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.
- Zafar Hameed and others vs Nescom2016 MLD 674 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-18Read full judgment →
- Yousaf vs The State2016 MLD 343 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-08Read full judgment →
- Yousaf Khan vs Radat Khan alias Toray and 2 otherss2016 YLR 2367 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-31Read full judgment →
- Yousaf Ayub Khan vs Government through Chief Secretary, Peshawar2016 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Peshawar High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging the vires of certain paragraphs and schedule of the Shariah Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2009 (NWFP Regulation No. 1 of 2009). The core legal questions revolved around whether provisions establishing "Executive Magistrates" and entrusting them with judicial functions were ultra vires Articles 2-A, 175(3), 203, and other fundamental rights of the Constitution, and whether the Regulation's repeal of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, contravened Article 143 of the Constitution. The Court held that the petitioners had locus standi as the matter involved public interest and fundamental rights. The Court struck down paragraphs 5(e), 7, 19(2), Schedule III, and related provisions of the Regulation, along with associated notifications, declaring them ultra vires the Constitution. The decision affirmed that the establishment of Executive Magistrates with judicial powers violates the constitutional mandate of judicial independence and separation of powers, and that the repeal of a federal law by a provincial regulation was void under Article 143. Pending proceedings before invalidated Executive Magistrates were ordered transferred to Judicial Magistrates/Sessions Judges, and past transactions were saved.
Questions settled- Whether provisions of a regulation entrusting judicial functions to Executive Magistrates are ultra vires the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can a provincial regulation validly repeal a federal law where the federal law is competent to be enacted by Parliament, in light of Article 143 of the Constitution?
- Does the establishment of Executive Magistrates with judicial powers violate the constitutional principle of separation of judiciary from the executive?
- Whether the High Court has exclusive supervision and control over all subordinate courts, including those created by a provincial regulation?
- Can a person who is not personally aggrieved challenge a law enacted in contravention of fundamental rights in public interest?
- Yousaf Ali vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief Election2016 MLD 1881 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-29Read full judgment →
- Younas Khan and otherss vs Dor R&E Peshawar and otherss2016 PLJ Peshawar 276 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-06Read full judgment →
- Wazur Gul vs State2016-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-10Read full judgment →
- Wazir Gul vs The State and 2 others2016 P Cr. LJ 951 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Wazir Gul, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 49/2015 registered under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, section 30 of the NADRA Ordinance, section 14 of the Foreigners Act, and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, after being denied relief by the Special Judge (Central) Peshawar. The core legal question was whether an Afghan national accused of fraudulently procuring Pakistani Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) in connivance with NADRA officials was entitled to post-arrest bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the accused was prima facie connected with a serious offense involving national security and was not entitled to bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with observations that the trial court should decide the case independently on its merits.
Questions settled- Is a foreign national accused of fraudulently obtaining a Pakistani CNIC entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the procurement of Pakistani identity cards by non-nationals constitute a sufficient ground to deny bail during an ongoing terrorism wave?
- Wasiullah vs Ali Mohseen and 2 others2016 P Cr. LJ 1124 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition calls in question an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bannu, whereby the prosecution was allowed to record the statement of an injured prosecution witness whose statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had not been recorded during the investigation due to his being under treatment and unable to talk in the hospital. The core legal question was whether a witness whose statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was not recorded during investigation can be examined during the trial, and whether such non-recording violates Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the law does not place an embargo on the examination of a person during trial simply because their statement under Section 161 was not recorded, provided they are cited in the First Information Report and the report under Section 173. The court laid down the principle that the absence of a police statement under Section 161 does not bar a witness from testifying, and trial courts possess ample power under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to examine witnesses essential for the just decision of the case.
Questions settled- Whether a witness whose statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was not recorded during investigation can be examined during the trial?
- Does the non-recording of a witness's statement under Section 161 during investigation constitute a violation of Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the prosecution examine a witness cited in the First Information Report and the report under Section 173 whose police statement is absent?
- What is the scope of the trial court's power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon and examine material witnesses?
- Waseem Bashir vs The State and others2016 P Cr. L J 454 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case where the accused, a Quran teacher, was charged with attempting to commit sodomy upon a five-year-old student. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of bail given the evidentiary record. The Court held that the accused was not entitled to bail, dismissing the petition. The holding was based on the fact that the FIR was lodged with promptitude, the accused was directly charged, and the victim's mother provided eyewitness testimony corroborated by two other witnesses. Furthermore, the medical report indicated significant physical trauma consistent with the alleged act. The Court established the principle that where there is overwhelming prima facie evidence connecting an accused to a heinous crime against a minor, the concession of bail should be withheld, and a negative Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report does not necessarily negate the case, particularly when there is no allegation of penetration or ejaculation.
Questions settled- Does a negative Forensic Science Laboratory report automatically entitle an accused to bail in a case of alleged sodomy?
- Is the concession of bail appropriate when there is overwhelming prima facie evidence connecting the accused to the offence?
- Can the testimony of a victim's mother, corroborated by other witnesses, be sufficient to deny bail in a case involving a minor?
- Waseem Ahmed Khan vs The State and anothers2016 MLD 1807 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-06Read full judgment →
- Waqas Hussain vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2016 PLJ Peshawar 19, 2016 P Cr. LJ 972 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves nine connected writ petitions challenging the detention orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Haripur, under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, directing the preventive detention of the petitioners for thirty days on police reports alleging activities prejudicial to public safety. The core legal question was whether preventive detention under the Ordinance can be lawfully ordered against individuals already facing criminal charges or conviction, and whether such stereotype orders satisfy legal requirements. The Peshawar High Court held that the impugned detention orders were arbitrary, perverse, capricious, illegal, and violative of fundamental rights, amounting to unjustified deprivation of liberty and double jeopardy. The court laid down that preventive detention cannot be resorted to mechanically on vague police reports without material showing actual threats to public order, and that routine detention of persons already facing criminal proceedings constitutes bureaucratic apathy and an abuse of executive power.
Questions settled- Whether preventive detention orders under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 can be passed solely on the basis of a local police report?
- Does detaining a person under preventive detention laws when they are already convicted or facing trial for the same underlying matter amount to double jeopardy?
- Are stereotype and routine detention orders without material showing an actual threat to public safety legally sustainable?
- Waqas Hussain vs Government of K.P.K, etc.2016 PLJ Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-07Read full judgment →
- Waqar Ahmaq vs The State and another2016 PLD Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-24Read full judgment →
- Walt Shah through Attorney vs Collector of Customs and 3 others2016 PLJ Peshawar 58 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
- Wali Shah vs Collector of Customs2016 PLJ Peshawar 58, 2016 PTD 470, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
- Wali Shah through Attorney vs Collector of Customs and 3 others2016 PTD 470 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
- Wali Khan vs Ali Muhammad2016 PLJ Peshawar 204 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-14Read full judgment →
- Wali Khan and another vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of two appellants, Wali Khan and Yaseen, for the transportation of 1200 kilograms of charas in an oil tanker, under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the conscious knowledge and possession of the contraband by both the driver and the passenger. The Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the driver, Yaseen, through consistent ocular evidence, forensic reports, and a judicial confession, it failed to establish the culpability of the passenger, Wali Khan. The Court affirmed that mere presence in a vehicle containing narcotics does not constitute an offence without proof of conscious knowledge or ownership. Consequently, the appeal of Yaseen was dismissed, while the appeal of Wali Khan was allowed, granting him the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him. The judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof regarding conscious possession remains on the prosecution, even under the special provisions of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an individual in a vehicle containing narcotics constitute an offence under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997?
- Is the prosecution required to establish conscious knowledge of contraband before the burden of proof shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997?
- Can a conviction be sustained against a passenger in a vehicle used for narcotics smuggling solely on the basis of their presence without evidence of ownership or knowledge?
- Wali Dad Khan vs Mst. Bilquees2016 YLR 2116 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-30Read full judgment →
- Wajahat vs The State2016 MLD 1672 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-18Read full judgment →
- Wadood Shah and others vs WAPDA2016 ML D 270 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-24Read full judgment →
- Usmanullah vs Sharafta Khan and others2016 P Cr. L J 1558 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondents of charges under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with the alleged murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the death was homicidal rather than suicidal, whether retracted judicial confessions were voluntary and reliable for conviction, and how to evaluate the testimony of a child witness. The Peshawar High Court held that the medical and circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of multiple spent and unspent cartridge shells and confessional statements, established homicide over suicide. The Court held that retracted judicial confessions, if voluntary and truthful, can form the basis of a conviction without independent corroboration. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal of the primary accused, convicting him under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while upholding the acquittal of the co-accused.
Questions settled- Can a retracted judicial confession be used to convict an accused without corroboration if found to be voluntary and truthful?
- Whether the recovery of multiple cartridge shells and physical circumstances can rule out a plea of suicide in a murder trial?
- How should the testimony of a minor or child eye-witness be evaluated in comparison to adult witnesses?
- Can an appellate court partially set aside an acquittal judgment and convict a principal accused while maintaining the acquittal of co-accused?
- Usman Ali Khan etc. vs KPK Bar Council etc.2016 PLJ Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-18Read full judgment →
- Umara Khan vs Mst. Rekham Zarina through LRs & otherss2016 PLJ Peshawar 253 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
- Umar Ayar vs Abdul Satat Khan2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-21Read full judgment →
- Umair Khan and 9 others vs Principal, Kabir Medical College, Peshawar2016 CLC 635 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-30Read full judgment →
- Tribe of Utror, Tehsil Kalam, District Swat through Representative vs Tribe of Kalam, Tehsil Kalam, District Swat through Representative2016 NLR Revenue 125 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Toyota Frontier Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Khyber2016 YLR 1631 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-09Read full judgment →
- Touqir vs Muhammad Afzal and 2 others-2016 YLR 2308 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-08Read full judgment →
- Torsam and 2 others vs Ibrahim Khan and 5 others2016 PLJ Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-15Read full judgment →
- The State vs Waris Khan2016 MLD 920 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-09Read full judgment →
- The State throughAdvocate General, N.-W.F.P. vs Khalil2016 YLR 851 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-22Read full judgment →
- The State through Advocate-General vs Behram Khan and others2016 MLD 1363 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-27Read full judgment →
- The State through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. vs Fazal Hakim2016 MLD 61 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-29Read full judgment →
- The State through Advocate-General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Ra Heem2016 MLD 298 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-27Read full judgment →
- The Chairman, WAPDA and 4 others vs Messrs Sitara Marbles Industry2016 YLR 205 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-31Read full judgment →
- Taza Qul vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 78 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession of 10 kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt despite the failure to produce the case property during the trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable because the prosecution failed to produce the recovered contraband or the vehicle before the trial court, and there was no record of any court-authorized destruction of the evidence. Furthermore, the court noted a lack of evidence linking the forensic samples to the alleged recovery and questioned the unexplained choice of a distant forensic laboratory. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that in criminal cases, the failure to produce case property or establish a clear chain of custody, especially when the recovery is disputed, renders a conviction unsafe and requires acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce the recovered contraband before the trial court vitiate a conviction in narcotics cases?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to establish a link between the forensic laboratory report and the recovered samples?
- What is the legal consequence of failing to produce the vehicle used in the commission of an offense during the trial?
- Talha Baig and others vs Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad and others2016 MLD 1648 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-09Read full judgment →
- Taj Muhammad vs The State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
- Tahir Khan vs The State and others2016 P Cr. LJ 924 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for qatl-i-amd under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around whether a conviction can be sustained based on the testimony of the complainant who was declared hostile, in the absence of reliable corroborating evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that while the testimony of a hostile witness remains admissible, it requires strong, independent corroboration from surrounding circumstances for a safe administration of criminal justice. Finding that material contradictions existed between the medical evidence, site plan, and the ocular account, and that necessary corroboration was lacking, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant on the benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down is that a conviction cannot be recorded on the uncorroborated testimony of a hostile witness when the surrounding circumstances and medical evidence negate the prosecution's case.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a hostile witness without independent corroboration?
- What is the evidentiary value of a hostile witness in a criminal trial?
- Does a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular testimony warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- What is the effect of the failure of the prosecution to prove recoveries and site plans in a murder case?
- Tahir Javed Khan vs The State2016 MLD 1840 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-13Read full judgment →
- Tahir Azam vs The State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-25Read full judgment →
- Syed Yasir Shah etc. vs State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-21Read full judgment →
- Syed Shah Meeran and another vs Provincial Government of Khyber2016 YLR 475 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-09Read full judgment →
- Syed Salim Shah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2016 P Cr. L J 1194 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging his preventive detention ordered by the Deputy Commissioner under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was whether the District Administration could resort to preventive detention under section 3 of the said Ordinance when criminal cases concerning the same occurrence had already been registered against the petitioner and he had obtained ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The Court held that after an occurrence has taken place and criminal cases have been registered on the same charges—wherein the accused has already secured pre-arrest bail—there is no justification for resorting to preventive detention under the Ordinance. The Court laid down the principle that preventive detention cannot be used as a tool to bypass pre-arrest bail or to harass an individual when ordinary criminal law has already been set into motion for the same acts.
Questions settled- Whether the District Administration can resort to preventive detention under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 after criminal cases based on the same occurrence have already been registered against the detenu?
- Can a detention order under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 be sustained when the detenu has already secured ad-interim pre-arrest bail from a court of competent jurisdiction in the substantive case?
- Does the failure to communicate the grounds of detention at the time of arrest render a preventive detention order illegal?
- Syed Nobahar Shah vs Mst. Salma Bibi and 4 otherss2016 CLC 1668, 2016 PLJ Peshawar 69 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-26Read full judgment →
- Syed Nobahar Shah vs Mst. Salma Bibi and 4 others2016 PLJ Peshawar 69 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-26Read full judgment →
- Syed Mukaram Shah vs Fazal Qadoos2016 YLR 2143 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-12Read full judgment →
- Syed Azhar Hussain Shah vs Member Board of Revenue Khyber2016 YLR 1489 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court challenging the orders of the revenue authorities and the Board of Revenue regarding the cancellation and restriction of mutations and transactions in Shamilat Deh and Hissadari land. The core legal questions involved the legality of transfers made in the column of cultivation in excess of actual shares, the prevention of double sales in both ownership and cultivation columns, and the procedural mechanisms for partition and management of Shamilat land. The Court held that a vendor cannot transfer a better title or a larger share than they actually possess, and that transactions in the column of cultivation must be correspondingly adjusted in the ownership column to prevent fraud and double sales. The Court dismissed the petition, laying down key principles regarding the nature of ownership and Shamilat rights, the requirement for the Provincial Government and Senior Member Board of Revenue to frame comprehensive rules for land partition, and the elimination of unauthorized excess transfers under the garb of Hissadari.
Questions settled- Can a vendor transfer land in the column of cultivation in excess of their actual share recorded in the periodical record of rights?
- Whether a co-sharer's transfer of land in the column of cultivation requires a corresponding reduction or mutation in the column of ownership to prevent double sales?
- Are Shamilat lands partitionable only in accordance with the proportionate shares of the original owners as per their Hasb-e-Rasad Khewat?
- What obligations do revenue authorities have in framing rules for land partition and the management of Hissadari transactions under the Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Suba Khan and 2 others vs Malik Falak Sher2016 PLJ Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-27Read full judgment →
- Suba and 2 others vs Malik Falaksher2016 PLJ Peshawar 1, 2016 YLR 1202 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-27Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar vs Nazakat2016 YLR 2352 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-17Read full judgment →
- SOHRAffiLHAN and 17 others vs Noor Muhammad and others2016 PLJ Peshawar 77 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-19Read full judgment →
- Sohail Afsar vs Abdul Rehman2016 CLC 1277 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-18Read full judgment →
- Siranjam Khan and 4 others vs Chairman National Highway Authority, Islamabad and 7 others2016 CLC 216 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-18Read full judgment →
- Sindh Ali Gul vs The State2016 PCRLJ 1997 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the applicant's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for summoning two additional witnesses whose names were neither in the FIR nor in the challan. The core legal question was whether the trial court was bound to summon witnesses introduced by the complainant to prove an alleged confession of guilt when their names were absent from the police report and their statements had not been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court rightly dismissed the application under Section 265-F(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent vexation, delay, or the defeating of justice, and emphasized that examining strangers whose Section 161 statements were not provided to the defense would violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The court laid down the principle that the trial court cannot assume the role of an investigator to improve the complainant's case by summoning unlisted witnesses without compelling necessity for a just decision.
Questions settled- Can a trial court summon unlisted witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at the instance of a complainant to improve their case?
- Whether examining witnesses whose statements were not recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 violates Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Under what circumstances can a court refuse to summon a witness under Section 265-F(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shoaib-Ur-Rehman and others vs Abdul Hadi and others2016 MLD 1950 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-04Read full judgment →
- Sherin vs The State etc2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
- Sher Zad Khan and another vs Mst. Zulekha and another2016 P Cr. LJ 541 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and causing injuries, imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged contradictions in the ocular account, the delay in reporting, and the absence of corroborating evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the complainant's testimony was riddled with material contradictions, improvements, and inconsistencies regarding the timing and circumstances of the incident. The medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and the prosecution withheld a key injured witness without justification. The Court emphasized that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that abscondence alone cannot substitute for substantive evidence of guilt when the primary ocular testimony is unreliable.
Questions settled- Does the unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
- Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to produce a material witness?
- Is the fact of abscondence sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable substantive evidence?
- Does the absence of blackening or charring marks on wounds invalidate an ocular account claiming a close-range shooting?
- Sher Wali vs Haji Said Mahmood Khan2016 YLR 1349 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
- Sher Khan through Legal Heirs vs Gul Zar Khan2016 CLC 663 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged concurrent judgments rejecting a plaint in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell agricultural land. The core legal questions were whether the suit, filed twenty years after the alleged agreement, was time-barred, and whether a judgment announced after the plaintiff's death—but following the conclusion of arguments—was legally valid. The Court held that the suit was clearly time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908, as the limitation period for specific performance is three years from the date of the agreement or notice of refusal. Regarding the procedural objection, the Court ruled that the death of a party after the completion of arguments does not cause the suit to abate, and the subsequent judgment remains valid and effective. The Court affirmed that the primary objective of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is to prevent frivolous litigation at the inception of proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, confirming that the lower courts correctly exercised their authority to reject the time-barred plaint.
Questions settled- Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 preclude a plaintiff from filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action?
- Is a judgment valid if it is announced after the death of a party but after the conclusion of arguments?
- What is the limitation period for a suit for specific performance of a contract under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the suit is clearly time-barred?
- Sher Dil Khan vs Baby Maimoona and others2016 CLC 256 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
- Sher Bahadur and 10 otherss vs Ghulam Qamar Din and 3 otherss2016 MLD 1749 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-09Read full judgment →
- Sher Badshah etc vs Government of Pakistan, etc.2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-27Read full judgment →
- Sher Azam Khan vs The State and 2 others2016 YLR 1166 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the ocular account and the alleged recovery of the crime weapon. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court found that the eye-witnesses made significant, dishonest improvements to their statements, departing from the initial FIR to align with other evidence, which rendered their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the Court determined that the recovery of the crime weapon was doubtful due to the lack of independent witnesses and procedural irregularities. Applying the principle that dishonest improvements cast doubt on the veracity of witnesses and that conviction cannot rest on corroborative evidence alone when direct evidence is discredited, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Does a witness making dishonest improvements to their statement render their testimony unreliable for maintaining a conviction?
- Can a conviction be sustained on corroborative evidence alone when the direct ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
- Is the benefit of reasonable doubt a right of the accused in criminal proceedings?
- Sher Afzal Khan vs The State2016 P Cr. LJ 67 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the superdari (custody) of a motorcar involved in a criminal case. The vehicle was seized in connection with FIR No. 194, registered under Section 15 of the Arms Act, following the recovery of arms and ammunition from secret cavities within the vehicle. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation or grant superdari when the petitioner failed to establish lawful ownership and the vehicle was used for criminal activity. The Court held that the petitioner failed to produce proof of ownership and that the circumstances of the recovery suggested active involvement. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it should not interfere with ongoing police investigations or assume the role of an investigating agency under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C., absent exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to interfere with an ongoing police investigation?
- Is the High Court empowered to grant superdari of a vehicle involved in a criminal case when the applicant fails to prove ownership?
- Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to quash an FIR under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. when alternative remedies are available under Sections 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C.?
- Sheikh Wajahat Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2016 PLD Peshawar 164 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the illegal cancellation of the petitioner's industrial plot allotment and its subsequent swift re-allotment to another respondent. The core legal questions involved the validity of the cancellation orders, allegations of mala fide, and the maintainability of the constitutional petition in the presence of an arbitration clause and alternative remedies. The Peshawar High Court held that the cancellation and re-allotment were arbitrary, tainted with mala fide, lacking transparency, and executed without providing notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that an arbitration clause or alternative remedies do not bar a writ petition when the impugned orders are based on mala fide and fundamental illegality, and that factual controversies do not arise when material facts are undisputed. The petition was accepted and the impugned orders were declared illegal and void.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can exercise constitutional jurisdiction against the cancellation of a plot allotment when the agreement contains an arbitration clause?
- Does the availability of an alternative legal remedy like a civil suit bar the filing of a writ petition against an order tainted with mala fide?
- Whether an allotment of an industrial plot can be cancelled unilaterally without issuing a show-cause notice or adhering to the prescribed bye-laws?
- When does a factual controversy preclude the High Court from entertaining a matter in its writ jurisdiction?
- Sheheryar Gul vs Mst. Sadaf Bibi2016 MLD 200 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Judge Family Court, D.I. Khan, which dismissed the petitioner's application for additional evidence in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff, having filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, is precluded from producing additional witnesses after the defendant files a written statement containing a counter-claim for dissolution of marriage and other reliefs. The Court held that the trial court's refusal to allow additional evidence was illegal and based on a misinterpretation of the law. The High Court set aside the impugned order, directing the trial court to examine the witnesses listed in the petitioner's application. The key principle laid down is that under the Family Courts Act, 1964, a written statement containing a counter-claim effectively gains the status of a plaint. Consequently, the trial court possesses the discretionary power to allow parties to produce additional witnesses at a later stage if such evidence is deemed expedient in the interest of justice, notwithstanding the initial list of witnesses filed with the original plaint.
Questions settled- Does a written statement containing a counter-claim in a family suit attain the status of a plaint?
- Can a Family Court allow a party to call additional witnesses at a later stage if it is in the interest of justice?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to submit a new list of witnesses when the defendant introduces a counter-claim in a family suit?
- SHEHBAZAppeliant vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 142 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the recovery of 28 kilograms of heroin from a vehicle. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellants' conscious knowledge of the contraband hidden in secret cavities of the vehicle and whether the evidence, marred by material contradictions, proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish conscious possession or knowledge, noting significant discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery process, the lack of documentation of the secret cavities, and the failure to produce the case property. Furthermore, the Court observed that the appellants were not in the vehicle at the time of the initial accident and subsequent police intervention. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that in cases of narcotics recovery from a vehicle, the prosecution must affirmatively prove conscious knowledge of the contraband by the accused, and material contradictions in witness testimony regarding the recovery process undermine the prosecution's case.
Questions settled- Does the mere presence of an accused in a vehicle containing narcotics establish conscious knowledge of the contraband?
- Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce the case property in court?
- Does the failure to document the location of secret cavities in a vehicle during a narcotics recovery investigation create reasonable doubt?
- Shaukat Ali vs Chief Executive PESCO L, .2016 PLC 16 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Shaukat Ali and another petitioner filed a petition under Section 51(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2010 against the order of the Labour Court, Haripur, which had dismissed their claim regarding back benefits. The petitioners were earlier dismissed from service following an electric shock incident resulting in a co-worker's death, but were subsequently reinstated by the Federal Service Tribunal with directions for de novo proceedings. The core legal question was whether back benefits could be withheld as a punishment when such withholding is not defined as a punishment under the relevant labor laws, and whether the employer failed to prove gainful employment during the intervening period. The Peshawar High Court held that withholding of back benefits is illegal unless the employer proves that the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of unemployment, and noted that the de novo proceedings were not finalized within the timeframe mandated by the Tribunal, amounting to unlawful delay. The court laid down the principle that industrial legislation must be construed liberally to protect the rights of workers, and that back benefits do not automatically follow reinstatement unless the employer establishes gainful employment after the employee asserts non-employment.
Questions settled- Can back benefits be withheld as a form of punishment when such a measure is not defined as a punishment under labor laws?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that a reinstated employee was engaged in gainful employment during the period of removal from service?
- What is the legal effect when an employer fails to complete de novo inquiry proceedings within the timeframe stipulated by a Service Tribunal?
- Does an employee claiming back benefits need to make an assertion regarding non-employment before the burden shifts to the employer?
- Shaukat a LI vs Chief Executive PESCO2016 PLC 16, 2016 NLR Labour 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged an order of the Labour Court dismissing their claim regarding the withholding of back benefits following their reinstatement into service. The core legal question was whether back benefits could be withheld as a punishment without being so defined under labour laws, and whether exceeding the stipulated timeframe for de novo proceedings invalidates the withholding of such benefits. The Peshawar High Court held that withholding back benefits is not recognized as a punishment under the relevant labour laws, and back benefits are only to be withheld if the employer proves that the employee was gainfully employed during the intervening period, subject to the employee's initial assertion. Furthermore, failure to complete de novo proceedings within the time ordered by the tribunal makes the employees entitled to back benefits. The court established that industrial legislation must be construed beneficially in favor of workers, back benefits do not automatically follow reinstatement unless gainful employment is proven by the employer, and time-barred de novo proceedings resulting from employer apathy cannot be used to deprive employees of their financial rights.
Questions settled- Whether back benefits can be withheld as a form of punishment under labour laws when not expressly defined as such?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that a reinstated employee was gainfully employed during the period out of service?
- What is the legal effect on back benefits when an employer fails to complete de novo proceedings within the timeframe stipulated by a Service Tribunal?
- Does the principle of non-discrimination apply when a co-accused employee is exonerated and granted back benefits while others are denied?
- Shasim Khan vs The State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-13Read full judgment →
- Sharif Khan vs Akbar Zaman2016 CLC 774 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-20Read full judgment →
- Sharafat vs State2016-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-10Read full judgment →
- Shamshad Alam Saha vs SHO Police Station Takht Bhai and 3 others2016 P Cr. L J 1232 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal constitutional petition calls in question an order passed by the Justice of the Peace/Additional District Judge-II, dismissing the petitioner's application under section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the registration of a criminal case against the private respondents. The core legal question revolved around whether the Justice of the Peace was justified in refusing to order the registration of a First Information Report where cross-versions and conflicting stances existed between the parties regarding an armed trespass and firing incident, and a cross-case had already been registered. The Peshawar High Court held that the impugned order of the Justice of the Peace was rightly passed because the allegations made by the petitioner and those in an application filed by his brother before police authorities contained contradictory stances concerning the exchange of fire and property disputes. The court laid down the principle that where conflicting versions and prior cross-cases exist between parties, an application for registration of a case under section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 may be refused, leaving the aggrieved party to pursue a private criminal complaint.
Questions settled- Whether a Justice of the Peace is bound to order the registration of a case under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a cross-case has already been registered?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained against the dismissal of an application under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where conflicting stances are taken by the parties?
- Is an aggrieved person required to file a private criminal complaint when contradictory allegations are raised regarding a cognizable incident?
- Shakeel Khan and 30 others vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-25Read full judgment →
- Shahid Orakzai vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan and another2016 P Cr. LJ 1017 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This contempt petition was filed by Shahid Orakzai against the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, alleging that the fixation of a Criminal Revision Petition before the Chief Justice was orchestrated to ensure its dismissal, thereby diverting the course of justice. The Court addressed three core issues: the locus standi of the informer, the maintainability of contempt proceedings against a High Court Judge, and whether the alleged administrative actions constituted contempt. The Court held that an informer, having brought the matter to the Court's notice, possesses no vested right to pursue the proceedings, as the matter becomes strictly between the Court and the alleged contemnor. Regarding the merits, the Court affirmed that the Chief Justice holds the exclusive administrative prerogative to constitute Benches and fix cases, and such actions do not constitute contempt. Finding no evidence of interference or intent to divert the course of justice, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that judicial administrative powers are not subject to contempt challenges based on mere apprehension.
Questions settled- Does an informer have a vested right to pursue contempt proceedings after the Court has taken cognizance of the matter?
- Does the Chief Justice of a High Court possess the exclusive administrative authority to constitute Benches and fix cases?
- Can contempt proceedings be initiated against a Judge of a High Court for administrative actions taken in the discharge of their duties?
- Does the fixation of a case before a specific Bench by the Chief Justice constitute an act of diverting the course of justice under the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003?
- Shah Wazir Khan vs Government of KPK through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and 2 otherss2016 PLJ Peshawar 257 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shah Pur vs The State2016 MLD 857 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
- Shah Karim Bakht and another vs Mst. Jehan Zeba and 4 others2016 MLD 1896 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the concurrent findings of the revenue hierarchy, which allowed a partition application filed by a co-sharer despite the petitioners' objections regarding title. The core legal question was whether partition proceedings under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, must be stayed merely because a party asserts a dispute over title and has initiated a separate civil suit. The Court held that the revenue authorities correctly proceeded with the partition. It reasoned that entries in the revenue record carry a strong presumption of correctness under Section 52 of the Act, and a mere assertion of a title dispute does not automatically mandate a stay of partition proceedings under Section 141. The Court emphasized that a co-sharer cannot be deprived of their right to partition or the usufruct of their property based on unsubstantiated claims of a prior gift ('Bakhsheesh'). The principle laid down is that partition proceedings cannot be halted indefinitely on the mere assertion of a title dispute; such proceedings must continue unless a competent civil court determines otherwise, and any subsequent decree can be implemented through the mutation process.
Questions settled- Can partition proceedings under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 be stayed merely on the assertion of a party that a question of title is involved?
- Does an entry in the revenue record regarding joint ownership provide a sufficient basis for a Revenue Officer to proceed with a partition application?
- Is a co-sharer entitled to seek partition of joint land despite a pending civil suit filed by other co-sharers claiming a prior gift of the property?
- Shafiq vs The State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-27Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 137 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses a bail petition filed by the accused-petitioner, Shabbir Hussain, and a connected bail cancellation application against the respondent, Muhammad Asif, arising out of an FIR registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 15 of the KPK Arms Ordinance. The core legal question involved whether the accused-petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in the supplementary statement, circumstantial evidence, and firearm recovery, and whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the co-accused should be cancelled. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial had already commenced and prima facie evidence, including a positive forensic report matching crime empties with the recovered rifle and supporting statements regarding motive, connected the petitioner to the offence, warranting the dismissal of his bail petition. Furthermore, the court held that the co-accused's pre-arrest bail was rightly confirmed due to his absence from the country during the occurrence and lack of recoveries. The key principle laid down is that every criminal case turns on its peculiar facts, and where a prompt FIR is followed by a credible supplementary statement and supporting circumstantial evidence, bail may be refused, particularly after the commencement of the trial.
Questions settled- Does a delay in naming an accused in a supplementary statement automatically render the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether positive matching of crime empties with a recovered weapon on the pointation of the accused is sufficient to prima facie connect him to the crime at the bail stage?
- Can bail once granted to a co-accused be cancelled when documentary evidence shows he was out of the country during the days of the occurrence?
- Does the commencement of the trial and examination of prosecution witnesses restrict deep appraisal of evidence during bail proceedings?
- Secretary Irrigation through Project Director vs Land Acquisition2016 MLD 641 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-15Read full judgment →
- Sate vs Saqlain etc.2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-30Read full judgment →
- Sardar Sameer Asmat vs The State2016 P Cr. LJ 1151 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from an order of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, whereby the accused petitioner, an SDO, was denied bail in a case registered under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on allegations of demanding illegal gratification. The core legal questions involved whether bail ought to be granted when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether incarceration becomes punitive when discretion exists to impose only a fine. The Peshawar High Court held that since the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, and carry alternative sentences including fine alone, withholding bail would amount to unjust punishment. The court established that the grant of bail in offences outside the prohibitory clause is the general rule, while refusal is the exception, and bail cannot be used as a form of pre-trial punishment.
Questions settled- Does an offence under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Whether refusal of bail in offences carrying alternative sentences of fine amounts to double jeopardy?
- Is the grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure considered a rule and refusal an exception?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment during the pendency of a trial?
- Sardar Ahmad 'Qureshi vs Excise and Taxation OfficerNLR 2016 Tax 37 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-25Read full judgment →
- Sana ur Rehman vs Secretary Secondary & Elementary Education, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-16Read full judgment →
- Samina Bukhari vs Muhammad Javed Abbasi etc2016-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-11Read full judgment →
- Salar Khan through L.Rs. vs Umer RIAZthrough L.Rs.2016 YLR 279 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-17Read full judgment →
- Sajed Ullah vs Mst. Shakeela Naz and 3 others2016 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-28Read full judgment →
- Saifullah Khan vs Anwar Khan and 6 others2016 MLD 1865 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-13Read full judgment →
- Saif-Ur-Rehman vs State and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 61 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Through the instant appeal, the convict challenged his conviction under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The core legal question was whether the Foreigners Act, 1946 excludes the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the trial court's failure to adhere to procedural mandates vitiated the conviction. The Court held that the Foreigners Act, 1946 does not exclude the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as the Act lacks comprehensive procedural provisions. Consequently, the trial court was bound by the mandatory procedural requirements of the Code. The trial court's failure to provide the mandatory seven-day gap between the supply of documents and the framing of the charge, as required by Section 241-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendered the conviction illegal. The principle laid down is that where a special law is silent on procedure and does not expressly exclude the application of general procedural law, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applies to the investigation, inquiry, and trial of offences under that special law. The conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for retrial.
Questions settled- Does the Foreigners Act, 1946 exclude the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to trials conducted under it?
- Is the trial court required to observe the seven-day gap between the supply of documents and the framing of a charge as mandated by Section 241-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Can an appellate court convert an incompetent appeal into a revision petition in the interest of justice?
- Said Zamin vs Shair Azaim and others2016 MLD 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-12Read full judgment →
- Sahib Gul vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 58 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Sahib Gul, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the recovery of 5 kilograms of contraband. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the discrepancy between the contraband described in the FIR (Chars Garda) and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report (Chars Pukhta), and whether the quantity recovered warranted the denial of bail under the prohibitory clause. The Court held that the discrepancy regarding the nature of the contraband rendered the case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court observed that Chars Garda requires processing, which would reduce the net weight of the substance, casting doubt on whether the maximum sentence would be applicable. Emphasizing that bail does not equate to acquittal and noting that the investigation was complete, the Court granted the petition. The key principle laid down is that where there is a material discrepancy in the description of recovered narcotics and doubt regarding the final quantity after processing, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between the description of contraband in the FIR and the FSL report constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
- Is the recovery of Chars Garda subject to weight reduction due to the baking and chemical process required to convert it into Chars Pukhta?
- Does the potential for a reduced sentence based on the actual quantity of processed narcotics entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Safeer Shah vs The State2016 MLD 986 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-15Read full judgment →
- Saeed Anwar and 3 others vs Khursheed Anwar2016 MLD 943 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-09Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad vs The State & 1 another2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-23Read full judgment →
- Sadia Sajjad vs Khyber Medical University2016 YLR 1261 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-13Read full judgment →
- Sadeeq Khan and anothers vs Executive District Officer, Works and Services Department, Bannu and 6 otherss2016 PLJ Peshawar 265 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-25Read full judgment →