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.
- Muhammad Sareer Khan and 10 others vs Arbab Sultan Muhammad and 6 others2016 CLC 1255 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby a suit for restoration of possession filed by the respondents under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 was decreed and maintained. The core legal question revolved around whether a co-sharer could forcibly dispossess another co-sharer in long-standing exclusive possession of a joint property under the garb of a mutation, and whether a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 was maintainable in such circumstances. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a co-sharer in exclusive possession for a long period cannot be dispossessed by another co-sharer or their transferee except through due process of law such as a partition suit. The Court affirmed that taking forcible possession without due course of law is unlawful, and concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Can a co-sharer in exclusive possession of joint property be dispossessed by another co-sharer without recourse to a partition suit?
- Whether a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 is maintainable against forcible dispossession by a transferee co-sharer?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Muhammad Saeed vs Muhammad Asad and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 56 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-18Read 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, arising from an FIR registered at Police Station Risalpur for murder. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the corroboration of related witnesses, the proof of alleged motive, and the consistency between medical and testimonial evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions between the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, unproven and shifting motives, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and lack of independent corroboration. The court established the key principles that medical evidence contradicting ocular testimony must be preferred, related witnesses require independent corroboration, an unproven motive weakens the prosecution's case, and abscondence alone is insufficient to sustain a murder conviction. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony must be preferred when it directly conflicts with medical evidence?
- Does the failure to prove an alleged motive require the court to scrutinize the prosecution's ocular evidence with greater caution?
- Is the abscondence of an accused alone sufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder trial?
- Whether closely related eye-witnesses require independent corroboration to inspire confidence?
- Muhammad Saeed vs Habib Bank Limited through its Manager and others2016 P.C.T.L.R. 853 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-05-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saeed Khan and others vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 730 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a bail petition filed by Muhammad Saeed Khan and Anwar Zeb, who were charged under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, vide FIR No.66 dated 11.11.2015, for the alleged possession of 2400 grams of Charas. The core legal question pertained to whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail considering the quantity of the contraband, their incarceration since 11.11.2015 without commencement of the trial, and the fact that they were no longer required for investigation. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioners. The court held that the mere heinousness of an offence does not disentitle an accused to bail where there is no immediate prospect of the trial commencing, as a speedy trial is an indefeasible right of the accused, and an ultimate conviction can repair any wrong caused by granting bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the trial has not commenced and is not likely to conclude in the near future?
- Does the mere heinousness of a crime disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Can bail be granted where the accused has been incarcerated for a significant period and is no longer required for investigation purposes?
- Muhammad Rehman Zaib and 5 others vs Sardar Khan and 6 others2016 YLR 35 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rauf vs Saeed Ahmad2016 MLD 33 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan vs Alla-Ud-Din and another2016 YLR 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-05-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan and otherss vs Nasrullah and others2016 PLJ Peshawar 285 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Noor vs Riaz Shah and another2016 MLD 757 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302(b) and section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, and corroborative circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case due to unexplained delays in lodging the First Information Report, glaring contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the number of assailants, an unproven motive, and the doubtful presence of the sole eyewitness at the crime scene. The court laid down the principle that mere abscondence, recovery of crime empties, or bloodstained articles cannot substitute for direct, unimpeachable evidence, and that a single substantial doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused, entitling him to an acquittal under the golden rule of benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report creates an inherent presumption of deliberation and consultation?
- Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained solely on the basis of corroborative pieces of evidence like bloodstained articles and crime empties in the absence of trustworthy direct evidence?
- Does the abscondence of an accused alone serve as a sufficient substitute for substantive evidence to prove guilt?
- Whether medical evidence that contradicts the ocular account regarding the number of assailants casts serious doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
- Muhammad Noman vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 935 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Noman, who was found guilty under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of five kilograms of charas. The appellant contended that the complainant lacked the authority to investigate the case, that no private witnesses were associated with the recovery, and that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court addressed the core legal question of whether the investigation by a police officer, allegedly in violation of statutory provisions regarding authority, vitiated the trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the provisions of Section 21 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, are directory rather than mandatory, and any procedural irregularity is curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses in narcotics cases absent evidence of personal enmity. While upholding the conviction, the court reduced the sentence from twelve years to six years, citing the appellant's young age.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of Section 21 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 regarding the authority to investigate mandatory or directory?
- Can a conviction be sustained based solely on the testimony of police officials in a narcotics case?
- Does a procedural irregularity in the investigation process automatically vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997?
- Muhammad Nazir through L.Rs. vs Ameer Jan and others2016 MLD 568 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a suit for declaration filed by the predecessor in interest of the respondents was decreed, declaring that the disputed land, being Shamilat-e-Deh and used as a pasture for specific tribes, could not be alienated or transferred through gift mutations in the column of cultivation without consulting all co-owners and in violation of the Wajibul Arz. The core legal questions involved whether individual co-owners can challenge illegal mutations in Shamilat land without filing a representative suit under Order I, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, and whether such unauthorized transfers violating the Wajibul Arz are void. The Peshawar High Court held that any co-owner or member of the proprietary body can challenge unauthorized entries or mutations in common village property affecting the proprietary body's interests without needing a representative suit. The Court affirmed that transactions of Shamilat land executed in violation of the Wajibul Arz and without consulting co-sharers are illegal and void ab initio, and declined to interfere with concurrent factual findings under its limited revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether an illegal entry or mutation in the column of cultivation regarding Shamilat-e-Deh can be challenged by an individual member of the proprietary body without filing a representative suit under Order I, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code?
- Are transactions or gift mutations of common village property carried out in violation of the conditions laid down in the Wajib-ul-Arz legally valid?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts of competent jurisdiction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction without showing that the findings are patently illegal or without jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Naveed vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Education, Peshawar and 3 others2016 PLC (C.S.) 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant working as a Junior Clerk, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court challenging an order of transfer and subsequent cancellation order. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution to adjudicate upon matters relating to the posting and transfer of a civil servant. The Court held that posting and transfer form part of the terms and conditions of service under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and disputes regarding the same fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court's jurisdiction is explicitly barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The key principle laid down is that matters concerning the posting and transfer of civil servants are exclusively triable by the Service Tribunal, ousting the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution to hear a writ petition challenging the transfer of a civil servant?
- Are posting and transfer matters considered part of the terms and conditions of service for a civil servant?
- Does the Service Tribunal possess exclusive jurisdiction over service disputes relating to transfers under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Muhammad Naseem Khan vs State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nadir Shah aliasKOTAY Khan vs SHAKIRULLAHand 8 others2016 YLR 1111 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khurshad vs The State through Additional Advocate-General2016 MLD 1189 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for offences under sections 324 and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965, arising from an alleged stabbing incident. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence presented. Upon review, the Court found material contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and eye-witnesses, specifically regarding their presence at the scene and the sequence of events. Furthermore, the Court identified significant discrepancies in the recovery of the weapon of offence and noted the absence of an injury sheet to support the medico-legal report. The Court held that these inconsistencies and evidentiary gaps created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment, emphasizing the principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal, and ordered the appellant's acquittal.
Questions settled- Does a material contradiction in the testimony of prosecution eye-witnesses regarding their presence at the crime scene entitle an accused to acquittal?
- Is a medico-legal report reliable when the underlying injury sheet is absent from the judicial record?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt necessitate the acquittal of the accused?
- Can significant discrepancies between the testimony of a recovery witness and the investigation officer regarding the location of a weapon recovery render the evidence doubtful?
- Muhammad Khan and another vs The State through Arman Gul, S.H.O. and another2016 MLD 1850 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Trial Court whereby the appellant Shah Nawaz and co-accused Muhammad Khan were convicted under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and section 417 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant Muhammad Khan absconded, leaving the court to govern the case of appellant Shah Nawaz. The core legal question was whether the failure of the prosecution to produce and exhibit the recovered case property during the trial is fatal to the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that the non-production and exhibition of the recovered arms and ammunition before the Trial Court shatters the edifice of the prosecution case. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove alleged recoveries through cogent evidence, which includes the physical production and exhibition of the case property during trial, and any failure to do so entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt and subsequent acquittal.
Questions settled- Is the non-production and exhibition of recovered case property during trial fatal to the prosecution's case?
- What is the legal effect of failing to produce recovered arms and ammunitions before the trial court?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to exhibit contraband entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Muhammad Khalid vs The State2016 MLD 1042 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khalid Qureshi and others vs Government of Khyber2016 YLR 1069 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Karim vs Abd-U-Sattar and another2016 P Cr. L J 250 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question revolved around the reliability and evidentiary value of a dying declaration regarding the identification of the assailant during odd hours of the night without any source of light. The Peshawar High Court held that although the deceased was conscious and capable of making a statement, the identification of the accused in pitch darkness from a distance of 15 paces without a source of light was highly doubtful, and corroborative evidence alone could not sustain a conviction. The court laid down the principle that a dying declaration must be subjected to close scrutiny regarding the maker's capacity to identify the assailant, and any reasonable doubt arising from doubtful identification must be resolved in favor of the accused, resulting in the setting aside of the conviction and acquittal of the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether a dying declaration alone is sufficient for conviction without establishing reliable identification of the assailant during night hours?
- What are the main tests for determining the genuineness and reliability of a dying declaration?
- Does the absence of any source of light at the crime scene render the identification of the accused by the victim doubtful?
- Can corroborative pieces of evidence like bloodstained garments and medical reports sustain a conviction when the primary identification of the accused is doubtful?
- Muhammad Jan vs Rustam Khan and 2 others2016 MLD 499 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-12-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jan vs Mst. Nihara2016 MLD 1027 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil Khan, Advocate vs Irfan Ellahi2016 PLJ Peshawar 11 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil Khan vs Irfan Ellahi2016 PLJ Peshawar 11, 2016 MLD 1118 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamal and other vs The State2016 PHC 37 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of two juvenile appellants for the offence of Qatl-e-Amd. The core legal question concerns the admissibility and reliability of retracted confessional statements made by juvenile accused in the absence of independent corroborative evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court erred in relying on these retracted confessions, which were procedurally flawed, involuntary, and lacked corroboration from credible circumstantial evidence. The Court observed that the recoveries relied upon by the prosecution were planted and the investigation was tainted. Emphasizing that the confessions of juveniles require the closest scrutiny, the Court ruled that where such statements are not voluntary and lack independent support, they cannot form the basis of a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants and ordering their immediate acquittal. The revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence was dismissed as infructuous.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of retracted confessional statements of juvenile accused without independent corroboration?
- What is the legal standard for evaluating the voluntariness of a confession made by a juvenile accused?
- Does the recovery of incriminating items on the pointation of an accused constitute reliable evidence if the investigation is found to be tainted?
- Is a judicial magistrate required to record reasons for satisfying themselves regarding the capability of a juvenile to make a voluntary confession?
- Muhammad Ismail vs Govt. of KPK etc2016 PHC 49 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail and 3 others vs Mst. Waheedan and 16 others2016 YLR 1646 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Islam Khan vs Khan Bahadur2016 NLR Civil 405 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irshad vs The State and others2016 P Cr. L J 473 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 2 (accused) by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mansehra. The accused was charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for single-handedly committing the murder of the complainant's nephew and had remained an absconder for over ten years before his arrest. The trial court had granted him bail purely on medical grounds, citing diabetes and a heart condition. The High Court observed that the trial court acted arbitrarily and overlooked crucial facts, including the gravity of the offence, decade-long absconsion, and the lack of medical evidence demonstrating that the accused's ailments posed an immediate danger to his life or could not be treated in jail or local facilities. Finding that the medical ground was manufactured solely to secure release, the High Court set aside the impugned order and cancelled the bail.
Questions settled- Whether an order granting post-arrest bail on medical grounds can be sustained when the medical report does not state that the accused's condition is life-threatening or untreatable in custody?
- Can long-term absconsion and the gravity of a charge under Section 302 PPC be disregarded when considering a bail application on medical grounds?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court set aside an order granting bail as arbitrary, perverse, and capricious?
- Muhammad Irshad vs Government of Hhyber Pakiitunkhwa through Local Government and others2016 PLD Peshawar 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court by Muhammad Irshad, seeking a declaration and correction regarding the alleged wrongful placement of certain block codes and union council areas prior to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Bodies Elections, 2015. The core legal question was whether the electoral rolls and delimitation details could be altered or corrected after the announcement of the election schedule. The Court held that under Section 20 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, no revision, correction, or preparation of electoral rolls can be made after the constituency has been called upon to elect through the announcement of the election schedule. The Court emphasized that while the right to vote is a vested and fundamental right, it carries a corresponding obligation of vigilance, and indolent litigants cannot seek judicial intervention at a belated stage. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that any alteration to the electoral rolls after the issuance of the election schedule is expressly barred by law.
Questions settled- Can the electoral rolls of a constituency be revised or corrected after the announcement of the election schedule?
- Does Section 20 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974 bar the alteration of voter lists once a constituency has been called upon to elect?
- Can a petitioner seek correction of voter area placement at a belated stage after remaining indolent regarding their electoral registration?
- Muhammad Irshad and another vs The STATEand another2016 YLR 1007 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irfan vs The StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 57, 2016 P Cr. L J 1178 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Kohat, convicting the appellants under the Explosive Substances Act 1908, the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for alleged recovery of narcotics and explosive materials from a vehicle. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery, vehicle identification, chain of custody, and joint trial under multiple distinct statutes. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in police testimonies, delayed transmission of samples to the forensic laboratory, non-production of the actual vehicle and expert witnesses, and lack of evidence connecting the appellants to terrorist organizations. The court established the principle that numerous inconsistencies in recovery, missing FIR numbers on recovery memos, and unverified expert reports create sufficient doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does a delay in sending recovered contraband to the forensic laboratory without a plausible explanation create a fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
- Whether the failure to examine the author of an expert report regarding explosive substances renders the report devoid of evidentiary value?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the vehicle produced in court for exhibition differs in registration and physical features from the vehicle allegedly intercepted?
- Is a single circumstance creating doubt sufficient for the acquittal of an accused person in a criminal trial?
- Muhammad Irfan vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 57 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Kohat, which convicted the appellants under the Explosive Substances Act 1908, the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for alleged possession of narcotics and explosives. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of contraband and explosive materials from the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether material contradictions in police evidence and delayed dispatch of samples vitiate the conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that numerous contradictions regarding the vehicle's identity, the nature of the recovered items, delayed FSL and BDU transmissions, and the non-production of the expert witness created serious doubts in the prosecution's case. Setting aside the convictions, the court laid down the principle that a criminal case riddled with material contradictions and unexplained delays in forensic transmission must fail, and the benefit of any single doubt arising from the evidence must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Whether material contradictions between the statements of police witnesses regarding the nature of recovered items are sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
- Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiate the prosecution case?
- Is the non-examination of the Bomb Disposal Unit expert fatal to a charge involving explosive substances?
- Whether the production of a vehicle different in description and registration number from the one mentioned in the FIR disproves the alleged recovery?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Muhammad Anwar and 4 others2016 YLR 2081 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Inam and 11 others vs Deputy Commissioner/District2016 PLJ Peshawar 110 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Imran Khan and another vs Ehsanullah and others2016 MLD 418 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two regular first appeals arising from a common background where the appellants, who were previously tried and acquitted on the benefit of the doubt in a criminal case under Sections 436 and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code, filed suits for damages on the basis of malicious prosecution. The core legal question was whether a suit for damages for malicious prosecution is maintainable when the plaintiff's acquittal in the underlying criminal case stemmed from a compromise and resultant concessions given by prosecution witnesses rather than a complete absence of reasonable and probable cause. The Peshawar High Court held that the dismissal of the appellants' suits for damages was justified, as the evidence and record demonstrated a compromise between the parties during the criminal proceedings, which negated the essential elements of malicious prosecution. The court laid down the principle that failure to challenge exhibited documents or cross-examine witnesses on material facts constitutes an admission, and an acquittal in a non-compoundable offence obtained through deliberate concessions by prosecution witnesses pursuant to a compromise does not furnish a valid foundation for a malicious prosecution suit.
Questions settled- Is a suit for damages for malicious prosecution maintainable when the plaintiff's acquittal in the criminal case was secured through concessions and a compromise between the parties?
- What is the legal effect of failing to challenge exhibited documents or cross-examine witnesses regarding a material fact such as a compromise?
- Does an acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt automatically establish the absence of reasonable and probable cause for initiating criminal proceedings?
- Muhammad Haneef vs Muhammad Shehzad and otherss2016 MLD 1658 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Resident Judicial Magistrate in a case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Arms Ordinance. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to frame a proper charge, citing the omission of the police station's name and the failure to list offences under separate heads. The core legal question was whether these procedural omissions invalidated the trial proceedings. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court committed no illegality. Relying on Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court affirmed that when multiple offences are committed in a single series of acts forming the same transaction, they may be tried together. The Court established that procedural defects in the charge sheet, such as the omission of the police station name or the lack of separate headings for offences, do not vitiate the trial unless they cause prejudice to the accused. Since the allegations were clearly stated, the acquittal was upheld.
Questions settled- Can an accused be tried for multiple offences in a single trial if the acts are connected as part of the same transaction?
- Does the failure to mention the police station in a charge sheet invalidate the trial proceedings?
- Does the failure to list offences under separate heads in a charge sheet constitute a fatal illegality?
- Muhammad Gulzar and others vs Qazi Muhammad Ayaz through L.Rs, and others2016 YLR 1359 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fayaz vs The State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Fayaz and others vs The State2016 YLR 610 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Faizan alias Faizi and another vs The State and another2016 P Cr. LJ 879 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal appeals and a revision petition arising from a trial conducted by an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an Anti-Terrorism Court, upon determining that the alleged offences were not scheduled offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, possessed the jurisdiction to convict the accused under ordinary law, or whether it was statutorily mandated to transfer the case to a court of ordinary jurisdiction. The Court held that once an ATC forms the opinion that an offence is not a scheduled offence, it lacks jurisdiction to proceed further and is statutorily mandated by Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 to transfer the case to a court of ordinary jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was declared a nullity for lack of jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is void, and an ATC cannot bypass the mandatory transfer provision of Section 23 by attempting to decide a non-scheduled offence under ordinary law.
Questions settled- Does an Anti-Terrorism Court have the jurisdiction to convict an accused for non-scheduled offences under ordinary law?
- What is the mandatory procedure for an Anti-Terrorism Court when it determines that an offence is not a scheduled offence?
- What is the legal status of a judgment passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court without jurisdiction?
- Does the setting aside of a conviction by an appellate court due to lack of jurisdiction revert the accused to their pre-judgment status?
- Muhammad Daud Khan, Jwomen Medical College, Abbotabad through Principal vs National Accountability Bureau (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) through Director General and 2 others2016 PLD Peshawar 92 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Daud Khan, JSyed Ghazi Gulab Jamal vs Jawad Hussain2016 CLC 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bilawal and another vs The State and another2016 YLR 1810 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs Sher Abbas Khan and others2016 MLD 605 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub and 15 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2016 PLC (C.S.) 703 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the suspension of the petitioners' service regularization by the authorities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal question concerns whether the respondents could lawfully suspend a notification regularizing the contract employees after it had already been acted upon and implemented. The Peshawar High Court held that once a regularization order is implemented and creates valuable rights in favor of employees, it cannot be arbitrarily reversed or suspended in view of the principle of locus poenitentiae, particularly when similarly situated employees have been regularized pursuant to federal cabinet decisions and provincial enactments. The court laid down that executive authorities cannot approbate and reprobate by arbitrarily withdrawing a completed regularization without lawful justification, and that past implemented orders gain legal protection against arbitrary revocation.
Questions settled- Whether an order of regularization once implemented can be suspended by the competent authority under the principle of locus poenitentiae?
- Are contract employees working in FATA entitled to regularization in terms of the Federal Cabinet decision and provincial regularization acts?
- Whether discriminatory treatment in regularizing similarly placed employees violates fundamental rights?
- Muhammad Arif vs The State through Additional Advocate General and another2016 MLD 395 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Amin vs Managing Director,House Building Finance2016 PLC (C.S.) 569 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Peshawar High Court seeking seniority and promotion to the post of Chief Manager from the date a junior respondent was promoted, along with back benefits. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be superseded and denied promotion on the basis of a subsequently enacted policy and a pending disciplinary inquiry. The court held that the promotion policy relied upon by the respondents was not in effect at the time of the impugned promotion, and that a mere pending inquiry does not constitute a valid ground for denying promotion when the employee is ultimately exonerated. The court laid down the key principle that pending disciplinary proceedings against an employee do not justify denying or delaying consideration for promotion, and exoneration subsequently relates back, entitling the aggrieved civil servant to promotion from the date their junior was promoted.
Questions settled- Can a pending disciplinary inquiry serve as a valid ground for denying promotion to an employee?
- Whether a promotion policy can be applied retrospectively to justify the supersession of a senior employee?
- Is an employee entitled to promotion from the date a junior was promoted when subsequently exonerated from pending charges?
- Muhammad Amber alias Mery vs Qadeem Gul and 2 others2016 YLR 735 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akhan vs Muhammad Sultan Khan2016 CLC 517 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akbar vs The State2016 YLR 1189 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ahmad and another vs State through Aag and another2016 P Cr. L J 1213 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused petitioners facing charges under sections 302, 324, and 337-F(iv)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with section 15 of the Arms Ordinance 1965, arising from an FIR registered in District Buner. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the grounds of a cross-version FIR, contradictions in the evidence, and upon a tentative assessment of the material. The Peshawar High Court held that the mere existence of a cross FIR does not automatically entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right, and that facts of every cross case must be tentatively scrutinized on their own merits. Finding that the petitioners were prima facie connected with a heinous crime falling within the prohibitory clause and that trial had already commenced, the Court dismissed the bail petition, reinforcing the principle that deep appreciation of evidence is to be avoided at the bail stage.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be claimed as a matter of right merely on the ground that a cross FIR has been registered?
- Does the existence of a cross-version automatically establish a case of self-defence warranting the grant of bail?
- To what extent can a court delve into the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence while deciding a bail application?
- Whether an accused prima facie connected with an offence falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is entitled to bail?
- Muhammad Afzal vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, .2016 PLC (C.S.) 664 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction to the respondents to issue his appointment order against a vacant post of Theology Teacher (TT) based on his merit position after a candidate ahead of him failed to join. The core legal question was whether a candidate on the merit list could be denied appointment from a subsequent vacancy due to an alleged ban on appointments from a waiting list. The Court held that the department's refusal based on a purported ban derived from case law was misconceived, as the cited precedent applied to distinct circumstances regarding combined competitive examinations and not single-category education department recruitments. The Peshawar High Court accepted the petition and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the vacant post in accordance with his undisputed merit position.
Questions settled- Whether a candidate on a merit list can be appointed to a post that subsequently becomes vacant due to the non-joining of a previously appointed candidate?
- Does a general ban on appointments from a waiting list established in previous case law apply to recruitment within the education department under distinct factual circumstances?
- Can a qualified candidate be denied government employment when vacancies remain available and their merit position is undisputed?
- Muhammad Afzal and The State vs The State etc and Muhammad Afzal2016 LHC 1923 · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Afzal, who was convicted by the trial court under Section 302(b) and Section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the brutal pre-planned murder of eight members of his family (his parents, four brothers, and two sisters) after administering tranquillizers to them during the night of 23.10.2011. The core legal questions involved the voluntariness and evidentiary value of the appellant's judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the reliability of eye-witness and medical evidence, and the sufficiency of corroboration for maintaining a capital sentence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, positive forensic reports, recovery of the weapon of offence, and a voluntary, unretracted judicial confession made by the appellant. The court affirmed the conviction and answered the murder reference in the affirmative, laying down that a genuine and voluntary judicial confession corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence is fully sufficient to sustain capital punishment in heinous and brutal murder cases without requiring extensive further corroboration.
Questions settled- Whether a voluntary and unretracted judicial confession can form the sole basis for a capital conviction without extensive further corroboration?
- Does the administration of a tranquillizer to victims prior to a fatal firearm attack negate the defense of sudden provocation?
- Whether procedural requirements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were duly satisfied when recording a confessional statement?
- Is a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when supported by consistent eye-witness accounts, weapon recovery, and forensic evidence?
- Mst.Jehan Ara vs Gomal University2016-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-21Read full judgment →
- Mst.Hijab Fatima vs Kohat Cement2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zar Taja vs Manager Muslim Commercial Bank (M.C.B.) and 3 others2016 MLD 749 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Uzma Iqbal and another vs District Education Officer, Elementary2016 PLC (C.S.) 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court seeking directions for their appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher (PET) after being placed at the top of the merit list, following which their names were arbitrarily ousted on the ground that they held a Senior Diploma in Health and Physical Education instead of the prescribed Junior Diploma. The core legal question was whether candidates holding a higher or equivalent qualification who successfully participated in the entire recruitment process and secured top merit positions could be ousted on technical grounds without cogent reasons. The court held that once the petitioners participated in the recruitment process and attained top merit, a vested right accrued to them, especially since previous judgments of the court had allowed Senior Diploma holders to compete and be appointed. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioners as PET.
Questions settled- Can candidates who successfully participate in a recruitment process and attain top positions on the merit list be ousted on the ground of possessing a different diploma?
- Does a candidate acquire a vested right to appointment after successfully completing the entire recruitment process and securing the top merit position?
- Whether holders of a Senior Diploma in Health and Physical Education are eligible to compete for posts requiring a Junior Diploma based on past judicial precedents?
- Mst. Tajrian vs Zarshaid Khan and another2016 YLR 1883 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamshad Akhtar vs Muhammad Anwar2016 PLJ Sh.C. (AJ&K) 39, 2016 MLD 655 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shah Sanam vs State2016 PHC 13 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Saima Tabbasam vs Syed Sher Shah and 3 others2016 MLD 1430 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Begum vs Adam KHANand another2016 YLR 172 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rashida Kiiatoon and 2 others vs District Education Officer2016 PLC (C.S.) 308 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant seeking family pension, which had been denied on the ground that the deceased’s qualifying service was less than the mandatory ten years. The core legal question was whether the deceased’s service period, which exceeded nine years and six months, qualified for pensionary benefits through the automatic condonation of the deficiency, and whether the department could arbitrarily reclassify sanctioned leave as extraordinary leave without pay to disqualify the claim. The Court held that the service record confirmed the deceased served for over nine years and six months. Under Paragraph 423 of the Civil Service Regulation, a deficiency not exceeding six months in qualifying service is automatically condoned. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the department’s unilateral reclassification of leave was unsupported by evidence. The Court affirmed that pension is a vested right, not a bounty, and held that the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 does not apply to the legal heirs of a civil servant, as they do not meet the statutory definition of a civil servant.
Questions settled- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 apply to the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant seeking pensionary benefits?
- Is a deficiency of less than six months in the qualifying service of a civil servant automatically condoned under the Civil Service Regulation?
- Can a government department arbitrarily reclassify sanctioned leave with pay as extraordinary leave without pay to disqualify a claim for pension?
- Is pension a bounty or a vested right acquired in consideration of past service?
- Mst. Nosheen Bibi vs Ziaullah & 2 otherss2016 PLJ Peshawar 260 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nagina Gul Ali vs Tariq and otherss2016 MLD 1619 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-08-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khandana Bibi and 2 others vs Khaista Rehman and 9 others2016 CLC 731 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Karim Jan vs Muhammad Iqbal2016 CLC 1819 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kainat and 2 others vs The State2016 YLR 974 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Javeria vs State2016 PHC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hina Rukhsana vs The Provincial Police Officer/Inspector2016 P Cr. L J 150 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 sought to declare the action of the SHO of Police Station Akora Khattak in discharging and placing a murder accused, a police DSP, in column No. 2 of the challan under section 169, Cr.P.C. as illegal and mala fide. The core legal question was whether the police officer acted lawfully in discharging the accused during investigation based on deficient evidence and a plea of alibi. The Peshawar High Court held that the Investigating Officer is empowered under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to release an accused and place his name in column No. 2 of the challan when evidence is deficient or a plea of alibi is established, subject to the final determination and agreement of the trial court. The key principle laid down is that the police are not under a statutory obligation to straightaway arrest an accused in heinous offences if the accused joins and cooperates with the investigation, provided proper procedural requirements like executing a bail bond are fulfilled.
Questions settled- Whether an Investigating Officer is empowered to release an accused and place his name in column No. 2 of the challan under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the police under a statutory obligation to straightaway arrest an accused in heinous offences during investigation?
- What is the role and jurisdiction of the trial court when an accused is placed in column No. 2 of the challan by the police?
- Mst. Hamida Bibi vs Additional District Judge-I, D.I.Khan2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Gulalai vs Major Fakhr-I-Jehan2016 NLR Civil 379 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Gul Safia Bibi and another vs Al-Haj Muhammad Nazir and 2 others2016 CLC 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Aisha and others vs Kalimullah and others2016 CLC 118 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farida Bano vs Hazrat Muhammad and 4 others2016 MLD 809 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Dr. Yousaf Fida and another vs Justice (Retd.)Muhammad Azam2016 PLD Peshawar 105 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Dilshad Bibi and others vs Amir Nawaz and others2016 MLD 786 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Dilbar Jan (widow) and 6 others vs Government of Khyber2016 YLR 53 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bukhti-Harem vs Sabir and 4 others2016 P Cr. L J 1408 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from an acquittal judgment passed by the trial court in a murder case involving the death of a forest official during an anti-smuggling operation. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was based on a misappreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the ocular testimony of eyewitnesses and medical evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court's acquittal of one respondent, Abdul Jabbar, was perverse and resulted in a miscarriage of justice, as the prosecution's evidence—consisting of consistent eyewitness accounts and corroborating medical reports—was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that while appellate courts generally respect acquittals, they must intervene when findings are based on misreading or non-reading of material evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal of Abdul Jabbar, convicting him under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while dismissing appeals against other respondents due to lack of specific roles or abatement by death.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Is the testimony of government officials acting in their official capacity considered 'interested' evidence requiring independent corroboration?
- Can an appellate court convict an accused after setting aside an acquittal if the trial court's reasoning was found to be perverse?
- Mst. Akhtar Bibi vs Abdul Rasheed2016 YLR 2195 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-01Read full judgment →
- Ms. Raheesa Zeb vs KMU & others2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-06Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Irshad Qaiser, Jqaiser Jamal Khan vs Haji Abid Afridi and 10 others2016 CLC 377 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shakeela vs Taj Muhammad and another-2016 YLR 2573 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-11Read full judgment →
- Mohsin Gul vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 754 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, Mohsin Gul, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 21 registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 4.800 kilograms of charas from a truck driven by him. The core legal question was whether an accused involved in the transportation of a huge quantity of narcotics falling under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is entitled to the concession of bail, particularly concerning the assessment of the quantum of sentence at the bail stage. The Peshawar High Court held that considering the huge quantity of recovered narcotics, the positive FSL report, and the non-bailable nature of the offence falling within the prohibitory clause, the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The court laid down the principle that courts cannot undertake any categorization of sentencing, guess work, or speculative exercise at the bail stage to reduce the potential sentence or pre-empt the trial court's discretion.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when a huge quantity of narcotics is recovered from his possession?
- Can a court undertake speculative exercises or categorization of sentencing at the bail stage for offences under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Does the recovery of 4.800 kilograms of charas bring the case within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mohd Ilyas vs Naeemullah2016 YLR 1822 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-16Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Dangul and another vs The State2016 MLD 737 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-29Read full judgment →
- Mohabat Khan vs Muhammad Fareed2016 MLD 1139 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mohabat Khan vs Abdul Hameed2016 YLR 1120 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment setting aside the rejection of the respondents' plaint and remanding the case for trial on merits. The core legal question was whether a civil suit challenging partition proceedings and mutation is barred under Section 172(2)(xviii) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, when a question of title is involved. The Peshawar High Court held that where a bona fide question of title is raised—such as a claim of ownership and possession based on an antecedent private partition—the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred by the exclusionary provisions of the Land Revenue Act, notwithstanding the fact that the private partition was not formally affirmed under Section 147 of the said Act, since seeking such affirmation is discretionary rather than mandatory. The court affirmed that civil courts have the exclusive mandate to resolve questions of title through evidence, thereby dismissing the revision petition.
Questions settled- Whether a civil suit challenging partition proceedings is barred under Section 172(2)(xviii) of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 when a question of title is raised?
- Does the failure to seek formal affirmation of a private partition from a Revenue Officer under Section 147 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 render the private partition legally ineffective?
- Is seeking affirmation of a private partition under Section 147 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 mandatory or discretionary for co-sharers?
- When does a question of title arise in the context of partition proceedings and revenue records?
- Miss Mehwish Asif vs Vice Chancellor Shaheed Benazir Bhutto2016 MLD 95 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a contract-based Liaison Officer at Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University, challenged the termination of her services via a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions were whether a contract employee has a vested right to regularization or continuation of service, and whether the petition was maintainable given the existence of alternate departmental remedies. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner failed to exhaust available departmental appellate remedies under the University Statute. Furthermore, the Court ruled that contractual employees, particularly those on fixed-pay and fixed-term appointments, possess no vested right to regularization or continuation of service. The Court emphasized that contractual employment, regardless of duration, does not confer the status of a regular employee. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that contract employees cannot seek regularization through constitutional jurisdiction and that termination in accordance with the terms of a contract is legally permissible.
Questions settled- Does a contract employee have a vested right to claim regularization or continuation of service?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable where the petitioner has failed to exhaust available departmental appellate remedies?
- Can a contract employee seek reinstatement through a writ petition when their services are terminated in accordance with the terms of their contract?
- Mirza GULand 2 others vs Muhammad Ayub and 18 others2016 YLR 319 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mirza Fazal Ghani vs Bahadar Khan and 2 others2016 PLJ Peshawar 270 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-27Read full judgment →
- Miran Bukhsh vs Muhammad Ismail and others2016 YLR 420 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby an objection petition filed by the respondents against an execution petition was accepted. The core legal question involved the admissibility, proof, and evidentiary value of unregistered documents relied upon in execution proceedings, particularly regarding the requirement to prove execution when marginal witnesses have passed away. The Peshawar High Court held that when a document containing fiscal matters and future obligations is unregistered and the marginal witnesses are dead, secondary evidence—such as proving the signatures through relatives or comparison—must be legally adduced, and failure to prove the document in the manner provided by law renders it a nullity. The court established that unregistered documents cannot be accepted without proper legal proof of execution in accordance with evidentiary standards, setting aside the orders of both lower courts and remanding the case for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- How must an unregistered document be proved when its marginal witnesses have passed away?
- Does an unregistered document confer title or hold evidentiary value in execution proceedings?
- What are the legal consequences of failing to produce secondary evidence to prove the execution of a disputed document?
- Can an objection petition based on unregistered sale documents be maintained without fulfilling the formal requirements of proof?
- Mir Qad Ayaz vs Sabir Khan and another2016 P Cr. L J 709 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bannu, which accepted an application to transfer and use previous statements of prosecution witnesses—including a deceased police officer and a complainant who was an absconder—recorded during the trial of an acquitted co-accused, into the subsequent trial of the petitioner under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether previous statements of witnesses whose attendance cannot be procured can be transposed into a subsequent trial against an accused. The Peshawar High Court held that there is no legal bar against transposing a deposition recorded under section 512, Cr.P.C. to a subsequent trial when the attendance of the witness cannot be procured without unreasonable delay or expense. The Court laid down that while such statements are legally transposable, their ultimate evidentiary value and admissibility must be strictly judged by the trial court under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, particularly regarding the right and opportunity of cross-examination.
Questions settled- Can previous statements of witnesses recorded in an earlier trial be transposed into a subsequent trial under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the statutory conditions required under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for reading a witness's deposition in the absence of an accused?
- How does Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 govern the admissibility and relevancy of evidence given by a witness in a previous judicial proceeding?
- Does the mere transposition of a previous statement to a subsequent trial cause legal prejudice to an accused who lacked a prior opportunity to cross-examine?
- Mir Dil Khan son of Moeen Khan vs The State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mingora Bench]Bakht Zada vs Shah Tamash Khan and 5 others2016 PLJ Peshawar 153 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-19Read full judgment →
- Mian Mujahid Ullah vs Sabir Ali and 2 others2016 CLC 682 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-22Read full judgment →
- Mian Khan vs Deputy Commissioner, Haripur and others2016 PLD Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge his preventive detention order dated 21.09.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Haripur, under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was whether preventive detention powers under the said Ordinance could be lawfully invoked against a person based on past criminal cases and allegations of drug peddling without independent application of mind by the detaining authority. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner had blindly and thoughtlessly followed the police report without applying his mind to satisfy the prerequisites of Section 3, and that preventive detention cannot be used against a person already accused or convicted of crimes as it amounts to double jeopardy and misuses preventive measures meant to forestall future offences rather than punish past ones. The Court declared the detention order illegal, set it aside, and ordered the release of the petitioner.
Questions settled- Whether preventive detention powers under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 can be invoked against a person on the basis of past criminal cases?
- Does the detention of a person who is already accused or convicted of a crime amount to double jeopardy?
- Can a detaining authority issue a detention order solely by blindly and thoughtlessly following a police report without independent application of mind?
- Messrs Telephone Industries of Pakistan and another vs Ghulam2016 YLR 965 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Taj Packages Company (Pvt.) Ltd. through Manager vs The Government of Pakistan through Federal Secretary Finance and Revenue Division and 6 others2016 PTD 203 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan through Chairman vs Official Liquidator, Islamic Investment Bank Limited and 10 others2016 CLD 1164 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-04Read full judgment →