Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• Haji Akbar Hayat vs Chief Executive PESCO, Peshawar and 4 others2016 MLD 82 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-15Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Bilal Khan and 5 others2016 P Cr. LJ 1068 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-04
  criminal appealocular evidenceinterested witnessreasonable doubtcorroborative evidenceacquittalcontradictory testimonycapital charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Habibullah, for the murder of Mst. Man Bibi and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent and reliable ocular evidence. The Peshawar High Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with significant contradictions, improvements in witness statements, and an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The Court observed that the complainant and the eyewitness were closely related to the deceased, rendering them interested witnesses whose testimony required strong, independent corroboration, which was absent. Furthermore, forensic evidence indicated that all recovered crime empties originated from a single weapon, contradicting the prosecution's claim of multiple assailants firing simultaneously. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where ocular evidence is contradictory, exaggerated, and lacks independent corroboration, it cannot sustain a conviction on a capital charge.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events?
  • What is the legal effect of material contradictions and improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses?
  • Does forensic evidence indicating a single weapon invalidate a prosecution claim of multiple assailants?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ur-Rehman and others vs The State and others2016 MLD 1091 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Malik Zakeem Khan vs Miraband and others2016 PLJ Peshawar 158 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-02Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd vs M/s. Summifo Medical (Pvt) Ltd2016-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-22Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Messrs Sumiffo Medical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and otherss2016 CLD 1572 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-22Read full judgment →
• Gul Shereen Bibi vs Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary2016 CLC 1928 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-18Read full judgment →
• Gul Rehman vs State & 2 othersPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 248 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-06
  acquittal appealpresumption of double innocencedelayed FIRmaterial contradictionsmedical evidenceocular testimonyattempt to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  The complainant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, D.I. Khan, whereby two respondents were acquitted of charges under Sections 324/337-A(ii)/34, PPC in case FIR No. 275. The core legal question was whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was perverse, illegal, or suffered from material defects warranting interference by the appellate court. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting unexplained delays, exaggerated imputations, material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and a negative FSL report. The court affirmed that an acquittal commands a presumption of double innocence which cannot be interfered with lightly unless the judgment is shown to be perverse or patently illegal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal lightly?
  • Does an acquittal by a competent court earn the accused a presumption of double innocence?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence in a criminal case?
  • Whether delay in lodging the FIR when explained by waiting for a family member creates doubt in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Rasheed Khan and 3 others vs Israr KHANand 3 others2016 YLR 1229 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-12Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad and another vs Abdur Rashid and 2 others2016 YLR 2845 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-11Read full judgment →
• Gul Badan and 19 others vs Rasheed-Ur-Rehman and others2016 MLD 1319 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-14Read full judgment →
• Gul Alam Zar Khan and 27 others vs Haider Al! and 29 others2016 PLJ Peshawar 162 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-08-17Read full judgment →
• Gul Akbar and another vs Jameela Afridi and 4 others2016 PLD Peshawar 109 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-08Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence through Secretary vs Muhammad Junaid Khan and others2016 YLR 643 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-18Read full judgment →
• Government of NWFP vs Mohammad Razaq, etc.2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-09Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others vs Syed Jaffar Shah2016 MLD 223 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-04
  damagesbreach of contractauctionspecific damagesgeneral damagesrecovery suitcommercial contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal was filed by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa against the judgment and decree of the civil court which had decreed the respondent plaintiff's suit for recovery of damages amounting to over ten million rupees. The core legal question revolved around whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific and general damages for alleged breach of contract and substandard auctioned goods when the plaintiff itself had failed to lift the auctioned empty gunny bags within the stipulated time after prior inspection. The Peshawar High Court held that the plaintiff participated in the auction with free consent after inspecting the goods on an 'as and where' basis, failed to collect the items within the prescribed fifteen-day period, and did not discharge the heavy burden of pleading and proving specific breaches and the exact quantum of damages through cogent evidence. The court laid down the principle that a party claiming damages for breach of contract under section 73 of the Contract Act must strictly establish the existence of a contract, its breach by the opposing party, and the precise extent of damages through trustworthy independent evidence, and cannot recover damages arising from its own negligence and delay.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party claim damages for breach of contract without proving the precise quantum of loss through cogent and independent evidence?
  • Whether a buyer who inspects goods prior to auction and fails to collect them within the stipulated time can subsequently sue the vendor for substandard quality?
  • Does the failure of a plaintiff to enter the witness box and instead rely solely on a general statement by an attorney suffice to prove mental agony and general damages?
  • Is a government department liable to pay damages when the delay in collecting auctioned goods is attributable to the negligence of the purchaser?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others vs Asif Ali and others2016 CLC 1916 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yahya and others vs WAPDA through Chairman WAPDA and others2016 YLR 1786 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yahya & others vs Water and Power Development Authority2016 PLJ Peshawar 226 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Sher etc vs Mst. Bibi Shan etc2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-12-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Muhammad Javed and others2016 YLR 1901 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Khan etc vs Aziz-ur-Rehman2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ghafoor Khan vs The State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ghaffar Ali vs Jalil Said2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-17Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain and others vs D.O.R./Collector, D.I. Khan and others2016 YLR 1087 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-12Read full judgment →
• Fiaz vs The State etc2016 PHC 52 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-31Read full judgment →
• Feroz Khan vs Mst. Malik Zaro2016 YLR 811 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-08-18Read full judgment →
• Fazal-Ur-Rehman vs The State2016 YLR 1439 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-08Read full judgment →
• Fazal Raziq vs Haji Sher Zaman and 2 others2016 MLD 121 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-03
  writ petitionlandlord and tenantejectmenturban rent restrictionquestion of titlerent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calling into question the appellate judgment whereby an ejectment petition was accepted. The core legal question was whether a relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, and whether title is relevant in rent proceedings. The Peshawar High Court held that in rent matters, the question of title is absolutely irrelevant, as a person may be an owner without being a landlord or vice versa, and the pivotal question for determination is strictly the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Court found that the respondent/landlord failed to establish tenancy through rent receipts, utility bills, or substantive evidence of a Musalehati Committee decision. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the Rent Controller's order dismissing the ejectment petition. The key principle laid down is that the question of title has no relevancy in rent proceedings, and the burden remains heavily on the landlord to independently prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of title is relevant in rent proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  • Does a landlord have to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant independently of ownership claims?
  • Can an appellate forum rely on an unproven decision of a Musalehati Committee to establish tenancy without examining witnesses from the Jirga?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an appellate judgment in a rent matter under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Maula vs The State through Additional Advocate General, Khyber2016 MLD 42 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-03Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Muhammad and 2 others vs Kifayatullah and another2016 CLC 866 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-05Read full judgment →
• Farmanullah vs Niqab Khan and another2016 P Cr. L J 793 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-08
  qatl-i-amdcircumstantial evidencerecovery of dead bodycriminal appealmurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentences of the appellants for the murder of a minor child and the subsequent concealment of the body. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established guilt through circumstantial evidence and ocular testimony regarding the recovery of the deceased's body from the appellants' possession. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution’s evidence formed a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances consistent only with the appellants' guilt. The court affirmed that while no direct eyewitnesses to the murder existed, the recovery of the decomposed body from the appellants in the middle of the night, their failure to provide a plausible explanation for their conduct, and the established motive created an irrefutable inference of guilt. The court laid down the principle that in cases dependent on circumstantial evidence, the incriminating facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused, and where such a chain is established, the court may lawfully convict despite the absence of direct ocular testimony regarding the crime itself.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted of murder based solely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the failure of an accused to explain the possession of a dead body constitute a significant incriminating circumstance?
  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses regarding the recovery of a dead body admissible if corroborated by independent police officials?
  Read full judgment →
• Farman Ullah and 5 others vs The State through Additional Advocate-2016 P Cr. LJ 1096 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-13
  Justice of PeaceSection 22-A Cr.P.C.FIR registrationinvestigation powersalteration of chargecriminal procedurewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged orders passed by Additional Sessions Judges acting as Justices of Peace, which directed the police to insert specific penal sections into existing FIRs. The core legal question was whether a Justice of Peace possesses the authority under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to mandate the addition or deletion of offences within an FIR during the investigation stage. The Peshawar High Court held that the Justice of Peace lacks such authority, as the insertion or deletion of offences falls exclusively within the domain of the investigating agency and the prosecutor. The Court clarified that the powers of a Justice of Peace are ancillary and supplementary, intended to provide a limited check on police functions, rather than overriding the established scheme of investigation. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the trial court retains the power to alter or add charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 once the trial commences. Consequently, the impugned orders directing the insertion of penal sections were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Justice of Peace have the authority under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct the insertion or deletion of penal sections in an FIR?
  • Is the power to add or delete offences in an FIR during the investigation stage exclusively vested in the investigating agency and the prosecutor?
  • Can a trial court alter or add charges to an FIR under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the judgment is pronounced?
  Read full judgment →
• Faridoon Khan and another vs The State and others2016 MLD 881 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-16Read full judgment →
• Farid Ullah vs The State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Farhat Naseem etc. vs State, etc.PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 369 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-28
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirynight-time identificationplea of alibimurderfirearms reportcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition where four accused persons sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges of murder and illicit arms possession under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to post-arrest bail in view of potential doubts regarding night-time identification, a plea of alibi supported by university records, incomplete investigative probing by the police, and negative forensic reports concerning recovered weapons. The Peshawar High Court accepted the bail petition, holding that multiple accused charged for limited fire-arm injuries at night, coupled with uninvestigated alibi claims, questionable source of light, and a negative firearms report, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that where an investigation leaves significant factual gaps regarding identification and alibi raised by the defence, and the accused are no longer required for investigative purposes, withholding bail would amount to unwarranted punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the charging of multiple accused for limited firearm injuries at night raises a case of further inquiry for the purpose of post-arrest bail?
  • Can a plea of alibi supported by departmental records be considered along with investigative lapses to grant bail?
  • Does a negative forensic report regarding recovered weapons entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Whether withholding bail is permissible when the investigation is complete and the accused are no longer required by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhat Naseem and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 369, 2016 P Cr. L J 420 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-28
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirynight-time occurrenceplea of alibifirearms expert reportjoint liabilityidentification in darkness
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail petition was filed by four accused persons charged under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act 2013, following a night-time firing incident that resulted in one death. The prosecution alleged that six members of a family fired at the deceased, identifying them via moonlight and electric bulbs. The petitioners argued that six persons were charged for only three entry wounds, identification was doubtful due to darkness and load-shedding, the weapon match report was negative, and one petitioner had a plea of alibi. The Peshawar High Court held that charging six persons for three wounds without specific roles, combined with a negative firearms expert report, lack of incriminating recoveries, and unverified light sources, made the case one of further inquiry. Additionally, as the investigation was complete and the challan submitted, the petitioners were no longer required for investigation. The Court accepted the petition and granted bail, reiterating that bail cannot be withheld as punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether charging multiple accused persons for a limited number of injuries without assigning specific roles at night-time makes the case one of further inquiry?
  • Can a negative report from a firearms expert regarding recovered weapons and crime empties support a plea for post-arrest bail?
  • What is the duty of an investigating officer when an accused raises a plea of alibi during investigation?
  • Should post-arrest bail be granted when the investigation is complete, the challan is submitted, and the accused is no longer required for interrogation?
  Read full judgment →
• Falak Niaz vs Amal Din and another2016 YLR 2047 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-12
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-IshhadTalb-i-KhusumatAcknowledgement Dueregistered noticesuperior rightmaterial discrepancypleadings and proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment involves two cross-revision petitions arising from a pre-emption suit filed under the NWFP Pre-emption Act, 1987. The plaintiff (pre-emptor) claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on co-sharership and contiguity. The trial court initially decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision, non-suiting the plaintiff on the ground that 'Talb-i-Ishhad' was not proved due to the absence of Acknowledgement Due (AD) cards and lack of proof regarding delivery of notices. Upon further scrutiny, the High Court observed material discrepancies in the evidence regarding 'Talb-i-Muwathibat', specifically noting that all rituals were implausibly claimed to have occurred at exactly 2:00 PM. The Court held that variation between pleadings and proof is fatal to a pre-emption claim. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that sending a notice under registered cover with Acknowledgement Due is a mandatory statutory requirement under Section 13. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the pre-emptor's revision and accepted the vendees' revision, dismissing the suit entirely for failure to prove both essential Talbs.

  Read full judgment →
• Fakheryar Khan vs Agriculture University, Peshawar through Vice2016 PLD Peshawar 266 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-01
  age limitadmission ruleseducational institution prospectusjudicial restraintfundamental rightsright to educationtest of classificationlocus poenitentiae
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court challenging the recall of his provisional admission to a Bachelor of Business Administration program by the Agriculture University, Peshawar, on the ground of exceeding the upper age limit of 25 years prescribed in the university's Prospectus. The core legal questions involved whether the age restriction in the prospectus was unconstitutional, violated fundamental rights such as equality and life, or suffered from unreasonableness, and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae barred the university from recalling provisional admission. The High Court held that while a prospectus functions as a bye-law and its terms are justiciable under grounds of unreasonableness, ultra vires, or violation of fundamental rights, the prescription of an upper age limit constitutes a valid and reasonable classification under Article 25 of the Constitution. Bound by precedent from the Supreme Court holding age limits for professional courses to be a matter of administrative policy warranting judicial restraint, the petition was dismissed, though the court urged the university to consider allocating seats for mature students in future sessions.

  Questions settled

  • Can an educational institution prescribe a maximum age limit for admission to a degree program in its prospectus?
  • Does the prescription of an upper age limit for university admission violate the fundamental right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Is the prospectus of an educational institution considered a bye-law subject to judicial review on grounds of unreasonableness or being ultra vires?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae prevent a university from recalling a provisional admission granted when an applicant failed to disclose their age?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad Iqbal vs Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Kohat2016 PLJ Peshawar 116 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Faridullah Shah and 3 others vs Syed Inamullah Shah Bacha and 42016 YLR 1248 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
• Eng: Muhammad Ilyas Khattak vs University of Engineering and2016 YLR 106 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
• Engr: Raz Muhammad vs Chief Secretary to Government of KPK and 52016 PLJ Peshawar 274 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dubai Islamic Bank vs The State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zahoor Ul Haq vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government and 14 others2016 YLR 525 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahabud Din and others vs Itbar Gul and others2016 MLD 822 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Alam and another vs Government of NWFP through Secretary Health, NWFP, Peshawar and 3 others2016 PLC (C.S.) 370 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-05
  writ jurisdictionselection criteriaminimum qualificationjudicial reviewadministrative autonomySenior Registrar appointmentrecruitment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as Senior Registrars (BPS-18) at Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, on the grounds that the awarding of marks for 'teaching experience' during the selection process was illegal, as the petitioners argued such experience was not a requirement for the post. The core legal question was whether the selection committee acted unlawfully by awarding marks for higher qualifications and experience not explicitly detailed in the initial advertisement, and whether the court could interfere in the administrative domain of the Institution Management Council. The Court held that the minimum qualification prescribed in an advertisement serves as a threshold for eligibility, not a ceiling. It ruled that candidates possessing higher qualifications or relevant experience may be awarded additional marks under a transparent, approved selection criteria. The Court affirmed that the administrative authority of the Institution Management Council to formulate scoring criteria is not subject to judicial review provided the process is fair, transparent, and based on reasonable classification. The petition was dismissed as the selection process was found to be lawful.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prescription of a minimum qualification in a job advertisement preclude the consideration of higher qualifications or experience?
  • Can a court interfere with the selection criteria formulated by a statutorily constituted management council if the process is transparent and fair?
  • Is the administrative decision regarding the fitness and suitability of a candidate for a post subject to judicial review?
  • Can an employer award marks for criteria not explicitly detailed in the initial job advertisement if the selection process remains fair and reasonable?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Adil vs Principal Nowshera Medical College, Mti, Nowshera and 4 others2016 PLJ Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-12Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mehmood-Ul-Hassan and another vs Chief Executive, Lady Reading2016 MLD 1561 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Jehanzeb Khan vs Anti-Corruption Noshera through Circle Officer2016 PLJ Peshawar 150, 2016 MLD 1174 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-17Read full judgment →
• Dr. Jehanzeb Khan vs Anti-Corruption Noshera (through Circle Officer)2016 PLJ Peshawar 150 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Iftikhar Ahmed, Senior Medical Officer, Abbottabad vs Government of Khyber Pakhunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and 4 others2016 PLD Peshawar 212 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-23
  medical teaching institutionslegislative competencejudicial reviewoccupied fieldmala fide legislationprovincial autonomyservice structureultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses several writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015. The petitioners contended that the Act was enacted with mala fide intent to nullify previous judicial pronouncements, violated the doctrine of occupied field, and infringed upon fundamental rights. The Court held that the Act is intra vires the Constitution, affirming that the provincial legislature possesses the competence to enact such legislation. The Court clarified that courts cannot inquire into the motives of the legislature or the wisdom of a statute, and the doctrine of occupied field is inapplicable absent a conflicting federal law. While upholding the Act, the Court struck down the phrase "till further orders" in Section 16(2) as unreasonable. Furthermore, the Court directed the government to amend the Act to provide for a Director of Para-Medical Staff and to implement stricter disciplinary rules to ensure effective public health services. The Court emphasized that legislation is presumed valid and cannot be invalidated solely based on the Objective Resolution or alleged mala fides of the legislature.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015, ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a provincial legislature enact a law on a subject if the field is allegedly occupied by a previous provincial ordinance?
  • Does the doctrine of mala fide apply to the legislature in the enactment of a statute?
  • Can a statute be struck down on the ground that it nullifies a judgment of the superior courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Iftikhar Ahmed, Senior Medical Officer, Abbottabad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and 4 others2016 PLD Peshawar 212, 2016 PLC (C.S.) 993 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-23
  constitutional petitionvires of statutelegislative competenceoccupied fieldcolourable legislationmedical teaching institutionsautonomycivil servantsjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of seven writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity and vires of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act, 2015. The core legal questions involved whether the provincial legislature was competent to enact the legislation, whether the field was already occupied by prior ordinances, and whether the Act was a mala fide attempt to nullify judgments of the superior courts and compromise judicial independence. The Peshawar High Court held that the provincial legislature possesses full competence under the Constitution to legislate on medical institutions and health care services, that the doctrine of occupied field does not apply in the absence of conflicting federal legislation, and that a competent legislature's enactment cannot be struck down on allegations of mala fides or mere nullification of a judgment. The court ruled the Act to be intra vires the Constitution, dismissing the petitions regarding its general validity, while partially allowing certain petitions to direct the creation of a Para-Medical Director post, striking down an offending phrase in Section 16(2), and mandating strict disciplinary enforcement against health sector mismanagement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provincial legislature is competent to enact laws regarding medical teaching institutions and healthcare services under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the doctrine of occupied field apply to invalidate a provincial statute when there is no competing federal legislation on the same subject matter?
  • Can a statute enacted by a competent legislature be struck down on the ground that it nullifies a prior judgment of a superior court?
  • Whether the introduction of private members and non-doctors into the administrative boards of medical teaching institutions violates any fundamental rights or constitutional provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Farhad Ali and others vs KPK, Public Service Commission, through Chairman, Peshawar and others2016 PLJ Peshawar 129 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Ahmad Ali Amiz vs University of Peshawar through Registrar and others2016 PLC (C.S.) 961 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-02
  constitutional petitionservice matterappointmentassociate professorlocus standirejection of plainthigher education commission
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4 as an Associate Professor in the Pashto Department at the University of Peshawar, and the constitution of the scrutiny committee and selection board by an acting Vice-Chancellor. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the appointment given his admitted lack of required research publications, and whether the appointment process and constitution of committees by the acting Vice-Chancellor were illegal. The court held that the petitioner, having admitted in his plaint that he fell short of the mandatory publications required by the Higher Education Commission criteria, lacked the locus standi to challenge the appointment, and that the selection process completed in accordance with the rules was valid. The court established the principle that a candidate who participates in or acknowledges an authority cannot subsequently turn around to challenge the competence of that authority when found ineligible, and that factual controversies regarding publication counts cannot be resolved under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate who admits to being deficient in the mandatory research publications required for a post possess the locus standi to challenge the appointment of another candidate?
  • Can a petitioner challenge the competence of an acting Vice-Chancellor to constitute a scrutiny committee after having previously submitted applications to the same authority?
  • Whether factual controversies regarding the verification of research publications and candidate eligibility can be resolved under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Chairman NAB and 3 others2016 YLR 2565 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-06Read full judgment →
• District Nazim Torghar and another vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2016 PHC 16 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-13Read full judgment →
• Deputy Manager PESCO WAPDA Abbotabad and 2 others vs Ali Match2016 CLC 1133 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-10Read full judgment →
• Deputy Land Commissioner/D.C., Swat and 2 others vs Shahzada Aman2016 CLC 600 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-26Read full judgment →
• Darvesh Khan vs State through SHO, Police Station Mathra, Peshawar2016 PLJ Peshawar 156 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-13Read full judgment →
• Dar-ul-Qaza Mian Gul Rahim vs The State and another2016 MLD 2043 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-26Read full judgment →
• D.I. Khan Bench]Aziz-Ur-Rehman vs Govt. of KPK & otherss2016 PLJ Peshawar 223 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-20
  constitutional petitioncivil servantsurplus employeechange of designationback benefitsterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 by the petitioner seeking adjustment on the post of Junior Clerk with all back benefits. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk (BPS-5) in 1993, but his designation was later unlawfully changed to Assistant Moulder, and subsequently, upon being declared surplus, he was adjusted as a Naib Qasid (BPS-1). The core legal question revolved around whether a civil servant's terms and conditions of service and designation can be adversely altered and whether a surplus employee can be downgraded. The Peshawar High Court held that changing the petitioner's designation and subsequently downgrading him upon being declared surplus were illegal, discriminatory, and violated his terms and conditions of service. The court laid down the principle that once a civil servant is appointed to a post, their terms and conditions of service cannot be adversely affected, and a surplus employee is entitled to absorption in a post carrying a basic pay scale equal to the one previously held.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant's designation be unilaterally changed to their detriment after initial appointment?
  • Whether a permanent civil servant declared surplus can be adjusted against a lower post in a lower basic pay scale?
  • Does a civil servant enjoy protection regarding their terms and conditions of service upon absorption or when rendered surplus?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Legal), Peshawar vs Khalid UmarNLR 2016 Tax 72, 2016 PTD 832 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-09
  additional evidenceappellate tribunalCommissioner Inland Revenue Appealsincome tax assessmentspeaking ordersufficient causetax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses several tax references arising from orders of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue and the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals). The core legal question revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 128(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, specifically whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has the unbridled power to admit additional documentary evidence at the appellate stage that was not produced during the initial assessment proceedings, and whether a speaking order recording reasons and satisfaction regarding 'sufficient cause' is mandatory. The Court held that Section 128(5) imposes an absolute bar on admitting fresh evidence unless the appellate authority is satisfied that the taxpayer was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it earlier, and that this satisfaction must be articulated through a reasoned, speaking order. The High Court established the principle that the admission of additional evidence is not a matter of right for litigants to patch up weak cases, but a strict statutory discretion requiring judicial satisfaction and cogent reasoning to prevent arbitrariness, thereby setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the cases for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) is vested with the power to allow additional material or evidence in appeal that was not produced in the original proceedings by the taxpayer?
  • Does Section 128(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, place a mandatory legal obligation on the Commissioner (Appeals) to record reasons and state satisfaction through a speaking order when admitting additional evidence?
  • Can a taxpayer use the appellate stage to produce new evidence merely because it is vital for the decision of the case, without establishing 'sufficient cause' for earlier non-production?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Khan vs D.C.O., Mansehra and others2016 MLD 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Sher Akbar Khan2016 PTD 325 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Kha Lid Umar KhanNLR 2016 Tax 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
• Collector Sales Tax and Federal Excise, Regional Tax Office, JamrudPLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Pesh.) 33 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Collector Sales Tax and Federal Excise, Peshawar vs M/s. Army Welfare2016 P.C.T.L.R. 209 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Collector of Sales Tax and Federal Excise vs Messrs Army Welfare2016 PCTLR 209, PLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Pesh.) 33], 2016 PTD 1188 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-12Read full judgment →
• Chief Secretary KPK, Peshawar & others vs Fatur Rehman & otherss2016 PLJ Peshawar 250 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-03Read full judgment →
• Chairman, BISE, Peshawar and others vs Muhammad Jaar Ullah2016 YLR 302 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-03Read full judgment →
• Chairman WAPDA & Others vs Jamil Ahmad & Others2016 NLR Revenue 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-22Read full judgment →
• Bira Dar Khan vs University of Engineering, Peshawar through Vice2016 MLD 628 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-12Read full judgment →
• Bawar Khan and others vs Muhammad Hanif and others2016 CLC 754 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-09Read full judgment →
• Batoor vs The State and anothers2016 MLD 1822 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-04Read full judgment →
• Basheer and 3 others vs Muhammad Iltaf Khan and another2016 P Cr. L J 1469 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-20
  defamationcognizance of offenceCourt of Session jurisdictiontrial versus cognizancecriminal procedurenon obstante clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Mardan, whereby the court took direct cognizance of a defamation complaint filed under section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without the matter being sent by a Magistrate. The core legal question raised is whether the insertion of section 502-A into the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 empowered the Court of Session to take direct cognizance of defamation cases bypassing the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the non obstante clause in section 502-A applies exclusively to the 'trial' of an offence under Chapter XXI and not to the 'cognizance' thereof, which must still be taken by a Magistrate under section 190, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, before being sent to the Court of Session under section 193. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, establishing that taking cognizance and commencing a trial are distinct legal stages and the Sessions Court cannot act as a court of original jurisdiction to take direct cognizance without a proper referral by a Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Court of Session is empowered under section 502-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to take direct cognizance of a defamation complaint under section 500 without a referral by a Magistrate?
  • Does the non obstante clause in section 502-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 extend to the taking of cognizance or is it restricted strictly to the trial of the offence?
  • Is taking cognizance of an offence synonymous with the commencement of a trial under criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Haw vs State through Additional Advocate General and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 75 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-04Read full judgment →
• Banaras Shah vs The State and another2016 MLD 1995 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-16Read full judgment →
• Banaras Khan, Etc. vs Muhammad Riasat, Etc.2016 YLR 43, 2016 NLR Civil 402 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-03Read full judgment →
• Banaras Khan, Etc. vs Kala Khan2016 NLR Civil 394 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-04Read full judgment →
• Banaras Khan and others vs Muhammad Riasat and others2016 YLR 43 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-03Read full judgment →
• Bakht Zada vs State2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-24Read full judgment →
• Bakht Zada vs Shah Tamash Khan and 5 others-2016 YLR 2337 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-19
  pre-emptionrejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11compromiserepetitive litigationcause of actionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arises from a pre-emption dispute. The petitioner challenged the revisional court judgment which reversed the trial court's order and rejected his plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In an earlier pre-emption suit filed by respondent No. 1, certain co-defendants surrendered 39 shares of the subject property to respondent No. 1 via a compromise. The petitioner, who was also a defendant in that prior suit, subsequently filed a fresh pre-emption suit aiming to pre-empt the compromise itself. The court held that a compromise recorded in a pending pre-emption suit does not constitute a fresh sale liable to pre-emption. Furthermore, as a party to the earlier suit, the petitioner could not file a separate suit regarding the same subject matter. The High Court affirmed that courts must nip frivolous, repetitive, and incompetent litigation in the bud under Order VII Rule 11. Finding no illegality, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise decree or settlement reached in a pre-emption suit be subjected to a fresh suit for pre-emption?
  • Whether a defendant in an ongoing pre-emption suit can file a separate suit to pre-empt a compromise executed within that same proceeding?
  • Can the court exercise powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to reject a plaint at any stage to prevent repetitive and frivolous litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Munir vs The State2016 MLD 934 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-17
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtconfession before policedelayed FSL reportweapon recoveryun-witnessed occurrenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around whether the uncorroborated extra-judicial admission before the police and a delayed forensic science laboratory report were sufficient to sustain a conviction in an un-witnessed murder case. The Peshawar High Court held that confessions made before the police have no evidentiary value under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and an unexplained delay in sending the crime weapon and empties to the forensic laboratory renders the positive forensic report unreliable. The court established that in the absence of direct or unimpeachable circumstantial evidence, and where material contradictions exist regarding the recovery, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an admission of guilt made before the police has any evidentiary value under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending a crime weapon and empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory compromise the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a positive FSL report and inconsistent recovery evidence in an unwitnessed case?
  • What is the legal effect of material contradictions between police witnesses regarding the drafting of murasila and the recovery of a weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Alam vs The State and another2016 PHC 28, 2016 MLD 1935 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-20
  post-arrest baildacoityfurther inquirycomplainant affidavitrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 447 registered under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rustam Mardan, after being refused bail by the lower court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on a tentative assessment of the record, the nature of the recovery, and a compromise affidavit from the complainant. The Peshawar High Court held that the mere recovery of a small amount of cash from the petitioner, not definitively linked as stolen property, coupled with the delayed statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the complainant's sworn affidavit expressing no objection to the petitioner's release, made the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the bail application was allowed. The key principle laid down is that minor recoveries without proof of being stolen property, combined with the complainant's waiver or statement of innocence, can warrant the grant of post-arrest bail under a tentative assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of a small amount of cash, without proof of it being stolen property, warrants post-arrest bail?
  • Can a complainant's sworn affidavit expressing no objection influence the grant of bail in a dacoity case?
  • Does a belated statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make out a case for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Alam vs State2016 PHC 28 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-20Read full judgment →
• Bakht Afsar vs Raj Bahadar2016 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-13Read full judgment →
• Bahramand vs Jamal-Ud-Din and 5 others2016 MLD 383 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-29Read full judgment →
• Bacha Gul vs The State2016 YLR 434 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-30Read full judgment →
• Azmat Ullah vs The State2016 YLR 361 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-07Read full judgment →
• Aziz-Ur-Rehman vs Sarfraz and another2016 YLR 2099 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-22Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ur Rehman vs Atiq Ur Rehman2016 YLR 2411 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-08Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ullah vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 681 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-10
  post-arrest bailhonor killingKaro-Karicompromisecompoundable offenseprohibitory clausemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Aziz Ullah, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 966 dated 16.12.2014 registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965, on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The core legal question was whether bail could be granted on the ground of compromise in a case involving honor killing (Karo-Kari), where Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is claimed to be compoundable. The Peshawar High Court held that although Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is generally compoundable, under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, cases of honor killing (Karo-Kari) are not compoundable. Furthermore, the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioner was apprehended red-handed with the crime weapon, and the trial is at an advanced stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is compoundable in cases of honor killing (Karo-Kari) under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the basis of a compromise when the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the trial is at its concluding stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan Durrani vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary K.P.K. and 15 others2016 YLR 2618 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-11Read full judgment →
• Ayaz vs The State2016 PLD Peshawar 98 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-01
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtsanction for prosecutionexplosive substancesrecovery memoanti-terrorism trialprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution established the appellants' arrest and the recovery of incriminating materials beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the failure to obtain mandatory sanction for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act vitiated the trial. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing material contradictions regarding the place of arrest and the failure to seal the recovered items at the spot. Furthermore, the Court ruled that while Section 19(8B) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 allows a trial to proceed if sanction is not received within thirty days, this provision presupposes that the prosecution actually applied for such sanction. As no application for sanction was made, the trial for the explosive-related charge was held to be procedurally flawed. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants, extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to seal recovered incriminating items at the time of seizure create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can a trial court proceed with charges under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 without the prosecution having applied for the mandatory sanction required under Section 7 of that Act?
  • Does Section 19(8B) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 excuse the prosecution from applying for sanction under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • Does a material contradiction between the arrest card and the prosecution's narrative regarding the place of arrest entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), through Secretary Home and 7 others2016 MLD 330 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-15
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderlibertyconstitutional petitiondetention orderfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Aurangzeb Khan before the Peshawar High Court challenging an impugned preventive detention order dated 24.12.2014 issued against him. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's preventive detention under the maintenance of public order laws was justified on the basis of the material provided, including FIRs and secret information regarding a local Jirga, or whether it constituted an unlawful curtailment of liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court held that the detention order was issued without legal justification and reasonable material, noting that political rivalry could not be ruled out and the mandatory requirements for preventive detention were lacking. The ratio is that a citizen's liberty cannot be curtailed through preventive detention without sufficient, verifiable material showing anti-social or prejudicial activities, and the executive must objectively satisfy itself before issuing such orders. The petition was allowed, and the detention order was set aside subject to the furnishing of surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person be subjected to preventive detention without reasonable and sufficient material justifying such action?
  • Whether the constitutional guarantee of liberty protects an individual against arbitrary detention based on non-existent or unverified grounds?
  • Is a preventive detention order sustainable when the involvement of the detenu appears to stem from political rivalry?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb and others vs Mst. Shabana Bibi and others2016 MLD 107 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-17Read full judgment →
• Aurang Zeb Khan vs Returning Officer, Centre No.18, Tehsil Matta2016 CLC 293 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-05Read full judgment →
• Atta-Ur-Rehman and others vs Abdur Rashid and others2016 MLD 533 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-27Read full judgment →
• Assadullah Khan Chamkanl J.Yar Muhammad vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 480 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-15
  exhumationpostmortem examinationquashment of orderunnatural deathsuicidesanctity of dead body
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the petitioner seeking the quashment of orders passed by the lower courts which allowed an application by the local police for the exhumation of the dead body of the petitioner's deceased daughter, Mst. Parkha Bibi, for a postmortem examination. The core legal question was whether exhumation of a dead body can be ordered by a magistrate without any tangible evidence or suspicion of murder, and solely on the basis of a daily diary entry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where legal heirs state the death was a suicide. The Peshawar High Court held that the lower courts erred in granting the exhumation order as the police had not collected any evidence indicating murder and the legal heirs suspected no one. The court laid down the principle that exhumation without lawful justification, solid evidence, and detailed reasoning violates the sanctity and respect accorded to a dead body, and cannot be ordered mechanically.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a magistrate can order the exhumation of a dead body without tangible evidence or suspicion of murder?
  • Can an exhumation order be maintained solely on the basis of a daily diary report under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the consent or statement of legal heirs regarding suicide relevant for refusing an exhumation application by the police?
  Read full judgment →