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.

• Umar Dad vs Muhammad Wahid and 3 others2015 MLD 373 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-06Read full judgment →
• Ubaidullah alias Baidul vs Muhammad Hayat and another2015 P Cr. L J 1023 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-14
  murderbenefit of doubtocular testimonyinjured witnessabscondancecontradictions in evidencedelayed FIRcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C. along with other charges, arising from an incident involving indiscriminate firing resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of an injured witness, the legal weight of unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the utility of abscondance as corroboration when substantive evidence has failed. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring contradictions in the testimonies of eye-witnesses, unexplained delays, tainted investigation, and the withholding of crucial corroborative evidence like forensic analysis of crime empties. The court laid down the principle that the presence of an injury on a witness does not automatically stamp them as truthful, that abscondance cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence in isolation when the ocular account is disbelieved, and that a single reasonable doubt arising from prosecution infirmities warrants the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on the person of an eye-witness automatically make their testimony truthful and reliable?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of abscondance when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
  • What is the legal effect of withholding the best available evidence, such as failing to send recovered crime empties to the forensic science laboratory?
  • Whether a single reasonable infirmity in the prosecution case is sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ubaid-Ur-Rehman and anothers vs Qazi Saeed Ur Rahman and 8 others2015 PLD Peshawar 199 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-02-17Read full judgment →
• Tufail and others vs Aurangzeb and others2015 CLC 1682 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-09Read full judgment →
• Toyota Frontier Motors (Pvt) Ltd vs Govt. of K.P. and others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-09Read full judgment →
• Touqir vs Muhammad Afzal, etc.2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-08Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General Khyber Pakhtunlchwa, Peshawar vs Amir Rehman2015 YLR 1786 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-06Read full judgment →
• Tariq Jamil Bangash and another vs Attaullah Khan Khattak2015 MLD 343 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-01-22Read full judgment →
• Tajammul Khan, DSP vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through the Chief Secretary and 3 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 81 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-10Read full judgment →
• Tahir Khan vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-05Read full judgment →
• Tahir Khan alias Hafeez vs The State and another2015 YLR 2229 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-12Read full judgment →
• Tahir Aziz vs Lal Habib and another2015 P Cr. L J 1556 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-09
  bail cancellationArsh paymentdefault in instalmentsinherent jurisdictioncriminal miscellaneous
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent and his commitment to jail until full payment of the specified Arsh amount pursuant to an earlier judgment of the court. The core legal question was whether the respondent's failure to pay consecutive monthly instalments of Arsh constituted a violation of the conditional bail order, warranting the recall of bail and recommitment to prison. The Peshawar High Court held that since the respondent defaulted on the payment of monthly instalments as directed by the final judgment and exhibited reluctance to pay the remaining balance, he violated the conditional terms of the bail. Consequently, the court accepted the petition, recalled the concession of bail, and ordered the respondent to be committed to jail until the full payment of the remaining Arsh amount. The key principle laid down is that failure to comply with the strict conditional terms of a bail order granted for the payment of financial compensation in criminal cases entails the immediate revocation of bail and recommitment of the convict to custody.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted on the condition of paying Arsh in instalments can be cancelled upon default?
  • Does failure to pay monthly instalments of Arsh constitute a violation of a final court order?
  • Can a convict who defaults on payment of compensation be committed to jail until full payment is made?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahir Shah vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman2015 YLR 371 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-03-12
  benami transactionsdisproportionate assetsburden of proofillegal gratificationforfeiture of propertydouble jeopardypublic servant corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected writ petitions arose from the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellant, a former public servant, under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, and ordering the forfeiture of properties held in the names of benamidars. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof under the special provisions of the Ordinance, whether the properties in question were benami assets held for the benefit of the appellant, and whether the imposition of fine and sentence upon retrial constituted double jeopardy. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the accumulation of massive assets beyond known sources, shifting the burden onto the appellant and the petitioners to establish independent, lawful sources of income, which they failed to do. The Court affirmed the conviction and the forfeiture of properties, ruling that the petitioners qualified as benamidars under the Ordinance, but directed that the appellant need not be recommitted to prison since he had already served his substantive sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the burden of proof shifts to the accused in corruption trials under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case of assets disproportionate to known sources of income?
  • What constitutes a benamidar under the provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 with respect to assets held in the name of family members or associates?
  • Does the imposition of a fine and its realization mechanism under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy or retrospective punishment?
  • How are the special recovery procedures under Section 33-E of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 applied to the realization of fines compared to general criminal procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shah Meeran and anothers vs Provincial Government of Khyber2015 PLJ Peshawar 246 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Ishaq Shah vs Shakir Shah and another2015 P Cr. L J 860 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-25
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationmala fidearsoncriminal investigationdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the accused-respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving arson under Section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the lower court erred in granting pre-arrest bail without establishing the requisite mala fide on the part of the complainant or prosecution. The High Court held that the impugned order was legally flawed because it failed to address the essential requirement of mala fide, which is a sine qua non for the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Furthermore, the accused had failed to associate with the investigation. Consequently, the Court set aside the bail, emphasizing that while the cancellation of bail requires stringent grounds akin to setting aside an acquittal, the lower court’s failure to consider these fundamental legal prerequisites rendered the order arbitrary and unsustainable. The principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary concession that cannot be granted absent proof of mala fide and that the failure to associate with the investigation is a critical factor weighing against such relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is the existence of mala fide a mandatory condition for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • What are the specific grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
  • Does a failure to associate with the investigation impact the entitlement to pre-arrest bail?
  • Are observations made by the High Court during bail proceedings binding on the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghazi Gulab Jamal vs Presiding Officer, Election Tribunal, Peshawar and 2 others2015 CLC 953 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-03-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Daud Shah vs StatePLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 350 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-16
  post-arrest bailnarcoticschars gardaFSL reportfurther inquiryControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Syed Daud Shah, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 6500 grams of chars garda. The core legal question was whether discrepancies between the contraband mentioned in the recovery memo (chars garda) and the Forensic Science Laboratory report (chars Pukhta), along with arguments regarding the reduction of substance during chemical processing, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry. The Peshawar High Court held that the contradiction regarding the shape of the contraband and the nature of chars garda raised sufficient doubt regarding the quantum of sentence likely to be entailed, entitling the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that contradictions between the recovery memo and the FSL report, coupled with considerations regarding the actual consumable quantity of narcotics after processing, can constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradiction between the recovery memo describing chars garda and the FSL report describing chars Pukhta makes the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does chars garda constitute chars in its entirety considering it is subject to baking and chemical processes?
  • Should the court consider the sentence likely to be entailed rather than the maximum sentence provided by the statute when deciding a bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultanat Khan and others vs Asfandyar Khan and others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-13Read full judgment →
• Sultan-e-Room vs U.B.L., etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 369 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-21Read full judgment →
• Sultan Room Khan vs United Bank Limited through Major and 2 others2015 P.C.T.L.R. 369, 2015 CLD 155 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-21Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad vs The Collector Customs, Peshawar and anotherPTCL 2015 CL.107 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad vs Collector Customs Peshawar111 TAX 344 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad vs Collector Customs and another2015 PTD 570 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-20
  customs dutytampered chassisvehicle confiscationforensic science laboratory reportsmuggled vehiclescustom referencemotor vehicle registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Peshawar High Court addresses nine Custom References concerning the seizure and confiscation of vehicles with tampered chassis numbers. The core legal question was whether vehicles with manipulated or welded chassis numbers, despite having registration documents, are liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1969. The Court held that any alteration of an original chassis number—whether through cutting, re-welding, or re-stamping—constitutes tampering and renders the vehicle liable to confiscation, as such manipulation obscures the vehicle's true identity and origin. The Court affirmed that a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report carries a presumption of truth, and while serious infirmities might necessitate cross-examination of the expert, repeated forensic confirmation of tampering obviates this requirement. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that registration documents obtained without specific approval for chassis alteration under the Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965, do not validate a tampered vehicle. The Court upheld the Federal Government's policy prohibiting the release or auction of tampered vehicles, ruling that such vehicles are subject to confiscation, thereby aligning its decision with the binding precedents of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Does the alteration of a vehicle's original chassis number, such as cutting and re-welding, constitute tampering regardless of the presence of registration documents?
  • Is a Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding chassis tampering entitled to a presumption of truth?
  • Can a vehicle with a tampered chassis number be released if the owner produces a registration book from the Motor Vehicle Authority?
  • Does the Customs Act, 1969 permit the confiscation of locally registered vehicles if they are found to have tampered chassis numbers?
  • Is it mandatory for customs authorities to summon and allow cross-examination of the forensic expert if multiple forensic examinations confirm chassis tampering?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Hanif Orakzai vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2015 PLJ Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court
  constitutional petitioncivil service promotionwrit jurisdictionservice tribunalannual confidential reportnatural justicesupersession
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, filed a constitutional petition challenging his supersession for promotion from BPS-20 to BPS-21, alleging the decision was arbitrary, discriminatory, and based on unsubstantiated allegations of poor performance and doubtful integrity. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to review a promotion decision despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the petitioner was entitled to relief given the lack of evidence supporting his supersession. The Court held that while the Service Tribunal generally handles service matters, the question of eligibility for promotion—as opposed to fitness—remains amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction. Finding that the petitioner's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were consistently outstanding and contradicted the respondents' claims of poor performance, the Court ruled the supersession illegal. The Court established that a civil servant cannot be condemned unheard regarding adverse remarks, and that departmental records must substantiate any claims of misconduct. Consequently, the Court directed the Central Selection Board to reconsider the petitioner's case for proforma promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding the promotion of a civil servant despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to be heard before adverse remarks regarding performance or integrity are used to deny promotion?
  • Can a civil servant be granted proforma promotion if the departmental record contradicts the reasons cited for supersession?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan alias Kaloo vs Haji Muhammad Khan and another2015 CLC 150 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-09-27Read full judgment →
• Suba Khan vs Malik Falak Sher2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-27Read full judgment →
• Sohail Saeed Khan & others vs Mst. Mehreen & others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-19Read full judgment →
• Siyar Khan and anothers vs Ibrahim2015 MLD 258 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sinotec Co. Limited through duly Authorised Representative vs Province2015 PLJ Peshawar 84 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sinotec Co. Limited through Authorized Representative vs Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary, Energy and Power Department and 5 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 84, 2015 CLC 1589 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-20Read full judgment →
• Shumaila Latif vs Govt of KPK2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-21
  withholding of salarycivil servantfundamental rightsirregular appointmentservice lawsconstitutional petitionpayment of wages
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Primary School Teacher (PST), invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court seeking the release of her monthly salaries, which had been withheld by the respondents despite her continuous performance of duties since her appointment in April 2012. The core legal question was whether the state could withhold the salary of a civil servant who has been appointed and is actively performing duties, without following due process or service laws. The Court held that the withholding of salary without formal removal from service or adherence to disciplinary procedures is unlawful and violates fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that if an appointment is irregular, the responsibility lies with the appointing authority, not the employee. The ratio established is that as long as a civil servant remains in service and performs duties, the state cannot unilaterally stop their salary. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that extracting labor without wages constitutes exploitation, violating both the principles of policy under the Constitution and Islamic injunctions regarding the timely payment of wages.

  Questions settled

  • Can the state withhold the salary of a civil servant who is actively performing duties without following due process?
  • Is a civil servant responsible for irregularities in their appointment process?
  • Does the withholding of salary for work performed violate the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Shujat Ali vs The State through Advocate General, Khyber PukhtunIchwa2015 MLD 1324 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-25Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Javed vs Shamsher Ali Khan and others2015 YLR 2620 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-02
  restoration of suitdismissal for defaultnon-prosecutioncondonation of delaysuit for damagescivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Civil Judge, Peshawar, which dismissed the appellant's application for the restoration of a dismissed suit for damages amounting to Rs.5,55,00,000 as time-barred. The core legal question revolves around whether an application for restoration of a suit dismissed for non-prosecution, filed with a minor delay of a few days and without a formal condonation of delay application, should be rejected strictly on limitation grounds, particularly when the suit had a protracted history of transfers without proper notice. The Peshawar High Court held that the law favors adjudication on merits and that technical delays, especially of a few days, should not bar a party from pursuing a substantial claim when the opposing party can be compensated through costs. The court set aside the dismissal and allowed the restoration of the suit subject to the payment of Rs.50,000 as costs, thereby reinforcing the principle that procedural lapses and minor delays should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for restoration of a suit dismissed for non-prosecution can be rejected solely on the ground of a minor delay of a few days?
  • Can the dismissal of a restoration application be set aside subject to the payment of costs to compensate for the applicant's lack of vigilance?
  • Does the principle that law favors adjudication on merits override strict procedural delays in filing restoration applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib vs Sadia Altaf and 3 others2015 PLD Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sherin Zada and 8 others s vs The State and 4 others2015 MLD 386 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-04Read full judgment →
• Sher Wali vs Haji Said Mehmood Khan2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
• Sher Umar Khan vs Khan Pur alias Khaney and 2 others2015 PLD Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-01-30
  appeal against acquittaldying declarationfitness of declarantdouble presumption of innocenceinterested witnessesbenefit of doubtmedical evidence contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Topi, Swabi, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Section 302/34 PPC. The prosecution case relied primarily on a report made by the deceased while injured, treated as a dying declaration, along with ocular account evidence, motive, and recovery of weapons. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether an uncertified report recorded in a hospital in the absence of a Magistrate or independent witnesses can legally constitute a valid dying declaration, and whether the trial court's acquittal order called for interference. The Peshawar High Court held that because the Medical Officer failed to certify the deceased's fitness to make a statement, the report could not be treated as a dying declaration and lacked evidentiary weight without cross-examination. Furthermore, the ocular evidence was contradictory, unnatural, and discredited by physical and documentary evidence. Finding no perversity or misreading in the trial court's judgment, the High Court reaffirmed the double presumption of innocence in acquittal appeals and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded by police in a hospital be treated as a dying declaration without a medical certificate certifying the declarant's physical and mental fitness?
  • Does an uncertified police report by an injured victim carry higher evidentiary value than a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.?
  • What is the standard of appellate review under Section 417 Cr.P.C. when reviewing a judgment of acquittal?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to record the statement of an injured witness without a plausible explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Dil Khan vs Baby Memoona2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sher Dil Khan vs Baby Memoona, etc.2015 PLJ Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur vs Syed Hameed Shah and others2015 YLR 1997 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadar vs Syed Hameed Shah & others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sher Ajmal vs Fayyaz Rasool and 2 others2015 CLC 1014 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-10Read full judgment →
• Shehzada Mustafa Anwar and others vs Government of Khyber2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
• Sheheryar Gul vs Mst. Sadaf Bibi2015 PLJ Peshawar 340 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-01Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Khan and Company vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Regional Tax Office, PeshawarPTCL 2015 CL.604 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Khan and Company through Shaukat Ali vs Commissioner InlandPTCL 2015 CL.604, 2015 PTD 630, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 1023 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Khan and Company through Shaukat Ali vs Commissioner2015 PTD 630 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Khan & Co vs Commissioner Inland Revenue111 TAX 29 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
• Sharif Khan vs Akbar Zaman2015 NLR Civil 563 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-20Read full judgment →
• Shamsullah vs The State and 2 others2015 YLR 2642 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-03
  murderdeath sentencerelated witnesssingle eyewitness testimonyabscondencemotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bannu, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his first cousin and sentencing him to death, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of a single, closely related eyewitness, supported by medical evidence, prompt FIR registration, motive, and prolonged abscondence. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal and answered the Murder Reference in the affirmative, holding that the testimony of a related eyewitness, when natural, cogent, and unimpeached, is sufficient for conviction without corroboration, and that minor discrepancies do not damage a credible prosecution case. The key principles established are that substitution of a real culprit by a close relative is a rare phenomenon in cases involving a single accused, that quality of evidence prevails over quantity, and that prolonged unexplained abscondence strongly corroborates guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a single eyewitness who is a close relative of the deceased can form the sole basis for a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can prolonged and unexplained abscondence of an accused after the commission of an offense be used as circumstantial evidence to corroborate the prosecution's case?
  • Does the presence of minor discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses warrant the rejection of an otherwise credible ocular account?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive behind a crime is fatal to its case when the direct ocular evidence is otherwise reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Alam Shah vs SHO P.S Takht Bhai etc2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-08Read full judgment →
• Shal Muhammad vs The State2015 YLR 2413 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-25Read full judgment →
• Shakirullah Khan vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-17Read full judgment →
• Shakir Ullah Khan and anothers vs Khyber Medical University through Registrar and another2015 YLR 2488 · Peshawar High Court
  medical educationacademic promotionPM&DC regulationsinterim injunctionjudicial restraintstudent eligibilitycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, medical students who failed their 3rd Professional MBBS examination, sought a declaration to appear in the 4th Professional (Final Year) MBBS examination. The trial court dismissed their suit, holding that they were ineligible for promotion to the next class under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) rules, which mandate passing all subjects of the previous class before promotion. The appellate court upheld this decision, refusing relief to students who had not cleared the 3rd Professional examination. The petitioners filed a revision petition, arguing they should be permitted to appear in the 4th Professional exam. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming that students cannot be promoted to higher classes without passing all subjects of the previous class. The Court emphasized that academic discipline must be strictly maintained and that judicial leniency cannot override established institutional rules. Furthermore, the Court cautioned trial courts against issuing directions on policy matters, which fall outside their judicial domain, and ordered the trial court to conclude the main suit within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Can a medical student be promoted to a higher class without passing all subjects of the previous class?
  • Do trial courts have the authority to issue directions regarding the policy matters of educational institutions?
  • Is a student who has failed the 3rd Professional MBBS examination entitled to appear in the 4th Professional examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel vs University of Malakand through Vice-Chancellor and 52015 MLD 1295 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-13Read full judgment →
• Shakeel vs University of Malakand etc2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-13Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad vs Government2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-07Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Wajahat Ali vs not2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-21Read full judgment →
• Shahid Imran vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 779 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-22
  interim custodynarcotics traffickingSuperdariControl of Narcotic Substances Actconfiscation of vehiclerevision petitionstatutory remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge refusing the interim custody (Superdari) of a vehicle seized in connection with a narcotics offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether a vehicle seized under the Act could be released on interim custody despite the embargo in Section 74, and whether the revision petition was maintainable. The Court held that while Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, creates a general embargo on releasing vehicles involved in narcotics offenses, it is not an absolute bar if the claimant can prima facie establish a lack of nexus with the crime. However, the Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate such lack of knowledge, particularly as the driver was his employee. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the revision petition was not maintainable because the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which takes precedence over general criminal procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle seized in a narcotics case be released on interim custody despite the embargo in Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Does the owner of a vehicle seized in a narcotics case have the burden to prove lack of knowledge of the offense to obtain interim custody?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an order passed by a Special Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 without exhausting the appeal remedy under Section 48?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahabuddin vs Muhammad Hashim Khan and another2015 P Cr. L J 81 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-03-25
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencesolitary witnessdouble presumption of innocencemedical evidencecriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on a solitary, related eye-witness. The Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution’s case suffered from material contradictions, including discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence, and the unnatural conduct of the complainant. Furthermore, the Court noted the respondent’s advanced age and physical infirmity, which rendered the alleged commission of the crime implausible. The Court held that when an eye-witness’s testimony is unreliable and uncorroborated, the prosecution fails to meet its burden. It reaffirmed the principle that an appellate court must be slow to reverse an acquittal, which carries a double presumption of innocence, unless the judgment is arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the benefit of the doubt was extended to the accused, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of a solitary, related witness without independent corroboration?
  • Does the appellate court have the authority to reverse an acquittal if the trial court's judgment is not arbitrary or capricious?
  • Is the abscondence of an accused sufficient, by itself, to establish guilt in the absence of other reliable evidence?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Qasim and others vs Arshan. Bibi and others2015 YLR 1751 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-18Read full judgment →
• Shah Pur vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
• Shah Miran vs M. Taufiq Khan and others2015 MLD 480 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-07Read full judgment →
• Shah Faisal and 2 others vs Mst. Nishat and another2015 P Cr. L J 1397 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-02
  defamationcriminal appealcognizance of offenceCourt of Sessiongood faithquantum of sentencenewspaper publication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants under Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code for publishing defamatory news items regarding the complainant's moral character, sentencing them to five years' simple imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court rightly took cognizance of the offence under Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code without a formal sending under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of defamation. The Peshawar High Court held that the Court of Session was fully competent to take cognizance upon a direct private complaint pursuant to the special procedures governing defamation under Chapter XVI and Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the appellants failed to establish that the publication was made in good faith or for the public good. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, but the sentence was reduced from five years to two years.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Court of Session take original cognizance of an offence under Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code upon a direct complaint without a committal order under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Whether the procedure provided under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure overrides the general bar on Courts of Session taking original cognizance in private complaint cases?
  • What constitutes defamation under Section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code when imputations regarding moral character are published in newspapers?
  • Does the publication of unverified allegations against a person's chastity attract liability for defamation if the accused fails to prove good faith or public interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Daraz Khan vs Mst. Naila and 3 others2015 MLD 73 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-25Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah vs Mr. Muhammad Ijaz Khan Sani, Advocate2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-06Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah Khan, Vice-President Zonal ZTBL, Peshawar and 79 others vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited through President and 5 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shafiqur Rehman vs Peshawar Development Authority (Pda), Peshawar through Director-General and 4 others2015 CLC 814 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-15Read full judgment →
• Shafiq Ahmad, ASI vs Sher Alam and 6 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 9, 2015 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-07Read full judgment →
• Shad vs Royedad2015 CLC 931, 2015 C.L.R. 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-20Read full judgment →
• Shad Muhammad through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Sarwara2015 MLD 582 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-12-23Read full judgment →
• Shabnam vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2015 PLC (C.S.) 1111 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-03
  civil serviceappointment on meritdomicile of wifeSuccession Actlocus standischool based recruitmentbona fide resident
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the annulment of an appointment order dated 19-5-2014 and requesting her own appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher (P.S.T. BPS-12) in Union Council Duskhel, District Dir Lower, on the basis of merit. The petitioner contended that although respondent No. 5 obtained higher marks, she was ineligible because she originally hailed from District Swat and not from Union Council Duskhel. The Peshawar High Court examined the residency status of respondent No. 5, who had married a resident of District Dir Lower prior to her appointment, as evidenced by her marriage registration certificate and National Identity Card. The Court held that under sections 15 and 16 of the Succession Act, 1925, a wife's domicile during marriage automatically follows that of her husband. Consequently, respondent No. 5 became a bona fide resident of the Union Council upon her marriage. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the appointment of the more meritorious candidate was lawful and the petitioner lacked locus standi.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a woman automatically acquires the domicile of her husband upon marriage under the Succession Act, 1925?
  • Can a candidate's eligibility for a local-quota public post be established through her husband's domicile post-marriage?
  • Does a less meritorious candidate have the locus standi to challenge the appointment of a higher-scoring candidate who has legally acquired the requisite local domicile?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Communication2015 CLC 649 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-10-07Read full judgment →
• Sayyar vs The State2015 PLD Peshawar 157 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-12-12
  narcotics controlconscious possessionburden of proofstatutory presumptionbenefit of doubtrent-a-carcriminal appealrecovery of charas
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal appeals arising from a common trial wherein the appellants were convicted under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the recovery of 15 kilograms of charas from a vehicle. The core legal questions involved the evaluation of conscious possession, the burden of proof under special narcotics legislation versus general criminal law when a special plea of innocence is raised, and the evidentiary value of belated circumstantial evidence linking a non-occupant hirer to the crime. The Peshawar High Court held that while the driver apprehended red-handed failed to rebut the statutory presumption of possession and accountability, the case against the co-appellant—implicated solely through a rent-a-car receipt and delayed witness statements—suffered from fatal gaps and doubts. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal of the driver, upholding his conviction, but allowed the appeal of the co-appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory presumption under section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 shift the burden of proof to the accused to account satisfactorily for the possession of narcotics?
  • Can an accused person's uncorroborated statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as conclusive proof to convict a co-accused?
  • Whether the exclusion of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 via section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 validates searches conducted without public witnesses?
  • Is a single dent or reasonable doubt in the prosecution case sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused charged with an offense carrying capital punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayed Dilawar Jan and 2 others vs Meftah Uddin and 3 others2015 MLD 1408 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-25Read full judgment →
• Sarhad Hydel Development Organization (Shydo) through Managing2015 MLD 635 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-06Read full judgment →
• Sarhad Development Authority, Peshawar vs H Nadir Khan and others2015 YLR 1373 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-10-10Read full judgment →
• Sardar Hussain Babak, Member of Provincial Assembly, KPK_Parliamentary Leader of Anp and anothers vs Government of K.P_K. through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat Peshawar and 3 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 282 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar Hussain Babak and anothers vs Government of Khyber2015 PLJ Peshawar 282, 2015 PLD Peshawar 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-12
  Local Government Actnon-party electionsconstitutional interpretationdevolution of powerjudicial reviewlocus standifundamental rightspresumption of constitutionality
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2013, specifically contesting the non-party basis of elections for Village and Neighbourhood Councils and the oversight powers granted to the Local Government Commission and the Chief Minister. They argued these provisions violated Article 140A (devolution of power) and Article 17 (freedom of association) of the Constitution. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Act was enacted in a bona fide manner and remained within constitutional bounds. The Court clarified that the term "political" in Article 140A does not mandate that local government elections must be held on a party basis. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the principle that there is a strong presumption in favor of the constitutionality of legislative enactments, and courts should lean towards saving legislation rather than striking it down. It concluded that the legislature possesses the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights and that the administrative oversight mechanisms provided in the Act were not unconstitutional.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement for local government elections to be held on a non-party basis violate Article 17 of the Constitution?
  • Is the term 'political' in Article 140A of the Constitution synonymous with political parties?
  • Can a court attribute mala fide intentions to the legislature when reviewing the constitutionality of an Act?
  • Are members of a Provincial Assembly considered 'aggrieved persons' with locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of a provincial law under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Aminullah Khan, Director General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and 2 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 37 · Peshawar High Court
  contractual appointmentprobation periodmaster and servanttermination of serviceconstitutional petitionreinstatementwrongful dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, appointed as Director General of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Revenue Authority on a three-year contract with a one-year probation period, challenged his termination via a constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether a contractual employee, serving within the probation period, could be terminated without assigning reasons or conducting formal proceedings. The Court held that the termination was valid, as the appointment order explicitly allowed for termination without reason during the probation period, provided one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof was given. The Court distinguished the petitioner's case from those of regular employees, noting that contractual appointments are governed by the specific terms of the contract. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that where a contract provides for termination without cause, the employer is not required to conduct an inquiry unless the termination is based on allegations of misconduct. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the master-servant principle, holding that a contractual employee cannot seek reinstatement through constitutional jurisdiction and must instead pursue damages in an appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractual employee be terminated during the probation period without assigning any reason?
  • Is a formal inquiry required for the termination of a contractual employee during probation if no misconduct is alleged?
  • Can a contractual employee seek reinstatement through a constitutional petition under the master-servant rule?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Aminullah Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2015 PLJ Peshawar 37, 2015 PLC (C.S.) 1506 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-20
  contract employeeprobation periodtermination of contractmaster and servantconstitutional petitionshow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a notification terminating his contract appointment as Director General of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Revenue Authority prior to the expiry of his three-year term, arguing that the termination during probation without a show-cause notice, reason, or disciplinary proceedings was illegal. The core legal question was whether a person employed on a contract with a probation period can be terminated without assigning reasons in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where a contractual employee's terms expressly permit termination without assigning reasons upon notice or pay in lieu thereof, and the termination is not founded on misconduct, a regular inquiry or show-cause notice is not required. The court also noted that the master-and-servant principle applies to such employment, barring reinstatement through constitutional jurisdiction. The key principles laid down are that contractual employees governed by specific terms allowing termination during probation can be terminated in accordance with those terms without formal proceedings unless the termination is for misconduct, and that wrongful termination of such service does not warrant reinstatement via constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person employed on contract can be terminated during the period of probation without assigning any reason for the same?
  • Does termination of a contract employee during probation without alleging misconduct require a regular inquiry or show-cause notice?
  • Can an employee whose services are governed by the master-and-servant principle seek reinstatement through constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah and 9 others vs Aqal Mand and 37 others2015 YLR 1059 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-04Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah Khan and others vs Sheikh Taj Muhammad through Legal Heirs2015 PLD Peshawar 175 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sami Ullah and others vs The State and others2015 P Cr. L J 416 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-22
  murderbenefit of doubtocular accountmedical evidencenight occurrenceabscondenceforensic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bannu, which convicted the appellants under Sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempted murder, while acquitting a co-accused. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular accounts of the deceased's daughter and son, who claimed to have witnessed the night-time shooting. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the eyewitnesses failed to establish their presence at the scene, as the Investigating Officer testified that the crime scene was not visible from their alleged vantage point. Furthermore, the complainant made dishonest improvements regarding the source of light, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the direction of the bullet wounds, and the forensic report showed that all recovered empties were fired from a single weapon, contradicting the claim of two active shooters. The Court held that abscondence alone cannot substitute for real evidence and, applying the principle of benefit of doubt, allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of an eyewitness to mention a source of light in the initial FIR, followed by a later claim of identification by an electric bulb, constitutes a fatal dishonest improvement?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of the accused's abscondence in the absence of credible direct or circumstantial evidence?
  • Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the direction of firearm entry wounds create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the unhurt escape of an eyewitness in close proximity to the deceased, where the assailants had a strong motive to eliminate him as well, renders his presence at the scene highly improbable?
  Read full judgment →
• Saltnat Khan and others vs Asfandyar Khan and others2015 YLR 2559 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-13Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs The State and 3 others2015 P Cr. L J 585 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-10-09
  criminal appealocular evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtabscondencemurder convictionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular testimony in a single-accused murder case where the incident occurred at night without identified light sources. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, as the prosecution's ocular account was fundamentally inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the direction of fire, the presence of blackening on wounds, and the distance between the parties. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of independent corroboration and the failure to explain material discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative. The court reaffirmed the principle that when ocular testimony is contradicted by medical evidence and circumstances, it cannot form the basis of a conviction. Additionally, the court held that abscondence, while a suspicious circumstance, is not conclusive proof of guilt and cannot substitute for substantive evidence. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of reasonable doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, and must be granted when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when ocular testimony is fundamentally contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Is the abscondence of an accused sufficient, in isolation, to establish guilt for a criminal offence?
  • Does the presence of an injury on an injured witness automatically render their testimony truthful and unimpeachable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of crime empties when the weapon of offence is not recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali Khan vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-09Read full judgment →
• Sail Khan vs Muzafar Khan and another2015 MLD 769 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-10
  criminal appealmurder convictioninterested witnessesbenefit of doubtevidentiary value of FIRocular testimonyabscondencemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from interested witnesses, the evidentiary value of an FIR lodged after preliminary inquiry, and the impact of unproven motives and material contradictions on the prosecution's case. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable due to significant discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, including contradictions between the FIR and eyewitness accounts regarding the incident's timeline and the registration process. The Court emphasized that an FIR recorded after preliminary investigation loses its evidentiary value. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive, and the eyewitnesses made dishonest improvements to their statements. Applying the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. It was established that abscondence alone is insufficient for conviction and that interested witness testimony requires strict scrutiny, which, when failing to inspire confidence, necessitates the benefit of the doubt for the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an FIR recorded after a preliminary police inquiry lose its evidentiary value?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the alleged motive?
  • Is abscondence of an accused sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other corroborative evidence?
  • Does the presence of material contradictions in the testimony of interested witnesses entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ur Rehman and 5 others vs Muhammad Saleem and 25 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 226 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-02Read full judgment →
• Safiullah vs Muhammad Iqbal and 4 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 197 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-17Read full judgment →
• Safdar Shah & others vs Mehboob-Ur-Rehman2015 PLJ Peshawar 267 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-03Read full judgment →
• Saeed-Ur-Rehman vs Central Board of Revenue, through Director2015 PTD 1190 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-02-03Read full judgment →
• Saeed Anwar and 3 others vs Khurshid Anwar2015 PLJ Peshawar 220 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-09Read full judgment →
• Sabz Ali vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-06Read full judgment →
• Sabir Shah vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-26Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Asif and others vs Government and others2015 PLC (C.S,) 1274 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-20Read full judgment →
• Roshan Dani and 11 others vs WAPDA through Chairman and 3 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 263 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-12-19
  superannuationpensionary benefitsabatement of inquirypost-retirement dismissalRule 54-A Fundamental RulesWAPDAconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the legal heirs of a deceased WAPDA employee seeking the quashing of a post-retirement dismissal order dated 25-6-2003 and the release of all pensionary benefits. The deceased employee reached superannuation on 21-3-2003, after which his pension papers were withheld due to an outstanding departmental enquiry, culminating in his dismissal three months post-retirement. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction, claiming the deceased was an employee of PESCO, a private company. The Peshawar High Court rejected the jurisdictional objection, holding that the deceased was processed under WAPDA disciplinary rules as a WAPDA employee. On merits, the High Court held that under Rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules, pending disciplinary inquiries against a public servant abate upon reaching superannuation, entitling the employee to retire with pensionary benefits. Consequently, the High Court declared the post-retirement dismissal illegal and directed the respondents to pay all pensionary benefits to the legal heirs after deducting penalties validly imposed prior to retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Do pending disciplinary proceedings against an employee abate upon reaching the age of superannuation under Rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules?
  • Can a departmental authority issue an order of dismissal against an employee after he has reached the age of superannuation?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against disciplinary actions taken under WAPDA rules when the employee was not absorbed into a separate corporate entity?
  Read full judgment →
• Roman Ali Khan Tanoli vs Malik Khurram Shahzad2015 YLR 1941 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-01Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Shah vs Mst. Kalsoom2015 MLD 324 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-22Read full judgment →
• Riffatullah Jan vs Bashir Zada and another2015 YLR 2570, 2015 PLJ Peshawar 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-29Read full judgment →