration mitigating circumstances such as the absence of a post-mortem report, the court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life while maintaining the convictions and other concurrent sentences. The key principle laid down is that minor omissions or technical lapses by the investigating agency do not vitiate a criminal trial if the ocular and circumstantial evidence remains confidence-inspiring and proves the guilt of the accused.
Questions settled- Whether minor omissions in the First Information Report regarding an additional eye-witness are fatal to the prosecution case?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of a post-mortem report when supported by medical reports and ocular testimony?
- Does the non-availability of a post-mortem report entitle an accused person to acquittal?
- Whether the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life is justified under mitigating circumstances?
- Anwer Ali vs Govt of KP and others2017 PHC 966 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-26Read full judgment →
- Amjid Ali vs State2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-18Read full judgment →
- Amjad Rehman and 3 others vs Farad Ali and another2017 CLC 1160 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-05Read full judgment →
- Amir Baz Khan vs State through Additional Advocate-General and another2017 P Cr. L J 1328 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to allegations of fraud and cheating in land transactions through unregistered sale deeds. The core legal question was whether exceptional grounds existed to recall the pre-arrest or post-arrest bail already granted by the competent court. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the principles governing the grant of bail and its cancellation are distinct, that the dispute primarily appeared to be of a civil nature requiring further inquiry regarding the authenticity of the sale deeds, and that the impugned bail order was neither perverse nor illegal. The court laid down the principle that cancellation of bail requires strong, exceptional reasons showing the bail order to be patently illegal, erroneous, or resulting in a miscarriage of justice, and that mere status as a fugitive or absconder does not automatically bar bail if the merits warrant it.
Questions settled- Whether the principles for the grant of bail are different from the principles for the cancellation of bail?
- Can bail granted by a competent court be recalled without showing strong and exceptional grounds that the order is patently illegal or perverse?
- Does a dispute arising from unregistered sale deeds of land primarily partake of a civil nature warranting caution in criminal bail matters?
- Does being an absconder or fugitive from justice automatically preclude an accused from being granted bail on merits?
- Aminullah & another vs Mst: Robina Pervaiz & others2017 PHC 1235 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-27Read full judgment →
- Amanullah vs The state2017 PHC 1044 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
- Aman Ullah vs SHO P.S Munda & other2017 PHC 578 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-15Read full judgment →
- Allied bank Ltd vs Anti corruption establishment govt of KPK etc2017 PHC 1099 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-20Read full judgment →
- All Swat Papar Chips and Pops Owners Association vs Bakht Afsar etc2019 P Cr. L J 225, 2017 PHC 1242 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses the maintainability of five criminal appeals filed under section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997, arising from various orders passed by Consumer Courts under section 15 of the said Act concerning non-penal matters such as utility disconnections, school fees, and unhygienic food items. The core legal question was whether an appeal to the High Court under section 17 of the Act is competent against orders of Consumer Courts that do not involve conviction or acquittal under section 16. The Court held that an appeal under section 17 is maintainable only when the impugned order relates to penal consequences under section 16, whereas orders passed under section 15 and other non-penal provisions cannot be challenged via criminal appeal. Establishing that the proper remedy for such non-penal orders is a constitutional petition, the Court nonetheless exercised its inherent powers to convert the incompetent criminal appeals into writ petitions rather than dismissing them outright, following established apex court precedents.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal under section 17 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997 is competent against an order passed by a Consumer Court under section 15 of the Act?
- Does the High Court have the power to convert an incompetent criminal appeal arising from consumer court proceedings into a constitutional writ petition?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy to challenge non-penal orders passed by a Consumer Court under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997?
- Do the provisions of Chapter XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to orders passed by Consumer Courts under section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997?
- Alam Sher vs Muhammad Usman Khan etc2017 PLJ Peshawar 313, 2017 PHC 270 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
- Alam Sher and 2 others vs Muhammad Usman Khan through Legal Heirs2017 PLJ Peshawar 313 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-05Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Nawaz vs The State and another2017 MLD 275 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-20Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Nawaz vs State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 220 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-20Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Muhammad vs The State and another2017 PLD Peshawar 55 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions by Anti-Terrorism Courts for kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7(e), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions addressed whether non-compliance with Section 19(10), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 regarding absconding co-accused vitiates the trial, whether ambiguous, combined charge-sheets prejudice the accused, and whether scheduled offences require a nexus with terrorism to be triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The Court held that while the failure to properly proceed against absconding co-accused does not necessarily vitiate the trial of present accused, the use of ambiguous, combined charge-sheets significantly prejudiced the appellants' right to a fair defense. The Court established that scheduled offences are exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Courts regardless of a nexus with terrorism. Furthermore, it ruled that distinct charges must be framed for each offence, and an accused cannot be sentenced under both the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act for the same act. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the cases were remanded for de novo trial with specific instructions on framing charges.
Questions settled- Does the failure to comply with Section 19(10) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 regarding absconding co-accused vitiate the trial of the arrested accused?
- Are offences listed in the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 exclusively triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court even if they lack a nexus with terrorism?
- Can an accused be sentenced under both the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for the same act of kidnapping for ransom?
- Does the framing of ambiguous, combined charge-sheets that fail to specify the applicable law prejudice the accused's right to a fair defense?
- Akbar Ali and others vs (Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2017 PHC 383 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-04Read full judgment →
- Ajmal vs Akhtar Ali and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, Ajmal, challenged his conviction and sentence for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased, Baseer Ali, following a trial before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Charsadda. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment and ordering compensation payment under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the appellant was convicted under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance for illegal possession of a weapon, receiving a three-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The court also granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to the appellant. The judgment records the procedural history of the conviction and sentencing, noting the specific penalties imposed for both the murder charge and the arms possession charge, including default clauses for non-payment of fines and compensation. The matter concerns the appellate review of these convictions and the corresponding sentences handed down by the trial court.
Questions settled- What is the prescribed punishment for Qatl-e-Amd under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to sentences of life imprisonment?
- What is the consequence of failing to pay compensation ordered under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Aizaz-Ul-Mulk vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary2017 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Aitbar Shah and others vs The State2017 PHC 877 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-02Read full judgment →
- Air Marshal (R) Syed Qaiser Hussain vs Sajid Hussain Toori and 4 others2017 CLC 617 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-03Read full judgment →
- Akbar Said vs The State2017 PHC 60 · Peshawar High Court · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
- Ahmadullah and others vs Govt of NWFP through Secretary Forest and others2017 PHC 1212 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Saeed Shah vs Government of Pakistani through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad and 3 others2017 CLC 969 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-18Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Danyal vs Islamia College, Peshawar through Registrar and 102017 PLD Peshawar 193 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-18Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Ali vs The State and 2 others2017 P Cr. L J 527 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in a case involving kidnapping for ransom, contending that the absence of a 'terrorist' element required the case's transfer to an ordinary court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question concerned whether such a case must be transferred pre-trial if the specific definition of terrorism is not met. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that kidnapping for ransom is a scheduled offence exclusively triable by the ATC. The Court established that Section 21-M(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, provides a mechanism for the ATC to convict an accused under ordinary penal laws if the terrorism charge fails upon the conclusion of the trial. Consequently, the Court ruled that the practice of invoking Section 23 for pre-trial transfer is unnecessary and counterproductive, as it causes inordinate delays. The judgment mandates that ATCs should proceed with trials and rely on the alternate conviction provision rather than engaging in protracted pre-trial jurisdictional disputes.
Questions settled- Does the absence of a 'terrorist' element in a scheduled offence require the transfer of the case from an Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary court?
- Can an Anti-Terrorism Court convict an accused under ordinary law if the charge of terrorism is not proven at the conclusion of the trial?
- Is kidnapping for ransom a scheduled offence exclusively triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
- Should Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, be invoked at the pre-trial stage to transfer cases to ordinary courts?
- Afsar Ali vs The State2017 MLD 1884 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-31Read full judgment →
- Abid Zareef Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PHC 1141 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-23Read full judgment →
- Abid Khan vs State2017 PHC 929 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-12Read full judgment →
- Abid Aziz vs Waqas and another2017 MLD 987 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment, alongside a criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value and reliability of an oral dying declaration (FIR) made by the deceased without a medical certificate of consciousness, and whether cumulative contradictions in ocular testimony, medical evidence, and crime-scene recovery create sufficient doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. The Peshawar High Court held that the absence of a medical certificate or recorded opinion affirming the injured person's full consciousness at the time of lodging the FIR undermines its status as a reliable dying declaration, and that multiple inconsistencies regarding weapon caliber, entry wound dimensions, absence of blood at the crime scene or on witnesses, and uncorroborated eyewitness accounts create serious doubt. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of doubt arising from material contradictions in medical and ocular evidence must be extended to the accused, leading to the setting aside of the conviction, acquittal of the appellant, and dismissal of the sentence enhancement revision.
Questions settled- What are the essential prerequisites for according the evidentiary status of a dying declaration to a report lodged by a deceased-complainant?
- Does the absence of a medical certificate or recorded observation regarding the consciousness of an injured person at the time of making an FIR vitiate its reliability as a dying declaration?
- Whether material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding weapon calibers and injury dimensions are sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to an accused?
- Can a conviction for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the site plan contradicts the medical evidence and lacks corroborative physical traces such as blood?
- Abdur Rehman and anothers vs Javed Mansoor and another2017 YLR 718 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-23Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rauf vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1096 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for the possession of explosive substances. The core legal question addressed by the Peshawar High Court was whether the mere possession of explosives, absent any evidence of their use in specific locations such as places of worship or court premises, falls within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court held that the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, restricts the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Courts regarding explosives to instances where they are used in specific protected locations. The Court further clarified that while amendments regarding simple possession of explosives exist in other provinces, such amendments are not applicable to the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that the offence falls under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and is triable by an ordinary Court of Session. The matter was remanded for a de novo trial before the Sessions Judge, Peshawar, ensuring the proper legal forum for the adjudication of the charges.
Questions settled- Does the mere possession of explosive substances fall within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?
- Is the use of explosives in specific places of worship or court premises a prerequisite for Anti-Terrorism Court jurisdiction under the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Are amendments regarding the simple possession of explosives in other provinces applicable to the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?
- Should a case involving the possession of explosives, which does not meet the criteria for an Anti-Terrorism Court, be remanded to an ordinary Court of Session?
- Abdur Rashid vs S. Fida-Ur-Rehman Shah2017 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-02Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Khan alias Amanat vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arose from a case registered under Sections 324, 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner and co-accused were charged with attempting to kill the complainant and witnesses by firing at them ineffectively. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the rule of consistency, given that a co-accused with an identical role had already been granted bail by the High Court. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner's case stood on the same footing as that of the co-accused, thereby justifying the concession of bail. The Court laid down the principle that judgments of the superior courts are constitutionally binding on subordinate courts as precedents in cases with identical facts and circumstances. Subordinate courts must strictly follow these precedents or, if declining relief, must explicitly differentiate the case, rather than passing routine, cyclostyle rejection orders.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to the concession of bail under the rule of consistency if a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted bail?
- Are the judgments of superior courts binding on subordinate courts in cases involving identical facts and circumstances?
- Is a subordinate court required to explicitly differentiate the case of an accused from that of a bailed co-accused if it decides to decline bail?
- Abdul Wajid vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2017 PLJ Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Wahab Khattak and others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PHC 624 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sammad alias Sammad vs The State and another2017 YLR 1967 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence handed down by the trial court for double murder and causing injuries to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s case, based on ocular testimony, medical evidence, and motive, was sufficient to sustain the conviction despite defense arguments regarding minor contradictions and existing enmity. The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence, finding the prosecution's evidence reliable and consistent. The court held that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not warrant discarding testimony if the evidence is otherwise straightforward and confidence-inspiring. Furthermore, the court established that the presence of enmity does not automatically discredit natural eyewitnesses, particularly when those witnesses are also injured victims. Additionally, the court affirmed that the abscondance of an accused, when supported by other evidence, serves as a valid corroborative piece of evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the death sentence.
Questions settled- Does the presence of minor contradictions in the statements of eyewitnesses necessitate the rejection of their testimony?
- Can the abscondance of an accused be considered as corroborative evidence in a criminal trial?
- Is the testimony of an eyewitness to be discarded solely on the ground of pre-existing enmity between the parties?
- Should the court read isolated sentences from evidence to favor the defense or consider the evidence as a whole?
- Abdul Qayyum and another vs Abdul Salam and 2 others2017 YLR 1323 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum alias Bhutto vs State and antherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 267 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This transfer application was filed by the petitioner seeking the transfer of a Sessions case pending before the Sessions Judge, Tank, to the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge, Tank. The petitioner alleged that the trial judge was biased and angry due to a complaint previously filed by the petitioner against the court. The core legal question was whether an apprehension of bias, based solely on adverse judicial orders and unsubstantiated claims, constitutes sufficient grounds for the transfer of a criminal case. The Court dismissed the application in limine, holding that mere apprehension of bias, without tangible evidence, is insufficient to justify the transfer of a case. The Court emphasized that judicial officers must be protected from frivolous and baseless allegations, which, if entertained, would undermine the independence of the judiciary and encourage litigants to exert pressure on trial judges. The ratio established is that a case cannot be transferred merely on the basis of supposition or conjectured apprehensions; rather, a balance must be struck to ensure that transfers are only granted when there is concrete proof of prejudice.
Questions settled- Is an adverse judicial order sufficient ground for the transfer of a criminal case?
- Does a mere apprehension of bias, without tangible evidence, justify the transfer of a case from one court to another?
- Should courts entertain vague and casual allegations of bias against presiding officers?
- Abdul Qayum alias Dil Jan vs Government of Pakistan through Collector2017 PLJ Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Nasir and another vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif and others vs Secretary, Works Welfare Board and others2017 MLD 209 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-25Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jalal vs Federation of Pakistan etc2017 PHC 291 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-25Read full judgment →
- Abasyn University through Vice Chancellor vs Federation of Islamic2017 PLC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Abasyn University, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court to challenge demand notices issued by the Employees' Old Age Benefit Institution (the Institution) for contribution payments under the Employees' Old Age Benefit Act, 1976. The petitioner asserted it was a statutory body exempt from such contributions, while the respondent argued the University qualified as an 'establishment' subject to the Act, alleging the University was a profit-oriented entity attempting to circumvent statutory obligations. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the dispute regarding the petitioner's status as an 'establishment' or whether the petitioner must first exhaust the statutory remedies provided under the Act. The Court held that the petition was premature and not maintainable because the Act provides a specific mechanism under Section 33 for resolving disputes regarding registration and contribution liability. The Court reasoned that determining the petitioner's status requires factual inquiries into employee scope and business nature, which are best addressed by the Institution itself rather than through writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to determine the status of an entity as an 'establishment' under the Employees' Old Age Benefit Act 1976 when statutory remedies are available?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable when an alternative, efficacious remedy exists under the Employees' Old Age Benefit Act 1976?
- Can the High Court adjudicate on disputed jurisdictional facts regarding the nature and scope of an entity's business in a writ petition?
- Ziarat Gul vs The StatePHC 2016 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-03Read full judgment →
- Zia Ullah vs District Police Officer, Nowshera2016 PLJ Peshawar 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-15Read full judgment →
- Zeeshan vs State2016-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-16Read full judgment →
- Zarkhawond vs Imdad Ullah2016 PLD Peshawar 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-06Read full judgment →
- Zalib Khan vs Nadir Khan and 2 others2016 YLR 2189 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-08Read full judgment →
- Zakir Ullah vs The State2016 YLR 2293 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-17Read full judgment →
- Zakir Ali vs The State2016 PLD Peshawar 204 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-17Read full judgment →
- Zakariya Khan vs United Bank of Pakistan and Others2016 NLR Labour 15 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This labour appeal arises from a judgment of the Labour Court dismissing the appellant's grievance petition for re-appointment following retrenchment. The core legal question is whether a retrenched employee of a private bank is entitled to preferential re-employment after the statutory one-year limitation period, and whether the case falls within the purview of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010. The Peshawar High Court held that the appellant's retrenchment occurred in 1997 under the Standing Orders, while the grievance petition was filed in 2007, long after the expiry of the one-year preference period, rendering the petition time-barred. Furthermore, the court held that the respondent, being a private bank, does not fall within the definition of employer under the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, and that the appellant had also crossed the age of superannuation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the Labour Court's decision.
Questions settled- Whether a retrenched employee can claim preferential re-employment after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under the Standing Orders Ordinance?
- Does a private bank fall within the definition of an employer under the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010?
- Can a grievance petition filed years after the cause of action accrued be entertained without a plausible explanation for the delay?
- Whether an employee who has crossed the age of superannuation is entitled to relief of re-employment?
- Zahir Shah vs Muhammad Sher Khan, SHO PS Mirian and another2016 P Cr. LJ 622 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of illicit arms, ammunition, hand grenades, and liquor from his residence. The lower court had refused bail, citing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) due to the nature of the recovered explosives. The core legal question was whether the alleged offences fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ATC and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the mere possession of explosives, without specific evidence of terrorist intent or use in a manner proscribed by the Third Schedule of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, does not automatically trigger the exclusive jurisdiction of the ATC. Furthermore, the court noted that the recovery was from a joint residential house without independent witnesses and lacked expert verification for the grenades. Applying the principle of further inquiry and the sentencing limitations under Section 71 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the court granted bail, ruling that the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does the mere possession of explosive substances automatically confer exclusive jurisdiction upon an Anti-Terrorism Court?
- Does the recovery of explosives from a joint residential house without independent witnesses constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Is the benefit of Section 71 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable when determining if a case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted in the absence of an expert forensic report regarding recovered explosive substances?
- Zahir Shah and others vs Shtamand and others2016 YLR 1532 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-06Read full judgment →
- Zahir Gul & 04 others vs Government of Pakistan through Additional ChiefPHC 2016 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-01Read full judgment →
- Zahid Khan and 6 otherss vs Shoaib Ahmad and anothers2016 CLC 1637, 2016 PLJ Peshawar 73 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-18Read full judgment →
- Zahid Khan and 6 others vs Shoaib Ahmad and another2016 PLJ Peshawar 73 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-18Read full judgment →
- Zahid Arif vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau, NAB and 42016 P Cr. L J 1302 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves three consolidated writ petitions challenging the National Accountability Bureau's (NAB) initiation of inquiries and investigations against the petitioners. The first petitioner, a government servant, had entered into a plea bargain with NAB in 2000. He was subsequently dismissed from service but was later reinstated following a Service Tribunal judgment and a formal departmental inquiry that exonerated him. Years later, NAB initiated investigations against him, the inquiry officer, and the former Chief Secretary who approved his reinstatement, on the ground that a plea bargain constitutes a conviction disqualifying him from service. The High Court examined the relevant provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 and the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000. It held that the amendments introducing the disqualification and cessation of public office for plea bargainers were enacted after the petitioner's plea bargain and could not be applied retrospectively to divest accrued rights. Consequently, the Court quashed the NAB proceedings as being without lawful authority and tainted by mala fides.
Questions settled- Can statutory amendments that impose a disqualification from holding public office upon entering a plea bargain be applied retrospectively to a person whose plea bargain was finalized before the amendments?
- Whether the High Court can exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to quash a NAB investigation if it is launched mala fide or without jurisdiction?
- Are criminal proceedings and departmental disciplinary proceedings distinct such that an exoneration in one does not automatically dictate the outcome of the other?
- Zafarullah Khan and another vs Chairman, NHA and others2016 MLD 404 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-29Read full judgment →