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.

• Muhammad Rehman Zaib and 5 others vs Sardar Khan and others2015 PLJ Peshawar 345 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rauf vs Saeed Ahmad2015 PLJ Peshawar 353 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Bangash vs The State through Advocate-General and 4 others2015 PLD Peshawar 194 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nisar Ahmed vs State etc.PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 780 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz, etc.s vs Akram Khan2015 PLJ Peshawar 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others vs Akram Khan2015 PLJ Peshawar 378, 2015 MLD 1757 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir Qureshi vs Abdul Qadir Shah and 3 others2015 CLC 1751 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan Son of Toor Lali vs Mst. Jehan Zeba & 07 others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khabir and others vs Hussain Ali and others2015 YLR 2690 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr, ASI & others vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-24
  Writ jurisdictionVoid ab initioDepartmental Promotion CommitteePolice Policy BoardService TribunalMaintainability of writ petitionPromotion cancellationLocus poenitentiae
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of the petitioners' promotions to the rank of Sub-Inspector. The petitioners, Assistant Sub-Inspectors, were promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 24.07.2015. Subsequently, the Police Policy Board directed the cancellation of these promotions, alleging the posts were reserved for Traffic Wardens, leading to the impugned cancellation order dated 04.09.2015. The core legal question was whether the Police Policy Board possessed the authority to rescind valid promotion orders and whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the Police Policy Board is not a recognized authority under existing police laws, rendering its directions and the subsequent cancellation order void ab initio. Consequently, the Court ruled that the initial promotion order remained valid. The key principle laid down is that where an impugned order is void ab initio and issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction, the High Court may exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, bypassing the requirement to exhaust alternate remedies such as the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 when the impugned order is void ab initio despite the availability of an alternate remedy before a Service Tribunal?
  • Does the Police Policy Board possess the legal authority to cancel promotion orders issued by a Departmental Promotion Committee?
  • Can a promotion order that has been acted upon and published in the official gazette be cancelled by an authority lacking jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad, Candidate for Member, District Council vs Election Commission of Pakistan, etc2015 PLJ Peshawar 357 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs Election Commission of Pakistan etc2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad and Another vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Muhammad Zarif and others2015 MLD 427 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim vs Sona Khan and 5 others2015 CLC 223 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon Khan vs M. Arif Khan2015 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gulzar etc.s vs Qazi Muhammad Ayaz through L.Rs, etc.2015 PLJ Peshawar 372 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs Municipal Committee and others2015 YLR 1128 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan and 17 others vs Muhammad Sarwar and 212015 YLR 750 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub & others vs Govt: of KPK etc.2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Mehmood vs Directorate of Health KPK through Director General, Health Department and 4 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 164 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad Wali vs Hakeem Khan2015 MLD 824 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Mst. Shaista and 30 others2015 MLD 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-27
  giftunregistered gift deeddelivery of possessionMuslim Lawcivil revisionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's appeal and upholding the trial court's decision in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning property transferred through a gift deed. The core legal question revolved around the validity of the unregistered gift deed, the fulfillment of delivery of possession, and the burden of proof regarding gifts under Muslim Law. The Peshawar High Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence, that delivery of possession was duly admitted and in any case subject to exceptions, and that an oral or unregistered written instrument of gift is valid under Muslim Law and does not compulsorily require registration under the Registration Act 1908. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unregistered written instrument of gift requires compulsory registration under the Registration Act 1908?
  • Can a valid gift be effected orally or under an unregistered instrument according to Muslim Law?
  • Whether delivery of possession is strictly required in all cases of gifts or if exceptions apply?
  • Do concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the validity of a gift warrant interference in civil revision without proof of illegality or misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Managing Director, House Building Finance2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameer alias Merry vs Qadeem Gul etc2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Jan vs The State and another2015 PLD Peshawar 134 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-26
  murderpoisoningchild witnesstutored witnessbenefit of doubtabscondencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to death, arising from a murder trial where the appellant was accused of poisoning his wife. The core legal questions involved the credibility of a child witness who resiled from her initial police report, the evaluation of medical and circumstantial evidence regarding suspected poisoning, and the evidentiary value of abscondence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the child witness to be tutored and influenced by maternal relatives, the medical evidence inconclusive, and the appellant's conduct inconsistent with guilt. The court laid down the principle that the evidence of a child witness must be subjected to close scrutiny and corroborated by strong circumstances, that abscondence alone cannot sustain a conviction when substantive evidence is weak, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a child witness can be relied upon without independent corroboration when the witness has resiled from her earlier statement under the influence of relatives?
  • Can abscondence alone serve as conclusive proof of guilt or sustain a conviction when the substantive prosecution evidence is doubtful and fraught with contradictions?
  • What is the standard of scrutiny required for evaluating medical evidence and forensic reports in cases involving alleged administration of poison?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt arising from material flaws and contradictions in the prosecution case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Govt of KPK2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aftab Sultan vs Government of Pakistan and 7 othersPTCL 2015 CL.672 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Falak vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Home and Tribal Affair and 13 others2015 CLC 616 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sumera Bibi and anothers vs StatePLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 440 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-13
  post-arrest bailnarcotic recoveryprocedural irregularityhumanitarian groundssuckling infantschemical examiner reportsearch and seizure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two female accused, Mst. Sumera and Mst. Rabia, who were charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of narcotics from their personal possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the procedural irregularities in the investigation and the humanitarian considerations regarding the accused's minor children. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the prosecution's case suffered from significant evidentiary gaps, including the failure to associate a lady constable during the initial search, the absence of independent witnesses to the recovery, and the failure to place the chemical examiner's report on the judicial file in a timely manner. Furthermore, the court emphasized the humanitarian necessity of releasing a mother incarcerated with her suckling infants. The key principle laid down is that procedural lapses in narcotic recovery, combined with humanitarian grounds involving the welfare of minor children, constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate a lady constable during the search of female suspects in a narcotics case create doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can the presence of suckling infants in custody with an accused mother be considered a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  • Does the failure to place the chemical examiner's report on the judicial file constitute a ground for bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shumaila Bibi vs Zahir Khan and 3 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 44, 2015 PLD Peshawar 182 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shopari Bibi vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 1584 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-03-05
  appeal against acquittalbenefit of doubtsolitary eye-witnessinterested witnessabscondencemedical evidence contradictiondouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent-accused by the trial court under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence, and whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal warranted interference. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the solitary eye-witness, who was the mother of the deceased, was riddled with major contradictions, improvements, and material discrepancies, and that identification in the dark without a light source was implausible. The court further held that the medical evidence contradicted the time of occurrence alleged in the FIR, and that mere abscondence cannot take the place of substantive proof when the primary ocular account is disbelieved. Emphasizing the double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal, the court laid down that a judgment of acquittal will not be interfered with unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a solitary, related eye-witness requires strict corroboration when it contains material contradictions and improvements?
  • Can the abscondence of an accused alone form the basis of a conviction when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
  • What is the standard of interference by an appellate court against a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does a discrepancy between the time of occurrence stated in the FIR and the medical evidence create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sheerina vs StatePLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 617 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-06
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesprohibitory clausepossession of narcoticsheinous offencesbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of five kilograms of charas, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the accused, found in possession of a significant quantity of narcotics, was entitled to the concession of bail despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the accused was not entitled to bail. Relying on recent Supreme Court guidance, the Court determined that offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are heinous in nature and offences against society at large. The Court emphasized that bail should not be granted merely based on the quantity of the narcotic substance, as the trial court retains discretion regarding sentencing, and deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. The key principle laid down is that the nature of narcotic offences necessitates caution in granting bail, and the quantity of contraband is not a sufficient ground to bypass the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused charged with an offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 entitled to bail merely on the basis of the quantity of the recovered narcotic substance?
  • Are offences punishable under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 considered heinous offences against society at large for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the trial court have the discretion to award punishment regardless of the quantity of narcotics recovered, thereby impacting the bail consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahi Lal and 5 others vs Khurshid Ali Khan and 13 others2015 YLR 2443 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-07
  inheritancecustomary lawRiwajlimitationMuslim Personal LawEx-State of Swatcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts, which had decreed the respondent's suit for declaration and possession regarding the legacy of his maternal grandfather. The core legal question was whether inheritance succession governed by customary law ('Riwaj') in the former State of Swat could be reopened decades later under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1962, and whether a suit filed after more than fifty years was barred by limitation and protected by saving clauses in applicable tribal area regulations. The Peshawar High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the lower courts' judgments and dismissing the suit. The court held that where a property owner died during the regime of the Ex-State of Swat when customary law excluded daughters from inheritance, and the mother of the plaintiff never challenged the mutation during her lifetime, subsequent claims brought decades later are barred by limitation and protected by the saving of past operations under the relevant legal framework.

  Questions settled

  • Whether succession governed by customary law in the former State of Swat can be reopened under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application) Act, 1962?
  • Is a suit for inheritance barred by limitation when the predecessor-in-interest failed to challenge the adverse mutation during her lifetime?
  • Do saving clauses in regional regulations protect the previous operation of customary law and past property devolutions?
  • Whether legal heirs can independently challenge a mutation years later when their deceased ancestor acquiesced to the settlement entries during their lifetime?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahbana Begum and 2 others vs Naeem-Ud-Din2015 PLJ Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahana Bibi vs Nadeem Shah and other2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahana Bibi vs Nadeem Shah and 3 others2015 MLD 1623 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabana Begum and 2 others vs Naeem-U-Din2015 PLJ Peshawar 18, 2015 MLD 708 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Bibi and 9 others vs Muhammad Ramzan and 3 others2015 YLR 539 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salma vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saira Bibi etc vs Nawab Ali etc2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saira Bibi and 2 others vs Nawab Ali and 2 others2015 CLC 1228 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Tabassum vs Syed Sher Shah and 3 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 124 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Gul and 3 others vs Haider Zaman and 2 others2015 PLD Peshawar 14 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary and 3 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 560 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-09
  appointmentmerit-based selectionadministrative negligencelocus standiwrit petitionrecruitment criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the annulment of an order withdrawing her appointment as a P.E.T. teacher, arguing that her initial appointment was lawful. The core legal question was whether the authorities acted unlawfully in withdrawing the petitioner's appointment to accommodate candidates who possessed higher merit scores and had been inadvertently overlooked. The court held that the petitioner's appointment was based on an error, as she was lower in merit compared to the substituted candidates. The court emphasized that the selection process must strictly adhere to merit and the specific choices/priorities exercised by candidates regarding their posting locations. The court found that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the appointments of more meritorious candidates, particularly as she had also violated the terms of her appointment by joining before the stipulated date. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The court further directed the Department of Education to investigate the negligence of the officials responsible for the initial erroneous appointment, noting that such administrative failures cause unnecessary litigation and undermine the integrity of the recruitment system.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate with lower merit challenge the appointment of a more meritorious candidate?
  • Does an appointment order issued due to administrative error or oversight confer a vested right upon the appointee?
  • Is an appointment order valid if it ignores the merit-based preferences and choices submitted by candidates?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rooh Afza and others vs Ayub and others2015 YLR 2199 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-10
  inheritance disputerevenue recordpresumption of truthburden of proofpedigree tablecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a dispute over inheritance and the accuracy of revenue records. The petitioners (plaintiffs) claimed entitlement to property as the widow and daughter of the deceased, alleging that the existing pedigree table was incorrect and that they were entitled to a share of the legacy. The respondents contested this, asserting the plaintiffs had no nexus with the property and that the revenue records were accurate. The trial court initially decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, but the appellate court set aside this judgment, finding the plaintiffs' evidence insufficient. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs had discharged the burden of proof to rebut the presumption of truth attached to long-standing revenue records. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce cogent evidence to substantiate their claims or rebut the official revenue records. The court affirmed that entries in settlement records carry a presumption of truth under the law, which cannot be overturned by weak, uncorroborated oral testimony, particularly after an unexplained delay of forty years.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presumption of truth attached to entries in the first settlement record under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 prevail over oral testimony?
  • Can a pedigree table prepared by plaintiffs be accepted as evidence without corroboration from independent witnesses or official records?
  • Is a delay of forty years in challenging revenue entries a significant factor in determining the validity of a claim to inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Khatoon and others vs District Education Officer (Male), Peshawar and others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-06
  family pensionqualifying servicecondonation of deficiencyCivil Service Regulationswrit jurisdictionArticle 212pensionary benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, legal heirs of a deceased theology teacher, challenged the denial of family pension benefits by the education department. The core legal question was whether the deceased had completed the requisite ten years of service for pension eligibility and whether the department could unilaterally reclassify his leave as extraordinary leave without pay to disqualify him. The Court held that the deceased had served for over nine years and six months, which, under paragraph 423 of the Civil Service Regulations, is automatically condonable. The Court found the department's reclassification of the deceased's leave as "extraordinary leave without pay" to be unsupported by evidence and contrary to the official service record. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to grant the family pension. The judgment establishes that pension is a vested right earned through past service rather than a bounty, that service deficiencies up to six months are automatically condonable, and that the constitutional bar under Article 212 regarding service matters does not apply to heirs of a deceased employee who are not themselves civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan apply to the legal heirs of a deceased civil servant seeking pensionary benefits?
  • Is a deficiency of up to six months in the qualifying service of a civil servant automatically condonable under the Civil Service Regulations?
  • Can a department unilaterally reclassify sanctioned leave on full or half pay as extraordinary leave without pay to deny pensionary benefits?
  • Is pension considered a vested right or a bounty for a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Pashmeena through Legal Heirs and 3 others vs DILNAWAZand 5 others2015 YLR 1905 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor UN Nisa and 18 others vs Collector Land Acquisition, Abbottabad and 3 others2015 NLR Revenue 33, 2015 YLR 2599 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Bibi vs Shamas UN Nisa2015 YLR 1400 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseeb Rana vs Mst. Hazrat Hilal and others2015 PLD Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Najma Bibi and others vs Hakim Khan and others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Bibi vs Muhammad Sain2015 MLD 1210 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehr Afzoon vs T.M.A.2015 CLC 676 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-12-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Meher Tam and 4 others vs Naseer Muhammad and 2 others2015 CLC 902 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsoom Bibi vs The state2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsoom Bibi vs Muhammad Waseem and 3 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 392 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsoom Bibi through Attorney vs Muhammad Waseem and 3 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 392, 2015 YLR 2375 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. KHANZADAand anothers vs Khan Muhammad and another2015 YLR 1893 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khandana Bibi & others vs Khaista Rehman & others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hina Rukhsana vs Provincial Police Officer_Inspector General of Police KPK Central Police Office, Peshawar and 10 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 431 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Sajjad through Legal Heirss vs Mst. Anwar Sultan through Representatives2015.MLD 681 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Gulalai vs Major Fakhr-I-Jehan and 4 others2015 PLJ Peshawar 182 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghazal Rohi & others vs Mst. Saima Tabassum & others2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Faryal Gohar vs Ghandra University of Peshawar through Vice2015 YLR 51 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-07-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farida Bano vs Hazrat Muhammad etc.2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Dr. Yousaf Fida and another vs Justice (Retired) Muhammad Azam2015 PLJ Peshawar 444 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Dr. Sabina Imran vs Mst. Zubaida BEGUMand 2 others2015 YLR 887 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Dilbar Jan (Widow) and 6 others vs Government of KPK (N.W.F.P.)2015 PLJ Peshawar 149 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Baswara vs Hafizullah Khan and others2015 PLJ Peshawar 14, 2015 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Baswara and others vs Hafiz Ullh Khan and others2015 PLJ Peshawar 14 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Balqees Begum etc vs Arbab Hidayatullah Khan etc.2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bachho vs Abdul Qayyum Khan alias Habib Ullah and 14 others2015 CLC 805 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-17
  revision petitiondismissal in liminefirst appealcontinuation of suitjoint khataalienationremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of her first appeal by the Additional District Judge against the trial court's judgment, which had dismissed her suit for declaration regarding joint khata property and mutations. The core legal question was whether the appellate court could dismiss a first appeal in limine without issuing notice to the respondents or examining the entire evidence as required by law. The Peshawar High Court held that the appellate court failed in its legal duty by dismissing the first appeal in limine without calling for the record or hearing the respondents, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court established that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, and the first appellate court—being the final court of facts—must re-evaluate the entire evidence, frame points for determination, and provide reasoned conclusions. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision afresh on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a first appellate court dismiss an appeal in limine without calling for the record or hearing the respondents?
  • Is a first appellate court legally obliged to comply with the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether an appeal is considered a continuation of the suit requiring the appellate court to review the entire evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtar Bibi vs Abdul Rasheed2015 PLJ Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-01-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aareefa alias Shikra vs The State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Naheed Kamal Azfar vs G.D.A.2015 CLC 282 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-01Read full judgment →
• Momin-Ur-Rehman vs The State through Additional Advocate-General2015 P Cr. L J 1741 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-26
  free fightcross-casebenefit of doubteyewitness credibilitycriminal appealcommon objectself-defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Chitral, convicting the appellant for murder and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the existence of a cross-case and conflicting eyewitness accounts. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with material contradictions and improvements, and the investigating officer failed to identify the aggressor in the cross-case. The Court determined the incident was a "free fight" between rival groups, rendering the application of Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 inapplicable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that in a free fight, the right of self-defence cannot be ruled out, and the benefit of the doubt must accrue to the accused. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the prosecution fails to prove who initiated the aggression in a mutual conflict, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a case determined to be a free fight?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to identify the aggressor in a cross-case entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can a court infer a plea of self-defence from the evidence led during trial even if not explicitly raised by the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asia Khatoon vs Khan Shareen2015 YLR 435 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Javed vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Gul vs State2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-18Read full judgment →
• Mohabbat Khan vs Muhammad Farid2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mirza Gul and 2 others vs Muhammad Ayub and others2015 PLJ Peshawar 49 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mir Alam vs Amroz Khan and another2015 PLD Peshawar 125 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-11
  murderocular testimonyeyewitness credibilitybenefit of doubtcorroborative evidenceabscondencemotivecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through the ocular testimony of alleged eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries, motive, and abscondence. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were unreliable, suffered from material contradictions, failed to establish their presence at the scene, and were contradicted by medical evidence and the site plan. The Court ruled that corroborative pieces of evidence such as recoveries, motive, and abscondence cannot substitute for substantive ocular testimony and that the benefit of any doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of close relatives as eyewitnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration when their presence at the crime scene is doubtful?
  • Can corroborative evidence such as crime empties, bloodstained earth, and weapon recoveries sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable substantive ocular testimony?
  • Does unproven or failed motive weaken the prosecution case against an accused charged with murder?
  • Is abscondence alone sufficient to serve as a substitute for substantive evidence to uphold a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Khan vs Govt etc2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Spinzer Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director vs Pakistan2015 YLR 344 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-18Read full judgment →
• Misal Khan and others vs Azam Khan and others2015 YLR 1224 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-12-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs One 2 One Solutionz (Pvt) Ltd vs The Postmaster General2015 CLD 1754 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khan and Co. Manz Kali, Kowar Mang, Bisham vs Deputy2015 PTD 796 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-01
  sales tax liabilitycompulsory registrationtaxable suppliesremandwithholding taxSection 65 waiverfiscal statute interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Sales Tax References filed by suppliers of coal against the Appellate Tribunal, Inland Revenue, regarding the liability to pay sales tax on supplies made to a cement company. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were liable for sales tax despite not being registered under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the applicability of Section 65 of the Act regarding the waiver of tax, and whether the petitioners could shift the burden of tax deduction to the buyer under the Sales Tax Special Procedure (Withholding) Rules, 2007. The Court held that persons making taxable supplies under Rule 4 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, are liable to registration and tax payment, regardless of their actual registration status. It further held that Section 65 requires a specific notification by the Federal Government, which had not occurred. However, because the lower authorities failed to determine the factual question of whether the petitioners fell within the categories requiring registration under Rule 4, the Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a factual determination.

  Questions settled

  • Are persons making taxable supplies liable to pay sales tax even if they are not formally registered under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Does the failure of a buyer to withhold sales tax under the Sales Tax Special Procedure (Withholding) Rules, 2007, absolve the supplier of their tax liability?
  • Is the Federal Government the sole authority empowered to grant a waiver of tax under Section 65 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Can a High Court determine factual issues regarding registration liability under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, in a reference proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Associated Industries Ltd. through Executive Director vs Government of Pakistan through Federal Secretary Finance and Revenue Division, Islamabad and 4 othersPTCL 2015 CL. 332, 2015 PTD 193 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-29
  Workers' Welfare FundMoney Billultra virestax vs feelegislative competenceFinance Actconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns eight consolidated writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of amendments to the Workers' Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971, which enhanced contributions payable by industrial establishments. The core legal question was whether these enhanced contributions, introduced through Finance Acts (Money Bills), were validly enacted, specifically whether the levy constitutes a 'tax' within the meaning of Article 73 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, thereby permitting its introduction via a Money Bill. The Court held that the levy is not a 'tax' because it lacks the essential characteristic of being a compulsory exaction for general public purposes that merges into the Federal Consolidated Fund. Instead, the contributions are earmarked for a specific welfare fund for workers, maintaining a nexus between the payer and the beneficiaries, which aligns more closely with the concept of a 'fee'. Consequently, the Court ruled that the amendments were ultra vires the Constitution because they could not be validly introduced through a Money Bill, as they did not fall within the specific fiscal matters enumerated in Article 73(2) of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the contribution to the Workers' Welfare Fund constitutes a 'tax' or a 'fee' under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a levy that is not a tax or a specific fiscal matter under Article 73(2) be validly introduced through a Money Bill?
  • Does the requirement of 'quid pro quo' for a fee necessitate a direct benefit to the payer, or is an indirect benefit sufficient?
  • Do contributions to the Workers' Welfare Fund form part of the Federal Consolidated Fund or the Public Account of the Federation?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Khair Traders through Sole Proprietor vs Collector Customs2015 PTD 2114 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Imdad General Trading Co. through Proprietor vs PakistanPLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Pesh.) 19, 2015 PTD 734 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-23Read full judgment →
• Meraj vs The State2015 NLR Criminal 491 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mehwish Asif vs Vice Chancellor, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University2015 PLJ Peshawar 95 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mehrban vs Ghulam Hassan2015 CLD 951 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-08-18Read full judgment →
• Mati ur Rehman - etc vs Muhammad Haroon - etc2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-04Read full judgment →
• Manzar vs Muhammad Iqbal and another2015 P Cr. L J 1458 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-18
  DiyatBadl-e-SulahCompromiseRetrospective punishmentQatl-i-AmdCriminal appealSentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against conviction and a revision petition for sentence enhancement in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the value of Diyat (blood money) payable in a compromise (Badl-e-Sulah) should be calculated based on the rate prevailing at the time of the offence or the time the compromise is effected. The Court held that the value of Diyat for Badl-e-Sulah must be determined based on the rate prevailing at the time the compromise is effected, not the time of the offence. The Court reasoned that Diyat in this context functions as a contractual substitute (Badl-e-Sulah) rather than a penal sanction. Consequently, applying the current notified value does not violate the protection against retrospective punishment under Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court accepted the compromise, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellant, while dismissing the revision petition for enhancement of sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Should the value of Diyat in a compromise be determined based on the rate prevailing at the time of the offence or the time of the compromise?
  • Does the application of the current notified value of Diyat in a compromise violate the protection against retrospective punishment under Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is Diyat paid as Badl-e-Sulah considered a penalty or punishment under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Tilla Muhammad vs Director General Excise & Taxation, Auqaf2015 PLJ Peshawar 442 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Tahir Mehmood vs Not2015 CLC 1247 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-02-25Read full judgment →